Archive for Global Warming

Voluminous Bituminous

Al Gore and the Global Warm-mongers said if we kept on burning coal many would die—and they were right!

A coal mine shaft collapsed in northwestern China, killing 16 miners, an official said Saturday, highlighting the persistence of safety problems in the industry despite a leveling off of demand.

Another 11 miners were injured in the disaster, which struck just before midnight Friday in Tiechanggou township outside the Xinjiang regional capital of Urumqi.

China’s mines are among the most dangerous in the world, although improved safety measures have vastly lowered the number of fatalities in mine accidents in recent years.

The government’s China National Coal Administration reported 1,067 deaths in 604 coal mining accidents in 2013, down 23 percent from the year before. That’s down from more than 6,000 a decade ago, largely due to increased inspections and the closure of small and unregulated mines.

Long-time readers will remember those heady days when we covered these collapses, explosions, floodings, asphyxiations regularly. In fact, this morning has a throw-back feel to it: Obama’s corruption, anti-semitism, China’s indifference to human life and the environment.

“Boy, the way Glen Miller played,
Songs that made the Hit Parade…
Those were the days!”

While China still produces and consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, the amount it burned in the first three quarters of 2014 was off by about 2 percent from the same period last year, according to Greenpeace energy analysts in China.

Don’t worry. What China cuts, India more than makes up for:

Decades of strip mining have left this town in the heart of India’s coal fields a fiery moonscape, with mountains of black slag, sulfurous air and sickened residents.

But rather than reclaim these hills or rethink their exploitation, the government is digging deeper in a coal rush that could push the world into irreversible climate change and make India’s cities, already among the world’s most polluted, even more unlivable, scientists say.

“If India goes deeper and deeper into coal, we’re all doomed,” said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the world’s top climate scientists.

But what about all the mercury-laced CFL lightbulbs I put in? Surely, that’ll make a difference.

Just because we’re all doomed doesn’t mean we have to frown all day.


Skating to Canada

Let others regale you with frontier tales of deep snow and plunging temperatures.

I note another sign of global anti-warming:

Ice is already starting to form on Lake Superior.

These pictures were taken over the last couple of days near Ashland, Wisconsin by Cheryl Koval of Extreme Photography.

This usually doesn’t happen until December— but the perfect combination of last season’s ice cover, a cool summer and an early blast of arctic air has allowed the ice to form earlier than normal.

Could we see record ice cover again this year? Stay tuned.

Fear not, Buffalo friends, this is good news:

NASA’s Terra satellite captured the clearest shot yet of the Great Lakes region Tuesday afternoon, showing near-continuous streams of lake-effect cloud cover blowing across both peninsulas. There’s the thumb in the center of the image and, well, it’s not easy to make out the rest of the state.

Our accumulations can’t hold a candle to those experienced in western New York, where people in Buffalo’s suburbs are measuring snowfall feet rather than inches. A Weather Service employee measured 63 inches, or about 5.3 feet, of snow Wednesday morning in Lancaster, N.Y., thanks to a stubborn lake-effect band of snow running the entire width of Lake Erie.

Snow forms from moisture, duh, which the Great Lakes provide in abundance. When they’re in their liquid state. When they’re frozen solid, as they will be shortly, look for Buffalo and other communities downwind of the lakes to become winter deserts. You can’t have lake-effect snow when the lake is a block of ice.

Comments (2)

One Pledge We Hope He Breaks

He’s broken every other one:

President Barack Obama on Friday pledged a $3 billion U.S. contribution to an international fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change, putting the issue front and center of the G20 Leaders Summit in Australia.

The large size of the contribution took climate policy watchers by surprise and doubles what other countries had previously pledged ahead of a Nov. 20 deadline. It would be the second major move on climate change taken by Obama after big Democratic losses in last week’s midterm elections.

“Along with other nations that have pledged support, we’ll help vulnerable communities with early-warning systems, stronger defenses against storm surges, and climate-resilient infrastructure,” Obama said in remarks ahead of the official opening of the G20 summit.

“We’ll help farmers plant more durable crops. We’ll help developing economies reduce their carbon pollution and invest in clean energy.”

The timing of the announcement was seen as putting pressure Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is hosting the summit and once described climate science as “absolute crap”. Abbott had hoped the G20 summit would focus on growth and jobs.

Three billion dollars to keep poor countries poor. When they can do it themselves for free.

I suppose a conference of the 20 largest economies could focus on “growth and jobs”. But what fun is that? Who swoons over growth and jobs? Pledging $3,000,000,000 for “durable crops”—that’s what gets headlines.

Just please don’t cash the check.


Bottom Story of the Day

An emasculated leader prostrates himself before a new power on an issue of no importance, about which it can and will do nothing—and got bubkes in return.

Film at 11?

President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that the U.S. has set a new goal to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by between 26 percent and 28 percent over the next 11 years as part of a climate change agreement with China.

The new target is a drastic increase from earlier in Obama’s presidency, when he pledged to cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020. By contrast, Obama’s counterpart, Xi Jinping, did not pledge any reductions by a specific date, but rather set a target for China’s emissions to peak by 2030, or earlier if possible.

This is as empty of substance as a vegetarian dumpling, and harder to swallow. Obama replace one arbitrary number and irrelevant date with another one of each. What else?

If possible, China did even less—which is at least more honest.

This is news?

PS: CNN says it is:

In a historic climate change deal, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced both countries will curb their greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades.

Who is lying more?

Comments (1)

When All Else Fails, Shout

Chicago had a White Halloween for the first time in many years; New England is not far behind with a “wintry mix” today.

Oh, but that’s weather, BTL, not climate. Silly boy.

This is climate: the climate of fear-mongering.

The Earth is locked on an “irreversible” course of climatic disruption from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the impacts will only worsen unless nations agree to dramatic cuts in pollution, an international panel of climate scientists warned Sunday.

The planet faces a future of extreme weather, rising sea levels and melting polar ice from soaring levels of carbon dioxide and other gases, the U.N. panel said. Only an unprecedented global effort to slash emissions within a relatively short time period will prevent temperatures from crossing a threshold that scientists say could trigger far more dangerous disruptions, the panel warned.

“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts,” concluded the report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which draws on contributions from thousands of scientists from around the world.

I thought “warming” was as out of fashion as the mullet. As forgotten as Vanilla Ice. As dead as Elvis, and for nearly as long. Now it’s back with a vengeance.

Dear God, don’t tell me the mullet…

The report said some impacts of climate change will “continue for centuries,” even if all emissions from fossil-fuel burning were to stop.

Oh well, then, [bleep] it. Put another log on the fire.

But they are right about one thing: climate change will continue for centuries. Just as climate has changed for the previous centuries, millennia, eons.

Everything has turned against these Chicken Littles, the climate most notably. (That’s gotta hurt.) So, what does anyone do when abandoned by reason and facts?



Feedback Loop

Last winter, the Great Lakes froze over more than they had in decades.

Looks like that may be a trend:

Michigan residents may see a cold and icy winter arrive sooner this year, reportedly due to lower temperatures in the Great Lakes.

Average surface temperatures for both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan have dropped: Superior’s went from from 53.7 degrees on October 11, 2013 to 47.6 degrees Saturday, while Michigan’s went from 62.1 degrees to 56.0 degrees, reported.

That means both lakes experienced temperature drops of 6.1 degrees, the news site explained.

Michigan residents may need to bundle up sooner to brace both November and December chilly weather as a result of cooler lakes, reported.

And the Global Warm Mongers freak out over fractions of a degree!

So, the lakes will freeze even earlier than last year. Soon, illegal aliens will find it easier to walk across Lake Huron in June than to swim across the Rio Grande in July.

Comments (3)

Feathered Fricassee

We don’t want to gloat, but we told you about this six months ago:

If you don’t remember (one out of so many scoops):

Environmentalists have hit out at a giant new solar farm in the Mojave Desert as mounting evidence reveals birds flying through the extremely hot ‘thermal flux’ surrounding the towers are being scorched.

After years of regulatory tangles around the impact on desert wildlife, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened on Thursday but environmental groups say the nearly 350,000 gigantic mirrors are generating 1000 degree Fahrenheit temperatures which are killing and singing birds.

According to compliance documents released by developer BrightSource Energy last year, dozens of birds were found injured at the site during the building stage.

Poor birds are still flyin’ and dyin':

Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair.

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.

The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

Same solar plant, same bird massacre. Only the month has changed. At one streamer every two minutes, with an average amount of daylight of 14 hours (dawn and dusk being especially active for birds), I estimate conservatively at least 75,000 birds fried by this one “green” solar plant alone—a lot more than mere “dozens”—since we first reported the problem.

Thank goodness we have wind turbines to fall back on.

President Barack Obama has mounted a second-term drive to combat climate change, proposing first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

His plan aims to help move the U.S. from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by wind and solar power, nuclear energy and natural gas.

Bird-hatin’ bastard.


Settled Science Update

Ha! Made you look. Betcha thought I was talking about global warming.

I am, kinda:

The doubters have spoken.

A group of independent experts — who prodded authorities to release satellite data on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 — says it thinks it knows the approximate location of the missing aircraft.

Five separate computer models all place the plane in a tight cluster of spots in the south Indian Ocean — hundreds of miles southwest of the previous search site.

“We recommend that the search for MH370 be focused in this area,” the group said in a statement late Tuesday.

Doubters, experts, computer models—it sounds like the global warming fracas, doesn’t it? We’re months removed from the original…event…and no closer to discovering what happened.

No, wait. We are closer. We’re closer because by trial and a whole lotta error, we’ve eliminated thousands of square miles. So these “experts” may be on to something. The plane may be where they say it is because it isn’t anywhere else.

The group believes that after the Boeing 777 circumnavigated Indonesia, for reasons that are still unknown, the plane traveled south at an average speed of 470 knots, probably at a consistent altitude and constant heading, Exner said. All five computer models developed by the experts place the aircraft in a “pretty tight cluster…plus or minus 50 miles of each other,” he said.

The plane and its 239 occupants vanished March 8 while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

In a blog post, group member Tim Farrar called the recommended search site “our best estimate — but not the only possible — location for a potential search.”

Give these experts credit: unlike the global warm mongers, they admit doubt. They confess uncertainty. They grant you that their theories are only educated guesses. My takeaway is that it’s still a big world out there, and it can still mess with us. If the missing plane doesn’t freak you out, look up the Yellowstone caldera. Gaia could snuff us out with Australia and Madagascar tied behind her back.

Keep a few virgins handy for emergency sacrifice. Borrowing from President Obama, if you don’t believe in an earth goddess, you think the moon is made of cheese.


It Depends on the Meaning of “Ice”

The Great Lakes are finally free of ice!

All of the Great Lakes including Lake Superior are now ice free. This marks the end to a 7 month stretch where the lakes were covered in at least one ice cube, which is the longest streaks since satellite records began back in the 70’s. June 7th became the official ice out date of the lake which also makes in the latest in the year ice has coated the water. There was still a third of the Lakes coated in ice the last week of April which was the largest amount of ice that late in the year, a trend that continued into June.

Wait… there appears to be a chunk of ice that’s still remaining across the southeastern portion of the lake, but that doesn’t appear to be part of the “official” ice cover measurement. Here is a satellite image taken Sunday afternoon that shows the iceberg type piece flowing along the southern edges of the lake.

Can we get a closer look?

There are still a number of smaller chunks of ice in some of the protected bay areas. The picture below shows ice in an area that the map above does not indicate any ice.

Lake Superior is still in the 30s, which means the land around it (downwind, anyway) is also cooler. And you know what else cold water creates?


If he global warm mongers would just relax and enjoy nature in all its unpredictability, they might be less excitable.

Comments (1)

Sealed With a Kiss

Waste not, want not!

Blogger Susan Crockford reports on Polar Bear Science that she received an email on May 22 from Dag Vongraven, chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group [PBSG], that an upcoming report on worldwide polar bear population would contain a footnote that some polar bear populations are simply best-guess estimates.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000,” the footnote reads.

“It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated.”

The note goes on to say here are no “abundance estimates” for bears in the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and Russia.

Which is about the size of Rhode Island, right?

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

Why should that stop anyone? Don’t you know how science works?

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004?s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said: “We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977)

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts.

In the parts I omitted, he says there is good science in the report. This is not among that good science:

Why measure the temperature? Why count the polar bears? We have models that do that!

Oops, wrong kind of model—but do you think she’d do any worse?

[T]he IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined.

The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”

No [bleep]! Who wants to traipse around the North Pole counting polar bears? (Count the number of legs and divide by four.) I’d rather roll on a polar bear rug with my climate model above.

Traitor Obama (if we are to believe half the Bergdahl story) is running hell for leather into the Global Warming fracas. May he wind up looking like the carcass in the picture, top (politically speaking, of course).


Mutt Blows Dog Whistle—That IS News

First of all, in case you think I’m kidding about racist “dog whistle” words, this Daily Caller post from the 2012 election, should erase any doubt.

My favorite, of course, is “skinny”, because how could it not be?

In the Aug. 1 Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick asked, “[C]ould Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability?” Most Americans, Chozick points out, aren’t skinny. Fully 66 percent of all citizens who’ve reached voting age are overweight, and 32 percent are obese. To be thin is to be different physically. Not that there’s anything wrong, mind you, with being a skinny person. But would you want your sister to marry one? Would you want a whole family of skinny people to move in next-door? “I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” an “unnamed Clinton supporter” wrote on a Yahoo politics message board. My point is that any discussion of Obama’s “skinniness” and its impact on the typical American voter can’t avoid being interpreted as a coded discussion of race.

He’s serious, swear to God.

But then…

When President Barack Obama reviewed his aides’s ideas for tackling climate change last year, he gave one simple directive: “Don’t skinny it down.”

That’s taking self-loathing to a new level! And speaking of loathing:

The National Association of Manufacturers in Washington is spearheading a drive by 140 organizations against the expected draft ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency. Coal producers, steel manufacturers, and refiners and are also gearing up to fight the regulations.

“This administration is setting up the next energy crisis in this country,” said Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in Washington. “They’re not looking at the long-term consequences.”

Obama also faces push-back from some within his own party, who warn that tighter regulations could hamper Democratic candidates in areas where coal is a major source of jobs. Democrats in Kentucky and West Virginia already are distancing themselves from the president’s energy policies, highlighting their opposition to a “war on coal” on the campaign trail.

“War on coal”? Wherever would they get that idea?

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

We didn’t really elect this guy, did we? This is just a crazy dream, right? One slice of anchovy pizza too many?

But he’s got his supporters:

Liberated from re-election politics, he’s freer to speak about the challenges of a warming planet and is using his bully pulpit to create urgency on an issue that most Americans rank as a low priority, the aides said.

In a White House meeting with eight Western governors last February, Obama used satellite images to make the case that climate change was responsible for the wildfires and droughts facing their states, arguing that the country must take bigger steps to tackle the issue.

“He has a deep understanding of the science,” said Democratic Governor Jay Inslee of Washington.

Of course he does.


How Many Nuclear Power Plants Does it Take to Illuminate a Light Bulb?

Trick question: they’ve outlawed light bulbs!

And nuclear power plants.

But if you want to make a global warm-monger pant in anticipation (not that you would), show him this graph:

A life-cycle footprint measures the negative impact of human activities on the environment. It’s the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide, or CO2.

Better than solar (which fries birds that fly through its concentrated beams), better than wind (which minces birds and bats), better even than burning biomass (like aborted fetuses)—better than all of them is good old clean nuclear power.

As the issue of global warming continues to capture the focus of America and the world, it is vitally important to look at the role nuclear can play in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that continue to pollute the air and damage our ecosystem.

Nuclear energy is the most “eco-efficient” of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species and air resources.

Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere by causing ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain. Nor does nuclear energy produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming.

Electricity generated by nuclear avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S. The 2,100 tons of nitrous oxide (N2O) avoided by Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is the amount of N2O, released in a year by 110,000 passenger cars.

Me, I don’t give a crap about so-called global so-called warming. It’s junk science, peddled by junkie scientists (addicted to government graft). But there are plenty of people out there who do, or claim to. Why do I have to praise the benefits of nuclear power? Where’s Bill McKibben on the issue? Why isn’t Al Gore screaming about it?

The boy can scream when he wants to!

Has anyone seen Memphis? He looks like he ate it.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »