Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
New NASA satellite data prove carbon dioxide is GREENING the Earth and restoring forests
MAR 5, 2121
The latest Vegetation Index data from NASA shows that the Earth is getting progressively “greener” and lusher over time.
The planet is 10 percent greener today than it was in 2000, NASA says, which means better conditions for growing crops. Forests are also expanding while deserts are becoming more fertile and usable for agriculture.
All in all, the global Vegetation Index rose from 0.0936 to 0.1029 between 2000 and 2021, a 9.94 percent increase.
“10 percent greening in 20 years! We are incredibly fortunate!” announced Zoe Phin, a researcher who compiled the data into a chart for her blog.
“I just wish everyone felt that way. But you know not everyone does. To the extent that humans enhance global greening is precisely what social parasites want to tax and regulate. No good deed goes unpunished.”
A separate German study found that the globe has been greening for at least the past three decades.
Satellite imagery suggests that vegetation has been expanding at a growing rate, contracting the gloom-and-doom narrative being spread by the climate alarmists.
Back in 2018, research found that the Sahara Desert, the largest in the world, had shrunk by more than 8 percent over the past three decades. This is truly profound as the Sahara covers an expansive 9.2 million square kilometers of territory.
“Eight percent means more than 700,000 square kilometers more area that’s become green – an area almost as big as Germany and France combined,” reports P. Gosselin.
“So in terms of vegetation, the planet probably hasn’t had it this nice in about 1,000 years.”
“Global warming” is a good thing – it’s healing the planet!
Most of this greening is caused by greenhouse gases – you know, those “horrible” emissions that the climate fanatics insist are going to kill us all.
Truth be told, greenhouse gases are making the planet more habitable for humans and other life forms.
One study calls this phenomenon carbon dioxide (CO2) fertilization, which is far more accurate than calling it CO2 “pollution” as many in the mainstream media continue to do.
By the year 2100, all this greening will offset 17 years’ worth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, rendering all this “pollution” as if it never even happened. In other words, there will be only benefits and no drawbacks from all this “global warming” that is taking place.
“There are many more studies underpinning the good news of the greening planet – thanks in large part to mankind,” notes Gosselin. “It’s not as bad as the crybaby activists and media depict it to be. Not even close.”
The problem is that there is no money to be made from telling everyone that the planet is just fine, and to continue living as normal. There would be no “need” for a “green” shift away from fossil fuels, and no “need” to stop eating meat, among other such nonsense.
The powers that be have to keep the “climate change” ruse going in order to advance their globalist agenda. Without climate change, there would be no excuse to steal people’s freedoms and liberties while imposing hell on earth as the “solution” to all of these manufactured climate woes.
“Food security will always be a factor because as long as global population increases, so must global agricultural production increase. That said (the need for agricultural output to keep pace with population), by far the biggest threat to humanity, is NOT climate change,” wrote one commenter at WattsUpWithThat.com.
“The biggest threat to humanity and resulting environmental destruction that a global famine would bring is Climate Change policy – the UN’s Socialist-Marxist climate policy to destroy access to affordable, abundant fossil fuels necessary to sustain global agricultural output.”
https://www.dcclothesline.com/2021/03/05/new-nasa-satellite-data-prove-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth-and-restoring-forests/
Epic windmill fails happen more than people realize.
CONTROL FREAKS: The Great Reset Overlords Who Will Ru(i)n Your Life | Glenn TV | Ep 90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbKGgeD__kA
Fear of climate change is being used for their own benefit.
Earth's climate is 'cyclical' as new study claims an ice age is coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyiDwhbwxSs&t
Bjorn Lomborg | Don't waste trillions on BAD Climate Policy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsJno55J0g
Michael Moore's documentary 'has exposed green energy as a fraud'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NvDaMQs6g
Under the guide of climate change: The UN wants THESE 6 policies from The Great Reset executed ASAP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvvv_rxLL-Y
What Greta Thunberg does not understand about climate change | Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y564PsKvNZs
She really should work on China first...before trying her hand in the USA. As Jordan says, it's difficult to seperate the science from the politics. And, that's just part of the problem. Even if the claims are all true, we really don't know what to do about it, or how to measure the results of our actions.
As nation freezes, fossil fuels are keeping the lights and heat on
By Stephen Moore, opinion contributor — 02/16/21 02:15 PM EST
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/539004-as-nation-freezes-fossil-fuels-are-keeping-the-lights-and-heat-on
Most of the steps to attack global warming and climate change are idiotic and counter productive.
