Sunday, October 11, 2015

Introduction to a Warmist mind

I have long pointed out that the Green/Left are hate driven.  They just hate the people around them.  The Left want to pull down the rich, not lift up the poor and the Greenies care, not about the environment, but disrupting the lives of as many people as possible.  The following comment appeared on Marc Morano's site on Oct 9th. It must be just about as good an example of a hate-driven message as one could imagine. The Green/Left are very troubled souls

From: Anonymous
Message: Do you know that you're going to hell? Do you also still believe the world is flat?  How about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?  Sasquatch?  Sir, you are nothing but a lying pig.  A very privileged pig.  A horribly disgusting pig.  Selling out the children of the world for your greed and for the sake of the wealthiest 1% of the population who line your pocket makes you a pig.  It also makes you corrupt.  It also makes you, yes, evil.  Ever heard of Satan?  Don't believe, huh? That don't matter, cuz you still gonna burn, man.  BUUURRRRRNNNN.  If there was ever a FUCK who deserved being rammed in the ass by him, it's you.  Enjoy your afterlife, and don't forget the sunscreen.  Wouldn't want you to get burned, would we?

Major coral bleaching crisis spreads worldwide (?)

This utter bulldust is typical of SETH BORENSTEIN  -- though he appears to have been suckered by NOAA operatives.  Warm water is NOT bad for corals.  They are in fact at their most vigorous and diverse in very warm seas like the Torres strait -- which is not far from the equator (at 10.5 degrees South;  Hawaii is 21 degrees North). The warmer the water, the happier the coral. A warmer world would have MORE coral. Periodic bleaching does occur but it is not well understood.  All we know is that corals always bounce back from it fairly rapidly.  You can drop a hydrogen bomb on coral and it will recover. It did at Bikini Atoll

The bleaching of colorful coral is spreading into a worldwide, devastating crisis, scientists say, and they predict it will likely get worse.

Triggered by global warming and the El Nino, record hot ocean water is causing fragile coral to go white and often die, threatening picturesque reefs that are hotspots of marine life, experts say.

The spread of sickly white started more than a year ago in Guam, then devastated Hawaii, infected the rest of the tropical Pacific and the Indian oceans and has now infested Florida and the Caribbean. On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and international reef scientists pronounced it a global coral bleaching event, only the third in recorded history.

No place with coral has been spared, though some regions — such as Hawaii — have been hit harder than others, experts said. Excessive heat stresses the living coral, which turns white and then becomes vulnerable to disease.

"We may be looking at losing somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 percent of the coral reefs this year," NOAA coral reef watch coordinator Mark Eakin said. "The bad news for the U.S. is we're getting hit disproportionately just because of the pattern of the warming."

He called bleaching a crisis, especially with worsening global warming forecast for the rest of the century: "If that's not a crisis, what is?"

Eakin said he's especially concerned about Hawaii, which already suffered through bad bleaching in 2014.

"Hawaii is getting hit with the worst coral bleaching they have ever seen, right now," Eakin said. "It's severe. It's extensive. And it's on all the islands."

In one part of northwestern Hawaii, "the reef just completely bleached and all of the coral is dead and covered with scuzzy algae."

Florida started getting hit in August. The middle Florida Keys aren't too bad, but in southeast Florida, bleaching has combined with disease to kill corals, Eakin said. It has also hit Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic and is about to hit Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, he said.

Warm water causes bleaching and ocean temperatures are at record high levels, partly because of steady manmade global warming and partly because of the El Nino, which is an occasional warming of the central Pacific that changes weather worldwide, Eakin said. Add to that Hawaii's "blob," a pool of warm water that has stagnated in the northeast Pacific.

The last super El Nino, in 1997-1998, was the first global bleaching event. A smaller El Nino in 2009-2010 was the second.

So far the 1998 bleaching was worse, but that was the second year of an El Nino and we're in the first of two years now, Eakin said.


The Sierra Club Responded To Getting Schooled By Ted Cruz On Global Warming, And They’re Still Wrong

The Sierra Club’s president got schooled on global warming science by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz during a Tuesday congressional hearing, and after being left dumbstruck on live television the environmental activist finally issued a response to Cruz’s questions.

The Sierra Club’s response, however, still doesn’t answer Cruz’s questions about the 18-year “pause” in global warming. In fact, the Club does need to issue a retraction because Cruz was correct that satellites show there’s been no significant warming for nearly two decades.

“There’s an old lawyerly adage that ‘if you don’t have the law on your side, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the table,’” Sierra Club President Aaron Mair said in a video response to Cruz. “You did a very good job pounding the table this week.”

At a Tuesday hearing on how government regulations harm minorities, Cruz asked Mair if he would issue a retraction “if the data are contrary to your testimony.” Cruz then pressed Mair on satellite data which shows there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last 18 years.

