Environment


Australia PM adviser says climate change is ‘UN-led ruse to establish new world order’

global warming

24th Jan 2016

Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nations to undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser to Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.

Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.

He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.

In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ …] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”

Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a ‘crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.

“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.

Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from [Mr Abbott’s] chief business adviser.” Mr Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr Newman’s comments.

The article was written by Mr Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.

Since his election in 2013, Mr Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.

 

 

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11591193/Australia-PM-advisor-says-climate-change-a-UN-led-ruse.html

World temperatures hit new high in 2016 for third year in a row

global

19th Jan 2017

World temperatures hit a record high for the third year in a row in 2016, creeping closer to a ceiling set for global warming with extremes including unprecedented heat in India and ice melt in the Arctic, U.S. government agencies said on Wednesday.

The data, supported by findings from other organisations, was issued two days before the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who questions whether climate change has a human cause.

Average surface temperatures over land and the oceans in 2016 were 0.94 degrees Celsius (1.69 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average of 13.9C (57.0F), according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

U.S. space agency NASA reported almost identical data, and the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, which also track global temperatures for the United Nations, said 2016 was the hottest year on record.

Temperatures, lifted both by man-made greenhouse gases and a natural El Nino event that released heat from the Pacific Ocean last year, beat the previous record in 2015, when 200 nations agreed a plan to limit global warming. That peak had in turn eclipsed 2014.

“We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Global temperature records date back to the 1880s. Temperatures are unlikely to set a new peak in 2017 after the El Nino faded, even as greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels keep building up in the atmosphere, led by China and the United States.

Piers Forster, climate expert at the University of Leeds, said this year was likely to be cooler. “However, unless we have a major volcanic eruption, I expect the record to be broken again within a few years,” he said. Ash from big eruptions can dim sunlight.

NATURAL DISASTERS

Among last year’s extreme weather events, wildfires in Alberta were the costliest natural disaster in Canada’s history while Phalodi in west India recorded a temperature of 51C (123.8°F) on May 19, a national record.

North America also had its warmest year on record, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia suffered severe damage from rising temperatures, and sea ice in both the Arctic Ocean and around Antarctica is at record lows for mid-January.

At a conference in Paris in late 2015, governments agreed a plan to phase out fossil fuels this century and shift to renewable energies such as wind and solar power.

They agreed to limit warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times, while pursuing efforts for 1.5C (2.7F). By that yardstick, the rise stood at about 1.1C (2.0F) in 2016.

“Long-term indicators of human-caused climate change reached new heights in 2016,” Petteri Taalaas, head of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organisation said, referring to rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane.

Trump, who has described climate change as a hoax, has threatened to cancel the Paris Agreement and shift to exploiting cheap domestic coal, oil and gas. At a meeting in Marrakesh days after Trump’s victory, however, almost 200 nations said it was an “urgent duty” to combat climate change.

“The hottest year on record is such a clear warning siren that even President-elect Trump cannot ignore,” said Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London.

source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-temperatures-hit-high-2016-153002544.html

Martians could have been wiped out by global warming

stupid shit

6th Dec 2016

Global warming that scorched the surface of Mars for up to 10 million years may have wiped out life on the Red Planet, it is claimed.

It is thought Mars froze over roughly 3.8 billion years ago before warming periods melted the surface and created deep valleys and canyons.

Scientists believe this could by why the planet has water-carved features.

Water provides the conditions needed for life – so there could have been living organisms on Mars billions of years ago.

However, if there was life on Mars it would have been wiped out by climate change.

A build-up of greenhouse gasses in Mars’ dense atmosphere is thought to have sparked dramatic climate cycles.

Some studies have suggested the warming of Mars was brought on by asteroid impacts, but many researchers believe warming cycles are responsible.

Natasha Batalha, a graduate student of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, said: “With the cycling hypothesis, you get these long periods of warmth that give you sufficient time to form all the different Martian valley networks.”