Even Michael Moore is coming out against much of it.
Message in reply to:
Is this only a little "inconveniences" of what is reported to be Climate Changes side issues?...or should we say "Global Warming" (or "Global Freezing") Strikes again?
Wait until New Green Deal kicks in and we have to rely on SOLAR covered in snow...for weeks.
California has constant "black-outs" with green energy...WOW...really bright people "Globalist/New Environmentalists. Laughable...U.S. Carbon down to lowest levels of developed nations...and China and India can pollute with dirty coal and oil as much as they want since they are considered "developing nations" and have no restrictions...
How much of this farce are the American People going to stand for? When will Americans turn around and revolt with "we are not going to take this (shit) anymore!"...
The Socialist/Marxist/Democrats better put their NIKES on and start running for China...that is the only country that will take them. Attempts at GUN will be the last stand. They will not take them without personally receiving its contents.
PS. Is it still woke to use the term "Blackout" or should it be "Inconvenience Absence of Light"?
Is this only a little "inconveniences" of what is reported to be Climate Changes side issues?...or should we say "Global Warming" (or "Global Freezing") Strikes again?
Wait until New Green Deal kicks in and we have to rely on SOLAR covered in snow...for weeks.
California has constant "black-outs" with green energy...WOW...really bright people "Globalist/New Environmentalists. Laughable...U.S. Carbon down to lowest levels of developed nations...and China and India can pollute with dirty coal and oil as much as they want since they are considered "developing nations" and have no restrictions...
How much of this farce are the American People going to stand for? When will Americans turn around and revolt with "we are not going to take this (shit) anymore!"...
The Socialist/Marxist/Democrats better put their NIKES on and start running for China...that is the only country that will take them. Attempts at GUN will be the last stand. They will not take them without personally receiving its contents.
PS. Is it still woke to use the term "Blackout" or should it be "Inconvenience Absence of Light"?
Icy weather chills Texas wind energy as deep freeze grips much of U.S.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-weather-idUSKBN2AF066
'ABC forgets' documentary which ‘absolutely skewers the renewable energy industry’
Bjorn Lomborg | Don't waste trillions on BAD Climate Policy
Trump will decide fate of US role in climate accord in next two weeks
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/politics/trump-paris-climate-agreement-decision/
Al Gore can sleep well tonight, Brazil has taken this global warming/climate change hoax to heart, at least when lighting the Olympic flame:
Brazilian officials wanted this cauldron smaller than most, a reminder to reduce global warming caused by fossil fuels and greenhouse gases.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/brazilian-marathoner-vanderlei-cordeiro-de-lima-lights-olympic-cauldron/
Stats Tampering Puts NOAA in Hot Water
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/CATO-DQA-MIT-NOAA/2016/02/01/id/712153/
LOL, I am shocked to see you hanging out here? Whats new? MVTG is on sale again, did you miss the last 1000 run last year from .047 to .75?
The Myth of Carbon Pollution
Published on Oct 16, 2014
On October 15, 2014 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, discussed “The Myth of Carbon Pollution.”
“Carbon pollution” is a propaganda slogan for the campaign against carbon dioxide (CO2). It is not science. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant growth.
Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares 'climate alarmists' to religious fanatics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
What the mainstream media wont tell you about global warming
Between the recent “deal” with China, reports of Obama taking climate action via executive fiat, and the debate over keystone, global warming has been over the mainstream media recently. But instead of debating whether or not the global warming hypotheses is a valid threat to the Earth, the media starts with the premise that the theory is real and anybody who contests global warming is the equivalent of people who don’t believe the holocaust actually happened, they are called deniers.
The “LA Times” refuses to print letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview climate change believers on their programs.
The fact that the liberal skewed media refuses to look at both sides of the climate argument should be evidence enough that they realize global warming theory is flawed. But as one who likes to use facts, below are twelve facts the mainstream media isn’t telling you about climate change. They may not make one believe that global warming is a fraud, but they should at least destroy the argument that climate change is settled science.
1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.
2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth. Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).
3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).
4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.
5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.
6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
8) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, and the co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”
There are more like Moore.
9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age. That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore).
10) Droughts have not increased.
It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,”
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote,
“In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.”
In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.
12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:
We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/
Climate Reporting Chaos in Oregon
For some reason, I don't find it surprising that Oregon is a hotbed of climate alarmism. Thus, when the Portland Tribune recently published an article describing how Oregon's “warmer climate imperils our health,” it seemed appropriate to look further into the claims being made.
