Tag Archives: alarmism

Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?

Per info in the article this cut in the Amazon rainforest will be replaced 50 times by new growth

We have a new study that appears to be another instance of  what I call “alarmist whackjobism.” It only bolsters my impression that the “warmers” are in desperation mode and are posting some rather amazing things. Things that have the appearance of being designed to bolster their failing arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming. Things designed perhaps to give the governments of the world motivation to pass carbon taxes, cap-and-trade laws and reign in all things that emit carbon. Things that could potentially create a new Unibomber or a new James J. Lee. This time it’s about the tropical rainforests (again).

Allheadlinenews.com has this article titled “New Farmlands Driving Out Forests Causes Climate Change Study Says.” It cites what is in my opinion an alarmist study (citation here) posted on the PNAS website (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that “conveniently” points out that those nefarious tropical farmers are cutting down those trees (the warmers so love to hug) by the millions, and that the process is (of course), going to increase CO2 (which we’re still supposed to believe increases global warming in spite of much damning evidence to the contrary). You can take the following statement into consideration.

More than half a million square miles of new farmland created in tropical countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, between 1980 to 2000 was due to the felling of forests which in turn, accelerated the release of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, according to a new study led by Stanford postdoctoral researcher, Holly Gibbs, of the Department of Environmental Earth System Science.

Go ahead, read it again, look at the dates: “between 1980 to 2000.” That seems to be a “conveniently” dated report. Possibly “conveniently” dated because there’s nothing going on after 2000 to get excited about. You call it, I’m just pointing it out for you to think about.

The abstract at PNAS makes me wonder if there wasn’t some “convenient” timing there?  If you read the fine print you can see this study was submitted on September 22, 2009 and not approved until July 30, 2010. That’s a little over 10 months and a lot of negative things about global warming have happened since 9/22/09 such as Climategate, the IPCC getting sat on by the IAC, the Hockeystick graph, myriad problems with the MET, NOAA, NASA, GISS, Satellitegate and many other issues that appear to have increased the warmer desperation level faster than NOAA or GISS can alter temperature data.

I almost wonder if this wasn’t pulled out of the round file due to the increasing need to counter-attack the skeptics with anything they can muster. Like the saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures,” which could be the new “warmer” mantra.

Why do I take umbrage at this? First, let us look at the definition of umbrage, which is why I chose that word as it seems to have a good take on the “warmer” claims made in this study about rainforests. From here at Dictionary.com we get the following:

“um·brage

[uhm-brij]  Show IPA

–noun

1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a socialsnub; to give

umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.

2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,hostility, or

the like.

3. leaves that afford shade, as the foliage of tree

4. shade or shadows, as cast by trees.

5. a shadowy appearance or semblance of something.”

Sorry if you don’t get it but since we’re talking about rainforests I thought the definitions were funny, and yes, words such as offense; annoyance; and displeasure could describe my feelings about what I question is going on with this report (to say the least).

There is a reason I take umbrage, which takes us back to the date of the report. My suspicion is that they don’t have much to stir people up with after 2000, so they cut things “conveniently” off  at 2000. It appears that after 2000 we have things popping up that present problems with the claims in this report such as:

From Mongabay we get the following about the Amazon Jungle.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.

You can read the whole article here. Please note that it’s dated June 22, 2009, about 8.5 years after the 2000 cutoff date cited in the study. Also please note the remark at the end about how the Brazilian government committing to significant reductions in deforestation of the Amazon Jungle, which is an indication the deforestation will slow down and possibly stop in much of the Amazon. Something not mentioned this report even though recently published.

Want more to ponder? You can read this from a New York Times article here circa June 29, 2009, again long after this studies cutoff date of 2000.

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play.

Well now, isn’t that amazingly contrary to the report that prompted this post? Rainforest’s growing? Heaven forbid! This could be another reason we get the cutoff date of 2000. Again from the same NYT article.

The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.

Even the United Nations (home of the IPPC and who in general seem to love all things warming) bought into the fact that the rainforest are growing back in 2005, about 5 years after the 2000 cutoff date in the Stanford report. Is environmental outrage perhaps some or all of the driving force behind this report? Is this another good reason for the 2000 cutoff date?

We get even more from CO2 Science’s article found here.

In a report published in the 6 March 2009 issue of Science, Oliver L. Phillips of the UK’s University of Leeds and his 65 co-authors write that “old growth forests in Amazonia … through photosynthesis and respiration … process 18 petagrams [18 x 1015 grams] of carbon annually,” which they say is “more than twice the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions.” They also state that over the past quarter-century of intensive region-wide measurements, the productivity of the Amazon rainforest — even in its extreme old age — has been found to be “increasing with time,” in support of which statement they cite the comprehensive observational studies of Phillips et al. (1998), Nemani et al. (2003), Baker et al. (2004), Lewis et al. (2004) and Ichii et al. (2005).

So per the above the Amazon alone is processing more CO2 than we’re pumping out globally (2 x) and the ability to process CO2 is increasing, not decreasing as the report would have you believe.  This causes me to again wonder why the evident alarmism, what the motivation for this report was and why the seemingly “convenient” cutoff date of 2000? Note that the item from CO2 Science doesn’t even include the respiration of all the other forests and plants of all types worldwide, just the Amazon.

Think about this and tell me where’s the problem and why the alarmism? Is this more CO2 Insanity?

Source: Allheadlines.com

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Ecoterror, Global Warming

Hurricane Alarmism

Hurricane Earl Subject of Alarmism

This is the kind of garbage that gets people stirred up over little or nothing. The warmistas need to tone it down some lest we have more John Lees (ecoterrorist invader of the Discovery Channel Building in Silver Spring, Maryland) and Ted Kaczynskis (the Unibomber) running around blowing up or shooting people who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. You would think someone would get a clue, but no, we get more alarmist claptrap courtesy of this article from Boston.com’s “The Green Blog.” To quote…..

The large waves, storm surge, and flooding that Hurricane Earl will spawn as it strikes Massachusetts tomorrow night comes with an added dollop of trouble; Sea level rise. Very gradual — and in some cases accelerating — rises in sea level off our coast over the last century will boost the height of Earl’s storm surge — expected to be one to four feet — meaning the wall of water will be able to travel that much farther inland and over higher elevations to flood basements, streets, and other low-lying areas.

Of course the article just had to lay the blame at our old “friend” global warming even though it is unproven BS. “Wall of water?” This isn’t going to be a 10 meter event in Massachusetts by any stretch of the imagination. As of now it’s like a 1-4 feet predicted storm surge being predicted. I guess “wall of water” increases the drama and alarmism.

Sea level is rising, scientists say, in large part because of a global warming double punch: higher ocean temperatures that expand the volume of water, and melting glaciers that add water to the sea. So future hurricanes are likely to cause more widespread flooding.

Now doesn’t “temperatures that expand the volume of water” sound ridiculous? Yes? No? I’m not refuting laws of physics, but think about it for a second, not as a reality but with respect to an ocean, not a glass of water. Has the whole entire Atlantic Ocean suddenly and completely warmed up from the Arctic to the Antarctic, from the US to Europe and from South America to Africa? I really think not. It would be rather asinine to claim that because it is constantly warming and cooling and doing it in different places at different times. Sea-levels will vary some, yes. Yet this article appears to try to get us to believe the whole Atlantic Ocean has warmed in its entirety and will be spilling over into the United States any second now and causing flooding in Des Moines, Iowa.

As an aside, water is also a little different animal than most things. Water will expand when heated, but guess what? It also will expand when cooling. Below is a quote from eHow about it or you can go here and see for yourself.

  • Water is not like other liquids. It isn’t, well, a normal liquid. In other liquids, the basic principle holds true that heated liquids expand and cooled liquids contract. But water doesn’t exactly work the same way. Water does expand when heated and contracts when cooled, but not at all temperature levels.
  • Water has a magic range where the rules do not apply. The main reason for this difference is its makeup. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, and they exist as a loose bond. The range that is different is between 0 and 4 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F to 39.2 degrees F). Water at any other temperature would expand when it is heated, and contract when cooled.
  • However, at 4 degrees Celsius (39.2 F), water is at its most contracted state, but it isn’t frozen. It doesn’t freeze until zero degrees Celsius. This means as it goes toward 0 degrees it expands because of the crystallization of the water into ice. This stems from a reorganization of the oxygen and hydrogen bonds into stronger and more complex attachments. Because water at 0 degrees Celsius (32 F) is more expanded than at 4 degrees Celsius (39.2 F), water heated from zero degrees will shrink from its crystallized state until it makes it back to 4 degrees. Beyond 4 degrees, the water will start to expand again.
  • You can see per the below chart how much the ocean as risen since 1880, which is about 20 centimeters, which equals 7.87 inches, short of the claimed foot in Falmouth by a little over 4 inches, which really isn’t a big deal as far as I’m concerned, just noted so you can see what appears to be to be another exaggeration in a long line of global warming exaggerations, which goes along with the alarmism in the article. Realistically this is 120 years of graph which amounts to a whopping  0.o6558333333 inches of rise per year or approximately 2/3 of an inch per year.  Not much to be alarmed about is there? (Note: The graph was based on 23 different locations and certainly doesn’t span every drop of every ocean and this also is global and not just the Atlantic Ocean).

    "Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art"

    To get back on track here the reason I claim this is alarmism is that while the sea-level may be 8 inches or so higher than it was in 1880, (and yes, it’s close enough that we will go with the 1 foot claimed in the article to reduce any whining). What seems so ridiculous to me is that as of now, they’re predicting a 1 to 4 foot storm surge, which about renders that extra foot moot because regardless it’s going to spill over and cause some flooding. In the case of a hurricane Camille in 1969 the storm surge was 24.6 feet. Think the ocean being a foot or so higher is going to make any difference in a case like that? I think not anything that anyone would notice in the aftermath.

    So why the continued alarmism? Why does it appear the warmers will continue to keep stirring people up with suppositions and exaggerations? Do they want more John Lees? Do they want more Unibombers to come out of the woodwork and kill people?

    It smacks of more desperation from the warmer crowd and the mainstream media to me.  They’re losing the battle, they’re desperate, they’ll claim anything and everything is related to global warming, regardless how silly. They can’t keep exaggerating things like this and expect anyone who’s reasonable to believe it.  So what’s the point? Sell newspapers and magazines? Perhaps that some of it.

    Sometimes I think they really don’t want to win anyone over, they just want the lunatic fringe to believe in their postulating so they’ll arm themselves with guns or bombs and force everyone to do their bidding. Perhaps they’re really using the science of psychology to enforce their belief of anthropogenic global warming upon us.

    I can’t say for certain, perhaps you should ask people such as Al Gore and James Cameron about it.  James by the way seems to like the thought of ecoterrorism.  You can read about that here.

    Source: Boston.com

    Comments Off on Hurricane Alarmism

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Ecoterror, Global Warming, Weather