Mair did not know how to answer Cruz’s question on the “pause,” instead saying “[w]e concur with 97 percent of the scientists that believe the anthropogenic impact of mankind with regards to global warming are true.” When Cruz pressed in, Mair just went silent, and there was no “table-pounding” by the senator.

Two days later, the Sierra Club issued a video response to Cruz’s questions. In the video, Mair said Cruz’s “pause” argument was debunked by (despite Mair not even knowing what Cruz was talking about two days before) and the eco-activists listed off other points he thought rebutted the senator.

“0: The number of accurate data points you shared when attempting to claim that the climate wasn’t changing,” Mair said, citing data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that “average global temperatures have been steadily rising for the last three decades.”

“97%: The percentage of scientists who agree that the climate is changing and that human activity is the cause,” Mair added. “2015: expected to be the hottest ever recorded.”

Mair went on to cite other numbers about how air pollution affects minority communities across the country — numbers which had nothing to do with Cruz’s question about the prolonged “pause” in warming.

While the Sierra Club presents a lot of data (some of which has been previously debunked), the group still did not answer Cruz’s question about the “pause” in warming. Indeed, the group may still have no idea what the Republican presidential candidate is talking about.

So, what was Cruz talking about?

He’s talking about how satellite temperature data shows there’s been nearly 19 years without any statistically significant global warming. Remote Sensing Systems satellite data shows there has been no warming for 224 months straight, equaling some 18 years and eight months.

Cruz has routinely used satellite data to counter critics of his opposition to regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources, like power plants.

Satellites measure the lowest few miles of the atmosphere as opposed to weather stations, ships and buoys which measure surface temperatures over the land and sea. It’s the latter that most climate scientists and environmentalists rely on to sound the alarm on man-made global warming as it shows the most drastic warming trend of the two types of data.

But there’s a lot of disagreement between the surface temperature data sets, differences which were amplified earlier this year by a NOAA study attempting to erase the “pause” from the surface temperature record.

Satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville shows the warming”pause” is actually in its 22nd year — several year longer than Cruz asserted.


"1,000 year" flood was no such thing

Dr. Robert Holmes, USGS National Flood Hazard Coordinator, takes some time to discuss and answer some hot issues related to the flooding in South Carolina

Is this flooding in South Carolina truly a 1000-year flood?

While this certainly was a catastrophic flood with lots of damage and tragic loss of life, USGS provisional data and preliminary analysis show NO indication that a 1000-year flood discharge occurred at any USGS streamgages. However, based on that analysis, it does appear that the USGS streamgage on the Black River at Kingstree, SC and the one on the Smith Branch at Columbia, SC both measured peak floods in the neighborhood of a 500-year flood.

Currently, there appear to be a few more streamgages experiencing a 25-year to 50-year flood, but the majority of USGS streamgages had flood peaks that were less than 10-year floods. USGS will have more accurate estimates of the flood probabilities out in the coming months, as the engineers and scientists in South Carolina take time to do more careful analysis of the statistics.

The provisional peak flood flow that USGS measured for the Congaree River in Columbia was 185,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on Sunday, October 4, 2015. The maximum recorded in history was 364,000 cfs in 1908, which is almost double what was experienced in this current flood.

In the 1930s, though, reservoirs were built in certain parts of the Congaree watershed upstream of Columbia, which makes a flood of 364,000 cfs unlikely. However, even in the 75 years since the construction of those reservoirs, there have been floods that approach the 2015 flood. For example, in 1964 the peak discharge was 142,000 cfs, and in 1977 the peak discharge was 155,000 cfs.

So, if only the data from last 75 years are considered, this flood is the largest in that period, but not four times the historic maximum.

When USGS uses terminology like “1000-year flood,” it means that, statistically speaking, a flood of that magnitude (or greater) has a 1 in 1000 chance in any given year. In terms of probability, the 1000-year flood has a 0.1% chance of happening in any given year. One must keep in mind a 1000-year flood value is a statistical value based on observed data.

Although the USGS streamgage data in South Carolina does not seem to indicate a 1000 year flood, the amount of rainfall that fell over a 2 to 3 day period (greater than 16 to 20 inches in some locations) had, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a statistical probability of occurrence of 0.1% or 1 in 1000 chance.

So, rather than someone saying this was a 1000-year flood, it is more accurate to say that “statistically speaking”, the rainfall that fell was a 1000-year rain storm, although it did not result in a 1000-year flood.

