Extreme Cold Kills 6 Million Fish In Bolivia: “Environmental Catastrophe”

Posted August 6, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Weather

Here’s an ongoing weather event, which is supposed to be rare.

We know it’s been cold as heck in South America. In fact it’s been so cold that fish have been dying on a mass scale. This today is being reported by the German online Stern and other outlets.

Authorities say that 6 million fish have died as a result of the cold. Also read here.  This report writes:

Authorities in the eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz declared an alert following the death of fish in the Grande, Pirai and Ichilo rivers that run through the tropical region.
This is an “environmental catastrophe” brought on by the lowest temperatures registered in Santa Cruz in nearly half a century, Gov. Ruben Costas told reporters.

We’ve seen reports on how the cold in South America has been deadly for humans too, see here. Later reports mention 500 dead.

And it’s still cold. And it’s going to remain cold as well, see here.

Gulf Oil Spill In Perspective – Stop Crying Over Spilled Milk

Posted August 5, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Oceans, We're To Blame

Not a day goes by without hearing about the “catastrophic BP Gulf oil spill”. Even the media in Europe are fretting hysterically about ocean currents eventually carrying the mess across the Atlantic and over to Europe’s shores – so say all their computer models. There’s now even a lot of discussion about setting up a world environmental court for prosecuting polluters for Crimes Against Nature and Crimes Against Humanity.When I was a kid and milk spilled, we were told not to cry about it, but instead to get up, get a mop, and to clean it up. How are media responding with the latest spill? Many are having fainting spells, some are even leaping out the windows, and the rest just want to beat the crap out of the poor kid who spilled the milk, who by the way gets up early every morning to milk the cow and brings it to the table.

Surely the oil spill was a mess and steps have to be taken to prevent these things in the future. But it’s also important to keep it all in perspective. Globally, once everything settles down, this is not going to be felt at all. It’s reported that 800 million liters have gushed into the Gulf. That sounds like a huge number. Indeed it’s like everyone in the United States dumping 3 quarts.

Pull your head up and look at the big picture. First of all, it has been reported, much to the surprise of the media, that 75% has already been either dispersed or cleaned up. That means 200 million liters are still at large. Of these 200 million liters, what doesn’t end up on shores for manual cleanup, will eventually get carried out to sea.

But for now, let’s stay with the 200 million liters floating out to Europe and beyond. How much is that with respect to the oceans’ sheer volume?
* 200 million liters = 200,000 cubic meters,
* 200,000 cubic meters = 0.0002 cubic kilometers of oil.
* Volume of world oceans: 1.37 BILLION cubic kilometers.

* Concentration of BP oil in ocean: 0.0002 km³/ 1,370,000,000 km³

This equals…folks my calculator doesn’t even get anywhere near that far out! It’s like one rat drowning in Lake Erie. It’s in the trillionths! The average lake has higher concentrations of greasy suntan lotion from swimmers.

Wildlife in the oceans are not even going to notice this, not at all! Fish have other far greater worries on their minds – like not becoming dinner for other fish.

So everybody really ought to just calm down about it. The whole thing has been overhyped a 1000 times.
The Gulf shores will get cleaned up and big mother earth will do the rest.

Source of ocean data: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml

UPDATE: Claudia Bradshaw of the BBC blogs and plans a radio show about it this evening. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/08/is_the_bp_gulf_oil_leak_the_mo.html#241138

I’d like to point out that the media focusses too much on the environmental disturbance of the oil spill and ignores the fact that a dozen people lost their lives in the accident. That’s the real tragedy.

And let’s not forget there have been far worse disasters.  167 people lost their lives on the Piper Alpha, making that in my view far worse than anything else in the oil industry to my knowledge. We ought to keep things in perspective.  The environment will rebound – lost lives don’t. How does someone’s business taking a temporary hit compare to loss of life? You coastal residents – you live in America, and so you’ll all get through it just fine. I know it’s tough, but count your blessings.

Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science

Posted August 3, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Climate Politics, IPCC, Scepticism

Here is an outstanding interview given by Prof. Hans von Storch, one of Germany’s leading climate scientists, in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt
(Germany’s equivalent to the Wall Street Journal) yesterday. Although a warmist, Professor Hans von Storch, much to his credit, has always kept an open ear and mind to serious climate sceptics. Here are some paraphrased excerpts of yesterday’s HB interview.HB: Are today’s hot and cold extreme events a sign of global warming?

HvS: It’s important to keep weather separated from climate. The media have certainly been focussing more on the weather. And unfortunately there are plenty of activists who like to connect heat waves and storms with climate change. And then these activists wonder why sceptics do the same when there’s a cold winter, using it as evidence against warming. It’s intellectually low. The fact of the matter is that it is trending warmer.

HB: Who recommends the scientists for participation in the IPCC?

HvS: In Germany it’s the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety and the Ministry of Research and Science in Bonn.  Here one can apply to participate, and this is what I’ve done. I offered to be a part of WG2. That’s where most of the errors occurred and I’d like to help out this time around to prevent such errors from happening again. My name has been sent, along with 80 others, to the IPCC in Switzerland.

HB:  The IPCC has come under fire because it dramatised climate change. How can we prevent such errors and what should quality control look like?

HvS: We have to look very closely at the literature that is handed to us. We have to be very careful with grey literature. It has to meet the highest scientific standards. Under no circumstances can literature from interest groups like reinsurers, coal industry or environmental groups be accepted.

HB:  And what about the WWF’s Amazon Rainforest report?

HvS: One cannot claim that this was a neutral scientific report. The IPCC made that mistake, and it cannot be blamed on the WWF, who have legitimate interests.

HB:  Could there be a benefit in allowing studies from interest groups?

HvS: I would not agree to that. In WG2 it would not be necessary to include material from interest groups. There’s already enough scientific literature at hand.

HB: And what about critical opinions from the scientific community? In the wake of the hacked e-mails from the CRU, some scientists complained that their publications had been blocked.

HvS: Here we have to differentiate between 2 kinds of gate-keeping. In the case of the Climate Research Unit, it is alleged, or indeed it was attempted, to keep an article with a contrary opinion from being published. Thus it was possible to assure that some results would not flow into the IPCC report.

In the IPCC report itself, minority opinions also must be allowed to be shown. We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.

HB: A report for the political decision makers probably has to be summarised: But isn’t that walking on a tight rope between what is scientifically exact and what the politicians understand?

HvS: A summary by the scientists for the politicians is in my opinion, not necessary. The summary emphasis takes place at a later time when the decision makers wish to present the matter to their clientel. The politicians that I’ve been involved with know what climate research is about –and especially on questions of adaptation. Personally I’m quite impressed by their competence.

HB: Last fall after errors were found in the IPCC report and the disclosure of the CRU e-mails,  climate science skidded off track and came under heavy fire.. What does this branch of science need to do in order to regain respect?

HsV: There are two strategies – and I’m afraid not much is happening for the most part. It is simply being claimed that evil media outlets and the fossil fuel industry are behind the unjust discrediting of the science. But this assertion simply is not sustainable. In the past, climate science attempted to work too much with catastrophe reports. But that bubble blew last fall. As a result, trust suffered immeasurably.

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain – failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

The second strategy us scientists have to consider is what role it is we wish to play. Are we supporters of a certain political process, or supporters of a certain brand of politics? I’m emphatically for the first, whereby we are the providers of special knowledge. We must not say that this is right, and that is wrong. This is not the competence of a climate scientist. We are merely experts in climate dynamics, and not specialists for competing political or ethical problems. Fundamentally a debate has to take place. That’s what climate scientists want, and that is what is expected from the public.

HB: Is there a danger that climate science falls on the wayside because the sceptics take up very popular slogans against the subject of anthropogenic climate change?

HsV: Many alarmists do the same– both sides don’t hold back much. We have to accept the challenges the sceptics present and step into the debate with them in order to win them over.

