Showing posts from November, 2014

Take Your Pick of Lies About Ozone, Methane or Mercury

EPA is trying to remove the tiniest amounts of mercury in the environment, Congress passed a law eliminate the incandescent light bulb and required their replacement by fluorescent lights that contain mercury
s it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?

There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.
This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data conceal…


Airplanes of the future will have to carry lighter loads more often thanks to global warming, according to two scientists at Columbia University, New York. They reached their conclusion by creating models which predicted that by 2060 there will be more warm days but no commensurate technological advances in the aviation industry. The two scientists, Coffel and Horton, looked at a phenomenon known amongst pilots as ‘density altitude’, which affects a plane’s ability to take off. Essentially, on hotter days the air is less dense, making it harder to get a plane airborne. It is a particular problem at airports with short runways, as the planes will take longer to lift off. Commercial aviation overcomes the problem by issuing weight restrictions at the airport on particularly hot days. Coffel and Horton sought to predict how many more weight restricted days there will be by 2050-2070, and decided, through use of models, that the "number of weight restriction days between May and Sep…

Antarctic ice thicker than previously thought, study finds?

Groundbreaking 3D mapping of previously inaccessible areas of the Antarctic has found that the sea ice fringing the vast continent is thicker than previous thought. Two expeditions to Antarctica by scientists from the UK, USA and Australia analysed an area of ice spanning 500,000 metres squared, using a robot known as SeaBed. The survey discovered ice thickness average between 1.4m and 5.5m, with a maximum ice thickness of 16m. Scientists also discovered that 76% of the mapped ice was ‘deformed’ – meaning that huge slabs of ice have crashed into each other to create larger, denser bodies of ice. The team behind the research, published in Nature Geoscience, have hailed it as an important breakthrough in better understanding the vast icy wilderness. The findings will provide a starting point to further work to discover how ice thickness, as well as extent, is changing. Previously, measurements of Antarctic ice thickness were hindered by technological constraints. Ice breaking ships cou…

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assure us that today’s climate change computer models are “highly sophisticated?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assure us that today’s climate change computer models are “highly sophisticated” and able to predict global temperature and climate events with “amazing accuracy.” In reality, they are ridiculously off the mark. They don’t even come close to forecasting what has actually been happening in the real world. And no wonder.

The assumptions and algorithms built into the computer software focus almost entirely on carbon dioxide – and almost entirely ignore the numerous, powerful, interrelated NATURAL forces that drive climate change.

My article with climatology professor David Legates explains why the models are defective, how this came about (follow the money), and what should be done to fix the problem before we spend more money and promulgate more energy-strangling, job-killing laws and regulations based on the current crop of useless and misleading computer models.

Thank you for pos…

So now planting trees may increase global warming?

Trees affect our climate, and therefore our weather, in three primary ways: they lower temperatures, reduce energy usage and reduce or remove air pollutants. Each part of the tree contributes to climate control, from leaves to roots.

Leaves help turn down the thermostat. They cool the air through a process called evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is the combination of two simultaneous processes: evaporation and transpiration, both of which release moisture into the air. During evaporation, water is converted from liquid to vapor and evaporates from soil, lakes, rivers and even pavement. During transpiration, water that was drawn up through the soil by the roots evaporates from the leaves. It may seem like an invisible process to our eyes, but a large oak tree is capable of transpiring 40,000 gallons of water into the atmosphere during one year [source: USGS].

Under the RCP 4.5 scenar…

Global Warming Is Probably Boosting Lake-Effect Snows?

In the aftermath of a massive lake-effect snowfall event in western New York state on Tuesday, it’s worth asking: Is climate change playing a role here? Because, I mean, come on. Seventy—seven zero—inches, people. And another huge round is forecast for Thursday, by the way. Buffalo deserves answers.

The short answer is: yes. Global warming is probably juicing lake-effect snows, and we’ve had the data to prove it for quite some time.

What causes lake effect snow?Lake effect snow is caused when a very cold winter air mass flows over the relatively warmer waters of a large lake. Intense evaporation from the lake surface under these conditions forms convective clouds that cannot contain all of this water, and some of it falls back to the surface as snow.

Lake effect snow showers often organize themselves into bands or li…

GLOBAL WARMING’S ROUGH PATCH Climate hysterics go unheeded, ignored, frozen out.

media fanfare, Silicon Valley billionaire Tom Steyer set out earlier this year to put an end to global warming skepticism through campaign contributions to favored candidates. Estimates of what he and his PAC spent range from $57 million to $74 million. What did he get for the money? Zip. A Republican majority in the Senate, an enlarged one in the House, and more Republican governors and state legislatures than before. There will be quite a few global warming skeptics among them.
He must have been paying too much attention to some pre-election academic polls and little to what voters were saying about 2014 priorities. He and fellow Democrats were cheered by two polls that measured perceptions. One, by Stanford University last year, had 73 percent of respondents saying they believed that global warming had been taking place over the last 100 years. And, 81 percent said they think it poses a serious problem for the U.S.
A Yale Project on Climate Change Communications survey taken early…

Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie

magine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more. And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House. In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs. You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table. This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists. The motive: $22 billion per year. To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amo…