Article: Massive toxic algae bloom reaches from California to Alaska

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Oceanographers are studying whether climate change is contributing to an unprecedented bloom of toxic algae that spans the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada, raising health concerns and leading to multimillion-dollar income losses from closed fisheries. 

The runaway bloom of pseudo-nitzschia algae is believed to have been spawned in part by unusually warm ocean water along the West Coast that scientists have dubbed "the blob."

"The blob" is a natural and recurrent phenomenon, possibly linked to El Nino. And large blooms are common where water is warmer than normal or high in plant nutrients (usually from human sources).

However, half of the article tries to tie it into catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, i.e., climate change.

The article is full of tentative words/phrases: whether climate change is contributing; have yet to determine; global climate change; may be a harbinger; things to come; climate change; a window to the future; could see happen; climate change scenarios.

Two reporters and two editors are responsible for this mash-up.

Arctic Sea Ice: 4 Articles

Article: Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years. 

The scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought. 

[snip] 

"We looked at various climate forcing factors, we looked at the snow loading, we looked at wind convergence and the melt season length of the previous summer," lead author Rachel Tilling, from University College London, told BBC News. 

"We found that the the highest correlation by far was with the melt season length - and over the summer of 2013, it was the coolest of the five years we have seen, and we believe that's why there was more multi-year ice left at the end of summer."

However, 2014 was supposed to have been the warmest on record (according to recently "adjusted" "data"). How can the warmest summer on record be reconciled with increased sea ice if that should have caused decreased sea ice?

Article: Arctic ice EMBIGGENS, returns to 1980s levels of cap cover

To be fair, it is total sea ice, Arctic and Antarctic, that has reached 1980's levels. While the Arctic ice is still down from its 1980's high, Antarctic ice is at record breaking levels, and still increasing.

Article: CCGS Amundsen re-routed to Hudson Bay to help with heavy ice

The Amundsen is an icebreaker. During the summer it does double-duty as a "floating research center."

Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he's seen in 20 years.

Because of the large amount of ice this summer (supposedly the hottest on record, so far) the icebreaker has had to return to its normal duties.

Trip down memory lane:
2007 Article, also at the BBC: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Real world 

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years. 

[snip] 

"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing..."

Yes, the BBC actually used the section heading, "Real World."

Yet another falsification of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Article: Shipwreck found off North Carolina, possibly from late 1700s

About 150 miles off the coast, about 1 mile down. These are hard wrecks to find and explore because of their depth.

It was found on an expediation looking for marine life.

Article: Sun's activity controls Greenland temperatures

To summarize:

Increased solar activity cooled Greenland from the 1950's to the early 1990's due to a decreased Gulf Stream current.

Decreased solar activity warmed Greenland from the 1990's to the present due to an increased Gulf Stream current.

However, unstated, global warming was supposed to decrease the Gulf Stream current. We have been having global warming since 1950's. Therefore, we should be having cooling in Greenland and increased ice. Therefore, the warming of Greenland over the last 2 decades is actually evidence that global warming has not been happening.

However:

Another recent study by [Penn State Professor Michael] Mann and his colleagues proposed that trapped greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning caused warming across the Northern Hemisphere and triggered an increase in ice melt. This led to the slowdown in ocean circulation and a cooler Greenland.

So warming causes slowdown, but then so does decreased solar activity which causes cooling.

The increased flow of warm water and air to Greenland due to decreased solar activity will cause increase melting of Greenland's ice.

However, unstated, decreased solar activity is correlated with decreased world-wide temperatures, which should increase glacial ice in other places.

On the other hand, the Medieval warm period caused ice to melt in Greenland (which is why it is called "Greenland"). And the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) caused Greenland to ice up again, driving the Vikings to abandon their settlements there.

The Little Ice Age is correlated with decreased solar activity, the Maunder Minimum.

So we have both cooling periods and warming periods correlated with both warming and cooling episodes in Greenland.

