Ekologia - słuszna sprawa czy wielki przekręt ?

[j33mbo]

citan, nie wiem czy te Bumerangi jaj sobie nie robią, ale naświetlenie całej sprawy jest niezmiernie istotne,
może ktoś w końcu zajmie się porównaniem emisji "cywilizacyjnej" do emisji "naturalnej"

[inquiz]

część ekooszołomstwa chce znacznego zredukowania populacji ludzi, jeszcze zatęsknimy za Stalinem i Hitlerem

[Piter 35]

A jednak to wredne ekologiczne kiełki przetrzebiły populacje Europejczyków . I co na to Ekooszołomska Brać

[AMI]

Zaczynam sie powaznie bac puszczac baki, bo jeszcze i na mnie ktos zlecenie wystawi...

[ky]

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/671269_Sposob_ ... blady.html

Interes się rozkręca, na razie opłaca się ubić wielbłąda. To jest tak absurdalne, że aż ciężko skomentować.

Jakkolwiek pomysł jest absurdalny, to zwróć uwagę na to, że Au ma parę problematycznych bytów, jak np. króliki, które zostały całkiem niedawno sprowadzone przez człowieka, rozpleniły się w całkiem niekontrolowany sposób i wypierają lub wyparły miejscowe gatunki.

r.

[citan]

zwróć uwagę na to, że Au ma parę problematycznych bytów

Dlatego wyjaśnienie w stylu "chcemy przywrócić równowagę w przyrodzie" jest dla mnie zrozumiałe. Przeliczanie wielbłądzich wyziewów na CO2 - ilości ubitych sztuk - na pieniądze, już nie.

[Arno]

CCNet – 15 June 2011
The Climate Policy Network

Earth May Be Headed Into A Mini Ice Age Within A Decade

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age. --Lewis Page, The Register, 14 June 2011

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle. This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean told AFP. --AFP, 15 June 2011


Other experts were skeptical about whether the latest data actually predict a long-term solar minimum. "There is no compelling reason to think that the Sun is about to go into hibernation," said Yi-Ming Wang of the Naval Research Laboratory. "On the other hand, we don't understand the solar dynamo well enough to make any reliable prediction about what cycle 25 will be like." --AFP, 15 June 2011

Venice could find itself under water within a few decades if current climate trends continue, a top United Nations climatologist said on Friday. Over the next 30 or so years rainfall in the northern Mediterranean will increase by 10-20% as a result of global warming, said Osvaldo Canziani, deputy head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). --ANSA News Agency, 15 April 2007

New research led by an Australian government boffin says that Venice is not, in fact, set to disappear underwater in the near future as a result of global warming. --The Register, 13 June 2011

AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change. For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown. --Wendy Zukerman, New Scientist, 3 June 2011

In its selective coverage of climate change science BBC News has become not a reporter of climate change, but a supporter of it. It has, as this regrettable article shows, veered into advocacy. Science and Environmental journalists are often enthusiasts for the subject but as reporters they must not become cheerleaders and uncritically use shoddy science in a one-sided attempt to trounce those whom, as is obvious from this piece, the reporter thinks are wrong. –-David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 14 June 2011

1) Earth May Be Headed Into A Mini Ice Age Within A Decade - The Register, 14 June 2011
2) Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots - AFP, 15 June 2011
3) David Whitehouse: 1995 And All That - The Observatory, 14 June 2011
4) False Alarm: Pacific Islands Defy Climate Hysteria - New Scientist, 3 June 2011
5) False Alarm: Venice Won’t Drown After all - The Register, 13 June 2011
6) Lessons in climate change 'should go' says schools adviser who tells them to remove pseudo-science - Daily Mail 14 June 2011
7) Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World? - CO2 Science Magazine, 14 June 2011

1) Earth May Be Headed Into A Mini Ice Age Within A Decade
The Register, 14 June 2011
Lewis Page
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.
This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:
An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.
"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
Good news for Mars astronauts – Less good for carbon traders, perhaps
Hill's own research focuses on surface pulsations of the Sun and their relationship with sunspots, and his team has already used their methods to successfully predict the late onset of Cycle 24.
Hill's results match those from physicists Matt Penn and William Livingston, who have gone over 13 years of sunspot data from the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona. They have seen the strength of the magnetic fields which create sunspots declining steadily. According to the NSO:
Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.
In parallel with this comes research from the US Air Force's studies of the solar corona. Richard Altrock, in charge of this, has found a 40-year decline in the "rush to the poles" – the poleward surge of magnetic activity in the corona.
"Those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun," Altrock says. "Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun ...
"Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we'll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists ... No one knows what the Sun will do in that case."
According to the collective wisdom of the NSO, another Maunder Minimum may very well be on the cards.
"If we are right," summarises Hill, "this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."
The effects on space exploration would be benign, as fewer or no solar storms would make space a much less hostile environment for human beings. At the moment, anyone venturing beyond the Earth's protective magnetic field (the only people to have done so were the Apollo moon astronauts of the 1960s and '70s) runs a severe risk of dangerous or fatal radiation exposure during a solar storm.
Manned missions beyond low Earth orbit, a stated aspiration of the USA and other nations, might become significantly safer and cheaper to mount (cheaper as there would be no requirement for possibly very heavy shielding to protect astronauts, so reducing launch costs).
The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide. ®

2) Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots
AFP, 15 June 2011
Kerry Sheridan
WASHINGTON — US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures.
For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.
The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots and slower activity near the poles, said a trio of studies presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
"This is highly unusual and unexpected," said Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network.
"But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.
Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715 known as the "Little Ice Age."
"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate," said Hill.
Solar flares and eruptions can send highly charged particles hurtling toward Earth and interfere with satellite communications, GPS systems and even airline controls.
Geomagnetic forces have been known to occasionally garble the world's modern gadgetry, and warnings were issued as recently as last week when a moderate solar flare sent a fiery coronal mass ejection in the Earth's direction.
However, the temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and not enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists.
"Recent solar 11-year cycles are associated empirically with changes in global surface temperature of 0.1 Celsius," said Judith Lean, a solar physicist with the US Naval Research Laboratory.
If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.
This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, told AFP.
Less sunspot activity means the Sun will radiate lower levels of energy, ultraviolet rays, solar wind and a weaker magnetic field, explained climate scientist and author Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.
"Historical data suggest that solar activity, however, only appears to have a weak effect on our climate," said Benestad.
A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.
"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a maximum 4.5 degree Celsius rise by this century's end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.
"Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."
Other experts were skeptical about whether the latest data actually predict a long-term solar minimum.
"There is no compelling reason to think that the Sun is about to go into hibernation," said Yi-Ming Wang of the Naval Research Laboratory.
"On the other hand, we don't understand the solar dynamo well enough to make any reliable prediction about what cycle 25 will be like."

3) David Whitehouse: 1995 And All That
The Observatory, 14 June 2011
Last year Professor Phil Jones of the UEA Climatic Research Unit was asked by the BBC to respond to a series of viewer’s questions. One of them concerned global temperature increase since 1995;
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
The answer was the statistical case for warming between 1995 and 2009 could not be made, but it was a marginal statement. There was warming, but not enough to satisfy normal scientific attribution of significance.
It was a quote that meant whatever one wanted it to. Some took it literally as “it hasn’t warmed at all since 1995,” which is technically true. Others said look at the statistics, no warming might be true, but it’s only just true, so it must be warming!
Now after one more years’ datapoint, 2010, is available (and has been for five months) Professor Jones has looked at his statistics, using the HadCRUT database (but not specifically stated which of those that go under this name) and reached a different conclusion. Recall what he said in 2009, “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
What a difference a year makes. This time, according to the BBC’s Environment Correspondent Richard Black’s report, warming between 1995 and 2010 is significant.
Another year, according to the report, has “pushed the trend passed the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real” (their quotemarks).” Data from 2010, it seems, for there are no references to methodology, pushed the significance of warming beyond the 95% confidence level.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
This means that adding 6 per cent more data (16 as opposed to 15 years) has, paraphrasing Prof Jones’ own words, achieved statistical significance in scientific terms, which is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
It is perhaps understandable to revisit the question posed last year, especially given its finding.
A significance of 95%, which is a 1 in 20 chance, in the real scientific world is not proof of a finding, but just a starting point. Try submitting a paper to a journal with such a level of statistical confidence and the journal’s reviewer would legitimately complain about having their time wasted until better evidence is presented.
Just recall what happened recently with the claim that some particle physicists had detected a new particle, dubbed the DZero. When the results were announced they were given at the "three sigma" level of certainty. This is about a one in a thousand probability the result is due to chance, considerably higher odds than those quoted by Professor Jones. Given the importance of a potential discovery another group of particle physicists later reanalysed the data and concluded that it was actually below 5 sigma, more unlikely to be due to chance, but they still were not impressed. They rejected the claim as not proven. The initial claimants accepted the finding and have gone away to do more work.
Professor Jones’ calculations may not be correct. Some have subsequently pointed out that using one version of HadCRUT shows no significant warming since 1995 whilst, depending on how you do the analysis, the other version just about does. Indeed, analysing HadCRUT with the IPCC approved method shows no significant warming between 1995 - 2010. Any prudent scientist would take this as an unsatisfactory position to advocate a positive result. Consequently it would have been nice to see some more details about Professor Jones’ methodology.
In fact it is likely, given the La Nina we are experiencing in 2011 that when 2011 data is added to the calculations even by Professor Jones’ own methods the trend will once again fall below significance. Indeed, adding the first 6 months of 2011 and treating the data in half-yearly groupings shows that already.
Choosing the year 1995 as a start point is in any case silliness.
Looking at the post-1980 warming spell (that occurred after 40 years of not much change) there are several distinct features. Whatever one’s view on the length of time that defines climate, it is obvious and unarguable that there is structure in the temperature dataset of the past 30 years.
It got warmer between 1980 – 1997. 1998 was the start of a dramatic El Nino. Subsequently there were two cooler years and post-2001, despite a few El Nino’s and La Nina’s the temperature has show no statistical change. See Warming What Warming for references. It is unequivocal that the temperature since 2001 has not changed. That is a definite feature in the temperature data. It is 2001 – 2010, not 1995 – 2010.
1995 -2010 is fifteen years. It seems that some professors and commentators are happy to discuss trends in the temperature data of that duration. But when it comes to the statistically unchallengeable 2001 – 2010 standstill suddenly the time period is too short.
1995 – 2010 will show a slight warming (even if not substantial statistically) because although most of the 1980 – 1997 warming had already taken place there was still a little bit of warming to go before the El Nino and the post-2001 plateau.
Supporters Not Reporters
The BBC article that declared, Global warming since 1995 'now significant' is, in my view, extremely poor. The article was based on statements made directly to BBC News, (“Professor Jones told BBC News”) though possibly not directly to Mr Black.
It states that Prof Jones’ 2010 comment about no warming is “still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.” True. But it also seen on blogs that support the idea that mankind is overwhelmingly responsible for recent climate change. It is also seen on blogs that debate the exact mix of human and natural contributions to climate change, which is an active and scientifically respectable position apparent to anyone who is up to date with the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
The BBC article quotes Professor Jones as saying that adding an extra year on a 15-year dataset “shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.” The BBC article does not question that this is only an extra 6% of data. Adding a small amount of data to a dataset and getting a different result is a warning sign to any scientist to be careful. Specialist journalists should know this.
The BBC article does however say that it shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series. But it has clearly made its mind up. Fifteen years is not significant, 16 years is enough to achieve significance, is what the article says.
The BBC article says that Professor Jones’ 2010 comment was quoted “erroneously” as demonstration that the Earth’s surface temperature is not rising. This is plain wrong. Professor Jones’ answer did include some statistical caveats but is answer, Yes or No, was Yes, it hasn’t warmed. The BBC article does not link to the specific HadCRUT data set used, but only a general website.
It is a sloppy, skimpy article in the extreme. It provides little in the way of analysis and that which it does is one-sided. But even if one did not look at the accuracy of the statements it has, not for the first time, an air of triumph, as if those whom it deems skeptic (and it has a strange definition of skeptic) have been overcome. It is not impartial.
In its selective coverage of climate change science BBC News has become not a reporter of climate change, but a supporter of it. It has, as this regrettable article shows, veered into advocacy. Science and Environmental journalists are often enthusiasts for the subject but as reporters they must not become cheerleaders and uncritically use shoddy science in a one-sided attempt to trounce those whom, as is obvious from this piece, the reporter thinks are wrong.
There is no mention in the article that the statistics for the post-2001 temperature standstill are accepted by the scientific community. This changes the story completely.
I look forward to another BBC News item, dated mid January 2012, based on data to 2011, whose headline is, Global Warming since 1995 ‘now not significant (again).’
The Carbon Brief website was swift to proclaim some kind of victory by expanding the conclusions in the BBC article. The idea that global warming has stopped “can finally be laid to rest,” it proclaimed a short while after the BBC story was posted. It then took Professor Jones’ conclusion of a warming trend being statistically significant between 1995 -2010 and could not wait to say it discredited statements by the GWPF that there was no increase in the past ten years. In doing this the Carbon Brief demonstrated its inability to tell apples from oranges, to cherry pick data, and displayed its barely contained desire to criticise the GWPF using concocted arguments. In doing so it, in my view, destroyed any reputation is may have wanted to build as being accurate and informed.
Feedback: [email protected]

4) False Alarm: Pacific Islands Defy Climate Hysteria
New Scientist, 3 June 2011
Wendy Zukerman
AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change. For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.
Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on average.
Despite this, Kench and Webb found that just four islands have diminished in size since the 1950s. The area of the remaining 23 has either stayed the same or grown (Global and Planetary Change, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.11.001).
Webb says the trend is explained by the islands' composition. Unlike the sandbars of the eastern US coast, low-lying Pacific islands are made of coral debris. This is eroded from the reefs that typically circle the islands and pushed up onto the islands by winds, waves and currents. Because the corals are alive, they provide a continuous supply of material. "Atolls are composed of once-living material," says Webb, "so you have a continual growth." Causeways and other structures linking islands can boost growth by trapping sediment that would otherwise get lost to the ocean.
All this means the islands respond to changing weather and climate. For instance, when hurricane Bebe hit Tuvalu in 1972 it deposited 140 hectares of sedimentary debris onto the eastern reef, increasing the area of the main island by 10 per cent.
Kench says that while the 27 islands in his study are just a small portion of the thousands of low-lying Pacific islands, it shows that they are naturally resilient to rising sea levels. "It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," he says. "But they won't. The sea level will go up and the island will start responding."
It's been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't
John Hunter, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania in Australia, says the study is solid, and good news for those preparing evacuations. The shifting shape of the islands presents a challenge, however. Even on islands where the total land mass is stable or grows, one area may be eroded while another is being added to. It's not possible to simply move people living in highly urbanised areas to new land, says Naomi Biribo of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia.
Webb and Kench warn that while the islands are coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise could overtake the sediment build up. Calculating how fast sea levels will rise over the coming decades is uncertain science, and no one knows how fast the islands can grow.
Full story

5) False Alarm: Venice Won’t Drown After all
The Register, 13 June 2011
New research led by an Australian government boffin says that Venice is not, in fact, set to disappear underwater in the near future as a result of global warming.
"The survival of Venice and its lagoon is seriously questioned under the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global sea level rise scenarios," says Dr Alberto Troccoli of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). However, according to new work by Troccoli and colleagues in Italy and the UK, things are actually set to improve for the much-loved city of canals.
The regular floods which beset Venice today - aka "Acqua Alta", high water events, not something that residents of the tideless Mediterranean generally expect - are caused by storm surges.
"Possible future changes in storm surge occurrences critical to flooding events remain largely unexplored," explains Troccoli. "It is important to understand how these events will evolve since a moderate to strong storm surge event is required to cause serious flooding."
According to the doc and his colleagues' analysis, the Acqua Alta is actually set to become a less frequent visitor to Venice as the Earth's climate evolves through the 21st century. The famous piazza of St Mark's will no longer be so regularly inundated.
"We found that the frequency of extreme storm surge events affecting Venice is projected to decrease by about 30 per cent by the end of the 21st century which would leave the pattern of flooding largely unaltered under 21st Century climate simulations," says Troccoli.
As the doc says, this clashes sharply with the official UN position. Just a few years ago, Italian wire service ANSA reportedthat Osvaldo Canziani, the then deputy head of the IPCC, had warned that "Venice is destined to disappear" within decades.
Troccoli and his colleagues' results assume that the UN global projections of sea level rise are correct, but their findings appear to show that the consequences to be expected in any given location may be very different from that one might expect.
The doc says that his research "emphasises the need for location-by-location studies to determine coastal flooding impacts". The paper Storm surge frequency reduction in Venice under climate change is published here by the journal Climatic Change. ®

6) Lessons in climate change 'should go' says schools adviser who tells them to remove pseudo-science
Daily Mail 14 June 2011
Kate Loveys
Climate change propaganda could be cut from the classroom, as a government adviser demands pseudo-science is removed from the national curriculum.
Tim Oates, who is leading an overhaul of school syllabuses for five- to 16-year-olds, has signalled the end of ‘climate wash’ in schools.
He is calling for a return of ‘science in science’ and for children to be taught facts, not fads.
And he accused Labour of replacing traditional physics, chemistry and biology with ‘topical issues’ such as global warming.
At present, seven-year-olds are taught that the world is overheating, and told this will cause floods and kill polar bears.
Mr Oates is due to report on his review of the national curriculum later this year, and any changes will be introduced in schools in September 2013.
His recommendation mirrors the thinking of Education Secretary Michael Gove, who wants pupils to be taught a rigorous core academic curriculum.
Mr Oates, director of research at Cambridge Assessment, one of the biggest exam boards in Europe, said: ‘We have believed that we need to keep up-to-date with topical issues, but oxidation and gravity don’t date.
‘We are not taking it back 100 years. We’re taking it back to the core stuff.
‘The curriculum has become narrowly instrumentalist.’
He said topics that engage children in science ‘changed dramatically’ from year to year.
He added: ‘The national curriculum shouldn’t ever try to keep up with those, otherwise it would keep changing.’ [...]
THE TOPICS THEY'RE TEACHING
• One national curriculum module for seven-year-olds, called Solar, says they must:
• Understand in simple terms how climate change will affect wildlife, using the example of polar bears.
• Think about positive ways we can act now to slow down climate change.
• Understand that there are forms of energy production that don’t produce carbon dioxide, such as solar.
A list of vocabulary that the youngsters must know includes: global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide and solar power.
Suggested activities include preparing a written or verbal news flash explaining the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ with specific reference to the lives of polar bears and the Arctic.
Questions the class must ask:
• Will climate change affect us?
• If the ice melts what will happen to the seas?
• Will this change where we live?
Full story

7) Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World?
CO2 Science Magazine, 14 June 2011
A new study by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change --Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World? -- reveals that a very real and devastating food crisis is looming on the horizon, and continuing advancements in agricultural technology and expertise will most likely not be able to bridge the gap between global food supply and global food demand just a few short years from now.
Crop yield and production data were utilized to identify the crops that supply 95% of the food needs of (1) the world, (2) six large regions into which the world may be divided, (3) twenty sub-regions, and (4) the world's twenty-five most populated countries. Recent productivity trends of these key crops were then projected to the year 2050 for each of the specified geographical areas, revealing that expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will increase the food production potential of many countries and regions. However, these advances will not increase production fast enough to meet the needs of the planet's even faster-growing human population. But when the positive impact of Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yields was considered, the severity of the pending food shortage was found to be considerably lessened.
"Having evolved at much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than those of the current geological period, many land plants grow substantially better with more CO2," says Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, who states that the report "provides a very thorough review of the beneficial role of increased CO2on mankind's most important agricultural crops."
In order to avoid the unpalatable consequences of unprecedented widespread hunger - and even starvation - in the years and decades ahead, the study's author, Dr. Craig Idso, contends that "a commitment similar to that which drove the Apollo moon-mission is needed to increase crop yields per unit of land area, per amount of nutrients applied, and per amount of water used." And about the only way of successfully doing so without the taking of unconscionable amounts of land and water from nature and thereby driving untold numbers of plant and animal species to extinction, is to "invest the time, effort and capital that is required to identify, and to then use, the major food crop genotypes that respond most strongly to atmospheric CO2 enrichment."
However, rising CO2 concentrations are considered by many people to be the primary cause of what is claimed to be unprecedented global warming; and if regulations restricting anthropogenic CO2 emissions are enacted to fight this perceived but likely phantom problem, Idso contends that they will "greatly exacerbate" food shortfalls by reducing the CO2-induced yield enhancements that are needed to supplement the productivity increases provided by expected future advances in agricultural technology and expertise. And in the wake of such emissions regulations, hundreds of millions of people the world over will likely experience significant hunger and malnutrition.
Government leaders and policy makers should take notice of the findings of this important new analysis of the world food situation; for doing what climate alarmists claim is needed to fight global warming will surely consign earth's human population to a world of woe, while doing next to nothing in terms of altering the current warm phase of the planet's surface temperature.
The report can be viewed or downloaded at the website of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at http://www.co2science.org/education/rep ... es2050.pdf. Questions about the report can be addressed to Dr. Craig Idso at the email address [email protected].