Apparently, climate change in Oregon will lead to “less snow on Mount Hood? [but] we can live with that.” Interesting, given how there has been no significant trend in maximum overwinter snowpack on Mount Hood since records began in 1981. Indeed, according to an article in 2012 at ABC News Cleveland, snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has been increasing since the mid-1970s.
The Tribune's article references the latest “Oregon Climate and Health Profile Report” produced by the Public Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority. I found this document most illuminating.
We can take a number of statements in the Oregon climate and health report and examine them individually.
Claim: “Summers are getting hotter and drier.” There has been no significant decline in Oregon's summertime precipitation since records began in 1895. In fact, the correlation is positive towards increasing summertime precipitation, not declining.
Claim: “The last freeze of winter is occurring earlier, while the first freeze of fall is starting later... Similarly, the freeze-free season is expected to lengthen throughout the region. The largest changes are projected in northwest Oregon and the southern coast, both of which are expected to see an increase of more than 40 freeze-free days.” The historical climate trends on this subject (i.e., length of the growing/freeze-free season) are not as simple as this quote makes it sound. The following table shows the trends in length of the freeze-free season throughout Oregon since records began, and over the past three decades.
There are equal numbers of regions in the state having statistically significant trends towards lengthening (i.e., warming climate) and shortening (i.e., cooling climate) growing seasons. Over the last three decades, it is a similar tie with one each for regions with their growing seasons becoming longer and shorter, respectively. But more of the climate regions have correlations over the past 30 years towards shorter -- not longer -- freeze-free seasons.
As the table above also shows, the Pendleton climate region has seen an overall trend towards a longer growing season since records began back in 1893, but the trend over the past three decades has been the opposite -- towards a shorter growing season. A look at the actual data provides some useful insights, and nicely exemplifies why broad generalizations regarding climate change in the state are difficult to make with any reasonable degree of confidence.
Between the 1890s and 1940s, there was a substantial lengthening of the growing season in this region of Oregon. But since the 1940s, the growing season has gotten much shorter -- even appearing to accelerate in the shortening over the past several decades. Yes, overall since the 1890s the trend has been towards a longer growing season. But even a superficial look at the data tells us this is not the full story with regard to purported anthropogenic climate change impacts.
All of the increase in the frost-free season length took place prior to the 1950s, when anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were negligible. Since the 1940s, as man-made GHG emissions have accelerated, the length of the growing season has accelerated in the opposite direction to what the alarmists would expect. Good luck explaining this time series of data within the context of AGW theory, and thus, generalizations about Oregon's climate break down when we get into the raw data. The devil is always in the details for good science.
Claim: “By mid-century, much of Oregon is projected to have 20 fewer days below freezing per year... A large decrease in the annual number of freezing days <0 C (<32 F) is expected throughout most of the Northwest. The Northwest is projected to have a decrease of 35 freezing days. Except for coastal areas, most of Oregon is projected to experience at least 20 fewer days below freezing, with higher elevation areas in the Cascades experiencing more than 40 fewer freezing days.”
Well, according to the data, there are more regions of Oregon with an increasing -- rather than decreasing -- number of freezing days since records began. Even over the last three decades, the only statistically significant trend is one towards more -- not fewer -- freezing days, and the correlations are split about evenly around cooling versus warming trends.
This would be another dataset that fails climate generalizations. For most of Oregon, there are still more freezing days each year -- on average -- than there were a century or more ago, and for much of the state the number of freezing days are still increasing.
Claim: “Extreme cold <-12.2 C (<10 F) is expected to diminish. While western parts of Oregon will experience little change, much of southeastern Oregon will experience 10 to 15 fewer days of extreme cold per year during the period of 2041-2070.” Over the last three decades, none of the state's climate sub-regions have seen a significant change in the number of extreme cold days each year. Since records began, one region has a significant decline, one has a significant increase, and the remaining five regions have no significant trends. Overall, this looks like an absence of a crisis as well.
Claim: “One measure of extreme precipitation is the number of days per year with precipitation exceeding 1 inch. For most of Oregon, models of scenario A2 indicate that changes in days with more than 1 inch of precipitation will be less than normal year-to-year variation. There is greater confidence in projections for central and northeastern Oregon, which show an increase of more than 40% in the number of days per year with precipitation exceeding 1 inch. Findings suggest that southeastern Oregon will experience an increase of approximately 15% days per year with precipitation of more than 1 inch.”
