Google+ Followers

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Cartoon - Climate Change Threats

Obama Says Global Warming Is a 'Major' Problem, But ISIS 'Not an Existential Threat'

Obama Says Global Warming Is a 'Major' Problem, But ISIS 'Not an Existential Threat' - "Groups like ISIL can't destroy us, they can't defeat us," President Obama told reporters in Argentina on Wednesday. "They're not an existential threat to us," he said.

A few sentences later, he described climate change as a "major" problem.

On a day when morgues and hospitals in Brussels were still trying to identify the dead and the grievously injured, Americans among them, Obama described the terrorists as "vicious killers and murderers who have perverted one of the world's great religions, and their primary power, in addition to killing lives, is to strike fear in our societies, to disrupt our societies."

Saturday, March 19, 2016

So-called "greenhouse gas effect" of CO2 does not exist at all! “Carbon Pollution” Claptrap?

When will the governments (and their all too numerous “useful idiots” of the media) state the unadulterated truth to the people?
Carbon (like in wood, coal, oil, natural gas) is an energy source—not a “pollutant”
Presumably, any government has the right to levy a tax on anything they want. In that sense, a tax on “carbon” or any energy source would be no different than a tax on food or clothing; it’s all coming out of your pocket. However, the right to levy taxes does not give government a right to call “carbon” (by their interpretation really meaning “carbon dioxide”) as a form of “pollution.”

Carbon Tax

Whether Canada’s recently elected Prime Minister or any of the country’s provincial premiers think that a “carbon tax” is a good thing or not is all irrelevant. Governments always have the option to place levies and taxes on anything they choose. Whether the people they claim to represent and work for will find such charges acceptable or not can be gauged on the outcome of the next general election.
One thing that I cannot excuse, however, is for any government that claims to live by common standards of communication and honesty, to fail in providing facts and truthful information to its citizenry. And, quite frankly, IMHO, the previous government of this great country of Canada had seven years’ time to set the record straight but missed the opportunity. They had all the resources necessary to educate the citizenry to respect the country’s reliance on natural resources and feel good about our “carbon.”
Yes, dear government, you have the right to tax the hell out of us poor schmucks but you do not-I repeat, you do not - have the right to tell us lies, neither about “carbon pollution” nor anything else!

But Lies Abound-With no End in Sight

But lies abound, you can find them almost daily in the news, for example, when (presumably well-meaning) journalists or politicians talk about carbon dioxide (CO2) as “pollution.” The visuals that frequently go along with such news reports are equally false when they show steam rising from cooling towers.
For sure, if you take a high contrast picture of a cloud of steam rising from such a structure against a bright sun-lit background, it will appear very dark in comparison. Just like when it’s dark on even the sunniest day and high in the atmosphere a cloud moves in to block the sunshine. However, neither steam nor CO2 are forms of pollution. From the cooling towers only steam is emanating that eventually may turn into rain. In contrast, so-called “smoke stacks” do emit CO2 (an invisible gas) but true smoke (fine particulates in the air) has largely been removed by modern electrostatic precipitation and scrubbing technologies.
I can never figure out whether the reporters or their photographers are that stupid or simply don’t care about understanding such things. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a vital constituent of our atmosphere. At a concentration of 0.04% not only does it have room to grow, it helps the plants grow better and faster and does not have any significant effects on the earth’s weather and climate.
But all that knowledge does not prevent governments to dream up a need for a carbon tax either directly or indirectly via some cap and trade mechanism. Of course, any such new tax, so we are given to believe, will help to “save the climate.”
However, the climate does not care about CO2. It’s mainly controlled by the radiation from the sun and the water cycle on Earth.