The valleys on Mars are similar in width to the Grand Canyon – which is thought to have been carved out 16 million years ago when the Colorado River swelled after melting.

 

This type of climate model demonstrates how warming periods caused by greenhouse gasses persisted for millions of years, researchers claim.

Jim Kasting, a professor of geosciences at Penn State, said: “We think Mars had to be warm for millions to tens of millions of years, and the impact hypothesis can keep it warm for thousands of years.”

“In terms of water, we need millions of meters of rainfall, and they (previous studies) can get hundreds of meters.”

Batalha added: “Mars is in this precarious position where it’s at the outer edge of the habitable zone.”

“It’s receiving less solar flux, so you start at a glaciated state.”

“There is volcanic out-gassing, but because you are colder, you don’t get the same deposition of carbon back into the planet’s surface.”

“Instead, you get this atmospheric build-up and your planet slowly starts to rise in temperature.”

Researcher are still trying to work out if Mars could have produced enough carbon dioxide and hydrogen for this process to work.

Kasting said: “We would be well off if early Mars had plate tectonics just like Earth has today.”

“Then it works.”

“But that’s a big debate.”

“A lot of people don’t think Mars ever had it.”

 

 

source:http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/martians-could-have-been-wiped-out-by-global-warming/

DHS Sued for Ignoring Environmental Effects of Mass Immigration

immigration

18th Nov 2016

A federal complaint has been filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Jeh Johnson for their “actions concern[ing] the entry and settlement of multitudinous foreign nationals into the United States.”

The DHS, and Secretary Johnson (in his official capacity) have been sued for the damage that has been caused to citizens because of expansive immigration policies and lax enforcement, and for not conducting an environmental analysis of the effect of their policies. The plaintiffs want transparency from the federal government and environmentally informed decision-making.

The nine plaintiffs urge that communities have been harmed and overwhelmed by school overcrowding, traffic congestion, water and air pollution, destruction of property and livestock, loss of green space, and interference with the peaceful enjoyment of private property. There were 14 affidavits attached to the complaint by those harmed by the federal government’s policies.

Affiant Don Rosenberg’s 25-year-old son Drew was in his second year of law school when an unlicensed illegal-alien driver ran over him three times and killed him. Rosenberg’s affidavit, an exhibit to the lawsuit, notes the stresses caused by congested areas, including traffic tie-ups and congestion, and says that the growing population in southern California has meant that there is not enough water to sustain the population. Rosenberg has lived in southern California for 30 years and he says he supports the lawsuit because DHS failed to take into account the environmental impacts of its mass immigration policies. Rosenberg maintains a website explaining the horrific things his family went through after his son was murdered by an illegal alien.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), want DHS to be transparent to the public and report “all potential impacts of the action.”

Lead IRLI counsel, Julie Axelrod told Breitbart Texas, “The federal government has been ignoring our nation’s preeminent environmental law for the past 46 years. NEPA, which stated directly that endless population growth is not in the national interest, was supposed to prevent exactly what has happened— that the public is in the dark about the massive environmental impact of the policy choices of their government.”

Axelrod explains, “In 2015, there was one new immigrant for every two births in the United States— which means a huge amount of population growth is entirely due to government policy. But DHS has never done any analysis of the environmental impact of deluge added to deluge of people. How can DHS imagine they have no environmental effect? The government recognizes that if it builds a new road or a new school it has an environmental impact—but why does it think new roads or schools, or other structures are built in the first place, if not to serve the needs of the population?”

The nine plaintiffs include: Californians for Population Stabilization, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, Floridians for Sustainable Population, Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization, New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association, Floridians for Sustainable Population,Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District, the Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Glen Colton, and Ralph Pope.

The plaintiffs charge that the DHS has closed its eyes to the environmental effects of immigration and has ignored federal law that governs the issue. They point to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and urge that federal law requires any federal agency to take a “hard look” at every “major federal action.” They urge that the U.S. government must consider any action that will affect the environment, and to both analyze and publicize those effects.

