Thursday, November 24, 2011

Ya gotta laugh: Loss of Sea Ice is ‘Unprecedented’, says Study

It's unlikely that this is true since the only accurate history goes back only to 1979 but even if it were true, so what? Melting sea ice has zero effect on ocean levels and since there has been no warming for over a decade any recent ice loss CANNOT be due to warming. These guys really are desperate

The loss of sea ice in the Arctic at the end of the 20th Century is “unprecedented” in the past 1,450 years in its duration and magnitude, an indication of human-influenced climate change, a study said.

So-called greenhouse gases may be contributing to the warming, and trends from the last several decades suggest there may soon be an ice-free Arctic in the summer, according to a study published today in the journal Nature.

The ice, which melts every summer before cold weather makes it expand again, shrank this year to its second-smallest size since 1979, covering 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles), according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Although previous sea ice declines have occurred at a similar pace, they don’t match the extent of the melt, the study authors said.

“This drastic and continuous decrease we’ve been seeing from the satellites does seem to be anomalous,” Christophe Kinnard, a study author and a geographer at the Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Aridas in La Serena, Chile, said in a telephone interview. “It does point to a continuation of this trend in the future.”

The researchers used ice core records, tree ring data, lake sediment and historical evidence to reconstruct the amount of Arctic cover. The thickness and extent of sea ice have declined dramatically over the last 30 years, the researchers said.

Arctic sea ice influences the global climate, since 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back to space. When the ice melts in the summer, it exposes the ocean surface, which absorbs about 90 percent of the light, heating the water, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. That influences climate patterns.

“You increase the radiation that’s absorbed by the oceans, that’s one of the strongest climate feedback mechanisms,” Kinnard said. “The more sea ice you lose, the more energy you get in the ocean, which warms the atmosphere.”


From the Climategate 2.0 files: CRU scientist admits ‘…”our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.’

(Dr. Douglas Maraun performs time series analysis, extreme value statistics, and analysis of precipitation extremes at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia)

Dr. Douglas Maraun, a scientist at the Climatic Reasearch Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote to his colleages in an e-mail on October 24, 2007.

Dr. Maraun, who seems to have more of a conscience than many of his colleagues, had some concerns which he wished to address in a “discussion seminar” to be held in the coffee room that afternoon. Among Dr. Maraun’s points he wished to discuss were:

"How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest."

He also actually pondered, “how do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?”


The idiot bozo

ClimateGate 2: Email 202:

[2003] from: Stephen H Schneider
subject: Re: Fw: New Study Questions Kyoto Global Warming Data

Hello all. Ah ha--the latest idiot--McKitrick--reenters the scene. He and another incompetent had a book signing party at the US Capitol

...It was a scream. He argued there is no such thing as global temperature change, just local--all natural variablity mostly. ...THe freshman was smarter than this bozo. It is improtant to get that op-ed to simply tell all reporters how unbelievably incompetent he is, and should not even be given the time of day over climate issues, for which his one "contribution" is laughably incompetent.


McKitrick replies:

Yes, I saw that one. Schneider was referring to this op-ed here

Have a look at it. In addition to debunking an episode of West Wing, I was responding to a claim David Suzuki had made a few days earlier on TV. He said that when he grew up in London Ontario, winter always set in by the end of October, but now it comes much later, i.e. November or December. The host had lapped it up without question. So I looked up the weather records for London Ontario and Erie Pennsylvania, which together provided complete records from the 40s to the present for that region, and showed that autumn temperatures had actually trended down since Suzuki was a child.

In other words, I did not claim that late fall temperature records in the western Lake Erie area were an indicator of global climate, but were an indicator of late fall temperatures in the western Lake Erie region. To Stephen Schneider this made me an unbelievably incompetent idiot bozo. What does that make him?

McKitrick reply received via email

EPA determined to wreak havoc

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson recently announced that her agency would proceed with twice-delayed regulations targeting power plants that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Mrs. Jackson’s decision ignores three vital pieces of information that should make it easy for Congress to prevent unelected bureaucrats from regulating CO2:

* The EPA inspector general’s finding that EPA did not follow federal data quality standards in preparing its “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases.

* The profusion of scientific dissent.

* The massive economic costs and minimal environmental benefits.

In April 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding stating that the gases pose a serious threat to human health and public safety. It provided a lengthy technical support document to justify this position.

