Polluted beach follow up

You do remember the alarm spread about the ecological disaster the BP gulf spill was bringing down on the U.S. How beaches were going to be polluted and unusable.

 

At last some facts. Terry Ward a feature writer published in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times Magazine, cable's Travel Channel, and numerous special interest sport and travel publications has investigated and indentified the 10 most polluted beaches in the U.S. None are on the gulf. They are

 

Poche County Beach, Orange County, CA

Jeorse Park Beach II, Lake County, IN

Singing Bridge Beach, Arnec County. MI

Jackson Park Beach, Cook County, IL

St Clair Memorial Park Beach, Macomb County, MI

Cockle Cove Creek Beach, Barnstable County, MA

Kings at Stacy Brook Beach, Essex County, MA

St Clair Shores Blossom Heath Beach, Macomb County, MI

Avalon Beach, Orange County, CA

Jeorse Park Beach, Lake County, IN

As an observational point only, all of these beaches are in "hot bed" Democrat areas. I wonder why? What do you suppose is causing the pollution? Could it possibly be "sweetheart" deal exemptions to regulartory requirements garnered through a Congressional interest?

My advice is go to the gulf shore beaches. Remember use sun tan lotion. Oh wait, isn't that a natural oil product.

Financial Reform Act

Obama says the reform will keep tax payers from being on the hook for Wall Street mistakes. The legislation does provide for more government oversight; does tighten consumer lending rules; and will create a new government agency.

It does not correct the problem that led to the 2008 meltdown. The cause was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FMs), the government run lending institutions. These institutions lent money to high risk people. When the loans looked like default was probable they packaged them and sold them to other financial institutions. These institutions had to deal with the defaults and suffer the losses.

At the same time FMs were lending, Federal regulators were encouraging private institutions to also lend to high risk individuals. If they did not, they would lose the lucrative Federal accounts they serviced. When the high risk loans began to default the government pointed the finger at the greedy private institutions for being predators. With one swift sleight of hand, the private sector went from 'obedient' to 'predator.' The institutions that gave up Federal accounts or never had any, didn't need a bail out.

Congress and the White House are still trying to decide if the FMs need to be investigated. After all they are quasi Federal institutions whose boards are appointed by agencies overseen by the White House. In fact,  many of the past FMs executives are Obama administrative appointees. In the twenty five years leading to the 2008 collapse these executives received millions in bonuses from FMs.

One note on tightening consumer lending, it doesn't apply to the auto industry. Maybe, because the government holds ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler.

Without the shutdown of FMs, this reform will merely add expense to the private financial institutions which they will pass to us the consumer.

Suspect unemployment figures

The Administration keeps touting the under 10% employment figures. When it dips a fraction of a percent there is much excitement about economic recovery.  Private research groups have placed the figures at 18% to 25%. The government statistics are based on application for unemployment benefits or registry with job assistance programs. The private surveys are based on polling.

Not included in the government unemployment data but included in polling:

People whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted. These individuals would only be counted by government if they signed up in job assistance program. A person is dropped if they do not renew in a timely matter (depending on program from one week to a quarter). Most people fail to renew after looking for a year.

People taking a job below ability. For instance, a College graduate working at a fast food joint. The government classifies them as under employed. They are in fact seeking a job commensurate with their skills. Most have tuition loans which become due upon graduation.

People who took buyouts and are not eligible for unemployment benefits. This would also include people who enter a retraining program.

People working a part time job, even if working less than 20 hours a week. The threshold varies from 1 hour to 20 hours a week .

Planned layoffs, sabbaticals, and injury recovery are not considered unemployed by the government. These are not considered because the individual is compensated by paid leave benefits of their job.

The self employed can have business fall to near zero during a recession. Most are not eligible for unemployment. Job assistance programs are counterproductive to maintaining their business.

All of these exemptions were lamented by Democrat leaders during the Bush Administration when unemployment was 4.3%.  I leave the merits of the exemptions to you.

Record high temperatures manipulated

A report stated June had a record high temperature averaging 1.21 degrees higher than the average for the 20^th century in June. There are several things to question. Were the 2010 stations used located the same stations for the 20^th Century? Did all the station's period of record cover the entire 20^th Century? Were some stations not included?

The report was based on temperatures at stations or data point averaging. This is misleading for several reasons. As cities grew the heat dome effect grew. Station temperatures were not adjusted for the heat dome effect. There are more stations in warmer areas than cold areas. So the average would be biased. Station points over the ocean are done remotely now. Weather satellites didn't exist until 1960 and were not global until the 1990's.

