From the "you've got to be kidding" files
courtesy of Bloomberg.com

California sues GM, Ford, Toyota, Over Global Warming

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and four other automakers were sued by California for making vehicles that contribute to global warming, causing pollution and erosion[??] that costs the state millions of dollars.

I guess that would be the erosion caused by clearing slopes that are mostly unconsolidated soil so people can build houses with nice views. And managing the forests so poorly that natural fires get completely out of control because of all the brush buildup. And GM causes all this how?

The lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court in Oakland said General Motors, Ford, Toyota Motor Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG, Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., the six largest automakers in the U.S., have created a ``public nuisance'' by making millions of vehicles that emit huge quantities of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

The suit, which seeks damages related to pollution, beach erosion and reduced water supplies, is the latest action by California to push businesses and the federal government to address global warming. The legislature approved a measure last month to force utilities to cut emissions, and the state has sued the U.S. for failing to address the effects of global warming.

??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!

``Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and the automakers have refused to act,'' said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in a statement.

NO, NO, NO. The most significant source of carbon emissions is LIVING ORGANISMS and other natural processes. All human activities, including vehicle emissions, account for only 6% of total atmospheric CO2. And ALL THE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE can only account for 26 to 28% of any warming. This "single most rapidly growing source" crap is just that - crap, designed to sway the scientifically ignorant, which unfortunately includes most lawyers and federal judges.

California has already targeted carmakers with rules that would require them to lower emissions. The state enacted rules in 2004 that would force them to cut the amount of carbon dioxide and other tailpipe gases by up to 30 percent in cars sold in the state. Several other states have adopted or are weighing similar rules.

There would be a much larger impact on CO2 emissions if the California legislature, judges, lawyers, and "environmentalists" would just STOP BREATHING.

Overturn

Edward Cohen, a spokesman for Honda, and Dave Barthmuss, a spokesman for General Motors, didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.

To quote Dr. Johnson, "It is impossible to criticize unrelenting imbecility"

Automakers are suing to overturn these rules. Redesigning cars to address such restrictions would cost the industry billions of dollars, carmakers have claimed, especially in the California market. The state asked a federal court on Sept. 15 to throw the case out. The judge has yet to rule.

If I was a car maker, I would just stop selling cars in CA. Switch to bicycles or something. If they want no emissions, give them no emissions. Even electric cars won't work there for long, because they won't be able to generate the electricity to charge the things up (see below).

California legislators approved the toughest pollution limits in the U.S. last month, requiring utilities, oil refineries and other companies to cut emissions tied to global warming by 25 percent in the next 14 years. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who is seeking re-election this year, said he supports the measure.

Burning Gasoline

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning gasoline. [ DUH!] Car companies say the only way to meet California's emissions rules is to reduce vehicle fuel consumption. They claim the state is trying to regulate fuel economy, or the number of miles a car runs on a gallon of gas, a standard which is set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Automakers including GM, Honda, and Toyota said they are developing so-called fuel-cell cars in response to consumer demand for better fuel economy amid higher gas prices. Fuel cells produce only water vapor as a byproduct.

I assume these are the much-touted but elusive hydrogen powered cars (otherwise known as "little Hindenburgs"). Again, I hope they don't need electricity.

The lawsuit is California v. General Motors, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

So, I guess the legal profession has begun a brief hiatus in their attempt to sue fast food makers and is now turning its attention to "global warming". At least obesity is something real. I'm no fan of Ford, Toyota, or GM, but this has got to be the most ridiculous reasoning for a lawsuit ever. And unfortunately other states are promising more of the same. It's going to get awfully stupid out there soon, and it doesn't look like there will be any letup.

You can always tell when the end of the federal fiscal year approaches

from My Way News:

ARCTIC ICE MELTING RAPIDLY, STUDY SAYS

Arctic sea ice in winter is melting far faster than before, two new NASA studies reported Wednesday, a new and alarming trend that researchers say threatens the ocean's delicate ecosystem.