They seek to force DHS to contemplate the “enormous impacts to the human environment caused by legal and illegal immigration.”

Ian Smith, a spokesman for the Immigration Reform Law Institute told Breitbart Texas:

The Left has always been vocal about American consumption rates, i.e., that one fifth of the world’s oil is consumed in America, while its share of the population is only five percent. But they say nothing about the U.S. being easily the number one importer of people on the planet. Indeed, America’s population growth rate is comparable to that of the Third World. Currently, over 10 percent of all the people born in Mexico are living in the U.S., all of whom now consume like Americans. It is estimated that the carbon footprint of the average immigrant is four times higher than it would have been had they remained at home. America’s high population growth and high consumption means we have an outsized impact on the world’s environmental systems. Quite simply, reducing immigration is the best way to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet.

Smith says much of the immigration-control movement was actually founded and supported by environmentalists. He points to Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, who he says was a staunch restrictionist in the 1970s, and other notable public environmentalists like Nelson Rockefeller, Gaylord Nelson, and Population Bomb-author Paul R. Ehrlich.

“Even bellwether environmental groups like the Sierra Club understood the harmful effects of unregulated immigration. The Sierra Club flipped in the mid-nineties after they got a $100-million dollar check from a hedge fund manager who didn’t like their immigration angle,” Smith urges. “Now they won’t even share a platform with environmentally-focused restrictionist groups.”

The IRLI highlights the Census Bureau and says that half of all urban sprawl is a result of population growth. They note a report by the Center for Immigration Studies and say that 80 percent of the population growth is attributed to immigration. They also say that between 1990 and 2010, the population in the United States grew by over 61 million people and this can be attributed to the wide immigration policies and soft immigration enforcement of DHS and the INS before it. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) was the predecessor to the DHS.

It is projected that the population of the U.S. will grow from 321.37 million (2015 figures), to 407.41 million in 2055.

Former Colorado Democratic Governor Richard D. Lamm told Breitbart Texas, “Americans have a right to know the environmental impacts of our government’s mass immigration policies, especially when half of all immigrants go to just five metropolitan areas in the country: New York, Chicago, San Francisco-Oakland, Los Angeles and Southern Florida. It’s no coincidence that the latter two sprawl-centers contain the largest number of species now on America’s endangered list.”

Lamm, an affiant in the lawsuit, now serves as the co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver in Colorado. He is the author of the book “Population and the Law.”

 

 
source; http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/11/16/saudis-prohibit-international-schools-observing-non-islamic-holidays/

Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere hits new high: UN

burns climate change

24th Oct 2016

Geneva (AFP) – The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere averaged a record 400 parts per million in 2015, an ominous milestone for the planet’s health, the UN said Monday.

The greenhouse gas has previously passed the 400 ppm threshold on certain months in specific locations but never on an annual global basis, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization said.

In its latest Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, WMO also reported that CO2 concentration rates had “surged again to new records in 2016” and predicted the annual average would stay above 400 ppm “for many generations.”

The concentration of CO2 spiked in part because of a strong El Nino, the whether phenomenon that occurs every four to five years with a broadly warming effect.

El Nino “triggered droughts in tropical regions and reduced the capacity of ‘sinks’ like forests, vegetation and the oceans to absorb CO2,” WMO said.

But the head of the Geneva-based agency, Petteri Taalas, warned against complacency just because El Nino has subsided for now.

“The El Nino event has disappeared. Climate change has not,” he said.

Taalas called CO2 “the elephant in the room” in the battle to rein in climate change.

He applauded the landmark deal reached in Rwanda’s capital Kigali earlier this month to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, a category of dangerous greenhouse gases widely used in refrigerators and air conditioners.

But he said that without similarly bold action against C02 emissions, the world will fail to meet the goals laid out in the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

The WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin tracks concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere, rather than emissions.

