hcubed's WunderBlog

Another 43 million dollars down the hole...

By: hcubed, 2:40 AM GMT on November 01, 2011

Usually, scientists warn about "black holes", stars so dense that no light can escape.

It seems that we now have a new rival - green holes. These are alternative energy companies that are so bad, that guaranteed loan money can't get out.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Another alternative energy company that received a loan guarantee from the U.S. government has filed for bankruptcy.

Beacon Power, which makes energy storage devices used to help the power grid become more efficient, filed for bankruptcy protection Sunday, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company received a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy last August..."

Some will be sure to jump on the "good" in the story, such as:

"...DOE spokesman Damien LaVere noted that, unlike Solyndra, which closed up shop on the day they declared bankruptcy, Beacon has an operational facility in Stephentown, New York that has long term contracts which it can use to generate money.

Plus, the company has cash reserves, and the government is first in line to get paid back..."

They initially said the same about Solyndra, till the bankruptcy plans were "altered", putting private investors first. How long before this one is changed, too?

So what caused their problem?

"...Beacon's finances came under pressure thanks to low rates government regulators forced it to charge utilities.

As a regulated industry, utilities were only allowed to pay a fixed rate set by government regulators for Beacon's services, the DOE said. The rate was not high enough for the company to survive..."

A company, backed by a Gov't loan forced by Gov't regulators to accept lower rates. What makes them think these rates are going to be allowed to go up?

"...Also, the low price of natural gas, which could be used to generate additional power and is thus a competitor to energy storage, was also a factor..."

Again, in an effort to lower energy costs to others, the competition was allowed to undercut the prices. The only way this company can make money is if the price of natural gas goes back up. Makes their product better, but raises everybody's costs.

"...The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently increased the rates companies like Beacon can charge, but the hike has yet to take effect, the DOE said..."

So in order for this company to make money and pay off their Gov't loan, those increased prices have to passed down to the consumer. They win, we lose.

But here's the main thing people will hit on:

"...The loan program was started by President Bush..."

And they'll gloss over or ignore the following:

"...and expanded under President Obama...

The other part of the story you should remember is this:

"...Stearns and other critics say the Solyndra guarantee was made improperly. They say the Obama administration put private creditors ahead of the government when it comes to being paid back and that the loan may have been made due to political connections between one of the company's main backers and the administration.

Watch out for further money going down the "green hole".

Updated: 2:50 AM GMT on November 01, 2011

Permalink

Solar vs. homeowners associations.

By: hcubed, 2:09 AM GMT on October 31, 2011

A reasonable person would think that once they buy their home, it's theirs to do what they want.

And a reasonable person would think that outfitting their house to use solar for electric or pool heating (to save money and cut down on the evil CO2) would be a good thing.

Until you read the fine print of the rules from your local Homeowners Association.

To them, appearance trumps savings.

One example:

"...If you're one of the approximately 57 million Americans whose living arrangements are governed to some degree by a Condo, Co-op or Homeowners' Association (HOA), you're probably aware of the set of rules that are in place as a means to maintaining the community's integrity..."

"...Having built a swimming pool for his children in his backyard, Matt Burdick of Chandler, Arizona planned to heat it in winter with solar hot water panels. It would be an environmentally responsible and economical way to heat a non-essential part of his home, he thought. But the $5,000 panels had not been in place on his roof for long before he received an official letter ordering their removal. Not from the State of Arizona, the local police department or the Chandler Planning Department, but from the Homeowners' Association of which he was a dues-paying member..."

Seems that his homeowners association prohibited solar arrangements on his roof. Yet the State of Arizona laws said that he could.

"...In Matt Burdick's case, his HOA took advantage of a loophole in state law to force compliance. Although the State of Arizona prohibits HOAs from banning solar installations outright, it does allow them to rule on the siting and color of panels. This sort of concession allows HOA boards to require, for example, that panels be painted white, hidden behind trees and pointed north. In the case of Burdick's HOA, they called for the panels to be colored light brown to match his roof, which would have rendered them useless. Rather than pay a daily fine, he took down the panels while a new law that closes the loophole worked its way through the state legislature..."

So green was fine as long as you couldn't see it from the street.

"...Arizona represents a small but growing trend in which state governments appear to be more forward-looking in accommodating clean energy projects than HOA boards. At least twelve states, including California, Florida and Hawaii as well as Arizona, have laws on their books restricting HOAs' ability to ban solar installations. Some also address that other plank of most HOA restrictive covenants, the outdoor clothes line. Anecdotal evidence suggests that individual homeowners trying to 'go green' still face an uphill battle when dealing with HOA boards, but when state laws are on their side the scales usually tip in the homeowners favor..."