Since records began, only one climate region (the Eugene area) has seen a significant increase in the number of days per year with more than 1 inch of precipitation. Another region (the Astoria area) has experienced a significant decline. The other five regions have no significant trends since records began. During the last three decades, the only significant trends have been two climate regions of the state with significant declining trends in number of days with “extreme precipitation.” The remainder of the state has no significant trend. Overall, it does not appear that such “extreme precipitation” events are increasing in the state, particularly in recent decades.
Claim: “Oregon is likely to experience more extreme events like heat waves... Extreme heat days/nights will likely increase.” Only the small Burns climate sub-region in the southeastern part of the state has a significant trend towards “extreme heat days” (>95 F) over the last three decades. The rest of the state has seen no increase in the numbers of extreme heat days over this time frame -- on the contrary, much of the state has negative correlations towards fewer extreme heat days.
On a lighter note, the Oregon climate and health report states that “in Oregon, about 6 percent of the population speaks English less than very well,” which itself seems grammatically problematic. As well, under the “Causal Pathways” section of the report, which describes the “direct and indirect correspondence between projected climate exposures and health outcomes,” there is this gem:
“Recreational swimming in Oregon is not without risk for those seeking relief from heat. Most drowning deaths occur during the heat of summer months and drowning deaths in cold-running rivers fed by snow melt can be frequent. Cold shock from entering water below 70 F can cause involuntary gasping, severe hyperventilation and severe cardiac stress. Increased heat events could lead to more people entering hazardously cold waters that contribute to drowning deaths.”
So, in other words, anthropogenic global warming will lead to more heat events during the summer in Oregon, and in response, members of the public will be led to jump into ice-cold rivers in a desperate attempt to cool off, and will subsequently drown? OK then, although I will confess I experienced “involuntary gasping, severe hyperventilation and severe cardiac stress” from reading Oregon's climate and health report. Perhaps having to read the climate reporting is the real public health risk from climate change.
For some reason, I don't find it surprising that Oregon is a hotbed of climate alarmism. Thus, when the Portland Tribune recently published an article describing how Oregon's “warmer climate imperils our health,” it seemed appropriate to look further into the claims being made.
Apparently, climate change in Oregon will lead to “less snow on Mount Hood? [but] we can live with that.” Interesting, given how there has been no significant trend in maximum overwinter snowpack on Mount Hood since records began in 1981. Indeed, according to an article in 2012 at ABC News Cleveland, snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has been increasing since the mid-1970s.
The Tribune's article references the latest “Oregon Climate and Health Profile Report” produced by the Public Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority. I found this document most illuminating.
We can take a number of statements in the Oregon climate and health report and examine them individually.
Claim: “Summers are getting hotter and drier.” There has been no significant decline in Oregon's summertime precipitation since records began in 1895. In fact, the correlation is positive towards increasing summertime precipitation, not declining.
Claim: “The last freeze of winter is occurring earlier, while the first freeze of fall is starting later... Similarly, the freeze-free season is expected to lengthen throughout the region. The largest changes are projected in northwest Oregon and the southern coast, both of which are expected to see an increase of more than 40 freeze-free days.” The historical climate trends on this subject (i.e., length of the growing/freeze-free season) are not as simple as this quote makes it sound. The following table shows the trends in length of the freeze-free season throughout Oregon since records began, and over the past three decades.
There are equal numbers of regions in the state having statistically significant trends towards lengthening (i.e., warming climate) and shortening (i.e., cooling climate) growing seasons. Over the last three decades, it is a similar tie with one each for regions with their growing seasons becoming longer and shorter, respectively. But more of the climate regions have correlations over the past 30 years towards shorter -- not longer -- freeze-free seasons.
As the table above also shows, the Pendleton climate region has seen an overall trend towards a longer growing season since records began back in 1893, but the trend over the past three decades has been the opposite -- towards a shorter growing season. A look at the actual data provides some useful insights, and nicely exemplifies why broad generalizations regarding climate change in the state are difficult to make with any reasonable degree of confidence.
Between the 1890s and 1940s, there was a substantial lengthening of the growing season in this region of Oregon. But since the 1940s, the growing season has gotten much shorter -- even appearing to accelerate in the shortening over the past several decades. Yes, overall since the 1890s the trend has been towards a longer growing season. But even a superficial look at the data tells us this is not the full story with regard to purported anthropogenic climate change impacts.
All of the increase in the frost-free season length took place prior to the 1950s, when anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were negligible. Since the 1940s, as man-made GHG emissions have accelerated, the length of the growing season has accelerated in the opposite direction to what the alarmists would expect. Good luck explaining this time series of data within the context of AGW theory, and thus, generalizations about Oregon's climate break down when we get into the raw data. The devil is always in the details for good science.
