Friday, August 22, 2014

Global warming pause 'may last for another decade', scientists suggest

Basic physics: When something is hot, its molecules are farther apart than when it is cold. When water is hot, its molecules are further apart, so it takes up more room. That makes hot water lighter than cold water, because the cold water has more molecules in the same amount of room. And put a ping-pong ball into any container of water and watch it sink to the bottom (NOT!). It's only in Warmist models that hot (less dense) water sinks. And the Warmists not only say that warm water sinks to the bottom but they also say that the warm water stays down there for many years. It's science fantasy, not science fact. There's no science left in Warmism

The “pause” in global warming may last another decade before surface temperatures start rising again, according to scientists who say heat is being stored in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

Global average surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively stable since the late 1990s, in a trend that has been seized upon by climate sceptics who question the science of man-made warming.

Climate change scientists have proposed more than a dozen theories to explain the "hiatus", which they say is a "distraction" from the widespread consensus on global warming.

A new study, published in the journal Science, suggests that a natural cycle of ocean currents has caused the phenomenon by drawing heat from shallow waters down almost a mile into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

The cycle naturally produces periods of roughly 30 years in which heat is stored near the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, leading to warmer temperatures, followed by roughly 30 years in which it is stored in the depths, causing cooler surface temperatures, it suggests.

Rising surface temperatures in the last three decades of the 20th century were roughly half caused by man-made global warming and half by the ocean currents keeping more heat near the surface, it finds.

When the ocean cycle reversed around the turn of the century, drawing heat down into the depths, this served to counteract the effects of man-made global warming.

"When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue," the study concludes.

Prof Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, one of the report's authors, said: "Historically the cool period lasted 20 to 35 years. The current period already lasted 15 years, so roughly there [are] 10 more years to go."

But he said that other impacts of climate change could upset the cycle, which is caused by variation in the salinity of the water as denser, saltier water sinks.

Prof Tung said the study's findings were a surprise because previous studies had suggested it was the Pacific Ocean that was "the culprit for hiding heat".

"The data are quite convincing and they show otherwise," he said.

Prof Piers Forster, professor of climate change at the University of Leeds, said the paper was "another a nail in the coffin of the idea that the hiatus is evidence that our projections of long term climate change need revising down".

"Variability in the ocean will not affect long-term climate trends but may mean we have a period of accelerated warming to look forward to," he said.

Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said: "Although it is human nature to seek a single cause for notable events, in reality the complexity of the climate system means that there is not one simple explanation for a decade of unusual climatic conditions."


The hidden persuaders of the environmental elite

America’s environmental agenda is set by elite foundations that decide which activists get the money. And they form “affinity groups” to collude with President Obama’s bureaucracy, which funnels tax dollars to Democratic advocates to enforce that agenda.

Meet the conservation cash cartel of the uber-rich: the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a veteran organization (founded 1985) of more than 200 ultra-wealthy foundations caught in the spotlight of a new 92-page report exposing Big Green wealth eating away America’s industrial strength.

This is the same EGA that emerged during the Senate confirmation hearings for Rhea Sun Suh, the Interior Department’s new head of national parks and the Fish and Wildlife Service — a veteran EGA member who invited colleagues to come visit her any time.

Suh once worked for the Packard Foundation on programs to block oil and gas production in the West. Ironically, Packard’s investment portfolio — the profits from which the foundation pays its anti-oil and gas grants — holds more than $350,000 in ExxonMobil shares, and millions in dozens of other lesser-known fossil fuel securities.

Most of EGA’s foundation members have similar million-dollar dirty little secrets, but their tax-exempt activist recipients are not morally conflicted by taking fossil fuel cash and keeping it a secret as long as it furthers their corrosive goals.

The convoluted ethics that Greenpeace, for example, concocts in order to show how its oil-soaked funding — when exposed — is purified by the intent of the giver are classic unintentional self-parody.

The new report is titled “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA,” and was produced by the Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the direction of Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, the committee's ranking minority member.