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1 Carlton House, London SW1Y 5DB

Director: Dr Benny Peiser

[Arno]

kilka linków słonecznych
http://www.solarham.com/
http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://mashable.com/2011/06/14/sunspots ... r-activity

i oto jak wyznawcy ocieplenia komentuja aktywnosc slonecza w odniesieniu do pogody... na religię nie ma rady. Wiara czyni cuda.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... w-ice-age/

tutaj sporo groznie wygladajacych wykresów, ale trochę treści te jest
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/t ... -activity/

Zimno jak diabli, będą gorsze zbiory. Wyobraźmy sobie, że wejdziemy w kolejną małą epokę lodową (1645 - 1715) - będzie zimno. Będzie drogo. Możliwe, że nawet okaże się, że nie powodujemy ocieplenia. I co wtedy, może jednak cieplejszy klimat jest lepszy od zimnego?
Zadzwia mnie to, że eko wmówiło skutecznie ludności, że ciepłej to gorzej.

[Konto usunięte]

Ludzkość jest pasożytem tej planety. Za kilkaset lat zostanie tu tylko pustynia

Wojna o Amazonię
http://www.newsweek.pl/artykuly/sekcje/ ... ie,78391,1

[Arno]

wystarczy wyjść na dowolna drogę asfaltową, ktore nie ruszał nikt przez 50 lat i zobaczyć, jak asfalt rośłiny rozwaliły. Wystarczy pojechać do meksyku, zobaczyć jak roślinność rozwala budowle z kamienia.
Trzeba przestać myśleć naszą indywidualną perspektywą. A pomyśleć co sto lat znaczy w skali geologicznej, ziemskiej... wszystko się odbudowuje z prędkością światła.
Wystarczy jedno zlodowaconko ( raz na jakiś czas a interwało dość krótkie) aby się wszystko przemieliło dokładnie.

Tutaj za to link do fajnej strony
http://www.john-daly.com/

http://climaterealists.com/index.php

[subarutux]

Taki drobny przyczynek do dyskusji o pomijanych kosztach tradycyjnych źródeł energii: Na Podkarpaciu coraz trudniej oddychać.

[damaz]

pomijanych kosztach

jak to "pomijanych"?
myślałem, że cały "handel CO2" dotyczy spalania kopalin.

[WiS]

Jak wynika z artykułu, podkarpacki problem to skutek przede wszystkim tzw. "niskiej emisji" czyli masy małych i niekoniecznie nowoczesnych kotłowni, w których się pali węglem (a praktycznie - często - byleczym, tzn. tym, co popadnie, co jest tanie i czego się nie chce wywalać na śmietnik...). Kiedyś (tzn. lat temu ze 20) rzecz bardzo w Polsce popularna, masa forsy szła na likwidację tego we wczesnych latach 90. i generalnie problem rozwiązano, widać po prostu Podkarpacie trochę przespało tę fazę.
A że spalanie węgla nie jest całkiem ekologiczne, i że powoduje powstanie jakiegoś syfu tak czy siak, to oczywiste.
Dobry argument za energetyką jądrową
I przeciwko autom hybrydowym tam, gdzie większość prądu w gniazdkach bierze się ze spalania węgla

[damaz]

I przeciwko autom hybrydowym tam, gdzie większość prądu w gniazdkach bierze się ze spalania węgla

podoba mi się ten tok myślenia.

