Here Comes El Nino

Further to my Sunday morning post:

The red spot [west of South America] which represents the EL NINO is developing and it will affect South East Asia worst during Deepavali, Christmas and maybe, even up to Chinese New Year 2010.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the broader El Nino effects occur about six months after it kicks in on the regional level, so we Canucks should start seeing them in 2010.

Scrapping Over The Black Liqour

America's weirdest "green" initiative threatens to trigger a trade war:

Canada has threatened trade action against the United States over a massive "black liquor" tax credit to its pulp and paper industry that has distorted global pulp markets.

In a statement Thursday, International Trade Minister Stockwell Day said Canada has joined the European Union, Brazil and Chile in demanding that the credit, estimated to be worth between $4 billion and $8 billion, be withdrawn.

If you remember, this is the "alternative tax credit" buried in the 2005 highway bill that subsidizes American pulp & paper companies for dirtying up their production processes by adding diesel to the lignin sludge their mills produce as a by-product and then recycle as a clean-burning fuel.

Rather disappointing is the fact that yankee enviros have written very little about this issue (other than a few short pieces I remember seeing at Grist). Don't know if its because it has gone under the radar in all the struggles over Waxman-Markey, or whether there's a little bit of protectionism in their mental makeup.

This Fire, It Didn't Follow The Rules Anyway

Aussie Heatwave Would controlled burns have stopped the Aussie forest fires?

A nicely balanced piece that kind of leaves behind the typical "Blame Environmentalists" nonsense that's appeared over the past couple of days.

Also, Michael Tobis on the role of AGW in the fires:


Eventually things get too weird. Eventually you don't have to say "the sort of thing that is more likely to happen under climate change". Eventually you have to say, my God, this is unnatural.

On Solar Links: Sloan Responds To Shaviv

Earlier in April, Terry Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale published a paper in which they offered an apparent refutation of Henrik Svensmark's theories linking solar activity to Global Warming. The paper is here, my post on it here. Yesterday, astrophysicist N.J. Shaviv published an on-line critique in which he suggests that Sloan and Wolfensdale have made three mistakes in their paper:

Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link.

I contacted Terry Sloan yesterday afternoon via email and asked him if he would like to respond to Mr. Shaviv's arguments, and he asked me to post the following:

Dear Shaviv,

I would like to correct the factual errors in your blog.

1. Concerning cosmic rays. Muons, neutrons and the soft component of cosmic rays are all produced from the interactions of the primaries in the upper atmosphere. So the thickness of atmosphere above them is irrelevant. This is a factual error in your paper.

You say we should have compared with ionization chamber data - no such long term data exist either for shielded ion chambers (only sensitive to muons) or unshielded (sensitive to ionization from both muons and electrons). If such data had existed we would have used them.

The Ususkin et al computations of the solar modulation of the total ionization in cycle 22 are compatible with our neutron monitor curve. So our analysis is safe.

2. Your fig 2 from the other Usoskin et al paper is for a highly selected data sample with a large correlation coefficient - not the global average with which we compare. Hence your fig 2 has little to do with our analysis using global averages. We stuck to global averages because in the original Marsh and Svensmark work they computed from the globally averaged dip in cycle 22 that the radiative forcing was 1.4 W m^-2 if all the dip was caused by CR. We set out either to confirm whether the dip was due to CR or not and if not to set a limit on the fraction of it which could come from this source. As we could find no corroborative evidence that it was due to ionization we set a limit. Our limit says that the radiative forcing cannot be more than 23% of 1.4 W m^-2.

3. Forbush decreases - the changes in the CR rate were averaged over the same time intervals as the changes in the LCC - so we have done this correctly and not incorrectly as you imply. The Forbush decreases usually take place over times between days to a month.

Regards, Terry Sloan.

Fermi's Paradox And Global Warming

One of the possible solutions to Fermi's Paradox (if the Universe is filled with intelligent species, where are they all?) has always been to suggest that advanced civilizations tend to bring about their own destruction.

Adam Korbitz suggests two possible mechanisms by which this might happen here on Earth:

First, researchers at the University of Colorado have published a study showing that even a limited nuclear exchange between longtime rivals India and Pakistan would have devastating environmental effects --- although it would by no means spell the end of the human race.

Second, the World Health Organization issued a warning today about the catastrophic human death toll that unchecked climate change may cause this century, particularly in the poorest countries.

Of course my favorite solution to F's Paradox is that they are already among us - but they call themselves Hungarians.

(A slow news day, obviously)

Investor's Business Daily Smears Bill Clinton Over AGW

What IBD reported:

In a typically verbose speech, [Bill Clinton] put forth his idea of what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save our planet for our grandchildren." Sounds like he should cut back on his own.

What he actually said:

CLINTON: And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties [sic] -- would say, "OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

Don't wait for a retraction.

Here is the blog post that started the whole frenzy, with some acidic criticism in the comments section once the whole scam has been unveiled. Here is NY Time's environmental reporter Andy Revkin's take.

PS. Something seems to be wrong with blogger that makes it hard to post and impossible to spell-check. If my spelling is worse than usual today, that's why.

How Many Deniers Does It Take

...to search Google? Apparently more than two. Tom Harris runs an industry financed Canadian astro-turf group called the NRSP (National Resources Stewardship Program); Bob Carter has been denying stuff since forever. Together they have teamed up at Canada Free Press to write an op-ed that makes an egregious factual error in its very first sentence:

Virtually overnight, Portland (Oregon) High School student Kristen Byrnes has become a climate change sensation and a role model for freethinking young people everywhere.

Actually, and as the front page of her home page quite clearly states, Kristen Byrnes (the tiniest denier) hails from Portland Maine.

Nitpicking? Sure! But if you can't write six words without getting the two coasts of America mixed up, how can anyone take your claims of a "giant conspiracy" seriously?

(Yo Rush Limbaugh, you want to explore this scandal further? I'm available! If Hansen had done something like this you'd be demanding his resignation. )