It comes down to a number of factors, including the pattern of movement of the rain storm in each particular watershed, the conditions of the soil and plant matter on the ground in the watershed, and the timing of rain storm in one watershed versus other watersheds, among other things. An example would be that ground that is saturated before 1 inch of rain fell would result in more water going into the stream that if the ground was dry and could soak up more of the rain. Also, less water will runoff into streams from 1 inch of rain falling in the summer with the trees full of leaves versus the winter when there are no leaves to intercept the rain. This is all the science of hydrology, which is the study of the movement and distribution of water on the earth. Of course, in South Carolina, many of the watersheds have streams that are regulated by dams.

Is this flood due to climate change?

USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.

A much bigger impact on flooding, though, is land use change. Without proper mitigation, urbanization of watersheds increases flooding. Moreover, encroachment into the floodplain by homes and businesses leads to greater economic losses and potential loss of life, with more encroachment leading to greater losses.


THE WORLD is not heating up, some areas are actually getting colder and the volume of polar ice caps is INCREASING in some places, a leading geologist has claimed

Warmists are just cherrypicking bits from a widely varying system

A geogologist has made claims that goes against the typical global warming thinking. James Kamis suggests "conflicting temperature trends" between oceans and the Earth's atmosphere could dispel the "myth" of man-made global warming.

Put simply, he says our atmospheric temperature has remained static for more than 18 years, the Atlantic has got colder, and it is only the Pacific Ocean where things have heated up.

Mr Kamis said: "Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere."

"It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling."

He said the temperature variances do not fit previous climate model predictions.

He added: "Climate scientists favoring the theory of man-made global warming are flooding the media with new, and this time supposedly very reliable, explanations that are generated from their latest super-computer climate models."
Related articles

Opposing scientists claim global warming has melted the Greenland ice cap at an alarming rate to the point that freshly melted ice flowing into the Atlantic is lowering the seawater temperature there.

However, Mr Kamistol said that with no significant atmospheric temperature change in 18.7 years, global warming is not likely to be the cause of the melting.

He added: "The entire Atlantic Ocean is cooling, and not just in the northern portion of the Atlantic that is adjacent to Greenland. "This strongly suggests that outflow of summertime Greenland ice cap melt water into the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean is not the primary driving force behind cooling the entire Atlantic Ocean.

"Recent research from NASA’s Operation Ice Bridge clearly shows that Greenland's ice mass loss is only occurring in areas immediately adjacent to the ocean. "This perimeter-based ice loss is greatest in areas where the ice cap overlays known deep geological fault zones that are emitting geothermal heat onto the base of the ice cap. "The interior portions of the Greenland Ice Cap are in ice mass balance.

"The extent of Arctic Ocean sea ice has increased the last three years, and not decreased as predicted.  "The Antarctic Ice Cap extent has increased steadily for thirty five years, and not decreased as predicted."

He believes melting of the Greenland Ice cap to be caused by heat from ancient volcanic eruptions and geothermal heat flow from below the surface.

He told Climate Change Dispatch: "Many noted and well-intentioned climate scientists and universities are now starting to publicly admit that overwhelming amounts of new research indicates that the theory of man-made global warming does not properly explain many observed climate trends. "Reason dictates that a more balanced approach to studying climate trends is needed."


Just What We Need: A Climate Alarmist Czar

With Barack Obama’s remaining months in office dwindling, his focus is squarely on Paris, where representatives from around the globe will meet in late November and early December to negotiate a climate accord at COP21, the UN’s much-heralded climate summit.

Last year was erroneously declared the world’s warmest yet, and 2015 is expected to follow suit thanks to an evolving El Nino. The result is a perfect culmination of rhetorical ammo heading into the summit, and it represents the UN’s best shot yet of finalizing a deal.

But regardless of what happens in Paris, Democrats face obstacles in Congress and at the state level, where Republicans will do their best to derail any agreement. Obama is hoping to change that with a little swindle from his friends. The New York Times reports, “[T]he White House has appointed Thomas Reynolds, a top communications strategist at the Environmental Protection Agency and a seasoned political operative, to a new position dedicated solely to messaging Mr. Obama’s global warming agenda.”

The two aren’t strangers, either. In fact, Reynolds helped Obama get re-elected, so the move is probably a “thank you” reward, much like appointing a major donor to an ambassadorship.

But there’s another peculiar aspect to the Times report: “While Mr. Reynolds’s public relations campaigns elevated the issue of climate change, they sometimes got him into hot water. In trying to build public support for a new clean water regulation, Mr. Reynolds created a Twitter campaign urging people to speak out in favor of the rule.

But some legal experts have contended that campaign might have tested the limits of federal lobbying laws, which prohibit a government agency from engaging in grass-roots lobbying for proposed policies or legislation.”

So he’s been hired by Obama instead, where he’s shielded from possible ethics violations. It’s shrewd, cynical politics at its worst, and it helps explain why our government is so corrupt.



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: