Google+ Followers

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Is the Antarctic Ozone Hole Really Mending? Al Gore, Got What To Say About This?

The AOH is an ephemeral (every Oct-Nov) thinning of stratospheric ozone at an altitude of 20-25 km, roughly covering the Antarctic continent; unanticipated, it was discovered serendipitously in 1985 but is now tracked with satellite-borne ozone meters.  Its discovery created much panic about an epidemic of skin cancers that led directly to passage of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty stopping the manufacture and release into the atmosphere of ozone-depleting chemicals, including CFCs used in refrigeration and bromine-containing fire suppressants.

Recently, there have been many voices, suggesting that the AOH is shrinking, presumably as a result of the Protocol.  I am somewhat skeptical of the evidence, but also for theoretical reasons.  I am inclined to blame wishful thinking –- a desire to justify post facto the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the economic losses it has produced around the world since then.  By implication also, this tends to support the concept of a (largely unrelated) global climate treaty that would severely reduce the release of the greenhouse gas CO2.
For evidence, I refer to a well-written semi-popular story in Eos of 15 August 2016, which relies mainly on a paper in Science magazine [of 30 June, 2016] by MIT chemist Susan Solomon et al. The credibility of the paper derives from the fact that its lead author had identified the correct mechanism for creating the AOH at a time when there was much dispute about its cause; it turned out to be ‘heterogeneous’ reactions of chlorine compounds on the surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), made up of ice particles created from stratospheric moisture by the extremely cold local temperatures.  [Heterogeneous reactions involve both gas molecules and solid particles, while ‘homogeneous’ reactions involve only gas molecules.]

These reactions eventually release free chlorine atoms (able to destroy ozone catalytically) from the existing stratospheric chlorine reservoir, gaseous HCl –hydrogen chloride.  The relevant chemical reactions commence when solar radiation reaches the Antarctic stratosphere in the beginning of Spring, i.e., in October, after a winter darkness lasting up to six months.

But the same Eos story also quotes NASA atmospheric scientist Susan Strahan, who points to the difficulty of identifying a trend in the presence of “noise,” the year-to-year variation in geographic extent of the AOH.  Worse still, the AOH can also be characterized by other varying parameters, like depth of depletion and by its duration.  Nevertheless, Solomon extrapolates the somewhat uncertain geographic trend and boldly estimates that the AOH will seal up and disappear by mid-century.

In the American Geophysical Union journal Earth Future, atmospheric chemist Guy Brasseur and colleagues suggest a faster way to “heal” the AOH – by actively releasing ice particles in the stratosphere to deplete HCl, the main reservoir of stratospheric chlorine.  But they do not consider the continued existence of natural sources of chlorine compounds: frequent volcanic injections and possibly also oceanic salt spray carried into the stratosphere by convection.  Worse still, they ignore the risks of their proposed geo-engineering scheme – the strong greenhouse effects of their ice particles, which would absorb and then re-emit (albeit at a much lower temperature) most of the outgoing long-wave radiation from earth into space, covering even the normally open atmospheric infrared  “window” region (of 8 – 12 microns).

An incipient ozone hole in the Arctic region?
And now to my theoretical doubts.  The catalytic action suggests a highly non-linear dependence of ozone depletion on both chlorine and PSC ice particles.  I suspect that PSCs are crucial – so that even a small amount of chlorine compounds from natural sources will create an AOH in the presence of some PSCs.

In other words, we may be stuck with an AOH; it will not mend – unless we can raise the stratospheric temperature sufficiently to remove PSC ice particles.  But with CO2 increasing steadily and thereby further cooling the stratosphere (as is commonly believed), there is little chance of raising stratospheric temperatures.  By the same token, I think it inevitable that an Arctic ozone hole will develop – and quite suddenly – as suggested in a 1989 Letter in Eos. [Yes, including over Kennebunkport, Maine.] The implications of an Arctic ozone depletion are cause for concern: an increase in ground-level (skin-cancer-causing) solar ultraviolet radiation in densely populated regions, in Europe and elsewhere – although attenuated by the large zenith angle of the Sun, as well as by clouds and haze.

All in all then, I am not really optimistic about the future of ozone holes in the Polar regions.  The Montreal Protocol may have been chasing the wrong target, in my opinion.
Many failed predictions

The whole ozone story is beset with many failed predictions:
**Starting in 1970, it was widely held that water vapor from the burnt fuel of supersonic aircraft flying in the stratosphere would damage the ozone layer and cause an epidemic of skin cancers.  However, it turned out that the real villain (according to Prof Harold Johnston of UCB) would be the catalytic action of trace amounts of nitrogen oxides in the SST exhausts; in its annual reports, the National Academy of Sciences even predicted depletions of up to 70 percent!  In any case, the ensuing popular panic forced the cancelation of the US project to construct two SST prototypes.
**Ironically, I soon found (Nature 1971) that rice agriculture and cattle raising (cows) would create growing amounts of atmospheric methane, leading to an increase of stratospheric water vapor equivalent to a fleet of 500(!) SSTs.  
**Finally, Cicerone and Stolarski discovered that chlorine would be the most effective destroyer of ozone; Rowland and Molina then published their calculations (Nature 1974) implicating CFCs, which garnered them a Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for contributing to the salvation of mankind” – to quote the Nobel selection panel.
** None of these publications had considered heterogeneous reactions – although it was known at the time that particles injected into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions greatly enhanced ozone depletion.  And so they all missed the AOH –whose discovery in 1985 came as a complete surprise.  [Homogeneous (purely gas-phase) reactions are appropriate only in the upper stratosphere, at about 40-50 km, where there is very little ozone to destroy -- well above the ozone maximum at 20-25 km.]
**One more irony: in 1987, when the Montreal Protocol was hastily adopted, the observational evidence (of R. Zander et alJAtmosChem 1987) showed no appreciable secular increase of HCl, suggesting the absence of any significant human contribution to stratospheric chlorine.  It was only much later, in 1991, that NASA-Langley scientist Curtis Rinsland published his definitive result, showing steadily increasing hydrogen chloride. 
After witnessing all of these missteps and premature wrong guesses, I may be excused for believing that the current excitement about the “healing” of the AOH could turn out to be just another failed prediction.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Global Warming is a TAX SCAM! John Kerry is a wormy LIAR!!!

Al Gore: Half Man, Half Possum, Total Idiot --The Disease of Empire--

Al Gore is a Self Serving LIAR

Al Gore, Liar: The Global Warming God Dosen't Want Tough Questions!

Al Gore The Globalist NWO minion exposed

Wind Turbines, Rusting Giants of the Environmental And Al Gore Watermelon Religion?

Image result for al gore wind turbines

 I saw the once verdant wheat fields of Eastern Europe covered with ugly wind turbines, slowly spinning their huge blades into the wind. A few funnel dust swirls were blowing the topsoil into the air. They did not appear to be connected to any storage station that would distribute the electrical power generated. I searched and found out that they were really not connected to any network, were not generating usable electricity, they were all for show to placate the “green growth” European bureaucrats who gave them money to install the eyesores instead of growing crops.
Turbines kill birds on a large scale around the world and disturb humans and wildlife.  According to Save the Eagles International, “contrary to what we are told, wind farms will cause the extinction of many bird and bat species” because birds are naturally attracted to tall structures.

While millions of birds and bats are dying needlessly, wind turbines and solar panels are still installed around the world despite the fact that they produce inconsistent energy that cannot possibly replace the consistent and cheap energy produced by coal. The world’s economy needs fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and hydro-power that provide a constant source of electricity, not the small scale partial or intermittent Aeolian or solar energy.
In the green state of Vermont, a 28-turbine mega-wind project is being vehemently opposed by some board members and citizens in the towns of Windham and Grafton, concerned that the power station would affect property values and the environment.
Iberdrola, the Spanish public multinational utility company based in Bilbao, Spain, proposed the project. Subsidiaries include Scottish Power, Iberdrola USA, and Elektro Brazil, with the largest shareholder in 2013, Qatar Investment Holding.
Frank Seawright, Windham Selectboard Chairman, remarked that more than 200 houses in Windham are located within a mile and a half from the proposed turbines and the rest are also close, including his own home, 3,000 feet from the proposed site.

Lacking confidence that the developers and the Public Service Board will protect the locals in accordance to S.260, Seawright said:
“The people who complain about the noise are dismissed by wind developers as just a bunch of trouble makers. That’s probably one of the worst things they can do is to just blame the victim.”
Act 174 (S.260), act relating to improving the siting of energy projects in Vermont passed and was signed into law in June 2016.
The Selectboard sent a letter to Iberdrola citing their well-founded concern for water quality, wildlife, and human health.
“We are unwilling to subject any of our town’s property owners to the unknown short- andlong-term effects of exposure to turbine noise, vibration, infrasound, and shadow flicker.”
According to the Watchdog, the Selectboard members were concerned that the turbines would not produce consistent power, delivering on the average 60 percent of the time, and would destroy property values with no compensation for homeowners.
National Wind Watch tells a different story about the efficacy of wind turbine performance.
“Wind turbines generate electrical energy when they are not shut down for maintenance, repair, or tours and the wind is between about 8 and 55 mph.
Below a wind speed of around 30 mph, however, the amount of energy generated is very small. Wind turbines produce at or above their average rate around 40% of the time. Conversely, they produce little or no power around 60% of the time.”
The annual financial benefit from Iberdrola would be $715,000 for Windham and $285,000 for Grafton. The most interesting objection was the “utilities lack of need for purchasing additional wind power” – they don’t need the electricity.  Additional concerns were Iberdrola’s $27 million fine from Spain’s National Markets and Competition Commission and the higher cost of wind-generated electricity.
Watchdog quoted Seawright, who was frustrated with the Vermont government, “hell bent on getting these things:” [wind turbines]
“I have always voted for Democrats, (but) now I’m more concerned about the Democrats than the Republicans. The Democrats here seem to be exploiting the countryside.”
As long as there are government subsidies for wind and solar power projects to be exploited, despite the many failures and bankruptcies when billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, politics make strange bedfellows with “investors” and “developers.”
In 2001, a 400-acre site became a wind farm in Somerset Township, Pennsylvania. It was touted to produce 25,000 megawatt hours of electricity a year, enough to provide power to 2,500 families with “lower-cost,  as a more environmentally friendly way to produce electricity.” This happened at a time when 52 percent of electricity in the U.S. was generated by coal-fired plants and for Pennsylvania, “the fourth largest coal-producing state, the figure is about 60 percent.”
Money came from sustainable energy funds and developers received federal energy tax credits. As John Hanger of Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future said, “This is a terrific Earth Day present for the people of Pennsylvania. PECO customers will be the first in the commonwealth to directly help the planet through their local electricity choices.”

f these wind farms could have helped the citizens’ pockets, it would have been terrific. For starters, they had to pay higher electricity rates and some lost their coal-mining jobs as a result of mines closing around the country due to onerous EPA regulations. The other damaging side effects were felt later.
When I stopped in Somerset a few days ago, the turbine blades did not seem to move at all. An educational display was still posted outside the turnpike service plaza, with all the potential savings for the Earth from harnessing wind power. No mention of the huge costs associated with such a pie in the sky watermelon dream.
When the wind turbines break down, catch fire, rust out, or their blades disintegrate, they are abandoned by the thousands, ugly giants dotting the pristine landscape. They are seldom removed because the job would be too expensive. None of them have produced, by the time they were taken out of service, the amount of energy that was used to manufacture the giant turbine in the first place. And, the part that environmentalists do not like to talk about, is that all the steel, spare parts, transportation, assembly, maintenance, and slow wind down times were provided by fossil fuel-generated power.
As the American Elephants said, wind turbines are “the towering symbols of a fading religion” and… “Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didn’t work.”
I might add that it was a dream born by the environmental watermelon religion, green on the outside, red on the inside.

Friday, August 26, 2016

San Francisco's hidden truth is out. That's what community organizer Carol Mo calls the realization that Asian residents are being targeted for robberies, burglaries and intimidation by young black men?

It is San Francisco's dirty little secret," said Mo, a former Safety Network Community organizer in the Sunset District. "It's not news to us."
Hundreds of people marched into Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting to express their fear, frustration and outrage. But so far the response has been disappointing, particularly from the San Francisco Police Department. It seems intent on downplaying the role of race and its impact in the community.
The recent incidents of black violence against Asians is the perfect opportunity to open a dialogue about racism. Instead, they are attempting to close the door.
City officials, including the Police Department, say these assaults are part of a larger crime picture where gangs of kids take advantage of a vulnerable group of small stature. But Mo participated in a 2008 survey by the Police Department in which about 300 strong-arm robberies were analyzed. "In 85 percent of the physical assault crimes, the victims were Asian and the perpetrators were African American," she said.
The squeamishness city officials are experiencing about confronting those numbers doesn't reflect well on anyone. No one is saying the entire African American community is violent. But ignoring the legitimate anger and frustration from Asians is disingenuous and unfair.
"We love San Francisco," said the Rev. Norman Fong, a Presbyterian minister. "And we don't want to do anything to divide the communities. But at the same time, our community is hurting and we feel like our voices are not being heard."
Now that the Asian community has found its voice, city leaders must listen and respond. What should be done? Here are a few suggestions:
 Understand the underlying conflict: This isn't just about stealing iPods. There's a deep divide between the two communities.Edward Chang, who lectures on civil unrest and race relations at UC Riverside, has studied the contentious history of Korean-African American relations in Los Angeles when Korean store owners moved into black neighborhoods.
"There was this sense of being invaded by someone else," Chang said. "There was a sense of needing to protect and defend their turf."
Another factor is the way the two cultures are perceived. Lee Mun Wah, a Berkeley-based documentary filmmaker and diversity trainer for large corporations, said there is resentment over how Asians are seen as "the favored minority."
"We are pitted against each other," Wah said. "African Americans sometimes say, 'We did all the work in civil rights, and they get all the benefits.' "
-- Create a dialogue: As Chang said, "In order to build trust, you must do things together." Wah suggests hiring black employees in Asian stores. Board of Supervisors President David Chiu is pushing a summer program to hire black and Asian youths to work together in community patrols.
-- Speak up: Chiu thinks the language barrier is a huge part of the reason Asian victims do no report crimes. He stresses the need for multilingual police officers.
But the Chinese community also needs to overcome its reticence to go to the police. They are only making themselves more vulnerable by being seen, as one officer put it, as "silent, vulnerable and unwilling to fight back."
-- Listen to Mrs. Cheng: The 52-year-old woman was attacked March 22 when a 15-year-old boy allegedly threw her off the Muni platform at Third Street and Oakdale Avenue. She was injured, but she says she doesn't want retribution.
"This is my simple request," she wrote in an e-mail with the help of an interpreter. "That we can all live safely in our own homes without being burglarized. I feel ashamed that this horrible bad luck has happened to me. I only hope that my bad luck will fend off future bad luck situations for other people."
And then she added one more thought.
"My neighbor is black," she said. "Though we can't communicate much, he is a good person and a good friend. He often jokes that he would teach me English and I Chinese to him."
That would be a great start - two people talking.

New Global Warming Study Only Proves That Social Justice Warriors Are Idiots, Don’t Care About Science!?

They called it a “ground breaking study,” I call it rubbish. This new study claims that global warming began in 1830 just when the industrial revolution began to pick up steam (no pun intended). What they didn’t take into account was just around the same time the Earth was coming out of an unusually cold 40-year period caused by low sunspot activity called the Dalton Minimum (no relation to Timothy Dalton).
An international team of scientists, led by Associate Professor Nerilie Abram from the Australian National University, have analysed detailed reconstructions of climate going back 500 years. To their surprise, they’ve found that the current global warming trend began in the 1830s, further confirming that it is an anthropogenic, or human-induced, phenomenon. The study was published today in Nature.
Co-researcher Dr Helen McGregor, an earth sciences expert from the University of Wollongong, tells SBS Science the findings have a major impact on our understanding of how climate change works.
“If we know when global warming started, we know what the actual rates of warming are and we know when our climate is emerging above natural variability,” McGregor explains.
The scientists go on to explain they created a climate model (which have proven to be very flawed–for example none of these models have figured why the earth hasn’t warmed in over 18 years.).  So to create this model they took into account other account climate model simulations and experiments (that’s right a flawed climate model using data from a flawed climate model–almost like a double negative), major volcanic eruptions and, most importantly, natural markers of climate variation found in places like corals, tree rings, and ice cores obtained from glaciers.
Dr McGregor says the study provides new, independent proof that climate change is indeed caused by human activity.
“One thing that our study provides is that it’s an alternative line of evidence,” she explains. “We’re not using thermometers and satellite records, we’re using natural archives of climate, so it’s a completely independent source of information that shows that climate change and warming is occurring.
“The central tenet of climate change, that the planet is warming, doesn’t change.”
Well not necessarily, because nowhere in their analysis do the scientists take into account sunspot activity.
Note: The sun goes through a natural cycle approximately every 11 years. The greatest number of sunspots in any given solar cycle is designated as the “solar maximum” and the lowest number is referred to as the “solar minimum” phase.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

The Mythology of the Greenhouse Effect and Global-Warming.Social Justice Warriors Are Idiots

 Image result for social justice warriors facepalm

 I received an email from someone who claimed, “The possible dramatic effect of a 35% increase in CO2, since 1958, cannot be denied”.
My response to him was that he was being influenced by the specious nature of the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
In the real world, climate change is far more complex than just “more CO2 in the atmosphere = warmer climate.”
Let’s examine the claim, “The possible dramatic effect of a 35% increase in CO2, since 1958, cannot be denied”
Well, yes, it can be denied.
Just for the record, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1958 to 2013 was not 35%, it was 25% (315 to 395, do the math).
The chart below explains why a 35% (or even a 3500%) increase in atmospheric CO2 from current levels might easily have no real impact on global climate (depends on where CO2 is when you start adding CO2 for your comparison).
How high do you think those bars will be for CO2 levels of 800 and beyond? They are already over-represented for illustration. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the warming contribution approaches zero (though it will never reach zero).
An analogy might help to better understand the chart above.
Suppose there were a large fireplace with lots of kindling and some dried papers crumpled up within the kindling. Having a potential to warm, the paper and kindling represent CO2 in the atmosphere .
Take a box of wooden matches. These matches represent outgoing IR radiation because each match has the potential to ignite (warm) some kindling and paper (atmospheric CO2).
Light one of the matches and toss it into the fireplace. The kindling will ignite and the fire will produce considerable new heat from the ambient temperature. This is illustrated by the first bar in the chart above.
Keep lighting new matches (representing more outbound IR) and tossing them into the fireplace, igniting paper and kindling that haven’t yet burned. More heat will be created, but proportionately not as much new heat will be created as was created by the preceding match.
Continue lighting matches and tossing them into the fireplace. Each new match will continue to add some heat, but the new heat will add proportionately less heat to the total heat than that added by the previous match because the fire continues to grow making each additional match’s contribution a smaller proportion of the heat being produced. This is represented by each successive bar of the above chart being smaller than the previous.
Let’s now consider the claim that a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 will have a “dramatic effect” on global temperature.
Using a single data source to create two overlapping 100-year increments since the beginning of the industrial age, let’s examine whether the Greenhouse Effect Theory really delivers as promised.
For one of the hundred-year ranges, I’ve chosen 1858 to 1958 because the year 1958 was referenced in the original statement claiming a “dramatic effect” from CO2 added after 1958.
To capture the “after 1958” period, I’ve chosen the second hundred-year range to be 1913 to 2013, with 45 years overlapping the first hundred-year range. I used 2013 because it is the most recent date for which the dataset I’m using has both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration needed for the example.

By using two overlapping 100-year ranges multi-decadal variations are smoothed to minimize typical multi-decadal variations that correlate with short-term climate change drivers (e.g., PDO phase, NAO phase, sunspot count). This should provide a clearer picture of the role (or lack thereof) that CO2 plays in global climate change.
I’m using 2013’s average global temperature as the basis (the zero) and showing deviations (anomalies) from the 2013 basis for other years.
  1. In 1858 atmospheric CO2 was at 286 ppm and global average temperature was 0.83˚C (1.49˚F) lower than in 2013.
  2. In 1958 atmospheric CO2 was at 315 ppm and global average temperature was 0.47˚C (0.85˚F) lower than in 2013.
  3. In 1913 atmospheric CO2 was at 301 ppm and global average temperature was 0.36˚C (0.65˚F) lower than in 2013.
  4. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 was at 395 ppm.
  5. Over the 100 years from 1858 to 1958, atmospheric CO2 rose 29 ppm while global temperature rose 0.36˚C (0.65˚F).
  6. Over the 100 years from 1913 to 2013, atmospheric CO2 rose 85 ppm while temperature rose 0.36˚C (0.65˚F).
  7. A 29 ppm atmospheric CO2 increase between 1858 and 1958 accompanied an identical temperature change, +0.36˚C (+0.65˚F), as that observed between 1913 and 2013 during which atmospheric CO2 increased by a whopping 85 ppm (a 293% increase).
  8. If atmospheric CO2 is such an important driver of climate change (global temperature), how is it that a “dramatic” 293% increase in atmospheric CO2 over a 100-year period had no apparent impact on global average temperature?
This example dispels the notion that changes in atmospheric CO2 are the sole determinant of a “possible dramatic effect” on climate (specifically, global temperature).
The question remains, what really causes climate to change? Better, “what really causes natural climate to change?”
Lacking a clear understanding of natural climate change, any effort to sell the narrative that humans are responsible for “unprecedented”, “catastrophic”, or even “any discernible” climate change is presumptive and certainly not scientific.

An understanding of the drivers that determine natural climate change is a prerequisite to understanding what, if any, portion of climate change is attributable to human fossil fuel use.
I should think that would be elementary, but apparently not to those peddling the human-caused-global-warming narrative.