A homeopathic and acupuncture proponent (Dr. (?) Mark Sircus) apparently from Brazil recently posted that Fukushima is going to kill a lot of people with radioactivity. His claims appear to be on par with his referenced and disgraced H. Caldicott (Pandora’s Promise). What is contrary is that a comment calling out a few problems with his claims was immediately removed.
Here is his blog post address: Radiation Crimes of Eternity
Here is the removed commentary:
Maybe the Dr. (?) (honorary OMD, blacklisted DM(P)) should stick to his area of expertise. I’m surely not going to delve into his with any presumptive knowledge.
The web site says: “It’s not warming It’s dying“.
Then the new logo slowly appears, a green disc slowly covered downward with black, almost. Iridescent buttons are available for purchase, even a hashtag.
But that’s it. Purchase only. You have to go elsewhere to have it explained.
The first part is true. After a mid-late 20th century ramp up, the earth’s atmospheric warming is showing ‘stasis’ or ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ for the last nominal 17 years. At least, that was the discussion terminology at the January workshop (transcript) of the American Physics Society. The discussion was why all the expensive computer modeling cannot seem to match empirical (real) data, and therefore, the projections have become highly suspect.
The second part is false. The earth has survived a few billion years of insults much worse than the hand wringing of the current short extant sentients. It has seen the coming and going of huge blocks of species. So, the alleged threat is to those extant sentients, the human race, and those species which may or may not adapt to the projected changes. The earth is not dying, it’s continuing to change on its geologic time scale.
It’s also ironic that those espousing the limitation or walk-back of carbon emissions will also impose continued abject penury and limited quality of life for 2/3 of the human population. The second law of thermodynamics has a huge part in the process as well. Apparently, that’s not well understood by the doom followers.
The earth may also survive as we know it. In the August 1 issue of Science, the survival of Pacific Ocean archipelagos, such as Tuvalu, will not be a problem. Based on surface observations and core drilling, natural wave action deposits sand and natural coral debris on tops faster than projected sea level rise. The cores indicate historical growth beyond sea level rise. This is in addition to the diminishing IPCC projections translated into catastrophic sea level rise.
So, again, much ado about what? Just send your $5 and get the nifty 5 pack of one inch buttons. At least it makes money for the button producer.
The state of Washington’s Gov. Inslee has established a task force to recommend ways to reduce the state’s carbon emissions footprint. Washington State is blessed with abundant hydro and nuclear electrical power, making it 80% ‘Green’ in that sector. Replacing the singular coal plant with ‘renewable’ Maybewatts or natural gas would be barely noticed. As to carbon emissions, the long pole is transportation. Converting all of Washington’s food grains to ethanol would only impact that about 10-12%. (Will the governor walk to work hungry?)
Regardless, however, there are recently noted events which beg the question about the underlying premise: are carbon emissions of sufficient affect to worry the governor or the constituency?
It is this authors’ understanding that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the alleged gold standard and that it is established that the science is settled regarding anthropogenic causation of climate change (AGW). Therefore, that assumption leads to the basis for debate: how to curb carbon emissions. (I do not disagree with the observation that the earth’s climate has been and is warming over millennial timescale, only on the causality of our contemporary observations and assumptions.)
The following items make the fundamental premise a concern for proper debate, and should make the governor and his task force take a shallow breath before emitting.
1) The June 13, 2014 issue of Science (AAAS) provides a three page article on the controversy of the climate computer models as to the best approach, noting that a) the conventional ones have not been doing well in mimicking the last 50-60 years of empirical data (Example), and b) there is noticed that conventional forecasting might have sufficient merit to be an item for a better approach.
2) The July 4, 2014 issue of Science (AAAS) provides three articles discussing the political redaction of key information and data derived charts in the “Summary for Policymakers (SPM)“. The first (Victor, Gerlagh, and Baiocchi), has this interesting comment (among others):
The third (Edenhofer,and Minx), has this:
These are lead authors at the IPCC. Since most people only read the SPM or a mainstream media filter, the real science and the confounding observations are never seen. This actually may only reinforce the purpose of assessing “… the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. …” The cause was assumed before starting.
3) The American Physics Society issued a policy statement over a year ago on climate change which resulted in a protest resignation of a stellar Fellow of the APS. In January, the APS reconvened a workshop on its policy statement due to developing evidence and a by-law 5 year schedule. Added to the review committee are the well credentialed individuals John Christy, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen, who admittedly question AGW assumptions. The basis for question revisiting is the extensive workshop framing document.
4) There are also questions regarding the approaches to regulation by the EPA. Since they are the assumed political gold lead, the local efforts flow from them.
5) The IPCC assessment reports have not shown a progression to improved uncertainty in future expectations. In fact and although tremendous efforts have been expended on models, the uncertainty has actually expanded or at least been unchanged. One is the projection of sea level rise (SLR). The accompanying chart shows the start and the progression. Recall that VP Al Gore used the first to claim loss of things like Miami FL. Likewise, the snapshot in time of modern satellite temperature data shows that for the last nominal 17 years (pick your anchor), the temperature trend is below the lowest projections of the computer models. Similar analysis of IPCC temperature projections and independent authors is shown in the second chart. AR4 tightened the climate sensitivity uncertainty, but AR5 increased it while the SPM asserted more confidence in man causing a problem. Included in this chart is the estimate for solar activity based on the 20th century data of low output and the ‘grand maximum’ during the last half.
Billions have been spent by governments and private investigators since inception of the IPCC with really no improvement in projections. Even though the advocates say that ‘the science is settled’, there is plenty to consider whether the ‘precautionary principle‘ should continue to rule.
Also, might want to take a just-for-fun gander at the public statements of some of the advocates, such as:
Dr. Peter Gleick of the Fakegate episode1 postulates that due to the ever rising US GDP2, the impact of the recent US EPA carbon emissions regulations3 will hardly be seen economically. Or, rather, show a continued and perhaps even better situation.
Sure hope so. His (and the EPA’s) reasoning4 is that by graphics it would appear that GDP was positively influenced by environmental regulations resulting from the clean air act5. One has to agree that the air quality in Pittsburgh is much better, and the Cuyahoga River6 likely won’t catch fire again very soon.
But, as usual, there are other ways of looking at economic data on such a huge system as that of the US7 (Figure 1). This is important since the easiest low hanging fruit has been picked from the environmental no-no tableau.
Sierra Rayne8 takes Dr. Gleick’s GDP reasoning a step further considering the same regulatory data points and what could have been9. While that is also prognostication, it is worth considering as to what we might have attained under less rigorous rules.
One of the continuing comments is that the cleanup of the US drove jobs and manufacturing overseas. This resulted in merely shifting the ‘dirtiness’ to less fortunate but economically hungry off-shore nation-states. Commonly shown evidence supports this and is not readily seen in the US GDP.
This off-shore movement can be seen in our balance of trade. From a nationalist point of view and what was true for most of the 20th century, it was a desirable positive. More wealth moved into the US than outward. But, since the advent of the EPA, with a bit of business reaction/response latency, the balance of trade10 is going the other way (Figure 2). If it weren’t for the huge US capitalization and economic engine, the GDP might be even more different.9 Due to what appears as a continuous trade deficit trend, the fragile US economy might not overcome the latest and most difficult requirements of the EPA related to CO2 emissions. Note that the annual -5% is equal to USD 900 Billion or almost a USD 1 Trillion leaving the country.
Predictions are not always the end result. Many are using Germany as an example of environmental success with wind and solar. Their initiative is now showing electrical costs of USD 400/MWhr11 vs US average of USD 150/MWhr12. It is conceivable that the US could experience similar increases. We have already seen increases related to mandated implementations of wind and solar. In addition, the June 2014 IEEE Spectrum13 notes that grid instability could become a norm if the German experiment is repeated here. Since the economy is not showing adequate job growth, what could the loss in low cost energy do to struggling citizens?
All three presentations2, 9, 10 are observational correlations. So too is the 95% correlation14 between the increase in shellfish consumption and rise in atmospheric CO2. Which caused the other? The take home is that correlation does not necessarily show causation. Climatologists and GIGO* modelers are still arguing about feedback sensitivity.15, 16. Such debate brings up concern about whether there is any need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Will CO2 reduction as posed be a good thing? Let’s hope so, but it could easily backfire and waste a lot of energy and resources.
In recent weeks, the popular media is viewing with immense alarm the possibility of a huge sea level rise (SLR) as postulated by the most recent IPCC summary (biased?) recommendations and assessments (AR5) and U of Wash. studies.
At the dawn of the 2013 (AR5) release, Dr. Fred Singer noted the changes in the IPCC estimates from the first alarm in 1990. Over subsequent releases, the dire estimates have been reduced over the original, with the most recent showing a slight up-tick in the eroding trend. Digging into the current assessment, it appears that although there have been useful refinements in some measurements and observations, the current estimate is driven by new, but admittedly, more uncertain issues. The uncertainty mostly comes from new estimates of rate of loss of land-based glacial ice, a difficult method to test or validate. A recent paper indicates that traditional glacier loss may already be stabilizing, a confounder to this approach.
Will Miami disappear? Will New York subway trains be inaccessible? The accompanying chart shows the SLR estimates in relation to the mean elevation of these two cities. For Miami, certain lower areas could be affected. But certainly, the included estimate of the AlGore is very unlikely. Oh, yes, there is the historical 20th century rise which fits with a couple of centuries previous. Also, the early 21st century saw a brief reversal, but natural El Nino and La Nina cycles are blamed for that.
With more government study monies and time, will we see a fading SLR and a vanishing need to be worried?