Scientists point to the sudden and rapid melting as a sure sign of man-made global warming.

Of COURSE it is! What else could it be?

"It has never occurred before in the past," said NASA senior research scientist Josefino Comiso in a phone interview. "It is alarming... This winter ice provides the kind of evidence that it is indeed associated with the greenhouse effect."

Earth to NASA - ever heard of the Cretaceous? There was NO ARTIC SEA ICE WHATSOEVER.

Scientists have long worried about melting Arcticsea ice in the summer, but they had not seen a big winter drop in sea ice, even though they expected it.

For more than 25 years Arctic sea ice has slowly diminished in winter by about 1.5 percent per decade. But in the past two years the melting has occurred at rates 10 to 15 times faster. From 2004 to 2005, the amount of ice dropped 2.3 percent; and over the past year, it's declined by another 1.9 percent, according to Comiso.

Two years is NOT A TREND! It's what would be called an anomaly in most scientific fields, and that only if you had enough good data collected from previous years to establish what "normal" is.

A second NASA study by other researchers found the winter sea ice melt in one region of the eastern Arctic has shrunk about 40 percent in just the past two years. This is partly because of local weather but also partly because of global warming, Comiso said.

And on what basis is this conclusion drawn? They're not saying.

The loss of winter ice is bad news for the ocean because this type of ice, when it melts in summer, provides a crucial breeding ground for plankton, Comiso said. Plankton are the bottom rung of the ocean's food chain.

"If the winter ice melt continues, the effect would be very profound especially for marine mammals," Comiso said in a NASA telephone press conference.

The ice is melting even in subfreezing winter temperatures because the water is warmer and summer ice covers less area and is shorter-lived, Comiso said. Thus, the winter ice season shortens every year and warmer water melts at the edges of the winter ice more every year.

Scientists and climate models have long predicted a drop in winter sea ice, but it has been slow to happen. Global warming skeptics have pointed to the lack of ice melt as a flaw in global warming theory.

The latest findings are "coming more in line with what we expected to find," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're starting to see a much more coherent and firm picture occurring."

"I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he added.

Serreze said only five years ago he was "a fence-sitter" on the issue of whether man-made global warming was happening and a threat, but he said recent evidence in the Arctic has him convinced.

He's an easy sell, then. What about ANY of this indicates a strictly anthropogenic source? And why would human-generated CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere for over 100 years and only now be suddenly causing sea ice to melt?

Summer sea ice also has dramatically melted and shrunk over the years, setting a record low last year. This year's measurements are not as bad, but will be close to the record, Serreze said.

Equally disturbing is a large mass of water - melted sea ice - in the interior of a giant patch of ice north of Alaska, Serreze said. It's called a polynya, and while those show up from time to time, this one is large - about the size of the state of Maryland - and in an unexpected place.

"I for one, after having studied this for 20 years, have never seen anything like this before," Serreze said.

Well, no, because you've only been at it FOR 20 YEARS. That's not a long time in climate terms.

The loss of summer sea ice is pushing polar bears more onto land in northern Canada and Alaska, making it seem like there are more polar bears when there are not, said NASA scientist Claire Parkinson, who studies the bears.

The polar bear population in the Hudson Bay area has dropped from 1,200 in 1989 to 950 in 2004 and the bears that are around are 22 percent smaller than they used to be, she said.

That's not what Dr. Mitch Taylor, the "leading Canadian authority on polar bears" says:

A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."

Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.

He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.

In the northern territories, where temperatures have risen an average of four degrees since 1950, wildlife experts such as Mr Taylor say the bears have never been healthier or more plentiful.

Hmmmm

This kind of apocalyptic stuff always comes up at this time of year because researchers have to justify their existance to the federal overlords that provide their funding to keep themselves on the grant money gravy train. I didn't have the heart (or the stomach) to comment on this, which is even more egregious (and pathetic). Atmospheric scientists at NASA are especially anxious since the agency wants to spend more money on actual space projects and less on environmental and climate studies. Whether it's wise to give NASA more money to spend on anything at all is a topic for another time.

And now, from our correspondant in the alternate universe....... (the BBC)

HUMANS 'CAUSING STRONGER STORMS'

Increases in hurricane intensity are down to humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, according to new analysis.

Scientists calculate that two-thirds of the recent rise in sea temperatures, thought to fuel hurricanes, is down to anthropogenic emissions.

Research published last year found there had been a sharp rise in the incidence of category 4 and 5 storms - the strongest - in recent decades.

Actually, sea surface temperatures in our dimension appear to be cooling. And I wouldn't call any of the Atlantic hurricanes this season "intense" at all. There have been intense Pacific hurricanes, but not as many as in previous years.

But other scientists caution there may be errors in historical storm records.

Hurricane formation is strongly linked to sea surface temperature, with warmer waters more likely to form storms.

Sea surface temperature and hurricane strength vary naturally, and deciphering a clear impact of human greenhouse gas emissions has been difficult.

However, the last two years have seen several major pieces of research which have at least increased understanding of the issue, without settling it conclusively.

In July last year, Kerry Emanuel, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published research showing that the duration, maximum wind speeds and energy released in tropical storms has increased markedly in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans since the mid-1970s.

A few months later Peter Webster from the Georgia Institute of Technology documented a rise in the incidence of category 4 and 5 storms; the 15-year period from 1975 to 1989 saw 171 severe hurricanes, but the number rose to 269 for the subsequent 15 years.

He told the BBC News website at the time: "What I think we can say is that the increase in intensity is probably accounted for by the increase in sea surface temperature, and I think probably the sea surface temperature increase is a manifestation of global warming."

Then in June this year, Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research analysed the exceptionally active 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season.

Sea surface temperatures (SST) had been 0.9C above the long-term average, he found; and by comparing the North Atlantic with other regions of the ocean, he deduced that human greenhouse gas emissions accounted for about half of this rise.

Of course, we need to ignore other earth-based research such as Michaels et al. (2006) which says:

“Whereas there is a significant relationship between overall sea-surface temperature (SST) and tropical cyclone intensity, the relationship is much less clear in the upper range of SST normally associated with these storms. There, we find a step-like, rather than a continuous, influence of SST on cyclone strength, suggesting that there exists a SST threshold that must be exceeded before tropical cyclones develop into major hurricanes. Further, we show that the SST influence varies markedly over time, thereby indicating that other aspects of the tropical environment are also critically important for tropical cyclone intensification. These findings highlight the complex nature of hurricane development and weaken the notion of a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising SST and stronger Atlantic hurricanes. ”

The text of the article includes the statement,

“Our results show that SST plays a relatively minor role in the observed characteristics of tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin. As such, other factors must be involved in the increase in tropical cyclone activity recorded during the post-1994 Atlantic hurricane seasons. The full reason behind these observed changes remain an area of active scientific inquiry. We therefore recommend a cautious approach to assigning an underlying cause in this complex system.”

The latest research takes things another step further, using 22 computer models of climate to examine a possible link between SSTs and human-induced global warming.

Oh boy, COMPUTER MODELS! Now we'll get the real story!

These models typically deal in projections and probabilities, which is inevitable with a huge and chaotic system such as global climate.

And the fact that they are "huge and chaotic" means that the results of these models should be highly suspect. But of course........

Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley and colleagues conclude: "There is an 84% chance that external forcing [human activities] explain at least 67% of the observed SST increases" in the Pacific and Atlantic zones where hurricanes form.

"The important conclusion is that the observed SST increases in these hurricane breeding grounds cannot be explained by natural processes alone," said Dr Wigley.

"The best explanation for these changes has to include a large human influence."

Why isn't the best explanation that there is a lot of natural variability in SSTs and we really don't know what causes it? Why does "human influence" have to be the default explanation for any change in the climate system that we can't immediately explain?