Claim: “By mid-century, much of Oregon is projected to have 20 fewer days below freezing per year... A large decrease in the annual number of freezing days <0 C (<32 F) is expected throughout most of the Northwest. The Northwest is projected to have a decrease of 35 freezing days. Except for coastal areas, most of Oregon is projected to experience at least 20 fewer days below freezing, with higher elevation areas in the Cascades experiencing more than 40 fewer freezing days.”
Well, according to the data, there are more regions of Oregon with an increasing -- rather than decreasing -- number of freezing days since records began. Even over the last three decades, the only statistically significant trend is one towards more -- not fewer -- freezing days, and the correlations are split about evenly around cooling versus warming trends.
This would be another dataset that fails climate generalizations. For most of Oregon, there are still more freezing days each year -- on average -- than there were a century or more ago, and for much of the state the number of freezing days are still increasing.
Claim: “Extreme cold <-12.2 C (<10 F) is expected to diminish. While western parts of Oregon will experience little change, much of southeastern Oregon will experience 10 to 15 fewer days of extreme cold per year during the period of 2041-2070.” Over the last three decades, none of the state's climate sub-regions have seen a significant change in the number of extreme cold days each year. Since records began, one region has a significant decline, one has a significant increase, and the remaining five regions have no significant trends. Overall, this looks like an absence of a crisis as well.
Claim: “One measure of extreme precipitation is the number of days per year with precipitation exceeding 1 inch. For most of Oregon, models of scenario A2 indicate that changes in days with more than 1 inch of precipitation will be less than normal year-to-year variation. There is greater confidence in projections for central and northeastern Oregon, which show an increase of more than 40% in the number of days per year with precipitation exceeding 1 inch. Findings suggest that southeastern Oregon will experience an increase of approximately 15% days per year with precipitation of more than 1 inch.”
Since records began, only one climate region (the Eugene area) has seen a significant increase in the number of days per year with more than 1 inch of precipitation. Another region (the Astoria area) has experienced a significant decline. The other five regions have no significant trends since records began. During the last three decades, the only significant trends have been two climate regions of the state with significant declining trends in number of days with “extreme precipitation.” The remainder of the state has no significant trend. Overall, it does not appear that such “extreme precipitation” events are increasing in the state, particularly in recent decades.
Claim: “Oregon is likely to experience more extreme events like heat waves... Extreme heat days/nights will likely increase.” Only the small Burns climate sub-region in the southeastern part of the state has a significant trend towards “extreme heat days” (>95 F) over the last three decades. The rest of the state has seen no increase in the numbers of extreme heat days over this time frame -- on the contrary, much of the state has negative correlations towards fewer extreme heat days.
On a lighter note, the Oregon climate and health report states that “in Oregon, about 6 percent of the population speaks English less than very well,” which itself seems grammatically problematic. As well, under the “Causal Pathways” section of the report, which describes the “direct and indirect correspondence between projected climate exposures and health outcomes,” there is this gem:
“Recreational swimming in Oregon is not without risk for those seeking relief from heat. Most drowning deaths occur during the heat of summer months and drowning deaths in cold-running rivers fed by snow melt can be frequent. Cold shock from entering water below 70 F can cause involuntary gasping, severe hyperventilation and severe cardiac stress. Increased heat events could lead to more people entering hazardously cold waters that contribute to drowning deaths.”
So, in other words, anthropogenic global warming will lead to more heat events during the summer in Oregon, and in response, members of the public will be led to jump into ice-cold rivers in a desperate attempt to cool off, and will subsequently drown? OK then, although I will confess I experienced “involuntary gasping, severe hyperventilation and severe cardiac stress” from reading Oregon's climate and health report. Perhaps having to read the climate reporting is the real public health risk from climate change.
http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2014%2F11%2Fclimate_reporting_chaos_in_oregon.html%23.VGn6cwl8x6E.printfriendly&title=Articles%3A+Climate+Reporting+Chaos+in+Oregon
Does she actually believe she can make fraudulent
Statements like that and get away with it?
Used to be that the media would take it hook, line and sinker. Too many people and scientists are now demanding proof.
Nebulous Climate Claims in Louisiana
On Monday, Tulane University in New Orleans hosted the French Ameri-Can Climate Talks. The Times-Picayune newspaper covered the event and published the following:
Without a significant reduction in greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide produced by burning oil, gas and coal, sea levels could rise dramatically, threatening many coastal communities, [Donald Boesch, a New Orleans native who is president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science] said. Changes in weather patterns caused by increased heat also will cause problems, including both drought and intense rainfall events in the same locations.