But this September, the EPA's Office of Inspector General released its own report concluding that the agency’s document failed to follow federal guidelines for a “highly influential scientific assessment.” Specifically, the EPA had failed to publicly report its review results. Moreover, one of the federal climate-change scientists reviewing the document was an EPA employee.

The EPA responded by arguing that the document did not qualify as “highly influential,” yet the agency offered it to justify one of the most expansive - and expensive - regulations in history. If that’s not highly influential, what is?

The inspector general’s report does not question the scientific validity of the endangerment finding. But disagreement among the scientific community regarding the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming should have been sufficient reason for the EPA not to issue the endangerment finding in the first place.

In 2001, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, participated in a 12-member panel of the National Academy of Sciences and produced a report essentially saying that the Earth is warming, and rising CO2 levels are playing a role in that warming, but we don’t know how much.

A decade later, little has changed. On Nov. 14, Reps. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, architects of cap-and-trade legislation that failed to become law, hosted a briefing called “The End of Climate Change Skepticism.” One of three star witnesses, University of California, Berkeley astrophysicist Richard Muller said, “The amount that’s due to humans is still open, and there are fairly big uncertainties about that.”

Questions about how the sun and ocean currents affect warming remain unanswered, too, he added. Much to the hosts’ dismay, their own briefing revealed that “the science” on this issue is far from settled.

Regardless, the EPA’s CO2 regulations won’t reduce emissions enough to have any meaningful effect, anyway. China emits far more CO2 than we do, and its emissions - along with India’s - are increasing rapidly. Neither nation has any intention of scaling back economic growth to curb emissions. Unilateral U.S. action, therefore, wouldn’t make a dent in global temperatures.

The EPA’s regulations would, however, inflict serious economic harm. Although the agency targets the largest emitters of greenhouse gases first, the financial burden would extend to every American. The agency’s first two targets are fossil-fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. The U.S. gets 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. Regulating these entities would significantly increase energy costs - electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil - directly.

It also would raise consumer costs for all other goods. Higher energy costs increase transportation and operating costs for businesses, too. These additional expenses are passed on to consumers. The end result: A dramatically slower economy and many lost jobs.


‘The Green Evolution’ Report Reveals That Fewer Consumers Are Buying Green Products

Extensive Survey Finds That 65 Percent of Consumers Changed Their Green Buying Habits Due to the Recession

Grail Research, Integreon’s strategic research group, today released the results of an extensive survey designed to gauge U.S. consumers’ sentiments and behaviors related to sustainability and “green” products, as well as evaluate how consumers interpret the marketing efforts of the companies that offer them.

The survey, detailed in the report “The Green Evolution,” found that consumers who previously purchased green products have decreased their green purchasing as a result of the recession. Specifically, 43 percent of “light green” consumers – those who buy some green products – reduced their usage of green products or switched to conventional ones. At the same time, the percentage of non-green consumers rose from 15 percent to 22 percent.

“Although it’s clear that the market for green products is here to stay, the number of green consumers declined over the past two years,” said Annica Blake, Global Head, Research Services at Grail Research. “Conversely, the number of ‘dark green’ consumers – those who select earth-friendly products for most of their purchases – increased by one percent, and now make up nine percent of the consumer market.”

“The Green Evolution,” is available now on the Grail Research website, The research was conducted to explore several core themes:

1. Identify changes that occurred in the green product market segment since Grail Research first identified the different types of green consumers and attributes they associate with green products in the 2009 report, “The Green Revolution”;

2. Uncover insights that corporations and marketers can use to more effectively communicate the value of their green products; and

3. Reveal how consumers in different green categories respond to today’s market conditions.

Key findings and insights from Grail Research’s “The Green Evolution” report include:

* The number of green consumers in the U.S. is decreasing as the recession continues.

The number of light green consumers, those who purchase some green products, decreased from 76 percent to 60 percent of the population.

The percentage of former green consumers rose from only one percent in the previous survey to 10 percent of consumers.

Among green consumers, 43 percent cited the economic recession as the reason for not purchasing green products in specific categories – the top reason given.

As opposed to previous years, growth will increasingly take place when green products can demonstrate equal or better performance and value than conventional products.

* Consumers who have yet to switch to green products are unlikely to do so.