[I have omitted some objections from "skeptics" (i.e. "actual scientists") which point out the obvious - the very short period of time that accurate hurricane records have been kept and surely the understatement of the year, that "computer models are far from perfect"]

But as Benjamin Santer and Tom Wigley point out, what other tools are there for projecting the future?

Well, there are chicken entrails. The ancients had some luck with those. Or maybe Santer and Wigley should invest in a huge crystal ball and some Tarot cards. I hear that the "Psychic Friends" have more reasonable rates these days. Any of these methods would be just as accurate and probably much cheaper than all those computer models. And they would also be able to give S & W valuable information on their future with the ladies.

"In the real world, we are performing an unprecedented and uncontrolled geophysical experiment," they write. "We know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that [human] activities have changed the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

Well, I'm glad to see that they've noticed SOME difference between computer models and the real world. The chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere (real world again) has been profoundly changed in the past by plant activity (where that 20% O2 came from), volcanic activity (probably where the original atmosphere came from), and other natural forces (where the vast majority of the atmospheric CO2 comes from).

"In a post-Katrina world, we need to do the best job we possibly can to understand the complex influences on hurricane intensity."

Why drag Katrina into this? It was only a Category 3 when it made landfall. The destruction and loss were truly tragic, but more due to people's land use and other decisions than the severity of the storm. Wouldn't it be better and more effective to recognize the dangers inherent in living near the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and actually have a plan for dealing with hurricanes?

Nah, we'll just blame it all on greenhouse gases.

From Numberwatch
Not a new post, but still horribly relevant to academia in the UK and US today.

Dear Dr Einstein,

With reference to your application for the post of Lecturer at this University, I have been asked to write to you to explain why we have been unable to offer you the appointment. You seem to be a little vague about the objectives of a university department. It is quite simple - the objectives are to obtain a five grade in the Research Assessment Exercise and an excellent grade in the Teaching Quality Assessment. Unfortunately the panel felt that appointing you would reduce the prospect of achieving either target.

The papers you submitted were most interesting, but sadly they are not the sort of thing that is likely to achieve external funding and therefore improve our norms. The Brownian motion, for example, may be an intriguing little intellectual problem, but its solution is not likely to impress a modern research council committee. As for the photo-electric effect, what possible industrial application could that have, when most of the available funding goes to industrial programmes such as LINK and ROPA? No, I regret to say that the likely outcome of an application by you to EPSRC is an alpha rating but no funding. Again your Special Theory of Relativity may be a pretty little exercise for the brain, but would it attract a CASE award? Even less promising is the fact that you have totally failed to recruit a single research student, which would play havoc with our ratings. Furthermore your persistence in publishing in obscure German journals would no help our ranking at all, since the quality of publications is now solely measured by the journals in which they appear.

As for teaching we note your abject failure to produce a set of pre-digested notes to accompany your lectures. Your rambling discourses may well provide intellectual stimulus to your students, but frankly they will not cut much ice with a TQA panel. You seem to have this strange idea that a university is some sort of ivory tower devoted to cerebration, rather than a modern, thrusting organisation dedicated to improving its norms.

In short, you would be completely out of place at this University and would present insurmountable problems to your Line Manager. I am sure that you will appreciate the difficulty she/he would have in putting anything positive in your staff appraisal forms, which would be a record of total lack of achievement.

On a more personal note, it might be helpful to you if I pointed out a couple of tactical errors you made during the interview. In trying to explain your, no doubt interesting, Theory of Relativity, you cited the example of a man on a train. I have to advise you that such gender-specific language is quite unacceptable in this University, and we would fear that the lapse might be repeated before impressionable students. What really put the kibosh on it, however, was that you persisted in smoking that smelly old pipe throughout the interview. The University will tolerate almost any sort of deviance, but up with pipes it will not put.

I know that you will take these remarks in the constructive way they are intended. Meanwhile I would advise you not to resign your post at the Patents Office.

With all good wishes

John Brignell