Aside from CO2, the report monitors concentration rates of methane, nitrous oxide and several other gases with a major impact on climate change.

 

source:https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/32992240/concentration-of-co2-in-atmosphere-hits-new-high-un/#page1

UN bans skeptical journalists from climate summit for holding views not ‘particularly helpful’

Agenda

22nd Oct 2016

The United Nations has rejected the media credentials of three journalists from a conservative news outlet in Canada to the upcoming UN climate summit in Morocco in November. Nick Nuttall, a UN official, admitted in an October 18 CBC interview that The Rebel news outlet is being banned from attending the UN summit because of its skeptical reporting of the UN’s climate claims.

Nuttall tried to justly the UN media ban by noting that The Rebel TV host Ezra Levant has called UN promoted climate change fears a “crock.”

“What does [calling climate change a ‘crock’] add to the public’s understating?” Nuttall asked the CBC.

The UN’s Nuttall told the CBC “I don’t see what he is actually reporting, you know, as being particularly helpful.”

But much to the shock of the UN official, the warmist Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) Carol Off was having none of it.  The CBC’s Off openly challenged the UN’s censorship of the media outlet.

“Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?” Off, who hosts the ‘As it Happens’ program on the CBC, asked the UN’s Nuttall.

A clearly flustered Nuttall responded, “Well, what do you think journalism is about?”

The CBC’s Carol Off tersely responded “reporting.”

As the Nuttall continued to dig himself deeper into a media hole, Off demanded an answer.

“I am just wondering again about he subjectivity of rejecting the credentials of The Rebel,” CBC’s Carol Off asked again.

Off summed up the UN’s obvious bias in rejecting the news outlet’s request for credentials.

“So it does seem that what Mr. Levant is saying is true — that you didn’t like his point of view,” Off asked.

Nuttall responded. “No, not really. The point is he seems to be advocating a particular point of view which is so personal that it didn’t seem to be a genuine media outlet to me.”

Nuttall also tried to justify the UN’s censorship by claiming the conservative media outlet “seemed to be more kind of anti-refugee, anti-climate, anti-this, anti-that. And I just didn’t feel that it was maybe appropriate in terms of better understanding climate change issues and giving balanced reporting to a general public.”

Nuttall also claimed that The Rebel “caters to other people’s prejudices.”

The Rebel’s Ezra Levant responded to the UN’s Nuttall in full here

Full audio of UN”s Nick Nuttall interview on CBC here:

CBC’s As it Happens host Carol Off spoke with the UN’s Nick Nuttall. Nuttall was involved in the decision to deny Rebel Media accreditation for next month’s meeting. Here’s an excerpt of their conversation:

CAROL OFF: Mr. Nuttall, Ezra Levant says that you have rejected his application because you don’t like Rebel Media’s point of view. How do you respond?

NICK NUTTALL: We looked at Rebel Media and we just really weren’t sure what it was. I mean, we weren’t sure if it was a platform for this chap Ezra — I can’t remember his last name now …

CO: Levant. Ezra Levant.

NN: Ok fine, yeah. I don’t live in Canada, so I don’t know. We get a lot of people who purport to be journalists and sometimes they’re NGOs or civil societies or others with all kinds of different axes to grind and all kind of issues. We try and just make sure that we accredit what we consider to be journalists.

“I looked at Rebel Media’s website and it seemed to me that this was a kind of website that was very much pushing a very particular point of view and therefore made me wonder how it was funded, who backs it, and what kind of purpose they were there to serve.”– UN’s Nick Nuttall

CO: On what grounds did you reject Mr. Levant and Rebel Media’s application?

NN: I looked at Rebel Media’s website and it seemed to me that this was a kind of website that was very much pushing a very particular point of view and therefore made me wonder how it was funded, who backs it, and what kind of purpose they were there to serve. Looking at some of the headlines on their website … there didn’t seem to be much balance in the reporting. It seemed to be more kind of anti-refugee, anti-climate, anti-this, anti-that. And I just didn’t feel that it was maybe appropriate in terms of better understanding climate change issues and giving balanced reporting to a general public.

Ezra Levant, shown March 2, tried to get accreditation for three journalists from his The Rebel online site for a UN climate conference in Morocco this November. He was turned down and now says the UN is ‘banning the one journalistic group they find offensive.’ (Canadian Press)

CO: So it does seem that what Mr. Levant is saying is true — that you didn’t like his point of view.

NN: No, not really. The point is he seems to be advocating a particular point of view which is so personal that it didn’t seem to be a genuine media outlet to me… I don’t see what he is actually reporting you know as being particularly helpful.

CO: Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?

NN: Well, what do you think journalism is about?

CO: Reporting.

NN: Reporting. Factually, accurately, honestly, trying to get the truth out of what actually is going on in this very complex world. And, from the little I saw, which were inflammatory headlines on issues that weren’t even related to climate change … It was a croc of something, or other.

CO: He called it “climate change croc”.

NN: Yeah, well what does that add to public understanding? What is journalism?

CO: Is it not possible, though, by rejecting his application that you have given his position even more publicity?

NN: That is one reason why I was slightly reluctant to do this interview with you … Many people have written to me that he’s very adept at using this kind of thing to generate more money through crowd-funding to keep his website going. I hope that people who maybe listen to this interview will think twice.

CO: Can he do anything to convince you otherwise to give him the accreditation?

NN: Well I have to say that two Canadian journalism associations have in fact written to me saying that we should rethink the situation. Now, when serious Canadian journalist associations actually write to me on that basis and are willing to stand by this individual and his website and what he covers, then now, I’m chewing that over. [These associations] have credibility, it would seem, and so I’m really thinking about it.

#

 

 

source: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/21/caught-on-tape-un-bans-skeptical-journalists-from-climate-summit-for-holding-views-not-particulary-helpful/

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We’ll Have More Of Them

climate-change

18th Oct 2016

Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.

Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed. ”

“We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”

The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.

“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”

“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”

The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.

 

 

source: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/

Invisible Plasma Shield, Which Protects Earth From Radiation, Discovered 7,200 Miles Above Planet

moon

8th Oct 2016

The Earth is protected from fast-moving “killer electrons” by an invisible plasma shield, which is located thousands of miles above the planet’s surface, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Colorado Boulder.

High above the Earth’s atmosphere, harmful electrons that make up the outer band of the Van Allen radiation belt travel at nearly the speed of light, pelting everything in their path. Exposure to such high-energy radiation can harm satellite electronics and pose serious health risks to astronauts. However, despite their intense energy, these electrons — circling around the planet’s equator — cannot come below 7,200 miles from the Earth’s surface due to the shield, scientists said in a study, published in the journal Nature on Thursday.

“It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space,” Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado Boulder and the study’s lead author said, in a statement. “Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.”

The invisible shield, dubbed the “plasmaspheric hiss,” is made up of very low-frequency electromagnetic waves in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Scientific data and calculations have helped researchers deduce that the hiss deflects incoming electrons, causing them to smash into neutral gas atoms in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, and ultimately disappear.

“It’s a very unusual, extraordinary, and pronounced phenomenon,” John Foster, associate director of MIT’s Haystack Observatory, said in a statement. “What this tells us is if you parked a satellite or an orbiting space station with humans just inside this impenetrable barrier, you would expect them to have much longer lifetimes. That’s a good thing to know.”

The latest study is based on data collected by NASA’s Van Allen Probes that are orbiting within the harsh environments of the Van Allen radiation belt. During the study, the researchers observed an “exceedingly sharp” barrier against harmful electrons, which was steady enough to withstand a solar wind shock in October 2013. To determine what could create and maintain such a barrier, the researchers considered a few possibilities, including effects from the Earth’s magnetic field and radio signals from human transmitters on Earth.