The Sun’s Radiation

The earth receives electromagnetic (EM) waves from everywhere in the stellar space, most of the energy comes from the sun, more exactly its surface. And that is of vital consequence for all life on earth. If the sun were to cool down, the earth would rapidly turn into a ball of ice. It happened before, repeatedly, when large parts of the continents were covered by solid ice-one mile high!
While the sun’s interior is thought to be millions of degrees hot, its surface is comparatively cool, a mere 6,000 °C (10,000 °F) or so. As a result, it emits a large amount of radiation over a wide spectrum of EM wavelengths. The shorter the wavelength of that radiation, the higher is the energy of the EM energy. Really short-wavelength “gamma-ray” type radiation also arrives on the earth from other sources in space. That very energetic radiation penetrates far into soil and can even be detected in underground mines or deep inside Cheop’s pyramid.
Most of the sun’s radiation is less energetic, ranging from short wavelength ultraviolet rays to much longer wavelengths on the other side of the (for our eyes) visible spectrum. The latter is only a small fraction of the whole electromagnetic wave (EMW) range stretching over many orders of magnitude, ranging from low energy AM radio waves to high energy gamma rays, as you can glean from the figure nearby (source: Wikipedia).
Range of the electromagnetic spectrum covering 18 orders of magnitude; source: Wikipedia.
As you can see, the EMW spectrum covers many orders of magnitude. Theoretically it is open-ended on both sides but practically the earth gets most of the sun’s EMW energy in the range of only within one order of that energy range. You can clearly see that from the next graph which the solar radiation spectrum as a function of the wavelength. Nearly all the visible light, ultraviolet and infrared radiation energy from the sun is found within that small range.
The sun’s EMW radiation spectrum; source: Wikipedia.
In that graph the yellow area shows the solar spectrum and the red areas the various energy absorption bands of the oxygen (O2 and O3), water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules in the earth’s atmosphere. Clearly, CO2 is not only a minor constituent of the atmosphere (at 0.04%) but also a negligible absorber of the whole range of EMW energy received on the earth’s surface. What about the “greenhouse gas effect” ascribed to that trace gas CO2?

The Greenhouse Gas Effect

That so-called “greenhouse gas effect” of CO2 does not exist at all! While the earth’s surface does radiate low(er)-energy (i.e., infrared) EMW back towards the universe and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb such infrared EMW of a particular, narrow energy-band, it gets soon irradiated out further. At most, the CO2 can delay that radiation for a short time but it cannot alter the ratio between incoming and outgoing energy fluxes.
There is even extraterrestrial “experimental” proof for that: planet Mars has an atmosphere that consists of 95% CO2 (versus 0.04% on earth). By the “CO2-greenhouse gas effect wisdom,” the night-side surface temperature of Mars should be similar to that of the day-side (approximately PLUS 30 °C). In fact though, the surface temperature on the night-side is well below MINUS 100 °C, just like on the Moon which has no atmosphere at all.
In other words: a CO2-rich atmosphere or none at all makes hardly any difference!
If that doesn’t convince you, perhaps you are interested in some swampland in the Everglades or “crater-view real estate” on the Moon—serious inquiries only, please.
Image result for Al Gore Liar

Caling Al Gore , Ring Ring Ring IS Your Phone Off The Hook? Al Gore? Take a Look at This Arctic Scene — Seconds Later, Nuke Submarine Surfaces & Breaks Through the Ice,

Caling Al Gore , Ring Ring Ring IS Your Phone Off The Hook? Al Gore? Take a Look at This Arctic Scene — Seconds Later, Nuke Submarine Surfaces & Breaks Through the Ice,

A video posted online Friday captured a nuclear submarine break through several feet of solid ice to surface in the Arctic Circle.
As part of the Navy’s annual Ice Exercise (ICEX), the 362-foot long USS Hartford surfaced through the ice.
— Scroll down for  video —
Image source: Screen grab
Image source: Screen grab
Image source: Screen grab
Image source: Screen grab
Drone footage provided a view of the vessel from above.
Image source: Screen grab
Image source: Screen grab
“Submarine operations as part of ICEX provide the necessary training to maintain a working knowledge of an extremely challenging region that is very different than any other ocean in the world,” Cmdr. Scott Luers, ice camp officer-in-tactical-command and deputy director of operations for Commander Submarine Forces, said in a statement to “Navigating, communicating and maneuvering are all different in an arctic environment as there are surfaces both above and below a submarine.”
“ICEX 2016 is our continued commitment to the development of undersea warfare capabilities and tactics in all areas of the world,” echoed Rear Adm. Jeff Trussler, commander, Undersea Warfighting Development Center. “Our superiority in delivering effects in and from the undersea domain to the operational commanders is dependent on the regular exercise and demonstration of these capabilities.”

Friday, March 18, 2016

Obama-Backed Solar Plant Could Be Shut Down For Not Producing Enough Energy

 Image result for obama failed

California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down after years of under-producing electricity — not to mention the plant was blinding pilots flying over the area and incinerating birds.

The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would.

Germany mulls ‘mammoth’ 95% cut in emissions by 2050

 Image result for nazi green party

Germany is drawing up an action plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 95% from 1990 levels by 2050.

Drawing on a public consultation launched last year, the environment ministry expects to present the proposal to cabinet before the summer recess.

It is a “mammoth task with profound implications,” environment minister Barbara Hendricks said at a conference in Berlin. “No sector will be excluded from this transition.”

The long term target is at the higher end of the 80-95% range agreed across the EU, based on holding global temperature rise to 2C.

Hendricks stressed the importance of the aspirational 1.5C limit on global warming agreed at last year’s UN climate talks in Paris.

“There are places in the world where the extent of global warming can mean the difference between survival and destruction,” she said.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

No Global Warming For 58 Years: What The Government Is Hiding

Junk Science: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seemed eager in January to declare that 2015 was the hottest year on record. But they left out data that tell a somewhat different story.
When comparing temperatures, it would seem instructive to include a lengthy timeline. That’s not what happened, though, when NASA and NOAA came together to scare the public with their announcement, according to a skeptical website.
“In their ‘hottest year ever’ press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58-year-long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph,” says Real Science.
Why would NOAA do such a thing? Because the fuller story contradicts the man-made global warming narrative. The government was “hiding the rest of the data,” says Real Science, which “showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.”
Indeed, when temperature data going back to 1957 are attached to the front of the 1979-2015 trend line, a different story materializes. Temperatures fall from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, then rise and fall throughout the next half century.
So, what does all this indicate?
One, federal agencies have a strong interest in keeping the climate change scare alive. It means more budget and research dollars for them, and it also increases Washington’s power, as the solutions offered to stop global warming are always based on handing more authority to government.
Two, it’s really impossible to say what the real global temperature is year to year, given the many different ways to measure it, the problems created by heat islands and the poor placements of weather stations. And there is also the data tampering by government functionaries and academics who are obsessed with proving something that can never be proved.
NOAA is not the only government outfit that appears to be trying to conceal the larger truth. It was researchers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit who wanted to “hide the decline” in temperature data, and NASA has been involved, as well, in making “adjustments” to the raw data which might, or might not be, trustworthy. Best to bet on the latter.
“This pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder,” saysReal Science.
Meanwhile, no one knows what the future will bring, especially those who have tried to alter or cover up the past.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Cruz: As President, I’d prosecute Hillary on e-mail server if Lynch takes a pass


Does this beat four years of Supreme Court nominations when it comes to choosing the nominee for the Republican Party? Ted Cruz has to hope so. Stumping through Florida, Cruz told Sean Hannity at a rally interview to be broadcast tonight that if Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch aren’t up for prosecuting Hillary Clinton in the e-mail scandal, he certainly will be:
Appearing during an Orlando rally that also served as an interview to air on Fox News’s “Hannity,” host Sean Hannity asked Cruz if he’d continue to go after Clinton.
“Let’s say that the FBI makes a criminal referral to the Justice Department and it is ignored. And you become president, the statute of limitations had not passed — would you aggressively go after Hillary Clinton if the FBI believes she committed felonies?” Hannity said.