Many physicists, chemists, engineers or geologists have open questions about climate change which they view as unanswered. Here there is a considerable and legitimate potential at hand, which unfortunately is not addressed often enough. Instead, they sometimes get attacked and called sceptics, which only serves to aggravate them. It’s no way to build trust. We have to find a way back to a reasonable discussion.

HB: Do you have any hope that progress can be made with the next IPCC report with respect to climate protection, especially after the spectacular failure of Copenhagen?

HsV: I don’t expect that the next IPCC report will significantly improve the chances for a comprehensive climate protection program. The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it. The concept that science tells politics what’s necessary has failed. We have to give up on the idea of making an agreement from top down for 150 countries, and that they will abide by it. Change has to come from the bottom.

 

Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates

Posted August 3, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Hockey Team

!! ATTENTION !!
LIST HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE FOLLOWING SITE:

http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/

(Sorry)

Teachable Moments And Laid Off Envrionmental Reporters

Posted August 2, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Media / Bias

The warmists continue to stay in denial about why the public isn’t buying the hoax, refusing to come to terms with the sloppy climate data behind the flakey AGW theory. Instead they prefer pretending that the public’s lack of acceptance is due to faulty communication, as illustrated by this video of Rutgers University professor Tony Broccoli.

Read here at the Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media.

It has finally dawned on the warmists that they’ve seriously underestimated the public’s ability to understand the issue. They’re dismayed that the public was smart enough as a whole not to fall for the hoax.

But they still think they can maybe turn things around by “communicating better”. which only means packaging and delivering the hoax in a diferent way. Now warm and extreme events are going to be called “teachable moments”. Cold and non-warming events will remain natural variability, I suppose.

Well, it’s not going to work.
Once a person sees through a hoax, there’s no way to make them go back and believe it. And it gets a lot harder the next time around because the trust is gone.

Finally, you just have got to love the question from Peach to Broccoli:

Let’s say I’m a journalist who knows nothing about climate science because all of the environmental reporters at my paper or station have been laid off. Do you have tips for me on how to grapple with climate change?

My advice: Wake up from the hoax and find real stories you know something about so that you yourself do not join the rest of the redundant journalists. View them as “teachable moments”.

A White Washer

Posted August 1, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Uncategorized

Taking it easy today. Thought this was kind of funny. I’m surprised the thing ran as long as it did. See man throw brick in the machine when on high-spin.

Arctic Sea Ice Melt This July Slowest On Record – “Death Spiral” Is Dead

Posted July 31, 2010 by pgosselin
Categories: Arctic

Today I’m coming out a day early and declaring July 2010 as the slowest melting July since the AMSR-E satellite record has been kept. The once ballyhooed “death spiral” is dead.

Reminds me of that line in Tarantino’s cult film Pulp Fiction:

“Who’s Zed?”

“Zed? Zed is dead.”

At the end of June I recall seeing lots of headlines in the newspapers about a record Arctic sea ice melt occurring. Words like “alarming” and “unprecedented” were used liberally. The reports were splashed with pictures of polar bears for added effect.

One month later the media are completely silent. As the following graphic shows, this July’s Arctic sea ice melt was the slowest since this dataset has been kept.  Click Here.

Here are the numbers for the amount of July-melt in million square kilometers:
Year      6/30 to 7/30
2003           2.25
2004           2.08
2005           2.52
2006           2.11
2007           3.00
2008           2.45
2009           2.81
2010          1.85

It was the first time that July failed to reach 2 million sq. km. Now 2010 is on track to reach last year’s low. So far the Arctic has been cold this summer, one of the coldest summers north of 80°N on record, Click Here.

What’s the forecast?

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi projects a significant Arctic sea ice recovery in the couple of years ahead, flying in the face of predictions made by climate “scientists”. Bastardi’s claim is in line with the latest NOAA seasonal forecasts.

La Nina is strengthening and global temps, dare I say, are beginning a death-spiral of their own.