I would guess that there may actually be a way to reconcile all this, and the researchers do propose a test to see if their hypothesis works out.

Starting around 2025, temperatures in Greenland could increase more than anticipated and the island's ice sheet could melt faster than projected,  

Article: Undiscriminating Skepticism

Again, something I ran across after googling tribal signalling.

Main thesis: skepticism as tribal signalling versus rational, thought-out skepticism based on facts.

The problem is that most people have neither the trained intelligence nor the time/energy to learn enough about a subject and think deeply about it to have "discriminating skepticism."

We rely on opinions expressed by people we think meet the above criteria. This is why "talking points" exist. People who are otherwise ignorant of a topic can read a summary of the topic by a source accepted by the tribe. They can then signal their tribe that they are members by repeating them.

I'll conclude with some simple and non-trustworthy indicators that the skeptic is just filling in a cheap and largely automatic mockery template: 

1. The "skeptic" opens by remarking about the crazy true believers and wishful thinkers who believe in X, where there seem to be a surprising number of physicists making up the population of those wacky cult victims who believe in X.  (The physicist-test is not an infallible indicator of rightness or even non-stupidity, but it's a filter that rapidly picks up on, say, strong AI, molecular nanotechnology, cryonics, the many-worlds interpretation, and so on.)  

The amusing thing about this and the other 2 indicators is that they are true about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming skepticism. For example, it is well known that a significant proportion of physicists are skeptics and meet the other two indicators as well.

Article: Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?

Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models. 

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

There is a concept in statistics called a 95% confidence interval. That is, the researcher is confident that 95% of the time, his/her results reflect reality. Here, 95% of the "world's best models" fail to reflect reality.  They have also failed to predict the current, 18-year, warming hiatus. 

“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. 

If they had expected it, 95% their models would have reflected it, not 5%. 

Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,” said Williams.

Currently, the effect of greenhouse gases is being overshadowed by other local climate phenomena, says Turner. “By far the biggest impact has been the ozone hole. The signal of increasing greenhouse gases is buried beneath all the other signals.”

The depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica during last century by emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has caused an overall cooling trend on the continent.

Ozone itself is a greenhouse gas and its reduction has seen more heat reflecting back into space. 

So, we have known about the ozone hole for decades, known that ozone was a greenhouse for over a century, and no one figured the ozone hole into the climate models? 

The ozone hole is changing the climate of an entire continent and no one thought to take it into account? What other factors are being missed in the climate model? Especially those that might account for the current 18 year hiatus?

It is estimated that the Pine Island glacier alone loses so much water that it is responsible for 10% of global annual sea level rise (which is about 3mm per year). Warm currents come from deep water and heat the underside of the ice sheet, causing it to melt. 

Warm currents? Warm currents float on the surface of colder, and denser, water. Even comparatively "warm" water would not sink in the first place. The deep ocean is about 4 degrees C because that is the temperature of water at its densest. So where would "warm" water be sinking? 

Additionally, research has shown that the deep ocean is not warming. So if the deep ocean is not warming, where is the "warmth" coming from to melt the glacier?

Turner says this process probably has little to do with global warming. “Pine Island seems to be an ongoing retreat that could have been going on for 10,000 years,” he says.

But, in some future article, it will be blamed on global warming. 

Article: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

Arctic vs. Antarctic ice. Arctic ice is on a general downward trend, though up the last two years from a low 3 years ago. Antarctic ice is reaching a new record maximum. On the other hand, land ice in Antarctic is apparently decreasing.

Why the Arctic is warming and the Antarctic is cooling is unknown.

How the Antarctic Ocean is cooling to produce more sea ice, but the nearby land is warming, or producing much less snow, is not at all clear.

The Science Is Settled! Until it is disproven.

Article: Where Global Warming Went: Into the Pacific

In February of this year, climate scientist were convinced that the earth was not apparently warming because all the "missing" heat was suddenly (and mysteriously and in violation of the known laws of physics) sinking into the deep parts of the Pacific ocean.

Now, everyone knows that when air or water warms, it expands, the density lessens and it is pushed up cooler air or water sinking to take its place. But that is not the way the Pacific Ocean was supposed to be working. The stupidity of this idea has now been revealed to be stupid by a contradictory study by NASA.

Article: NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. 

Maybe the increase in temperature observed in the 20th century was not as dependent on carbon dioxide levels as the computer models predicted.

The temperature of the top half of the world's ocean -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

So that is not the solution.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. 

When does "many processes" become "desperately flailing around for an answer?"

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period, warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

No, it isn't. It means that the oceans are equilibrating to the existing, higher level of heat energy in the atmosphere.

If I turn on the heat in a cold room with a concrete floor, the room's air will soon reach the desired higher temperature, but it is going to take longer for the concrete floor to equilibrate to the new, higher temperature. The air temperature is not rising, just transferring heat energy to the floor as the furnace maintains the new, higher temperature.

Science Links: 10/2/14 [Updated and bumped]

Article: 'Strikingly Geometric' Shapes Hidden on Moon's Surface

A new lunar probe has detected filled-in rift valleys on the moon.

Rifting was first discovered on Earth. Once it was studied and explained, examples on Mars and Venus became obvious.

The Moon, however, was heavily bombarded during its early history. This covered up the more "rectangular" shape of the rifting. The bombardment make the area appear more circular, as if a large asteroid had caused it.

The conclusion would be that some of plate tectonics happened all four of these.

Article: Walrus mass on Alaska beach - in pictures

Pacific walrus unable to find sea ice on which to rest in Arctic waters are coming ashore in record numbers on a beach in north-west Alaska. Females give birth on sea ice and the animals use it as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf, but climate change means there is ever less available.

Cool photos; stupid comment.

Arctic sea ice is up, overall. Any lack of it in the Alaskan area is a local phenomenon due to the way sea ice shifts around the Arctic Ocean.

Update: Walrus Beach Party 

Confirmation of my assumption above. These mass haul-outs are common, and have occurred whether or not there is sea ice in the vicinity or not. Another hysterical over-reaction by ignorant people to a normal event.

Article: Your nose knows death is imminent: Losing the sense of smell predicts death within five years, according to new research

The title is wrong. In elderly people, about 40% of the people who had a measurable loss of the sense of smell died within 5 years. So, no, "your nose does [not] know" anything.

This compares to about 10% of those with a healthy sense of smell.

Senescence: "the gradual deterioration that occurs with age." The sense of smell is probably a proxy for that general deterioration.

And definitely warrants further study.

Article: What causes paranoia, hallucinations and grandiose ideas?

Led by Dr Angelica Ronald at Birkbeck, University of London, the team analysed data on almost 5,000 pairs of 16-year-old twins. This is the classical twin design, a standard method for gauging the relative influence of genes and environment.
Heritability for paranoia was 50%; for grandiosity it was 44%; while for hallucinations it was 15% for males and 32% for females. This doesn’t mean, incidentally, that 50% of an individual’s paranoia is the result of their genes. The concept of “heritability” tells us that 50% of the differences in levels of paranoia across the population may be genetic in origin. 

That would mean that 50% of that difference is environmental (or "nurture") in origin.

The individual symptoms do not necessarily co-occur with one another.

However, these are generally symptoms of schizophrenia, and "twin studies of those diagnosed with schizophrenia typically report much higher rates of heritability for the disorder…."

Despite the authors's conclusions about the non-inheritability of schizophrenia, it would appear that having all the symptoms, at once, may be the result of having all the genes for the symptoms and therefore, increase the likelihood for full-blown schizophrenia.

They are definitely on the side of redefining schizophrenia, so there may be a bias here against finding for a genetic cause of it.