In south Louisiana, he said, these changes might produce severe drought-like conditions during the summer and fall, but at the same time, increased rainfall in northern and western parts of the Mississippi River's watershed could result in more frequent high river events.
'Climate change already has impacted water, plants, animals and people, especially those who rely on their local environments,' said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, a paleoclimatology expert with the French Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory.
She said temperature increases doubled between the 1960s and 1980s, and doubled again from the 1980s until today. If no cutbacks are made on greenhouse gases, she said, the future temperature increases 'bring us out of the range that our species has known.'
The climate record for southern Louisiana doesn't show any signs that climate change might produce more severe drought-like conditions – using the standard Palmer Drought Severity Index as an indicator – during the summer and fall. Since records began in 1895, there has been absolutely no trend toward more drought-like conditions during the summer months in any of the state's three southern climate divisions. And during the fall months, there is actually a statistically significant trend toward less drought over the past 120 years in the southwest Louisiana climate division, and non-significant correlations toward less drought in the other two southern climate divisions, during this time frame.
There are certainly no significant trends toward less summertime or autumn precipitation in southern Louisiana. Quite the contrary. There are, instead, significant trends toward more autumn precipitation in the southwest and south central climate divisions, and a near-significant trend toward more autumn rain in the southeast division. Of course, there are also no significant trends in average summertime or autumn temperatures in southern Louisiana, either, since 1895. As a result, the climate trends in the southern part of the state do not appear headed toward severe droughts.
This leads us to the state as a whole, where there has been no significant trend in the average temperature since records began.
The claim that “at the same time, increased rainfall in northern and western parts of the Mississippi River's watershed could result in more frequent high river events” also requires more information to fully assess. The USGS hydrometric station on the Mississippi at Vicksburg shows a near-significant declining trend in annual peak flows since records began in 1858. Similarly, peak flows at Baton Rouge don't appear to have any significant trends, either, since records began in 1828.
As is so often the case, the public is being provided with far too little information in the media to allow an informed opinion. Rather, we get disjointed facts and vague claims that don't serve to properly educate those who are most interested in the issues.
A Dose of Climate Reality for Maine
http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/a_dose_of_climate_reality_for_maine.html#
Problems with the Iowa Climate Statement
The 2014 Iowa Climate Statement was recently released, and this provides us with the opportunity to further fact-check many of the claims being made about climate change in the Hawkeye State.
According to an article in The Des Moines Register about the release of the state's latest climate statement, Iowa is seeing “more-frequent and more-severe rain and heat events leading to injury, disease and mental health problems.” The claims of “more-severe” rain events in the state was included in the “Climate Change Impacts on Iowa: 2010” report to the governor and Iowa General Assembly – and was also used in the latest National Climate Assessment – but when I looked at the source data back in May, I did not find significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events throughout the state. Nor are there any trends in maximum daily rainfall amounts across Iowa over the past century.
More severe heat events leading to injury, disease, and mental health problems? In the Dubuque climate sub-region, there is a highly (p<0.001) statistically significant decline in the number of very hot days (>95
º
F) each year since records began in 1875. Back in 1936, this region had 23 days above 95
º
F. That is more very hot days in 1936 alone than the Dubuque area has had in total since 1989. Actually, it is almost twice as many very hot days in 1936 than since 1989 (a total of only 12 very hot days during the last 25 years). How many days above 95
º
F did the Dubuque climate sub-region have during 2014? Zero.
There is a similarly highly statistically significant decline in the number of very hot days each year for the Waterloo climate sub-region – a region that had 206 very hot days during the 1920s and 1930s alone, but only 181 very hot days in the entire period since 1940. In the Des Moines and Sioux City climate regions, no significant trend in very hot days exists since records began in 1879 and 1890, respectively. Record hot days in each of the state's climate sub-regions were also set well in the past, not recently: 111
º
F in the Sioux City region during 1939; 110
º
F in the Des Moines region during 1936; 112
º
F in the Waterloo area during 1936; and 110
º
F in the Dubuque region during 1936. High temperatures in recent years haven't come close to breaking these records. Indeed, the hottest it has gotten in the Dubuque area since 1936 is 102
º
F, and this took place in 1940.
As I also showed in my previous article:
There has been no significant trend [in Iowa's annual temperature] since 1900... I get no significant trend in Iowa's average winter temperatures since the NOAA database begins in 1895. Nor is there one in summer.