“Absolutely yes, and there is a principle here that matters,” Cruz said.
“This country was founded on the principle that no one is above the law, and whether it is the Clintons or whether it is some in the Republican Party who think they are above the law, that the law doesn’t apply to them, that’s not how it works.”
With Cruz, voters would get both — conservative SCOTUS picks and a Hillary prosecution to boot. That’s almost certainly true of Marco Rubio as well, and John Kasich, but would either be true of Donald Trump? Cruz has already attacked Trump for a lack of depth in judicial philosophy and for his continued support for the Clintons over the years. This is a subtle reminder from Cruz that his prime competitor is a lot more cozy with the Washington power structure than he is.
Speaking of which, has Hannity asked this question of Trump?

Of course, there are a couple of caveats to this, the biggest of which is that a federal grand jury or the FBI would have to produce a referral first. Cruz knows this too, and Hannity’s careful to preface it that way. Otherwise, this would look much more like a president using the prosecutorial power of the DoJ to punish political enemies. Just as Obama and Lynch need a clean way to ignore the scandal through a lack of referral, a President Cruz would need a clean way to pursue it through a non-political process. Otherwise, both look like abuses of power.

The question may be moot anyway. John wrote earlier about Bryan Pagliano’s “devastating” testimony in the FBI investigation after the DoJ granted him immunity, and that should have Hillary very concerned about her immediate future. Assuming this Fox report is true, Pagliano’s immunity indicates that he’s not a reluctant witness, but just one who knows he’s in too deep for his own good. That doesn’t necessarily guarantee that Hillary face an indictment down the road, but it certainly puts it on the table in a much more substantial manner than previous. If that comes before a President Cruz can take the oath of office, so much the better — but that depends on the same conditions set in the first question: a criminal referral from the FBI or a grand-jury indictment.

Friday, March 11, 2016

New Report Says Science Can Estimate Influence of Climate Change on Some Types of Extreme Events Here’s a photo of “science” in action:

New Report Says Science Can Estimate Influence of Climate Change on Some Types of Extreme Events Here’s a photo of “science” in action:


The media release is below.
Read the report here.
March 11, 2016
New Report Says Science Can Estimate Influence of Climate Change on Some Types of Extreme Events
WASHINGTON — It is now possible to estimate the influence of climate change on some types of extreme events, such as heat waves, drought, and heavy precipitation, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The relatively new science of extreme event attribution has advanced rapidly in the past decade owing to improvements in the understanding of climate and weather mechanisms and the analytical methods used to study specific events, but more research is required to increase its reliability, ensure that results are presented clearly, and better understand smaller scale and shorter duration weather extremes such as hurricanes and thunderstorms, said the committee that conducted the study and wrote the report.
“An increasingly common question after an extreme weather event is whether climate change ‘caused’ that event to occur,” said committee chair David W. Titley, professor of practice in meteorology and founding director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the Pennsylvania State University. “While that question remains difficult to answer given all the factors that affect an individual weather event, we can now say more about how climate change has affected the intensity or likelihood of some events.”
Extreme event attribution is a fairly new area of climate science that explores the influence of human-caused climate change on individual or classes of extreme events compared with other factors, such as natural sources of climate and weather variability. The science typically estimates how the intensity or frequency of an event has been altered by climate change and provides information that can be used to assess and manage risk, guide climate adaptation strategies, and determine greenhouse gas emissions targets. For example, in the wake of a devastating event, communities may need to make a decision about whether to rebuild or relocate and need input on how much more likely or more severe this type of event is expected to become in the future.
Some extreme event attribution studies use observational records to compare a recent event with similar events that occurred in the past, when the influence of human-caused climate change was much less. Other studies use climate and weather models to compare the meteorological conditions associated with an extreme event in simulated worlds with and without human-caused climate changes. The report finds that results are most reliable when multiple, different methods are used that incorporate both a long-term historical record of observations and models to estimate human influences on a given event.
The most dependable attribution findings are for those events related to an aspect of temperature, for which there is little doubt that human activity has caused an observed change in the long-term trend, the report notes. For example, a warmer climate increases the likelihood of extremely hot days and decreases the likelihood of extremely cold days. Long-term warming is also linked to more evaporation that can both exacerbate droughts and increase atmospheric moisture available to storms, leading to more severe heavy rainfall and snowfall events. However, temperature alone does not fully determine the probabilities of extreme events. Attributing specific extreme events to long-term climate change may be complicated by factors such as natural long-term fluctuations in the ocean surface temperatures.
Statements about event attribution are sensitive to the way the questions are framed and the context within which they are posed, the report says. For example, choices need to be made about defining the duration of the event, the geographic area impacted, what physical variables to study, what metrics to examine, and what observations or models to use. These assumptions and choices can lead to large differences in the interpretation of the results, and should be clearly stated.
The committee supported continued advancements in weather and climate modeling, and noted that focused research on weather and climate extremes would improve event attribution capabilities. In addition, community standards for attributing classes of extreme events would make it easier to compare results from multiple studies. Objective event selection and definition criteria could reduce potential selection bias and help elucidate how individual events fit into the broader picture of climate change.
Event attribution is retrospective, but the report calls for the development of predictive weather-to-climate forecasts of future extreme events that account for natural variability and human influences. This could be based on concepts and practices within the Numerical Weather Prediction framework, including routine verification of forecasts using observations and rigorous approaches to improving the forecast system.
The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Heising Simons Foundation, Litterman Family Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Arthur L. Day Fund of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. The Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. For more information, visit A committee roster follows.
Jennifer Burris Olson, Media Consultant
Rebecca Ray, Media Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail
Twitter: @theNASEM
RSS feed:
Copies of Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change are available from the National Academies Press on the Internet at or by calling 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution
David W. Titley (chair)
Rear Admiral (retired)
U.S. Navy; and
Professor, Practice in Meteorology
Department of Meteorology, and
Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
Pennsylvania State University
University Park
Gabriele Hegerl
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Katharine L. Jacobs
Executive Director
Arizona Water Institute
Philip W. Mote
Director, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute,
Director, Oregon Climate Services, and
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Christopher J. Paciorek
Associate Research Statistician and Lecturer
Department of Statistics
University of California
J. Marshall Shepherd
Professor and Director, Program in Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Geography
University of Georgia
Theodore G. Shepherd
Grantham Professor of Climate Science
Department of Meteorology
University of Reading
Reading, United Kingdom
Adam H. Sobel
Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Columbia University
New York City
John E. Walsh
President’s Professor of Global Climate Change
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska
Francis Zwiers
Research Scientist and Chief of the Division
Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis
MSC University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia
Lauren Everett
Co-Staff Officer
Katherine C. Thomas
Co-Staff Officer

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Claim: Higher ozone, lower humidity levels associated with dry eye disease? Really? More Liberal Bull Shit Chronic Dry Eye (CDE) disease can occur in anyone, but people 50 years of age or older are at greatest risk of developing it.





Who Gets Chronic Dry Eye, and Why Do They Get It?

Chronic Dry Eye (CDE) disease can occur in anyone, but people 50 years of age or older are at greatest risk of developing it. While Chronic Dry Eye is more common in women, it also occurs in men.
In many people, Chronic Dry Eye can be caused by or associated with:

Growing older

  • Chronic Dry Eye disease is more common in people 50 years of age or older

Hormonal changes

  • Chronic Dry Eye disease is associated with hormonal changes, which are very common among women who are experiencing menopause or who are postmenopausal


  • Chronic Dry Eye disease may involve inflammation:
    • Inflammation may affect the glands, which can decrease tear production
    • Inflammation can also affect the glands’ ability to create and maintain the lipid layer, or top layer, of the tear film. The lipid layer slows tear evaporation

Other conditions

  • Chronic Dry Eye may be associated with other eye or health conditions. Some of these include:
    • Glaucoma
    • Diabetes
    • Lupus
    • Rheumatoid arthritis
    • Sjögren's syndrome

External conditions that can aggravate Chronic Dry Eye symptoms

Certain external conditions can aggravate symptoms of Chronic Dry Eye (CDE). These include:
  • Pollen and allergies
  • Dry air or wind
  • Dust or smoke
  • Working on the computer
  • Wearing contact lenses
The only way to find out if you have Chronic Dry Eye is to talk to your eye doctor. He or she can examine your eyes and review your options.

Claim: Higher ozone, lower humidity levels associated with dry eye disease? Really? More Liberal Bull Shit , Dry eye can be a side effect of some medications, including antihistamines, nasal decongestants, tranquilizers, certain blood pressure medicines, Parkinson’s medications, birth control pills and anti-depressants.






Facts About Dry Eye | National Eye Institute

What are the causes of dry eye?

Dry eye can be a temporary or chronic condition:
  • Dry eye can be a side effect of some medications, including antihistamines, nasal decongestants, tranquilizers, certain blood pressure medicines, Parkinson’s medications, birth control pills and anti-depressants. 
  • Skin disease on or around the eyelids can result in dry eye. 
  • Diseases of the glands in the eyelids, such as meibomian gland dysfunction, can cause dry eye. 
  • Dry eye can occur in women who are pregnant. 
  • Women who are on hormone replacement therapy may experience dry eye symptoms. Women 
  • taking only estrogen are 70 percent more likely to experience dry eye, whereas those taking estrogen and progesterone have a 30 percent increased risk of developing dry eye. 
  • Dry eye can also develop after the refractive surgery known as LASIK. These symptoms generally last three to six months, but may last longer in some cases. 
  • Dry eye can result from chemical and thermal burns that scar the membrane lining the eyelids and covering the eye. 
  • Allergies can be associated with dry eye. 
  • Infrequent blinking, associated with staring at computer or video screens, may also lead to dry eye symptoms. 
  • Both excessive and insufficient dosages of vitamins can contribute to dry eye. 
  • Homeopathic remedies may have an adverse impact on a dry eye condition. 
  • Loss of sensation in the cornea from long-term contact lens wear can lead to dry eye. 
  • Dry eye can be associated with immune system disorders such as Sjögren’s syndrome, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Sjögren’s leads to inflammation and dryness of the mouth, eyes, and other mucous membranes. It can also affect other organs, including the kidneys, lungs and blood vessels. 
  • Dry eye can be a symptom of chronic inflammation of the conjunctiva, the membrane lining the eyelid and covering the front part of the eye, or the lacrimal gland. Chronic conjunctivitis can be caused by certain eye diseases, infection, exposure to irritants such as chemical fumes and tobacco smoke, or drafts from air conditioning or heating. 
  • If the surface area of the eye is increased, as in thyroid disease when the eye protrudes forward or after cosmetic surgery if the eyelids are opened too widely, dry eye can result.

So where was all this eye “disease” in, say, Los Angeles in 1955 when ozone levels could be eight or so times higher than today’s standards?

The media release is below.

Higher ozone, lower humidity levels associated with dry eye disease

In a study published online by JAMA Ophthalmology, Dong Hyun Kim, M.D., of Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea and colleagues examined the associations between outdoor air pollution and dry eye disease in a Korean population.

Air pollution is an important public health concern. According to the World Health Organization, most significant constituents of air pollution include particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Ambient levels of air pollution are known to be associated with a wide range of adverse health effects that particularly affect the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Ocular surface abnormalities related to air pollution are thought to be a subtype of dry eye disease (DED); however, to date, there has been no large-scale study evaluating an association between air pollution and DED that includes multiple air pollutants.

This study included data on 16,824 participants in the fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted from January 2010 to December 2012. Dry eye disease was defined as previously diagnosed by an ophthalmologist or the presence of frequent ocular pain and discomfort, such as feeling dry or irritated. Outdoor air pollution measurements (average annual humidity, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <10 µm [PM10], ozone, and nitrogen dioxide levels) were collected from 283 national monitoring stations in South Korea. The researchers found that decreased humidity levels and increased ozone levels were associated with DED, after controlling for known risk factors such as sex, dyslipidemia, thyroid disease, subjective health awareness, and previous ocular surgery. "These results, however, are just associations and do not definitively indicate a cause-and-effect relationship between DED and outdoor air pollution." PM10, one of the leading public health issues, was not associated with DED. The authors speculate that possible explanations for this finding is that reflex tearing might help flush PM from the ocular surface, or that environmental PM10 levels currently in Korea are not high enough to induce adverse effects on the ocular surface. ###

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Claim: Food production causing global warming?

So you know what must be done.
The media release is below.
Greenhouse gas ‘bookkeeping’ turned on its head
Washington, D.C.–For the first time scientists have looked at the net balance of the three major greenhouse gases–carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide–for every region of Earth’s landmasses. They found surprisingly, that human-induced emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from ecosystems overwhelmingly surpass the ability of the land to soak up carbon dioxide emissions, which makes the terrestrial biosphere a contributor to climate change. The results published in the March 10, 2016, Nature, revises our understanding of how human activity contributes to global warming.

Co-author Anna Michalak of Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology remarked, “Typically we think of land as a net ‘sink’ of carbon dioxide. But we found that the sign of the human-induced impact is reversed if we also take into account methane and nitrous oxide.”

The scientists looked at the so-called biogenic fluxes or flow of the three greenhouse gases on land that were caused by human activities over the last three decades and subtracted out emissions that existed “naturally” during pre-industrial times. Biogenic sources include gas emissions from plants, animals, microbes, and the like. They were interested in finding out how human activities have changed the biogenic fluxes of these gases. Historically, such emissions have included methane emissions from wetlands and nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Human activity and human-caused climate change have changed the magnitude of these fluxes, however, as well as added new categories of biogenic fluxes such as those resulting from sewage, cattle, and fertilizer use.

The scientists first added up all biogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, then subtracted out those that occurred naturally prior to human intervention to get to the net amount. The study did not include non-biogenic gas emissions from activities like fossil fuel burning or natural gas production.
The team discovered that the human impact on biogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions far outweighed the human impact on the terrestrial uptake of carbon dioxide, meaning that humans have caused the terrestrial biosphere to further contribute to warming. In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change. This runs counter to conventional thinking based on previous studies, which had focused only on carbon dioxide and had emphasized the climate change mitigating effect of human impacts terrestrial carbon uptake.

The scientists found that greenhouse gas emissions vary considerably by region. Interestingly, the human-induced emissions of the gases in Southern Asia, including China and India, had a larger net warming effect compared to other areas. Southern Asia contains some 90% of the world’s rice fields and more than 60% of the world’s nitrogen fertilizer use. Thus, methane emissions in this region are largely from rice cultivation and livestock, while man-made fertilizers are a major source of nitrous oxide.

Lead author of the study, Hanqin Tain director of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University said, “This finding reveals for the first time that human activities have transformed the land biosphere to a contributor to climate change.”
“This study should serve as a wake-up call to governments, policymakers, and individuals around the world,” said Michalak. “We must expand our focus and devise strategies that target the biogenic emissions of these other greenhouse gases if we are to change the course of climate change.”

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Claim: Shipwrecks, tree rings reveal Caribbean hurricanes in buccaneer era? So Your Telling Me That In 1492 Christopher Columbus did not deal with Caribbean Hurricanes Real?? Were Are The Recored For The Vatican, You think They Have Them?


On August 3, 1492, Columbus set sail from Palos, Spain, with three small ships, the Santa Maria, the Pinta, and the Nina. On October 12, the expedition reached land, probably Watling Island in the Bahamas. Later that month, Columbus sighted Cuba

Shipwrecks, tree rings reveal Caribbean hurricanes in buccaneer era

Records of Spanish shipwrecks combined with tree-ring records show the period 1645 to 1715 had the fewest Caribbean hurricanes since 1500, according to new University of Arizona-led research. The study is the first to use shipwrecks as a proxy for hurricane activity.

The researchers found a 75 percent reduction in the number of Caribbean hurricanes from 1645-1715, a time with little sunspot activity and cool temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

“We’re the first to use shipwrecks to study hurricanes in the past,” said lead author Valerie Trouet, an associate professor in the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. “By combining shipwreck data and tree-ring data, we are extending the Caribbean hurricane record back in time and that improves our understanding of hurricane variability.”

Although global climate models indicate hurricanes will be more intense as the climate warms, those models are not yet good at making regional predictions, Trouet said. Learning more about how hurricanes correlated with climate for the past 500 years may lead to better regional predictions of hurricanes.

“We’re providing information that can help those models become more precise,” she said.
What is now the U.S. National Hurricane Center did not begin keeping records of Caribbean hurricanes until 1850, she said. Researchers have used lake sediments to develop a record of hurricanes over the past centuries, but these data provide only century-level resolution.

The new research provides an annual record of Caribbean hurricanes going back to the year 1500 – shortly after Christopher Columbus first reached the Caribbean.

Ship traffic between Spain and the Caribbean became commonplace. Spain kept detailed records of the comings and goings of ships–at the time, ships returning with gold and other goods provided the income for the Spanish kingdom. Storms were the major reason that ships wrecked in the Caribbean.
Figuring out how climate change affects hurricane activity is important for emergency management planning. For U.S. hurricanes from 1970 to 2002, other investigators estimated the damages cost $57 billion in 2015 dollars.

The team’s paper, “Shipwreck Rates Reveal Caribbean Tropical Cyclone Response to Past Radiative Forcing,” is scheduled to be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of March 7.

Trouet’s co-authors are Grant Harley of the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg and Marta Domínguez-Delmás of the University of Santiago de Compostela in Lugo, Spain.

The University of Southern Mississippi, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and an Agnese N. Haury Visiting Scholar Fellowship supported the research.

Trouet and her coauthors hatched the idea for the study while sitting on the patio of Tucson’s Hotel Congress. The three scientists were attending the Second American Dendrochronology Conference, which was held in Tucson in 2013.

Harley mentioned he had tree-ring records from the Florida Keys that went back to 1707 – and that the tree rings revealed when hurricanes had occurred. The growth of trees is retarded in years with hurricanes. That reduction in growth is reflected in the tree’s annual rings.

Domínguez-Delmás, a dendroarchaelogist, figures out when Spanish ships were built by retrieving wood from shipwrecks and dating the wood. Trouet wondered whether the tree-ring record of Florida hurricanes could be combined with shipwreck data to create a long-term history of Caribbean hurricanes.

The team discovered that a book used by treasure hunters, Robert F. Marx’s book “Shipwrecks in the Americas: a complete guide to every major shipwreck in the Western Hemisphere,” had a detailed record of Caribbean shipwrecks. The team also used “Shipwrecks of Florida: A comprehensive listing,” by Steven D. Singer.

The books, combined with ship logs, allowed the researchers to compile a list of Spanish ships known to have been wrecked by storms during the hurricane seasons of 1495-1825. The team found that the hurricane patterns from the shipwreck database closely matched Florida Keys tree-ring chronology of hurricanes from 1707-1825.

In addition, the team compared the Florida Keys tree-ring records to the systematic recordings of hurricanes from 1850-2009. Again, the patterns matched.

When they overlapped the shipwreck data with the tree-ring data, the researchers discovered a 75 percent reduction in hurricane activity from 1645-1715, a time period known as the Maunder Minimum.
“We didn’t go looking for the Maunder Minimum,” Trouet said. “It just popped out of the data.”
The Maunder Minimum is so named because there was a low in sunspot activity during that time. Because Earth receives less solar radiation during lulls in sunspot activity, the Northern Hemisphere was cooler during the Maunder Minimum than in the time periods before or after.

Learning that a lull in Caribbean hurricanes corresponded to a time when Earth received less solar energy will help researchers better understand the influence of large changes in radiation, including that from greenhouse gas emissions, on hurricane activity.

Having better predictions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane activity is important because hurricanes are so destructive and have big societal impacts, Trouet said. She anticipates the new findings will help improve future hurricane predictions under a changing climate.

Scientists Finally Admit That Al Gore Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming


A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.

Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.

“Something that the skeptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.

Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.
While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.
“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.
“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Now, skepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.

Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.

“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a  “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”

But even with the admission, some skeptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.

“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the skeptics, are harshly criticized,” Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”