Article: Obama creates vast Pacific Ocean marine reserve

With a stroke of his pen. It will cover 490,000 sq miles.

The memorandum bans commercial fishing, deep-sea mining and other extraction of underwater resources in the area.

And the extremists cry, "Not enough! Not enough!"

Will the inhabitants of the islands be able to fish for their livelihood, like they used to? Does that count as "noncommercial" fishing?

I would like to read more about this before I can give it unqualified support. But i doubt I am going to find any arguments against it in today's media mono-culture.

It is "ecologically correct" and will not be questioned.

Article: The fickle El Niño of 2014

As per a post below, computer models had predicted a major El Nino event for this year. However, reality failed to match the models.

The height of the ocean water relates, in part, to its temperature, and thus is an indicator of the amount of heat stored in the ocean below. As the ocean warms, the water expands and the sea level rises; as it cools, its level falls. Above-normal height variations along the equatorial Pacific indicate El Niño conditions, while below-normal height variations indicate La Niña conditions. The temperature of the upper ocean can have a significant influence on weather patterns and climate.

In other words, the oceans have not warmed as predicted by the global warming models and therefore the El Nino models were not accurate as well.

Climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, says it's too early to know for sure, but he would not be surprised if the latest Kelvin waves are the "last hurrah" for this much-hoped-for El Niño. 

Major El Nino events are "much-hoped-for" because major events are connected to episodes of global warming. The last big "spike" in warming occurred during an El Nino year, 1998. We have had no warming (and maybe a slight cooling trend) since then.

Scientists warn that unless these developing weak-to-modest El Niño conditions strengthen, the drought-stricken American West shouldn't expect any relief.

In other words, the drought in the West is a natural event, not due to climate change or global warming. It is, in effect, related to the absence of warming.

Article: While the Arctic is melting the Gulf Stream remains

Summary: The melting Arctic is not the source for less saline Nordic Seas. It is the Gulf Stream that has provided less salt. A new study documents that the source of fresher Nordic Seas since 1950 is rooted in the saline Atlantic as opposed to Arctic freshwater that is the common inference.

The common inference was always wrong. The 1950-1970's period had a cooling trend, with increased glaciation. In other words, the cause of the decreased salinity of the Nordic seas always had to be something other global warming.

The Nordic Seas have freshened substantially since 1950. This has happened at the same time as there has been observed increased river runoff and net ice melting in the Arctic. 

Correlation is not causation. And there was not "increased melting" during the early part of that period.

"It has been a concern that a layer of Arctic freshwater could impede the Gulf Stream's Arctic branch. Going back in time -- into and through ice ages -- such a freshwater lid has been understood to reduce ocean circulation and thus the Gulf Stream's poleward heat transport," says Tor Eldevik.

It has already been shown that the Gulf Stream does not, in fact, convey significant amounts of heat to the Arctic regions. And it is not responsible for the "unexpectedly" milder climate of Norway and Europe.

The researchers from the Bjerknes Centre have analysed the available observations back to 1950 and conclude that the changing salt content in the Nordic Seas is explained by the variable salinity of the Gulf Stream's Arctic branch entering the seas from the south. 

Although not part of the present study, it appears to be several reasons for the freshening of the Atlantic source waters. A dominant explanation is a general increase in net precipitation over the North Atlantic Ocean (which may very well relate to global climate change). The contribution is spread over the Gulf Stream system, and accordingly transported further northward.

On the other hand, it might not be due to climate change during the 1950-1970's time period, as explained above. It might just be a natural variation.

We have 65 years of real-time data. We have data that has been teased out of the fossil record and out of the glaciers themselves that can act as "proxies" for the real-time data. How accurate the proxy data is unknown.

On the other hand, North America separated from Europe about 100 million years ago. Presumably, the Gulf Stream has been in operation, or in hiatus, since then. It is raving absurdity to assume we have enough information to actually understand what is happening here.

And the proof of that is the consensus that was the "common inference."