“It’s like looking at the phenomenon with new eyes, with a new set of instrumentation, which give us the detail to say, ‘Yes, there is this hard, fast boundary,’” Foster said.

 

 

source:http://www.ibtimes.com/invisible-plasma-shield-which-protects-earth-radiation-discovered-7200-miles-above-1730214

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong

8th Oct 2016

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be free of sea ice by September of this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University  and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, who is considered a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the Arctic would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

global2

For the month of September overall there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show, amounting to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice and making the month only the fifth lowest since records began.

Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams, and others of ‘crying wolf’ and harming the message of climate change through ‘dramatic’, ‘incorrect’ and ‘confusing’ predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, Associate Professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.

“We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic but there is a real danger of ‘crying wolf’ and that does not help anyone.

“As global temperatures rise we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill.

“Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ball will reach the bottom of the hill, meaning the Arctic is ‘ice-free’, starting with a few days one summer, a few weeks another summer and gradually becoming more and more frequent over the next few decades.”

It is the latest example of experts making alarming predictions which do not come to pass.

Earlier this week environmentalists were accused of misleading the public about the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ after aerial shots proved there was no ‘island of rubbish’ in the middle of the ocean. Likewise, warnings that the hole in the ozone layer would never close were debunked in June.

Scientists warn that such claims risk detracting from the real issue. Losing Arctic sea ice is a major problem because ice reflects up to 70 per cent of sunlight while open water reflects just ten per cent, meaning the rest is absorbed by the planet, which speeds up global warming. A massive melt of freshwater could also disrupt global ocean currents, and change weather systems.

For more than a decade most scientists have accepted that the Arctic will be free ice-free by 2050, while the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates there is a 66 per cent chance of no ice by the middle of the century if emissions continue to increase annually.

Yet in 2007 Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year. However by 2013 ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

However far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded with the extent of sea ice growing 405,000 square miles (1.05 million square kilometres)  in just three weeks since the September 10 minimum.  The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, Professor of Earth Observation at University College London said there was now ‘overwhelming consensus’ that the Arctic would be free of ice in the next few decades, but warned earlier predictions were based on poor extrapolation.

“A decade or so ago, climate models often failed to reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice extent revealed by satellite observations,” he said.

“One upshot of this was that outlier predictions based on extrapolation alone were able to receive wide publicity.

“But climate models have improved considerably since then, and they now do a much better job of simulating historical events.

“This means we have greater confidence in their predictive skill, and the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that the Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.”

Prof Myles Allen of Oxford University added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice free in September by mid-century.”


Scientists said it was clear that sea ice was shrinking but there were large fluctuations between years. For example 2013 saw a 50 per cent increase from the previous year

 

Prof Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol said: “This year’s low was the second lowest on record and not as low as 2012 but there is always variability in any part of the climate system so you would not expect a monotonic decline year on year whatever was going on.

“The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations etc. are that the decline will continue.”

  global warming is

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment added “Peter Wadhams has made predictions of the imminent disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice, which have not been fulfilled, but the evidence still shows a rapid decline.

“The trend in Arctic sea ice extent is definitely downwards for every single month of the year.

“The most recent IPCC forecast is that the Arctic has up to a 66 per cent chance of being ice-free in September by 2050 for the highest emissions scenario.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, Prof Wadhams admitted that sea ice decline had not happened as quickly as he had predicted. However he still believes that an ice-free Arctic is still only a ‘very small number of years’ away.

“My view is that the trend of summer sea ice volume is relentlessly downward, such that the volume (and thus area) will come to a low value very soon – in a very small number of years,” he said.

“This is to be contrasted with some of the bizarre predictions made by computer modellers, who have the summer sea ice remaining until late this century, which is quite impossible.”

 

 

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/