Nine percent of consumers say they never consider buying green products – an increase of four percentage points since the previous report.

Five percent of dark green consumers and 22 percent of light green consumers switched from green to conventional products.

Sixty-five percent of respondents changed their purchasing behavior as a result of the recession, with most turning to less expensive green products.

Green as a whole is no longer a fast-growth market.

* Most consumers do not seek out information on green products.

Only 11 percent of consumers report that they seek information on green companies and their products.

Packaging still remains the most important source of information for green products, with more than half of consumers saying it impacts their purchasing decision.

Word of mouth influence is still strong, with 40 percent of respondents citing it as a source of information about green products.

The volume of green product and brand information is not proportional to its impact on consumer behavior.

* Most consumers don’t understand green certifications.

Dark green consumers most associate the use of natural ingredients with being green, while light green consumers, as well as former green consumers, associate recyclability of packaging with being green.

More than half (51 percent) of all green consumers would like to see a “greenness” rating for products, even if it’s provided by the retailer.

Seventy-four percent of dark green consumers and 48 percent of light green consumers would be very likely to use a rating system to make their green purchase decisions.

Consumers are more likely to find green claims compelling if they provide quantitative information in an easy to visualize description that communicates the impact on the environment.


U.S. And Europe threaten their own energy independence

Canada's conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, understands that energy means influence and independence. It would be tough to argue that Canada is on some kind of power trip, and it's not difficult to understand why the country is interested in establishing oil trade deals that would help its closest ideological allies retain their energy independence.

Decisions by Europe and America in the past month have pushed away Canada and its oil overtures under the guise of environmentalism -- which is turning out to be the new protectionism. And for what? So America and Europe can explore more "green-friendly" petroleum deals with unstable Middle Eastern and African regimes? It's not as if curtailing purchasing can stop production. China has expressed an interest in having it shipped in -- so Europe and America are effectively shifting any environmental impact to another part of the globe with even fewer controls.

The latest blow came a few days ago, when the U.S. government delayed the Keystone crude oil pipeline that would deliver Canadian oil to Texas. Officials cited concern over a water supply in Nebraska along the pipeline's proposed route. Who knows now whether the project will ever be completed. In the meantime, Canada is gushing out more oil than it knows what to do with, while the American government ensures that its citizens remain at the mercy of Middle Eastern regional strife and whether or not a petro-sheik wakes up on the right side of the bed.

So if you're an American upset about the price of oil, blame the government. It just had an opportunity to lower the price but gave it away -- likely to the Chinese, who will gladly choke the polar bears that Westerners won't.

Another anti-Canadian oil decision came late last month from the European Union. Canada has been trying to work out a free-trade deal with Europe, but the bloc ruled last month that Canadian crude oil extracted from oil sands is more of a pollutant than other sources of oil, assigning it a bureaucratic rating to reflect this assessment. Canada is arguing that over the course of the entire extraction-to-delivery cycle, oil sand products are no dirtier than other alternatives, and is criticizing the lack of transparency in the decision while threatening to appeal the decision to the World Trade Organization. Europeans, meanwhile, are selling their first-to-sixth-born children to put gas in their Renaults.

It's not that Europeans couldn't use Canadian oil. European countries are currently negotiating for oil with post-Gaddafi Libya, without really yet knowing who they're dealing with. They've been importing it from Russia, contributing to Putin's oil-for-influence program. Not too long ago, Russia shut off Europe's oil tap because it got into a tiff with Belarus, and the pipeline to Europe runs through that country. All these headaches, and yet Europe doesn't currently ship in any oil from Canada, although it quite feasibly could -- if it weren't for blatant protectionism cloaked in environmentalism.

It doesn't help that domestic Canadian lobbying groups are actively working against their own economic interests, claiming oil sand products inherently damage aboriginals and perform unspeakable acts on Mother Nature. Over the past week, I've seen two documentaries on the Kremlin-funded Russian international television network making similar claims about North American natural resource industrialism -- all while Russia opens up its new Nord Stream natural gas line running right under the Baltic Sea from Russia directly into Germany, where it can provide an environmentally friendlier alternative to crude while not ceding an inch of crude-oil imperialism.

No one's telling Russia it has to make cars that plug into walls or put windmills atop the Kremlin. Instead, the West will probably just keep kicking Canada until its own toes bleed.



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 is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: