?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
21 January 2011 @ 06:07 pm
AU flood blame, Cheap energy – for all but the UK  

Brisbane floods and Brazil’s torrential rain have been blamed on global warming, by extension on human emitted CO2 by assorted vvankers, cucumbers, watermelons and those that know they are lying. CO2 does not drive the solar activity nor does it cause ocean and atmospheric oscillations whose cyclic inversion in near clockwork precision has caused the recent extremes. Although almost apologetic, nonetheless the explanation given by a meteorologist from the International Institute for Climate and Society of the generally warmist biased Columbia Uni holds water.
While Southeast Asia and Australia can typically expect warmer oceans and more rainfall during La Nina, the affected area stretches farther west this year and includes Sri Lanka and the southern tip of India, Barnston said.
There is presently a massive rescue operation under way in Sri Lanka to save victims of flooding that has already killed at least 13 people. Floods have killed another 40 people in the Philippines, and Australia reportedly has been inundated with flooding estimated to cover an area the size of France and Germany combined. To the east of La Nina, South America’s north coast has been slammed with rain, and hundreds have been killed in Brazil’s flooding and mudslides.
La Nina usually means warmer temperatures in the United States, particularly the Southeast, but this year the North Atlantic Oscillation is trumping La Nina.
Since November, we have been in the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation, Barnston said, meaning that air temperatures between the eastern U.S. and Europe will drop. This causes temperatures to rise in places like northeast Canada, Greenland and Iceland, as the mercury drops on thermometers in the eastern U.S.
Weather experts call it a see-saw pattern, and it will eventually affect water temperatures, though that’s a secondary effect, Barnston said
.”
Via Icecap, the full report can be read here.

Karoly’s “global warming” - wetter, drier, worse, better, whatever (Andrew Bolt, Heraldsun)
2003, and warmist scientist David Karoly blames the severity of the drought on global warming:
This drought has had a more severe impact than any other drought since at least 1950.... This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
2011, and warmist scientist David Karoly blames the severity of Queensland’s floods on global warming:
Professor Karoly stressed individual events could not be attributed to climate change. But the wild extremes being experienced by the continent were in keeping with scientists’ forecasts of more flooding associated with increased heavy rain and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation.
‘’On some measures it’s the strongest La Nina in recorded history … [but] we also have record-high ocean temperatures in northern Australia which means more moisture evaporating into the air,’’ he said. ‘’And that means lots of heavy rain.’’
The beauty of global warming theory, as espoused by Karoly, is that whether it’s dry or wet, global warming is to blame.
[Continues with graphs to emphasise that nature, not humans decides the weather... and climate. Finishes with the following letter:]
[...] Associate Professor Stewart Franks of Newcastle University writes to the ABC to protest its repeated use of an alarmist who may say what it wants to hear, but is not actually an expert:

Dear Mr Uhlmann
I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods.
Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.
There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature.
Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?
This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly. In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quote…
‘...the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed...’

The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect.

During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sun’s energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures.  This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius.
This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not.
Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for ‘expert’ comment.

Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise?  These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates.  Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?

Sincere best wishes,

A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
Dean of Students

And to Karoly himself, this email:
David
Your comments on the role of CO2 in the Qld floods are speculative at best, immensely damaging at worst.
When will you accept that CO2 is not the answer to everything?  When will you decline an interview for the lack of your insight?
Have you not learnt from your physically incorrect speculation about temperature and evaporation during the MDB drought? Do you have no shame to have confused cause and effect in such a brazen and public manner?
Is it enough for you that your pronouncements sound correct, irrespective of science?  Have you learnt nothing?…
Shame on you
Stewart

Franks was interviewed by the ABC, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods. The alarmist’s opinion was broadcast, and the expert’s was not.

Green idealogues (renowned for creating fantasy scenarios and then doing everything in their demonic obsessiveness to cause the maximum mayhem and disaster, especially with faux “solutions”, green energy, carbon taxes, credits, biofuel, drilling moratoriums, etc.) such as successive UK govs, the UN and the EU’s EC that give every appearance of having been created specifically to create catastrophes are now paralleled by the Australian government whose interference in water management, overruling the design purpose of a dam that was specifically built to moderate flooding, greatly worsened an otherwise minor disaster.
Not only the politicians responsible but their advisors need to be before a court with the charge being manslaughter due to incompetence rather than congratulatory whitewash inquires. The same can be said for UK and EU cold deaths, manslaughter by incompetence and self-serving politics.
Another almost apologetic report asks the question “Did Australia’s obsession with global warming contribute to the Brisbane floods?” whilst several more intelligent articles are less restrained in condemnation. Booker for example asks “What was the role of warmists in the Queensland flood disaster?” and Richard at EUReferendum echoes his sentiments in “That dam” while an Australian blogger gives full details in “Brisbane’s Man-made Flood Peak?” and does some dissection in “Science is played by politicians“. It should be noted the media played a part in hyping “man-made drought” nonsense.
—————————
While carbon dioxide is the gas of life, natural gas is the gas of progress.
Thank the gods both are plentiful – and harmless.
I’ve been arm waving about the abundance of natural gas and the falsity of gang-greenista claims of catastrophically diminishing oil reserves for some time. Now some who cannot be ignored by those that have their head firmly lodged in the EU’s EC butt have taken up the clarion call. Read on.

CCNet – 20 January 2010 The Climate Policy Network
I have been studying the energy markets for 30 years, and I am convinced that shale gas will revolutionize the industry—and change the world—in the coming decades. It will prevent the rise of any new cartels. It will alter geopolitics. And it will slow the transition to renewable energy. –Amy Myers Jaffe, The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2010

1) Natural Gas Can Supply World For 250 Years, Says IEA – United Press International, 19 January 2011
Supplies of natural gas could last more than 250 years if Asian and European economies follow the U.S. unconventional reserves, the International Energy Agency said.

2) China Is Swimming In New Oil And Gas – China Daily, 19 January 2011
Chinese geologists have detected “super-thick” oil and gas-bearing stratums (sic) in the northern part of the South China Sea and identified 38 offshore oil and gas-bearing basins, a senior official said on Saturday. Wang Min, vice-minister of land and resources, said thanks to the efforts of the geologists, new resources detected in the past 10 years accounted for about half of all resources found in the past half century, and the amount of new resources found each year has surpassed their annual consumption.

3) Emission Impossible: Is It All Over For Climate Alarmism? – BBC News, 19 January 2011
It is virtually impossible for the world to keep within the CO2 limits defined as safe for the climate, according to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency think tank. Dr Fatih Birol told an audience in London that key nations were not prepared to take the steps necessary to cut carbon growth. He also warned that efforts to tackle climate change through renewable energy were under threat from the world revolution in unconventional gas sources.

4) Bill Gates Jumps Into Oil Exploration; Brazil’s Reserves to Double? – Al Fin Energy 19 January 2011

5) UK Shale-Gas Report Lacks Scientific Evidence – The Engineer, 18 January 2011
Researchers at the Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester claim to have demonstrated how the extraction of shale gas risks seriously contaminating ground and surface waters – without providing any scientific evidence to back their claim.

6) Shale Gas Will Rock the World: October Natural Gas Production Sets Another New All-Time Record – Carpe Diem, 19 January 2011

Thanks to Dr Peiser GWPF
—————————————-
What? Bill Gates shows his green credentials by drilling for oil? Another Gore if you ask me, in it for the money.

Electric cars are a bad joke at the present time. Warmist MIT releases major report: The Future of Natural Gas (pdf) -  Study finds significant potential to displace coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Intro here)
Ignoring the GHG nonsense, dual fuel (petrol and gas) vehicles can make a significant impact on oil import volume. Gas is ok for cruising but lacks energy density, necessary to climb hills and for acceleration hence the need for dual fuel. Conversion is simple and cheap. One can only stand back and wonder why the “intelligentsia” aren’t promoting such. Then again looking at the mess the economy is in it is not difficult to conclude that “idealogue”, “brain dead” and “scammer”  have “politician” and “banker” in common.

In conclusion to EU Energy Orwellianism: Ignorance Is Strength wherein Carlo Stagnaro castigates the EC policy of concealing details, especially with regard to gang-green energy subsidies policy,
I am not sure whether Eurostat, or the EU Commission, are intentionally hiding pieces of information, or they just do not think those pieces of information are really relevant. I am not even sure whether it is better to be governed by evil people who do not want to be challenged, or by stupid people who do not realize that data availability is a critical part of a well-functioning decision-making process. I am sure, however, that policies that are built upon data which either do not exist, or are not accessible, deserve no public trust.”

Also at MasterResource: for the technically minded “Energy Density: Robert Bryce’s Powerful Energy Message
“[...] “One of the reasons I wrote Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future (Public Affairs: 2010) is that our discussions are fundamentally wrong-headed,” author and journalist Robert Bryce told the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.
“Politicians generally do not understand the issues of energy and power, and in particular, the issues of scale.”
Bryce expounded on a number of key themes, including density, the distinction between energy and power, and the future of natural gas and nuclear generation. He also pointed to signals that suggested ordinary citizens were losing patience with green energy sources.

I’d like to thank Chris Booker and Richard for their professionalism and veracity in their reports. Richard has been especially prolific in recent times on the lack of substance found in MSM, mainly due to seat-polishers’ eagerness to cop out of work by repetition, verbatim of press releases and giving preference to fluff rather than real news. Bilderberg bias is evident in editorial direction which is understandable considering the MSM, (like the government and the European Commission) is owned and run by Bilderberg members.
Booker has done outstanding reportage on the Naziesque tactics of social workers and the kidnap of children with police assistance, this is typical “This was the baby who, shortly after she was born in June, was torn from her mother’s arms in hospital at 3am by six policemen and three social workers. Two months earlier, social workers had also snatched the mother’s five older children, to put them in foster care, costing taxpayers more than £2,000 a week.” (here).
I also commend both writers for their professionalism and consistency in reporting the stuntology of the climate scammers, politicians and other gang-green fraudsters.

David Icke has it wrong. It is not lizards running the country – the video demonstrates:
http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swfbin/watch_as3-vfl3CnHmV.swf
(H/t to Richard who gives mention in The new politics and Joining a new ship?)
Or has he...Reptilian Death Cult: David Icke was Right (vid1 vid2)

Recommended: Dominick’s German Environmental Movement 1871 to 1971
[...] The German conservation movement was overwhelmingly and durably aligned with Nazism. The Third Reich was a flamboyantly green regime.
A best-selling German novel, published in 1958, had a sub-plot about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 emissions. The novelist founded an international environmental league, led by a former leader of the Hitler Youth, which was instrumental in launching the German Green Party.
The modern environmental movement with its mass organizations, confrontational tactics, media manipulation, politicized science and apocalyptic propaganda, consolidated in West Germany in 1959-61 then spread to the English-speaking world.
Most arguments used by environmentalists today were articulated by conservationists during the reign of the Kaisers. Many conservation organizations operating in 1918 continue to operate. The line from 19th century Nature-protection to modern environmentalism is without gaps or reversals of direction.