According to a report in the Iowa State Daily, “'one issue concerning scientists is the increase in precipitation, resulting in more frequent floods,' the statement said.” Increase in precipitation? There have been no significant trends in annual precipitation in the state since 1970, nor over the past three decades.
Apparently, “Iowans are experiencing the very real impacts of climate change, including ... a longer growing season.” As the USEPA defines the length of the growing season with regard to climate change discussions, “the length of the growing season is defined as the period of time between the last frost of spring and the first frost of fall, when the air temperature drops below the freezing point of 32 F.” On the contrary, I find absolutely no significant trends towards a longer growing season within the state's climate sub-regions since records began in the 19th century. In fact, in the Sioux City and Dubuque regions, there are statistically significant trends toward shorter growing seasons, not longer. In the Waterloo area, there is almost a perfect non-correlation since the start of records in 1895, and in the Des Moines area, the trend is almost statistically significant towards a shorter growing season since the 1800s. These findings appear to directly contradict the Iowa Climate Statement.
The path forward is clear: get the climate science right.
The 2014 Iowa Climate Statement was recently released, and this provides us with the opportunity to further fact-check many of the claims being made about climate change in the Hawkeye State.
According to an article in The Des Moines Register about the release of the state's latest climate statement, Iowa is seeing “more-frequent and more-severe rain and heat events leading to injury, disease and mental health problems.” The claims of “more-severe” rain events in the state was included in the “Climate Change Impacts on Iowa: 2010” report to the governor and Iowa General Assembly – and was also used in the latest National Climate Assessment – but when I looked at the source data back in May, I did not find significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events throughout the state. Nor are there any trends in maximum daily rainfall amounts across Iowa over the past century.
More severe heat events leading to injury, disease, and mental health problems? In the Dubuque climate sub-region, there is a highly (p<0.001) statistically significant decline in the number of very hot days (>95
º
F) each year since records began in 1875. Back in 1936, this region had 23 days above 95
º
F. That is more very hot days in 1936 alone than the Dubuque area has had in total since 1989. Actually, it is almost twice as many very hot days in 1936 than since 1989 (a total of only 12 very hot days during the last 25 years). How many days above 95
º
F did the Dubuque climate sub-region have during 2014? Zero.
There is a similarly highly statistically significant decline in the number of very hot days each year for the Waterloo climate sub-region – a region that had 206 very hot days during the 1920s and 1930s alone, but only 181 very hot days in the entire period since 1940. In the Des Moines and Sioux City climate regions, no significant trend in very hot days exists since records began in 1879 and 1890, respectively. Record hot days in each of the state's climate sub-regions were also set well in the past, not recently: 111
º
F in the Sioux City region during 1939; 110
º
F in the Des Moines region during 1936; 112
º
F in the Waterloo area during 1936; and 110
º
F in the Dubuque region during 1936. High temperatures in recent years haven't come close to breaking these records. Indeed, the hottest it has gotten in the Dubuque area since 1936 is 102
º
F, and this took place in 1940.
As I also showed in my previous article:
There has been no significant trend [in Iowa's annual temperature] since 1900... I get no significant trend in Iowa's average winter temperatures since the NOAA database begins in 1895. Nor is there one in summer.
According to a report in the Iowa State Daily, “'one issue concerning scientists is the increase in precipitation, resulting in more frequent floods,' the statement said.” Increase in precipitation? There have been no significant trends in annual precipitation in the state since 1970, nor over the past three decades.
Apparently, “Iowans are experiencing the very real impacts of climate change, including ... a longer growing season.” As the USEPA defines the length of the growing season with regard to climate change discussions, “the length of the growing season is defined as the period of time between the last frost of spring and the first frost of fall, when the air temperature drops below the freezing point of 32 F.” On the contrary, I find absolutely no significant trends towards a longer growing season within the state's climate sub-regions since records began in the 19th century. In fact, in the Sioux City and Dubuque regions, there are statistically significant trends toward shorter growing seasons, not longer. In the Waterloo area, there is almost a perfect non-correlation since the start of records in 1895, and in the Des Moines area, the trend is almost statistically significant towards a shorter growing season since the 1800s. These findings appear to directly contradict the Iowa Climate Statement.
The path forward is clear: get the climate science right.
