Summary: In this critical review of the scientific literature about fire, I describe how the false notion of a link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2 was ignited in 2006 by a fatally flawed article promoted in the science-trend-setting magazine Science, and spread like wildfire through the scientific literature and beyond, driven in part by high winds of climate modelling extravagance, while fortunately leaving large unburnt patches. There is no evidentiary basis for such a link. On the contrary, established knowledge about forest fires leads to the conclusion that dedication to teasing out such a link is preposterous: In the present circumstances starting in approximately 1900, the dominant effect is direct human impacts on land use, which causes global fire occurrences to be dramatically less than from the known long-term natural cycles (modern fire deficit). No special circumstances or regions have been correctly identified where forest fire behaviour can be attributed to CO2. Canada’s recent Fort McMurray fire is no exception. The claimed 7 g mean birth weight loss arising from mothers’ general exposure to CO2-driven southern California wildfires, like all such claims, is a product of statistical and conceptual overenthusiasm. I use concepts from the animal-behaviour scientific literature to explain how some scientists and their followers can get so carried away.…
New Study finds ‘global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall’ – ‘Slow shrinkage of Greenland Ice & affect pace of sea levels rise’
BUFFALO, N.Y. — The history of Greenland’s snowfall is chronicled in an unlikely place: the remains of aquatic plants that died long ago, collecting at the bottom of lakes in horizontal layers that document the passing years.
Using this ancient record, scientists are attempting to reconstruct how Arctic precipitation fluctuated over the past several millennia, potentially influencing the size of the Greenland Ice Sheet as the Earth warmed and cooled.
An early study in this field finds that snowfall at one key location in western Greenland may have intensified from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.
While more research needs to be done to draw conclusions about ancient precipitation patterns across Greenland, the new results are consistent with the hypothesis that global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall — a trend that would slow the shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet and, ultimately, affect the pace at which sea levels rise.
“As the Arctic gets warmer, there is a vigorous scientific debate about how stable the Greenland Ice Sheet will be. How quickly will it lose mass?” says lead researcher Elizabeth Thomas, PhD, an assistant professor of geology in the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences who completed much of the study as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“Climate models and observations suggest that as temperatures rise, snowfall over Greenland could increase as sea ice melts and larger areas of the ocean are exposed for evaporation. This would slow the decline of the ice sheet, because snow would add to its mass,” Thomas says. “Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis. We see evidence that the ratio of snow to rain was unusually high from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, which is what you would expect to see if sea ice loss causes snowfall to increase in the region.”
The research was published on May 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the
Al Gore: Trump’s position on climate change ‘should concern everyone’ – Gore claims he’s green: ‘I do walk the talk’
“I’m not Pollyanna-ish, but I do think that there is still some basis for hope.”
Trump has called climate change a hoax created by China.
“President [Jimmy] Carter said that he hopes [Trump] will be malleable, so I don’t know,” Gore said before laughing.
Gore called the tone of the presidential campaign in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee “unusual.”
“I’m one of the millions who sometimes just does a double take: ‘Whoa, what was that?”’ Gore said.
Credits: NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey
Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski here decided to investigate this a bit more closely, and found that the data supporting such claims are “paltry” and that the claim itself is mostly “a myth”. He points out that the same is true with all the other recently alleged climate change-caused disasters, such as 5 Pacific islands sinking, the Syria conflict, hurricanes, etc.
In fact the practice of blaming climate change for natural disasters has been so widespread that Bojanowski, a geologist, now terms it “a ritual”.
Main cause: El Niño induced weather
The Spiegel journalist writes that the reason behind the fires was mainly an unusual, high latitude low which elevated temperatures 17°C above the mean and brought with it high winds which acted to fan the flames. The dry conditions leading up to a forest fire outbreak, Bojanowski reports, were due to the El Niño which disrupted global weather patterns.
Bojanowski next provides a chart depicting Canada forest fire activity over the past 25 years. The trend: no real increase in forest fire activity. If anything the overall trend for the number of fires is slightly downward. Though the area of the fires have jumped, Bojanowski suspects this may have something to do with more industry taking place in forests. Here he also cites results from Russian scientists.
Bojanowki makes other points:
- The IPCC sees no increased drought in Canada.
- Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.
On the claims climate change was to blame for the devastating forest fires in Canada, he concludes that “there isn’t any evidence for this claim“.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/18/a-myth-spiegel-journalist-douses-alarmist-claim-alberta-fires-caused-by-climate-change/#sthash.I09tlkip.dpuf…
Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’
A Monday Politico article claims Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump could secretly care about global warming based on an application to build a seawall to protect a golf resort.
In reality, this only shows Trump uses global warming alarmism to benefit his business.
A permit application for the wall by Trump International Golf Links Ireland which was reviewed by Politico explicitly cites global warming and erosion due to rising sea levels as a justification to build the structure. However, the application was prepared by an Irish environmental consulting group, not Trump’s business. The application clearly uses global warming to add urgency to a permit application to build a seawall which will protect his property from erosion and storms.
Trump’s previous attempts to build the seawall failed to win special approval from Ireland’s national government, so his business resubmitted the application citing global warming as the motivating factor. The seawall would consist of 200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach in front of Trump’s property.
The real estate mogul has a long history of skepticism about global warming. Trump has taken to Twitter to call global warming a “hoax,” “mythical,” a “con job,” “nonexistent,” and “bullshit.” Trump also has a long history of questioning the benefits of politically popular green power in favor of conventional energy sources. He views policies created to fight global warming as hurting U.S. manufacturing competitiveness with China. Trump has also vowed to “at a minimum” renegotiate the United Nation’s December’s Paris climate deal.
Trump has also expressed extreme skepticism of wind and solar power which environmentalists claim are the best way to prevent global warming.
“I will say wind is a problem because it’s very expensive to build the towers, very, very expensive, and as you know when you have 40-dollar oil, it’s not economics, so they’re going to have to do a subsidy, otherwise wind isn’t going to work,” Trump said when pointing out problems with wind energy to The Washington Post.
Trump even sued to prevent the construction of a new wind farm in Scotland which would have spoiled the view of a luxury golf resort he owns. Trump publicly stated he would stop development of the resort if the wind farm project went ahead.
Trump has vehemently opposed wind power on Twitter, saying “nobody wants wind …
A 2014 U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Staff Report titled “How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA” describes a powerful far-left political machine that conducts lobbying under the guise of “charitable giving.”
Established by about a dozen prominent foundations, the elite group channels huge sums of money through a close knit network of hundreds of nonprofit organizations to churn out propaganda disguised as science and news.
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/EDF-EPA-NRDC/2016/05/23/id/730176/#ixzz49VEhET2r
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!…
A study published online Monday from the University of Alberta found Arctic tundra is much more resilient to global warming than scientists often argue.
Instead of amplifying warming effects as previously feared, the study found that a rising number of shrubs in the tundra will cause the region to absorb 40 percent less energy, modestly slowing global warming.
“The worry was that as the tundra warmed and increased in shrub vegetation, it would absorb more solar radiation, which would cause more warming,” Dr. Scott Williamson, the lead author of the study, said in a press release. “But what we have found is that this solar energy was increasingly reflected by shrubs during the growing season as canopies became denser.”
The study determined that melting snow and ice in the arctic and tundra will not create a self-sustaining feedback loop that would make global warming much worse. The idea that even small temperature increases could lead to a dangerous feedback loop, which would cause severe global warming, had been a key worry of The Sierra Club and other environmental groups. The study mitigates green concerns that the increased shrub growth over the next few decades would absorb more solar radiation and trigger feedback loops which would cause huge temperature increases.