[esilon]

Unia Europejska już dyskutuje o możliwości całkowitego wycofania z ruchu samochodów z silnikami spalinowymi.

PAV na klopoty
http://technologie.gazeta.pl/internet/1 ... chodu.html

[Bergen]

Ech, Aldous Huxley się w grobie przewraca...

[Arno]

troche o pradzie dla szanownych
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A ... Threat.pdf

[Gootek]

I przeciwko autom hybrydowym tam, gdzie większość prądu w gniazdkach bierze się ze spalania węgla

podoba mi się ten tok myślenia.

Jest jednak jeszcze jeden aspekt, który będzie zachęcał ludzi pod naszą szerokością geograficzną do kupowania pojazdów elektrycznych, czy przerabiania napędu na elektryczny (jak np. http://motoryzacja.interia.pl/wiadomosc ... je,1667232 ).

Tym aspektem jest fakt, że zdecydowanie łatwiej jest kraść prąd elektryczny niż paliwa typu benzyna czy ON.

[inquiz]

Biznes na handlowaniu powietrzem jest naprawdę fajny, lepiej nam zarżnie gospodarkę niż podatki
http://biznes.interia.pl/prasa/przeglad ... 67227,3128

[Konto usunięte]

No i sztorm słoneczny się skończył.


http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html#satenv

Niby nic, ale od wczoraj mój internet komórkowy działał jakby mu ktoś piachu w tryby nasypał. Co chwila się rozłączał, transfer skakał jak dziki... Dopiero teraz się poprawiło.

[Piter 35]

Niby nic, ale od wczoraj mój internet komórkowy działał jakby mu ktoś piachu w tryby nasypał. Co chwila się rozłączał, transfer skakał jak dziki... Dopiero teraz się poprawiło.

A rachunki Panie popłacone były . Pewnie Żonka zapłaciła i się przyśpieszyło

[Alan, Alan, Alan!]

ostatnio natchnęła mnie taka ekologiczno ekonomiczna myśl na temat opadów od miesiąca.
Skoro Stany są zadłużone u Chińczyków, to Europa pewno też.

No i oni już nawadniają pola ryżowe

[marcyś]

No i oni już nawadniają pola ryżowe

znaczy czas się przyzwyczajać do ryżowej wódki, ryżowego piwa etc...

[damaz]

no ok. kiedy żartujemy, to żartujemy a kiedy się śmiejemy z ekofilów, to się śmiejemy.


ale pomysł na taką energię absolutnie mi się nie podoba:

Nie ma już formalnych przeszkód do rozpoczęcia w puszczy amazońskiej głównego etapu budowy gigantycznej elektrowni wodnej - trzeciej co do wielkości siłowni tego typu na świecie. Brazylijski urząd ochrony środowiska wydał w środę stosowną zgodę.
Już w styczniu tego roku ten sam urząd zgodził się na rozpoczęcie prac przygotowawczych, w tym wycięcie 240 hektarów lasu.

Plany budowy elektrowni wodnej Belo Monte na rzece Xingu ostro krytykowane były i są nadal przez ekologów, obrońców praw człowieka i Kościółkatolicki. Zdaniem krytyków, budowa gigantycznej siłowni może spowodować nieodwracalne szkody w środowisku naturalnym i zagrozić egzystencji Indian mieszkających w okolicy.

Elektrownia Belo Monte ma mieć moc ponad 11 tysięcy megawatów i - w opinii brazylijskiego rządu - jej budowa jest niezbędna ze względu na potrzeby energetyczne kraju.

Siłownia na rzece Xingu będzie trzecią co do wielkości elektrownią wodną na świecie, po chińskiej Zaporze Trzech Przełomów i elektrowni Itaipu na rzece Parana, na granicy brazylisko-paragwajskiej. Realizacja projektu w puszczy amazońskiej ma kosztować ponad 8 miliardów euro.

[Arno]

a wystarczy jedna atomówka. Mało miejsca zajmuje a prądu daje w cholerę.