A Dose of Climate Reality for Maine
http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/a_dose_of_climate_reality_for_maine.html
Arctic Blast via Polar Vortex to Chill 42 US States
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/polar-vortex-42-states/37049255
Only the Southwest, Hawaii, Alaska and South Florida will escape the grip of the upcoming arctic blast that the polar vortex can be blamed for.
US Having Its Coolest Year On Record
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/us-having-its-coolest-year-on-record/
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist
THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Apparently the "hottest year on record" is a fraud.
Just in time for the election, and too late to be exposed.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/visualizing-how-corrupt-giss-has-become/
"Iron Dumping" is illegal by international treaty.
I am working with other groups to facilitate further study. I am sure Florida Fisheries will become aware in due time.
Besides, Iron was an example. It could be Manganese, or countless other mineral depletions. If you live there, it's up to you to elect responsible people in those lofty positions where they don't listen to little people like me.
I have contacted my congressman, NOAA, Woods Hole, Scripps, and countless others to no avail. Most don't even reply.
Thanks for your replies, such as they are.
So tell somebody who can do something with it
http://www.myfwc.com/redtidestatus
As far as I know, a Red Tide is caused by a surge of underutilized nutrients which drift into an area where those nutrients can be assimilated rapidly.
For instance, a fish graveyard in an iron poor region of the ocean decays into macro nutrients, which need to drift into iron rich waters to be utilized.
Such as it is.
Rather than reply in kind which is the
Recluse of the beaten, just write me off as whatever you need to use to satisfy your troubled mind.
Hope you and your fish tanks are doing well.
My main interest in Ocean Fertilization is creating jobs and feeding people. Of course, you could continue to allow the alarmists to take our jobs and fuel away.
There should be a way for all of us nutcases to work together.
"Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you" -- Jung
Oh Please!
You have a confirmed red algae bloom. The bloom is killing millions of fish by clogging their gills and you can see and smell the rotting carcasses. Fishing and shrimping has come to an end in the Big Bend area of Florida. And you are asking about false dilemma so you can justify dumping ship loads of iron dust into the oceans to solve a completely different problem.
Get a grip. Your battle is not with me. It is with anyone who has to live with your "Cure" for global warming. A problem that doesn't exist in the first place.
Your "cure" might have a place if it ever gets so hot that the damaging side affects, if any, are no longer important. Until then, it is just another theory.
By the way, if you want to do some really interesting research into CO2, look into heat seeking missile research. Turns out that they found out that global warming stops after 400 CO2 is surpassed.
Wasn't what they were looking for. It just came up when they were making sure heat seeking missiles went after real aircraft targets and not diverted up car exhaust pipes or the sun, or reflections off the ionosphere.
I sometimes need to share the illusion of Don Quixote, tilting at windmills and fencing with wineskins.
If you have such demons in your mind, don't start projecting them on me.
Don't get mad at me. I am the one who advocates monitoring the nutrients to prevent this kind of stuff. I get that your observation of dead fish merits the conclusion of the smell coming from the dead fish. Are you suggesting that dead algae did not add to the flavor mix? Do you understand the concept of a false dilemma?
What part of "Millions of dead fish floating in the Gulf"
Don't you understand? You can see them as well as smell them.
Red tide killed them all. It may be a generation or longer before the resource recovers.
Go there and look for yourself before you advocate messin' with Mother Nature.
Have you ever smelled dead algae? Very similar.
Nope. It is the smell of dead fish.
Millions of them.
A Strong smell of Sulphur would indicate a sudden freshwater surge. If your ears start ringing after a few sniffs, It's probably a fungal infection.
"Maybe dumping iron dust into the oceans is all it would take to speed up the process."
Right. Or it could slow it down. Don't you just love the unscientific guess and see how it works approach?
A few tons here and a few tons there isn't going to cause the apocalypse.
Man's effort would be dwarfed by any volcanic disruption of the exact same elements.
Scientists have already charted the exact location where the Iron will do the most good.
See
Now that's where you might be wrong in your opinion. Just because you can influence algae growth in a fish tank doesn't make you God. To make irreparable decisions for humanity while looking at your fish tank is playing God without full information.
This planet is going to shake off mankind like a bad case of fleas. Maybe dumping iron dust into the oceans is all it would take to speed up the process.
Take a field trip to Cedar Key, Fl and look at what might happen if your calculations are just a little bit off. Bring your nose with you.
In the meantime, every item removed from the ocean is an upset to the balance. Perhaps we should start with a balance of accounts for say, 20 years, and only add that much?
This board is for posting information and discussing the issues of Climate Change / Global Warming & Investing Implications
Please provide link(s) when you post something written by someone else.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |