Not wanting to miss out on the global warming bonanza that is being used as an excuse for increased government spending in other agencies, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has declared war on climate change. Panetta spoke at the annual reception for the Environmental Defense Fund at the Renwick Gallery in Washington D.C., on May 2, 2012. In his remarks, the Secretary thanked the organization for recognizing Defense Department efforts to make military bases and equipment more efficient and environmentally friendly. He also bemoaned rising fuel prices that are having an adverse affect on Pentagon operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. “We now face a budget shortfall exceeding $3 billion because of higher-than-expected fuel costs this year,” he told the audience.
Carbon offsets, favored by PC Hollywood stars and green politicians alike, have been used by the rich and powerful as a way to make their energy wasting lifestyles appear to be OK from an ecological point of view. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have both used carbon offsets to greenwash their jet-setting travel on private aircraft. Airlines even offer the unwashed masses an opportunity to purchase carbon offsets before boarding a flight—you may not be able to fly like they stars but you can lie like the stars. Finally, a voice from the green ranks has spoken up to denounce carbon offsets for what they are: “carbon offsetting is without scientific legitimacy and is dangerously misleading.”
Just when it looked like the climate catastrophists had slunk back into well deserved academic obscurity, a new report in the journal Nature Geoscience has resurrected claims of Earth's impending climatic demise. A new computer climate study says to expect increases in temperature of up to 3°C by 2050, confirming or exceed predictions made by the IPCC reports. Can this model based report be considered any more accurate than previous attempts? Have modeling techniques suddenly improved? Or is this report's appearance in a major scientific journal the signal of a renewed round of scaremongering by eco-alarmists?
Hollywood actors, producers and directors are constantly at pains to prove that they are in some way socially relevant. It is not enough to make millions of dollars simply entertaining people, the oh so politically correct members of the Hollywood elite just cannot resist commenting on politics and the environment. When spouting off on talk shows like The View is not enough, these self appointed protectors of the unwashed masses often make entire feature films about topics that bother them—the fact that they know little about the underlying subjects is never a barrier to film making. Case in point, Matt Damon, best know for the trilogy of Bourne spy thrillers, has signed on to do “Promised Land,” a film that hopes to do for fracking what “The China Syndrome” did for the nuclear power industry.
The dire results of anthropogenic global warming have become passé. Treated by the news media and climate alarmists as established scientific fact, the IPCC's vision of a dystopian future, a world ravaged by global warming, is feed to our children in school, TV shows and Hollywood movies. What is never mentioned is that even the IPCC's predictions encompass several ranges of possible outcome, all predicated on a seemingly simple but mysterious factor called climate system sensitivity. A recent study, published in the journal Science, used spatially more complete paleoclimate data for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in an effort to improve previous estimates of climate sensitivity. The new results have not been widely reported in the news media because, according to the researchers, “these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.”
One of the claims put forth by climate change alarmists is that Earth's glaciers are rapidly melting. This supposedly causes all sorts of problems, from rising sea levels to failing water supplies. A recent report in the journal Nature uses NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite to measure the loss of glacial ice around the globe. Analysis of the satellite data on Earth's changing gravity field delivers some unexpected results and the results have surprising implications for both the global contribution of glaciers to sea level and the changes occurring in the mountain regions of Asia.
As the global warming debate increases in its intensity we find both sides deeply entrenched, hurling accusations and lies at one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand. This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers.
Climate-impact models combine projections of change in physical climate with data on population, economic growth and other variables. The output of such models are used to make predictions regarding the cost of anthropogenic global warming, in both monetary and human terms. They are the source of dire predictions used to scare politicians and bludgeon the public into accepting draconian measures to curb human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the prophets of climate change catastrophe, the models' reports are far from being in agreement, leading more rational members of the public to doubt the models' veracity. To rectify this lack of believability, a new “fast-track” program to coordinate modeling studies and make “their narratives of possible futures more coherent and useful to decision-makers,” has been launched. In other words, it is an attempt to make sure that climate change propaganda is at least consistent.
A new theory of supercontinent formation, published in the journal Nature, predicts that the Arctic ocean will be squeezed out of existence in the future as most of Earth's landmass gathers in a new supercontinent—Amasia. The new orthoversion helps to resolve the problems of the older introversion and extroversion models, which have led to a “fundamental disconnection … between the geologic evidence for supercontinent formation, and the models purported to explain their assembly.” If the Arctic Ocean disappears so will the Polar Bear, an iconic species that has been held up as a poster child for global warming. The climate catastrophists are correct in predicting the demise of the white bear of the Arctic, but they have both the reason and time frame terribly wrong.
Many of the more strident reports regarding runaway global warming center on rapid ice loss from the glaciers of Greenland. During the early 2000s the Greenland Ice Sheet experienced the largest ice-mass loss since accurate instrument readings have been kept. This was largely caused by the acceleration, thinning and retreat of large outlet glaciers in West and southeast Greenland. Now a new study in Nature Geoscience confirms that ice loss from the Helheim Glacier between 2003 and 2005 was the worst recorded—at least since the last period of rapid ice loss during the late 1930s.
A study commissioned by the California legislature has just reported that, in order to achieve the state's aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 2050, the golden state will need to more than triple the percentage of electrical power it gets from nuclear energy. In the January 6, 2012, issue of the journal Science a paper outlining the report's findings was published and they may be a bit unsettling for deep green Californian ecologists. It finds that technically feasible levels of energy efficiency and decarbonizing the state's energy supply alone are not good enough. The answer? Here is a hint—electric vehicles powered by expanded nuclear energy.
Those who thought that the war was won and the forces of junk science—who prop up the climate change alarmists—were sent packing need to think again. With the new year, a new assault on climate skepticism is being waged on multiple fronts. Editorials in Nature and Science herald the resurgence of the climate catastrophists and their attempt to bamboozle the public, mislead government officials and brainwash our children. Wake up and smell the steer manure, the battle against the bogus boffins of climate hysteria is far from over.
Towering pyramids and ceremonial plazas are the hallmarks of ancient Mesoamerican urban building, yet the oldest examples that call to mind this familiar style are found nearly 1000 kilometers to the north in the muddy bayous of Louisiana. Five millennia ago, Native Americans began to build high mounds of earth flanked by flat plazas that resemble the classic architecture of the Maya and the Aztec. Surprisingly, new dating efforts reveal that the first great period of mound building nearly occurred 5,000 years ago—nearly 2,000 years before the first cities appeared in Mexico, and before the Giza pyramids in ancient Egypt. Stranger still is what brought this golden age of prehistoric Native American culture to an end: a five century long spell of massive floods in the lower Mississippi Valley.
We at The Resilient Earth would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our loyal readers for their patronage during 2011 and wish all of you a happy and prosperous New Year. The wonders of nature continue to unfold around us and the secrets of how the physical universe works are slowly uncovered by hard working scientists around the world. We look forward to a time when this website will only have to concern itself with recent scientific discoveries and the natural marvels they reveal, rather than having to debunk the junk science of the climate alarmist community and various “green energy” swindles.
The climate associated with global oceans undergoes natural variability with many time scales. A recent report in the Journal Science identifies atmospheric blocking over the North Atlantic as a major factor in such variability on time scales as short as a week. The correspondence between blocked westerly winds and warm ocean can be seen in recent decadal episodes, particularly from 1996 to 2010. It also describes much longer time scale Atlantic multidecadal ocean variability (AMV), including the extreme northern warming of the 1930s to 1960s, which predates the rise of human CO2 emissions that alarmists are convinced is causing all recent global warming.