Not even a clothes line is allowed? Wow.

"...As for Matt Burdick, in the end his tenacity paid off. The very day that the new Arizona law limiting HOA powers went into effect this September he reapplied to install his solar hot water panels. The HOA approved the application the same day, and now the panels again grace his roof and provide solar-heated water for his children's pool..."

So go green - if you can.

Full article here:

Homeowners Associations and solar panels don't always mix

Updated: 2:12 AM GMT on October 31, 2011

Permalink

"Evil" oil companies make a profit, "good" green company takes a loss.

By: hcubed, 7:17 PM GMT on October 27, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Exxon Mobil reported quarterly earnings of $10.3 billion on Thursday, a surge of 41% from a year earlier.

Why? Higher prices for oil and natural gas.

Profit at the oil company soared compared to the same period a year ago, when it was $7.4 billion. Per-share income climbed to $2.13 per share from $1.44 in the prior year.

And revenue rose to $125.3 billion from $95.3 billion in the year-ago quarter, the company said.

Exxon's stock rose 3% in early trading, but then flattened.

Oil industry competitors also saw stock gains. Chevron Corp rose 2%, while BP PLC rose less than 1%. Royal Dutch Shell rose less than 1% and Total SA jumped 4%.

Exxon's strong performance was still well below its profit of $14.83 billion in the third quarter of 2008. That's a corporate record for quarterly profits.

Today, Exxon's profits are on track to do even better in the fourth quarter, since oil prices have increased more than 13% over the last month.

Oil prices have been volatile, dropping precipitously during the summer. But over the last year, prices have managed an increase of 13%, largely because of increases in October and September.

Exxon was once the oil industry's leading company, until it was overtaken by Shell last year.

Chevron is scheduled to report third-quarter earnings on Friday. The company is expected to announce revenues of nearly $70 billion, an increase of 40% from a year ago, and net income of $6.7 billion.

*** So a profit of $10.3 billion for Exxon (who is EVIL), and a $535 million loss for Solyndra (who was GOOD).

Next time, we'll just have Exxon put up the loan guarantee.

Permalink

Apparently, long-term coral growth rates are not related to CO2 levels.

By: hcubed, 2:11 PM GMT on October 26, 2011

Peer-reviewed Paper here (paywalled, of course):

Acclimation to ocean acidification during long-term CO2 exposure in the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa


Abstract:

"...Ocean acidity has increased by 30% since preindustrial times due to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and is projected to rise by another 120% before 2100 if CO2 emissions continue at current rates. Ocean acidification is expected to have wide-ranging impacts on marine life, including reduced growth and net erosion of coral reefs. Our present understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine life, however, relies heavily on results from short-term CO2 perturbation studies. Here we present results from the first long-term CO2 perturbation study on the dominant reef-building cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa and relate them to results from a short-term study to compare the effect of exposure time on the coral's responses. Short-term (one week) high CO2 exposure resulted in a decline of calcification by 26-29% for a pH decrease of 0.1 units and net dissolution of calcium carbonate. In contrast, L. pertusa was capable to acclimate to acidified conditions in long-term (six months) incubations, leading to even slightly enhanced rates of calcification. Net growth is sustained even in waters sub-saturated with respect to aragonite. Acclimation to seawater acidification did not cause a measurable increase in metabolic rates. This is the first evidence of successful acclimation in a coral species to ocean acidification, emphasizing the general need for long-term incubations in ocean acidification research. To conclude on the sensitivity of cold-water coral reefs to future ocean acidification further ecophysiological studies are necessary which should also encompass the role of food availability and rising temperatures..."

One key statement from the paper was:

"...Growth rates in the long-term experiment (LTE) did not follow the negative trend with increasing pCO2 observed in the short-term incubation. Instead, growth rate, which was comparable to that of the control treatment in the short-term experiment, stayed high at elevated CO2 levels...There was no statistically significant relationship between average growth rates and pCO2 concentrations..."

Even though they raised atmospheric CO2 to levels roughly equal to 981 ppmv, they did see a loss in short term growth, but a gain in long term growth.

They also discovered something else, long known to fish tank owners - the life in the tank has more of an effect on the water's pH levels than the atmosphere does:

"...At the beginning, all CRS [the "closed recirculating systems" containing the coral] were supplied with ambient air with a pCO2 level of approx. 406 µatm. After taking water samples for TA [total alkalinity], DIC [dissolved inorganic carbon], and nutrients and measurements of the physicochemical water parameters (temperature, pH, salinity), sampling, the physicochemical parameters (salinity, pH, temperature) of each reactor were monitored by inserting a multi sensor device (Multi350i, WTW) into a small opening in the lid. During incubations, pH and pCO2 [partial pressure of CO2] can change differently in each bioreactor depending on rates of respiration and calcification of the enclosed coral branches. Therefore, the carbonate system parameters (pH, pCO2, ΩAr) and growth rates were calculated separately for each bioreactor..."

It appears that more long term studies are needed, and "...should also encompass the role of food availability and rising temperatures..."

Not just CO2...

Permalink

Windmills to shut at night following demise of rare bat.

By: hcubed, 2:43 AM GMT on October 19, 2011

In an attempt to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels, many areas turned to solar and wind power to offset the loss energy from coal powered power plants.

We all know that solar panels are useless at night, requiring battery backup.

Well, now it appears that some windmills are also going to be useless at night.

"...Night operation of the windmills in the North Allegheny Windpower Project has been halted following discovery of a dead Indiana bat under one of the turbines, an official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Monday..."

Now they'll need battery backup for the windmills, too.

Story here:

Link

Not just here, either:

"...A large number of bats are dying at wind turbines in the United States. The number of bat deaths is higher than any fatality rates seen in this species in the past. There's something strange happening with bats and wind turbines. It is not known why bats are so susceptible and why they're showing up in these surprising numbers.

"...Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. The Wolfe Island post construction bat mortality report determined that an estimated 1720 bats are killed per turbine per year. Cape Vincent can expect the same numbers because of similar habitat and shared species with Wolfe Island."

Link

86 turbines. Estimated 1720 bats per turbine. Over 10 thousand bats PER YEAR killed by windmills.

All those bats, sacrificed in the name of saving the environment...

Updated: 2:50 AM GMT on October 19, 2011

Permalink

Islands appear to be in no danger of dissapearing...

By: hcubed, 7:10 PM GMT on October 15, 2011

From TV New Zealand:

Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm – an average of 2mm a year – over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.

"It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," Prof Kench told the New Scientist. "But they won’t.

"The sea level will go up and the island will start responding."

One of the highest profile islands – in a political sense – was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.

One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also “grew” – Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.

In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate – Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island’s area by 10 percent.

But the two men warned that while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.

No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.

Climate experts have generally raised estimates for sea level rise – the United Nations spoke in late 2009 of a maximum 2 metre rise by 2100, up from 18-59cm estimated in 2007.

=================================

Here’s the abstract:

The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific

Arthur P. Webba, and Paul S. Kenchb

Received 22 February 2010; accepted 13 May 2010. Available online 21 May 2010.

Abstract

Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 year period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea level rise of 2.0 mm.y-1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 hectares. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases. Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea level rise in the central Pacific.

First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea level change.

Second; islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor.

Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines. Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, Island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.

================================

So it seems that the scare phrases of "The islands will disappear as sea level rises" is being proved false.

Let's review that part again:

1. A total of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific were observed (not run through models) over a 19 to 61 year period. Long enough to meet the 17-30 years scientists say they need to meet the "climate" tag.

2. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea level rise of 2.0 mm.y-1 in the Pacific. Again, observed data DOES show a sea level rise - of about 2mm/yr.


3. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the time frame of analysis. Only 4 out of the 27 showed a DECREASE in land area

4. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 hectares. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.

Can we check this one off "The List" now?

Updated: 11:59 PM GMT on October 15, 2011

Permalink

Thailand has another flood...

By: hcubed, 2:17 AM GMT on October 15, 2011

Thailand flooded again.



From this chart, we can see that of the top 10 natural disasters, 7 of them have been floods.

And, looking closely at the dates, we have this pattern:

1978, 1984, Oct 93, Nov 93, Dec 93, 2010, 2011.

Look at that pattern again. In 3 different events in 1993, there was more than $1,980,950 in total damages (enough to displace the second-costliest listing). And yes, this most recent flooding had damages of $3,900,000.

It appears that Thailand has a history of floods that can cause millions of dollars in damages.

So how "unique" was this one?

Permalink

The end of the world is coming - again...

By: hcubed, 2:38 AM GMT on October 14, 2011

The end of the world is nigh – again.

Doomsday prophet Harold Camping is once more predicting an apocalypse, and apparently we don't have long left. The 90-year-old California radio mogul has pointed to October 21 on the calendar, by which date he reckons it will “probably” all be over.

But this time around he is not warning of souls burning up and ascensions to heaven from the sidewalks of Manhattan. Instead Camping, the owner of the Family Radio Network, believes it will be a much quieter affair.

“I really am beginning to think as I restudied these matters that there's going to be no big display of any kind. The end is going to come very, very quietly, probably within the next month. It will happen, that is, by October 21," he stated in a recent radio recording.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/10/13/harold-camping s-back-with-a-brand-new-doomsday-prediction/#ixzz1 aigwTPkz

8 days to go...

Permalink

The sun and the winter of 2011...

By: hcubed, 2:26 AM GMT on October 11, 2011

Brought forth for your reading enjoyment:

Link

The Sun And The Winter Of 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011 00:01 Dr. David Whitehouse

I’ve said it before. If you are not confused about the Sun’s role in global and regional climate variations, you haven’t been paying attention.

The latest manifestation of the Sun-climate debate takes place in the pages of Nature Geoscience. The UK Met Office also issued a press release on the subject a few days ago.

The conclusion is that the Sun’s low activity, in particular its low ultraviolet (UV) output, is influencing the stratosphere in such a way as to produce unusually cold winters in parts of Europe, including the UK.

“Our research confirms the observed link between solar variability and regional winter climate,” lead author Sarah Ineson of the UK Met Office told Reuters.

The press has reported that Ineson’s team focused on data from the recent solar minimum which was during 2008-10, a period of unusual calm for the sun and intense, record-breaking winters in the UK.

Using computer models they found that when they introduced a reduction in UV radiation from the sun it can affect high-altitude wind patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, triggering cold winters. When solar UV radiation is stronger, the opposite occurs, the researchers say.

More study is clearly needed. It’s preliminary work and, of course, based on computer modeling and all the limitations implied in that. The data only spanned a few years. "So questions remain concerning both accuracy and also applicability to other solar cycles," Ineson said.

But then, in my view, these caveats are ignored and the usefulness of this work taken too far. “While UV levels won't tell us what the day-to-day weather will do, they provide the exciting prospect of improved forecasts for winter conditions for months and even years ahead. These forecasts play an important role in long-term contingency planning,” Ineson said.

Low solar UV radiation is not the only factor that the Met Office believes can cause severe UK winters. In 2008 its climate scientists “confirmed” links between the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the weather over Europe in late-winter.

A letter, also in Nature Geoscience, explained how they had used computer models. Then Sarah Ineson said, “we have shown evidence of an active stratospheric role in the transition to cold conditions in northern Europe and mild conditions in southern Europe in late-winter during El Nino years."

The problem with this “confirmation” was demonstrated rather dramatically the very next year.

In October 2009 the Met Office predicted a mild winter because of El Nino. Temperatures in December would be above average, they said. In reality December temperatures were a whopping 1.1 degrees below the recent average.

There are other problems with the Met Office’s latest research.

Firstly, it refers to 2008-2010 when the Sun’s activity was low, and the UK experienced three severe winters in succession. The problem is that the activity of the Sun as we enter the UK 2011 winter is not the same as it was in the past few years.

Solar activity is back to what it was in 2004-5, and we didn’t experience severe winters in those years.

So, if anything, the logic behind this particular piece of research points towards the Winter of 2011 being a mild one!

I don’t believe that this latest research increases the probability of a severe UK winter this year. It will be interesting to see what happens.

The other problem concerns recent, highly publicised, research by Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, a co-author on the current Nature Geoscience paper.

Her work rests on the fairly recent observations that show that solar UV and optical radiation vary in anti-phase – although the figures are not totally rock solid, it seems that when solar optical radiation is low the UV is high and that UV varies to a greater degree than previously suspected. This led to headlines all over the world that when the sun goes through a decrease of activity, such as the slide towards solar minimum, it might actually be warming the earth.


So, on the one hand we have research that suggests that during the last solar minimum, 2008 – 10, low solar UV resulted in cold European winters. On the other hand we have research that suggests that during the same solar minimum enhanced UV may have actually provided a warming effect!

But what does this tell us about the forthcoming winter? Will it be mild or severe?

We in the UK have had three very severe winters, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The big question is, is it a coincidence?

The Met Office is in a quandary. It has to advise the UK government on winter preparations. Politically it can’t afford to get it wrong again this year. Despite what it said in retrospect last year’s predictions were a disaster.

In 2010, contributing to the Quarmby Report the Met Office said,

2.10. We have explored these issues in some depth with the climate research team at the Met Office Hadley Centre. The starting point is the slow but steady rise in average global temperatures. The consensus on the UK is that on average summers will become warmer, and winters will become warmer and wetter, though the next 10–15 years may be dominated by natural variability. When severe weather events happen they may be more extreme in terms of heat and rainfall.

12.11. Although the probability of severely cold winters in the UK is gradually declining, there is currently no evidence to suggest similar changes in extremes of snow, winds and storms in the UK.

12.12. We have also explored whether or not the occurrence of two successive severe winters influences the probability of a third in succession – in other words, is there any evidence of clustering? There is some small influence from year to year but these matters are still very uncertain and it would be safer to assume that there is statistical independence between one winter and the next.

12.13. In other words, we are advised to assume that the chance of a severe winter in 2010–11 is no greater (or less) than the current general probability of 1 in 20.

Boy, were they wrong!

Mean temperatures over the UK were 5.0 °C below average during December and 0.3 °C below average in January.

In April this year the Met Office told me, when pressed, that, after a third severe winter, they still believed that they were not connected. They said there was currently a 1 in 8 chance of a fourth severe winter in 2011. They were unimpressed with my view that the chances of three consecutive 1 in 8 chances was a 1 in 512 if the events were truly independent.

Four independent 1 in 8 severe winters has a probability of 1 in 4096 which is way outside the bounds of chance. (In the Quarmby report they say that the probability of a severe winter was 1 in 20. Four years at 1 in 20 gives a 1 in 160,000 chance.)

Predictions, they say, are difficult, especially about the future. Just over ten years ago we were warned that snow in the UK would become a thing of the past. Within a few years Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia said winter snowfall will become "a rare and exciting event."

A decade later snow is now more of a problem than ever, despite global warming. The fact is that nobody knows if the forthcoming winter will be severe or mild. The only wise advice that can be given is to plan as if 2011 is going to be like the previous three winters, and one doesn’t need multi-million pound computers to make it.

***So it appears that by the end of the winter, we'll have another "fact" that will support or trash the CAGW theory. We'll just have to wait and see...***

Permalink

Chinese sceptics see global warming as US conspiracy

By: hcubed, 2:34 AM GMT on October 09, 2011

Link

From the article:

A new study by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency shows China now emits far more greenhouse emissions than any other country, with emissions doubling between 2003 and 2010.

China’s carbon emissions rose 10 per cent last year alone, to 9 billion tonnes, compared with 5.2 billion tonnes for the United States.

The report showed India’s emissions also rose rapidly, by 9 per cent, although its total emissions are still only one-fifth of China’s.

The most startling finding, however, is that China’s per capita emissions are now higher than several rich nations including France and Italy. China’s per capita emissions could even overtake the US within six years, the study said.

”If the current trends in emissions by China and the industrialised countries including the US would continue for another seven years, China will overtake the US by 2017 as highest per capita emitter among the 25 largest emitting countries,” said the Netherlands report, which was sponsored by the European Commission and is based partly on BP energy consumption statistics.

So lets check the list:

1. Earth is warming.
2. CO2 emissions are increasing.
3. Rise in CO2 is primarliy caused by China and India.
4. Rest of the world wants to severely decrease their CO2 emissions while ignoring the Panda in the room.

Got it...

Permalink

Current "unprecidented" ozone depletion happened before

By: hcubed, 11:51 AM GMT on October 05, 2011

Volcano In Siberia Caused The Greatest Mass Extinction Event Of All Time (6/5/2007)

"...Scientists from the Universities of Sheffield and Cambridge have discovered that Mother Nature caused a massive ozone depletion event, some 251 million years ago, during the greatest mass extinction event of all time.

The research, which has been published in the June edition of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, shows that toxic chemicals released by volcanoes led to a thinning of the ozone layer, millions of years before humans even existed.

New mathematical models developed by the scientists suggest a massive episode of volcanism in Siberia, which coincided with the mass extinction, seriously depleted the ozone shield that protects life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet-B radiation. The eruptions injected halogen gases into the atmosphere, and produced potent ozone-destroying chemicals as the hot ascending lava cooked Siberian rocks and underground salt and minerals.

The calculations also help explain fossil finds reported a few years ago of unusual mutated plant pollen in rocks, which dated back to around the time of the mass extinction, and had previously puzzled scientists. These mutations are consistent with damage to plants by extreme UV-radiation..."

Someone needs to look up the term "unprecidented"...

And, from a "casual user", there was this reply:

402. vinotinto 12:25 PM GMT on October 05, 2011 +10
Please put the tropical summary first so we don't have to read all the climate change propaganda to get to the only real reason most of us read this blog.

Best Regards,
Michael

Bet that before long it will be removed for violating the community standards?

Checking it later, and it was still there, with a triple reply post by Nea (making sure that his message gets through, I guess).

They cleared it out by putting up a new blog entry, one that doesn't contain the doom and gloom of a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Man Made Disaster, but one that actually contains weather!

So I'll probably change this out - later...

Updated: 7:24 PM GMT on October 05, 2011

Permalink

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).