No similar reportissued for the first five months? Were they not done? Or, did they not show a warming trend? In fact the global average temperature for the year  could be cooler.

Take 10 containers of blue paint and 10 containers of yellow paint. Mix them together to get green paint.  What if the yellow containers were gallons and the blue containers were quarts. The result would be lime rather than plain green.

To average global temperature the station would have to have a coverage area in square miles rather than a data point. Multiply each station temperature by its coverage area. Add the results. Divide by the total area to get average temperature.

To accurately assess global temperature every station must be measuring at the same elevation above sea level and use effective coverage area instead of data point measurements.

The report did indicate cooler than average temperatures in Siberia, Canada, and mid ocean areas. Using a data point average would significantly under represent these areas.

Carbon footprint

The carbon footprint  hoax is so large it nearly defies explaining. How do you prove to others you are not a bank robber? Once the accusation is made over and over again, some people began to believe it.

Nearly all life from moss to sperm whales are carbon based. Dandruff contains carbon. Belches and flatulence contain carbon.  Every breath you exhale releases carbon. Plants, from trees to a blade of grass, pull carbon from the air. God designed this carbon cycle. In the mid latitudes between the tropic and the polar regions, the plant life has a die back period where the leafy material decomposes releasing carbon.

Carbon in gaseous form is adventurist and seldom maintains a stable relationship. Carbon is a neutralizing substance and will flitter from compound to compound. Think of carbon as a womanizer constantly breaking up relationships to unite with a new target. In the chemical world much like the dating world those cast off relations eventually bind with someone else. Being adventurist, carbon like a womanizer doesn't go off and have a pity party with other unattached womanizers. They locate a new target and break up that relationship.

Gaseous carbon doesn't settle down until it combines in molecular form with at least four other carbons (get the image of a womanizer out of your mind). In this form it becomes a liquid or solid and drops out of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is quite willing to swap out elements when it comes in contact with a hydrocarbon molecule like a dead skin cell or partially expended fuel molecule.

So yes, increased population and industrial activity will produce more carbon emissions. It also produces more hydrocarbon emissions desiring the simple carbon emissions. You should not be amazed that God's carbon cycle stays in balance.

Sea level changes

The hysteria around melting ice is unfounded. The knowledgeable people making the hyped claims are accurate about the quantity of water that would be released. And if all other things are unchanged sea level would rise 200 feet. But, changes in one factor usually result in changes in other things. God designed the world to be in balance. And, that design works.

Let us assume that global warming is causing glaciers and polar ice to melt. The change is not just from ice to water. It is also change to water vapor. If the air temperature is melting ice, it is also converting sea water to water vapor. The alarmists do not consider the water vapor part of the global water balance.

When air temperature rises, more gas molecules are released to the atmosphere. Water vapor is the balancing factor. Air wants to maintain a certain percentage of moisture. We call this humidity. The natural balance is about 51% on a worldwide basis. So when temperature rises, the air can hold more moisture.

With 86% of the world's total ice in Antarctica a one degree increase in world temperature will have negligible impact, since the average temperature at the south pole in the two warmest months is -15 degrees Fahrenheit. So even if major melting of world ice did occur it would at worst be 10% of total available. Or, a 20' rise in sea level, "all things being equal."

Under worst case conditions a one degree increase in temperature will increase moisture content by 0.1%. This would result in a 22' drop in sea level. The net result a 2' decrease in sea level.

We are dealing with extremely large numbers: 1 billion cubic miles of atmosphere and 7.2 million cubic miles of worldwide ice. My guess is no change, based on God's balanced design.

Endangered polar bears

I can't find facts on the current status of polar bears. The reason? Probably because the facts don't support endangerment.

In 1993 a report issued on a species of butterfly in Columbia now being found 1000 feet higher in the mountains than any time previous. The conclusion by the report writer was global warming. The species was trying to stay in a comfortable temperature zone. Logical if you didn't check facts. The real reason was loss of habitat. Increase coffee and cocaine production resulted in clearing forested hillsides to plant these money crops. The butterflies moved further up the mountain because their habitat niche was gone. At 1000 feet higher the air is thinner and the butterfly expends more energy to stay in flight.

In 1984 wildlife scientist were alarmed to find a very small percentage of penguins and seals in their usual breeding areas. They had to travel over 200 miles in search of food. Many never returned. The alarm went out about possible endangerment. The next year the ozone hole was discovered. Global warming was blamed for the hole. The theory was the hole allowed solar radiation unchecked which killed the penguins and seals.

The report leads one to believe these species were dying out.  Nope. They relocated. Volcanic vents warmed the water at the new location causing a substantial growth in plankton. No endangerment. In fact the herds of both increased.