Its executive summary states, “an elite group of left-wing millionaires and billionaires, which this report refers to as the 'Billionaire’s Club,' directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Having researched that topic for decades, I was impressed by the scope and detail of the oversight team’s work, and asked Vitter how he felt about it.

“This report really gets to the core of tracking the money and exposing the collusion," Vitter told me. "The complicated, layered system is intended to create a lack of transparency. There is an unbelievable amount of money behind the environmental movement and far too much collusion between far-left environmental groups and the Obama EPA."

The collusion is like something out of a bad spy movie. Vitter’s oversight team uncovered a June 2009 deal in which the Rockefeller Family Fund offered then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to pay for a plant inside the President’s Council on Environmental Quality to “stake the EPA’s claim there,” and then slip the shill into a pre-arranged EPA job, giving the agency a White House insider on staff — and, not coincidentally, tightening the Rockefeller power grip over the EPA.

Jackson wrote her chief of staff Diane Thompson, “I think it’s a fine idea and can only help EPA in the long run” — using her fake Richard Windsor email account – and Thompson replied, “My thoughts exactly. The more inside connections the better.”

The Rockefeller shill was Shalini Vajjhala, who agreed to leave her minor position at Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, for a two-month stint at the CEQ (with the pretentious title of "deputy associate director for energy and climate"). Then the EPA slipped her in as deputy assistant administrator of the Office of International & Tribal Affairs. Vajjhala remained until her 2011 appointment as EPA’s special representative leading a presidential U.S.-Brazil initiative.

After Vajjhala cycled through the White House and EPA, she got her personal reward in 2012: approval to found and manage a new investment portfolio supported by the Rockefeller Foundation (the original 1913 John D. Rockefeller philanthropy, not the fourth generation’s Family Fund — there are many Rockefeller tentacles). Vajjhala now contributes to the Huffington Post, funded in part by the Park Foundation.

EGA foundations are metastasizing into hundreds of far-left funds. The report drills into the Sea Change Foundation, “a private California foundation, which relies on funding from undisclosed donors and funnels tens of millions of dollars to other foundations and prominent environmental activists who strive to control both policy and politics.”

There is an incredible seedbed of Sea Change front groups: Bill Gates’ foundation gave Sea Change Capital Partners $2.5 million; eBay’s Omidyar Network Fund gave the same partners $2 million; David Rockefeller’s personal foundation gave to the Center for Sea Change. Walmart’s foundation gave $500,000 to Strategies for the Global Foundation Sea Change, an international tentacle into the White House.

But it’s not just the environment. The Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit that tracks gun control activists, reported, "On January 8th, 2013, the Obama Administration met with 23 large foundations to organize a push for national gun control. They included such organizations as the Open Society Institute, the McCormick Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation” and the MacArthur Foundation.

Foundations appear to be colluding with almost every department of the Obama administration. And it’s not just the Big Green donors. It’s time for Congress to hear testimony from a sampling of manipulative foundation program directors and investment managers explaining themselves to those whose lives they influence.


Buy a powerful vacuum cleaner before they are BANNED: New EU rules 'will outlaw best models in 10 days because they're not eco-friendly'

Many of the best vacuum cleaners will be taken off the market from next month when a new EU rule comes into force banning the most powerful models

Households that need a powerful vacuum cleaner should ‘act quickly’ before all of the models currently available sell out, consumer watchdog Which? warned.

From September 1, manufacturers will not be able to make or import vacuums with a motor that exceeds 1,600 watts.

But Which? warned that many of the best models, which appear in its Best Buy tables, have motor sizes that exceed this.

Of seven awarded ‘Best Buy’ status since January 2013, five have motors of more than 1,600 watts, it said.

The maximum wattage will be lowered even further to 900 watts by 2017. Current cleaners boast an average of 1,800 watts.

The move has angered manufacturers, who say it will do nothing to make cleaners more environmentally friendly and will simply reduce efficiency in the home.

Critics say cleaners satisfying the new rule may use less power, but householders will have to use them for longer so they are likely to use the same amount of electricity in the long run.

For the first time, vacuum cleaners will have ratings from A to G for energy use, cleaning performance on carpets and hard floors and dust emissions.

But manufacturers will create their own labels and will be self-regulated. Which? warned that it is unclear whether the ratings will be tested at all by an independent third party.

It added that manufacturers that give themselves A ratings across the board often don’t do so well in its own independent tests, while those that do not score as highly often do better in the Which? laboratories.

Which? only offers its list of ‘endangered’ Best Buy vacuum cleaners to its paid subscribers.

But popular cleaners still on sale at the moment which would be outlawed by the new rule include a Bosch Power All Floor Bagged Vacuum Cleaner, a Miele S6210 2000 Watt Bagged Cylinder Vacuum Cleaner and the Panasonic Bagged Upright Vacuum Cleaner Black 2000w.

Despite his company not producing any vacuum over 1,400 watts, Sir James Dyson, the billionaire entrepreneur who pioneered ‘bagless’ vacuums, is also angered by the proposal.

He says the eco-labels will be misleading because they will not take into account the cost and waste of vacuum bags and filters and will give an advantage to competitors who use ‘bag’ technology.

He is seeking a judicial review of the proposal at the European Court of Justice.

As many as 126 million vacuum cleaner bags were sent to landfill last year alone, according to Dyson, assuming that all the bagged vacuum cleaners use one bag a month. But the cost to households and the environment is not factored in to the new EU labelling.

But the European Commission believes the new regulations will mean better vacuum cleaners for consumers.

‘As a result of the new EU ecodesign and labelling regulations, consumers will also get better vacuum cleaners,’ European Commission spokeswoman for energy Marlene Holzner said in a blog.

'In the past there was no legislation on vacuum cleaners and companies could sell poorly performing vacuum cleaners.

‘Now, vacuum cleaners that use a lot of energy, that pick up dust poorly, emit too much dust at the exhaust of the vacuum cleaner, are noisy or break down pre-maturely will not be allowed on the market anymore.

'This means a better cleaning experience and less time and money spent on vacuum cleaning.’

The new measures will be extended to other appliances, including water pumps, water heaters and tumble dryers.


Leonardo DiCaprio climate change video declares carbon dioxide to be ‘poison’!

DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary featuring Joe Romm & Sen. Bernie Sanders - Leonardo DiCaprio:'We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry.'

Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film titled ‘Carbon’, produced and narrated by DiCaprio, features environmental activist and talk show host Thom Hartmann touting a carbon tax and referring to carbon dioxide, (a trace essential gas in the atmosphere) as a “poison”.

“Finland and the Netherlands implemented a carbon tax back in 1990, both putting a price tag on each ton of CO2 poison,” Hartmann is featured as saying in the DiCaprio produced video. The new video released August 20, was produced by ‘Green World Rising’ and stars DiCaprio and is supported by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation.

But scientists reject the notion that carbon dioxide is a “poison.”

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer testified to Congress in 2009 and bristled at the notion that CO2 would be considered “poison.”

“I keep hearing about the pollutant CO2, or about poisoning the atmosphere with CO2.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and poison of their original meaning,” Happer explained.

Geologist Leighton Steward told Climate Depot in July that CO2 is beneficial to the Earth.

“There is not a single professor of chemistry that I have come across that can give one single example of carbon dioxide being a pollutant,” Steward explained.

Far from CO2 being a “poison,” as DiCaprio’s video states, the Geologist Steward says that rising CO2 levels are literally greening the planet Earth.

“The plants are growing more robustly, food crops, the Earth has been getting greener and greener and greener, because a real experiment, an empirical experiment has been done. We are just fertilizing the plants. the eco-system is getting more robust,” Steward said.


Hillary is a CO2 factory

Aircraft are major producers of CO2.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to travel in style.

She insists on staying in the “presidential suite” of luxury hotels that she chooses anywhere in the world, including Las Vegas.

She usually requires those who pay her six-figure fees for speeches to also provide a private jet for transportation — only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 or larger will do.

And she doesn’t travel alone, relying on an entourage of a couple of “travel aides,” and a couple of advance staffers who check out her speech site in the days leading up to her appearance, much like a White House trip, according to her contract and supporting documents concerning her Oct. 13 speech at a University of Nevada, Las Vegas Foundation fundraiser. The documents were obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal through the state public records law.


Refracking Ready to Rejuvenate Shale Revolution

Thanks to the dual-deployment of horizontal well drilling and hydraulic fracturing, oil and gas firms have unlocked massive new reserves across the United States, completely transforming America’s energy fortunes in just a matter of years. Critics, however, have pointed out that these new wells often give way to a rapid decline in output, arguing that the shale boom isn’t all it’s fracked up to be. The shale drilling industry is working to solve this problem, and one method, which involves tiny plastic balls added to the slurry pumped underground to break up shale rock, is allowing producers to “refrack” wells previously thought to be tapped out. Reuters reports:

"Wells sunk as little as three years ago are being fracked again, the latest innovation in the technology-driven shale oil revolution. Hydraulic fracturing, which has upended global energy markets by lifting U.S. crude oil output to a 25-year high, has been troubled by quick declines in oil and gas output. [...]

Using minuscule plastic balls, known as diverting agents, pumped at high speeds with water into the old wells, most of which are three to five years old, [Canadian firm Encana Corp.] blocked some the older fractures, or cracks. “The thought is that the diverting agent will go to the cracks with the least amount of pressure,” bypassing cracks with higher pressure and boosting the pressure of the entire well so output climbs, [said David Martinez, Encana's senior manager for Haynesville development]."

It’s a common but very serious mistake to predict the future based on what holds true today. In this case, those who have predicted the demise of the shale revolution may soon be forced to eat their words. The pace of technological change is accelerating, redefining possibilities along the way. We’re seeing this on display in the energy world, where plays that a decade ago were thought to be permanently inaccessible are suddenly gushing oil and gas. To expect no further breakthroughs along the lines of fracking and horizontal well-drilling is a mistake.



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



slkTAC said...

Warmists are NOT saying the hot water sinks. That's what skeptics say to try and mock the warmists. The actual reason for the warmer water going down is convection currents in the ocean. It's also why the CO2 goes to the depths and remains there—higher pressure holds more CO2.

If you want to mock the warmists for insisting they are right while introducing "natural" phenomena as currently dominate, completely contradicting their insistence that CO2 is the DRIVER of climate change (the car was apparently car-jacked for the moment), go ahead. If you want to mock the warmists for insisting they could not be wrong and "IT WILL warm again" sometime in the future and IT WILL be bad, go ahead. But warmists are not saying warmer water is gravity fed to the bottom of the ocean. Add a convection current to the boiling water and the tennis ball will temporarily sink.

JR said...

"Temporarily" is the key word in your comment. It must be one heck of a convection current to keep the warm water down there for 18 years!

slkTAC said...

Yes, temporary is correct. This is why the warmists insist that the temperature will again rise in the future when the warmth is brought back to the surface. There are many ocean currents that are affected by wind and temperature, salinity, etc. There's the "ocean conveyor belt" that wams some areas and cools others. I'm not saying that this theory proves that AGW is really happening and there are not contradictory explanations for what significance ocean heat storage has, but considering the percentage of the planet that is ocean, we cannot just ignore the effects it has on climate. The idea of the heat being driven to depths currenlty is not impossible and maybe not even be unlikely. Whether or not it explains the pause, I don't know. But I'm not going to mock a theory that the ocean may be storing the heat because it is possible and there is some evidence to the effect.

JR said...

I don't dispute that some current could push warm water down. But as soon as that current faltered, the warm water would bob back up again. Something that holds warm water down for 17 years is just a fantasy