So what is the truth about the polar bears. I don't know, yet. Like the butterflies, penguins, and seals research will reveal the truth. But, if it is not endangerment, don't expect news reporting on the studies.

Note the current lack of hype about the polar bear.  My guess studies are not producing endangerment findings. Don't worry about your favorite cuddly carnivore. He is probably just fine.

Bogus climate change models

There are dozens of climate change models. They all consider different factors. They use different mathematical formulas. They all achieve the same dire forecast.  None of them have any validation criteria to assure accuracy.

The answer to the lack of validation is: the models are extremely complex. What? That is like trying to build a Ferris wheel and getting a merry-go-round. So you have to except the merry-go-round is in fact a Ferris wheel because the construction is extremely complex.

Validation is really quite simple. Pick a date, for instance January 1, 1980. Do we know the temperature of every day between then and now? Yes. What factors are in the model, for instance carbon emissions. Do we know that data for every day between then and now? Yes. Do the same with all other factors.

Now input the 1980 start conditions run the model and see if it produces the results for January 1, 2005. Simple! None of the models can do it. OK a one day prediction is too narrow to hit precisely. So make it the average for the month of January 2005. Make it the first three months of the year. Or, six months. Or, the year. Doesn't matter the model can't replicate the known outcome.

What use is a model with no validation.  Knowing the data for the last twenty-five years they cannot reproduce the known outcome.  Yet, we are to except the extremely complex model's prediction for twenty-five years from now. Just how bogus is that.

By the way, none of these models are published in a manner for the formulas and calculations to be examined. And, why should they? After all, would they lie to us?

Hole in the ozone layer

It seems ridiculous to me that the chemical precursors that eat ozone generated over the populated portions of the world eat a hole in the ozone over Antarctica. Look at any globe. At least 70% of the earth's land mass is north of the equator. Further 90% of the industrialized societies are north of the equator. But somehow those pesky precursors found their way to Antarctica.  Perhaps these academics looking at the globe decided gravity pulled them to the bottom of the world.

Anyone with common sense (which doesn't always include academics) knows gravity pulls to the center of the earth. So, why the hole over Antarctica? Is it that the southern hemisphere doesn't generate enough ozone.  No scientific reason to suspect that cause. An almost comic suggestion is a windless vortex that draws these precursors into the thin air over Antarctica.

The answer came from Antarctic's wildlife. Shortly after the hole was discovered researchers found Antarctica's wildlife had migrated to a new location. This new location was generating warm water causing an explosion in plankton growth. The wildlife quickly took up residence at this new buffet.

The warm water's source? A volcano erupting in the ocean under the icecap. A volcano will produce more ozone eating precursors in a week than all the cars in California in a year. These precursors being gaseous, percolate through the water and the snow overburden (icecap). The air over Antarctica is thin and chemically stable.  These precursors do not find bonding elements until they reach the ozone layer.

Wallah, a buffet for precursors. By the way the hole has nearly closed.  The volcano has almost gone dormant. Since it is closing it can't be use it to predict dire circumstances.  I bet you have wondered why nothing has been said lately about the hole. Now you know.

True source of global warming

In the early 1970's a Midwest math post-graduate student got access to the universities mainframe computer. He input all the climate data for every U.S. weather station with at least 100 years of record. He ran a regression analysis to determine if there were significant Beta's.

He got a major hit. Nearly every station showed a statistically significant increase in temperature over time.  His thesis paper on the regression did not speculate about why. It went on to discuss the statistical aspects of the regression analysis.  Although not published in a journal, the result was widely circulated in academic circles.

A chemistry professor did get a short article published hypothesizing that automobiles were the cause. Grant request were awarded to several Universities to explore this hypothesis. Although none could show causal relationships, they did suggest other studies to narrow future studies to test the hypothesis.

The grant industry is the bread and butter of academia. Professors supplement their income through Grants. The Universities take a cut for using their facilities. Students, usually unpaid, get valuable learning experience in research methods. Since these studies never resulted in tangible results, the cycle of hypotheses continued jumping from the automobile to other subjects. To discover the real cause would stop the grant money.

 The truth was heat domes. As cities grew, the weather station stayed near the city center. Heat from bodies, industrial activity, and unabsorbed heat due to loss of vegetation caused temperatures to increase within the city. The larger the city grew, the more heat generated. The center of the city would show the greatest temperature increase.

Just five miles outside the city in any direction the temperature was stable.  This means the heat was dissipated straight up and into space. Man made actitivity the cause – yes. Global warming –no.