By Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth

Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change-change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that “spectacular” ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past. In other words, the “unprecedented rapid loss of ice” from parts of Antarctica that global warming alarmists make so much of are a normal part of nature’s cycles.

According to the latest report in the journal Science, this is how it works: Less ice in the northern zone causes more cloud cover, reducing the amount of light reaching the plankton. A loss of light, together with less ice-melt freshwater and stronger winds means fewer large plankton blooms. By contrast, in the south, the skies stay cloudless for longer and the Antarctic current increases its flow rate, pulling up more nutrients. Both factors contribute to greater primary productivity. These physical changes explain the striking shifts recently observed in krill and the vertebrate communities of the western Antarctic.

In a paper titled “Productivity cycles of 200-300 years in the Antarctic Peninsula region: Understanding linkages among the sun, atmosphere, oceans, sea ice, and biota,” Leventer and colleagues report the results of a multiproxy record from a sediment core retrieved from a deep basin on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The report reveals “a dramatic perspective on paleoclimatic changes over the past 3700 yr. Analyses completed include measurement of magnetic susceptibility and granulometry, bed thickness, particle size, percent organic carbon, bulk density, and microscopic evaluation of diatom and benthic foraminiferal assemblages and abundances.” Their conclusion was that “variability of these parameters demonstrates the significance of both short-term cycles, which recur approximately every 200 yr, and longer term events (~2500 yr cycles) that are most likely related to global climatic fluctuations.”

In other words, ice in the Antarctic region undergoes periodic episodes of rapid melting - and it is all entirely natural, not because of human activity. The new paper echos these findings: “Paleo-records show that analogous climate variations have occurred in the past 200 to 300 years, and over longer 2500-year cycles, with rapid (decadal) transitions between warm and cool phases in the WAP. In this study (~30 years), the Chl a trend evidenced in the southern subregion of the WAP presented similar characteristics to those trends detected during typical interneoglacial periods (~200 to 300 years) (i.e., high phytoplankton biomass, and presumably productivity, due to less area covered by permanent sea ice).”

Science is marvelous, it never rests and never accepts any simple answer at face value. Here we see confirmation of an alternate explanation for rapid ice melting in Antarctica. The latest paper cites thirty supporting references and cross referencing the older paper provides links to eighteen others - this paper’s conclusions are not from a single group of “fringe” scientists. Yet have you heard this well documented explanation for rapid ice melting from any media outlet reporting on global warming? Of Course not! What is reported is “more unprecedented melting!”

To have reported that the melting ice could be explained more accurately by a scientific theory other than anthropogenic global warming would muddy the water, not to mention confuse the news anchor doing the reporting. This is what makes other scientists, myself included, so angry about the climate change clique - their lack of open mindedness, their willful disregard for any facts counter to their preconceived ideas, their out right lies. When the dust finally settles on the great global warming debate there will be a number of climate scientist with much to account for. Meanwhile, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. Read more here.

By Tom LoBianco, Washington Times

President Obama’s climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House’s initial estimate of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House. A top economic aide to Mr. Obama told a group of Senate staffers last month that the president’s climate-change plan would surely raise more than the $646 billion over eight years the White House had estimated publicly, according to multiple a number of staffers who attended the briefing Feb. 26.

“We all looked at each other like, ‘Wow, that’s a big number,’” said a top Republican staffer who attended the meeting along with between 50 and 60 other Democratic and Republican congressional aides. The plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances, although exact details have not been released.

At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president’s cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration’s early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015. A White House official did not confirm the large estimate, saying only that Obama aides previously had noted that the $646 billion estimate was “conservative.”

“Any revenues in excess of the estimate would be rebated to vulnerable consumers, communities and businesses,” the official said. The Obama administration has proposed using the majority of the money generated from a cap-and-trade plan to pay for its middle-class tax cuts, while using about $120 billion to invest in renewable-energy projects.

Mr. Obama and congressional Democratic leaders have made passing a climate-change bill a top priority. But Republican leaders and moderate to conservative Democrats have cautioned against levying increased fees on businesses while the economy is still faltering. House Republican leaders blasted the costs in the new estimate. “The last thing we need is a massive tax increase in a recession, but reportedly that’s what the White House is offering: up to $1.9 trillion in tax hikes on every single American who drives a car, turns on a light switch or buys a product made in the United States,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner. “And since this energy tax won’t affect manufacturers in Mexico, India and China, it will do nothing but drive American jobs overseas.” See post here.

This press release, reported how Senator Inhofe Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, went to the Senate Floor this morning to expose the cap and trade tax scheme included in President Obama’s budget.  The following are excerpts of his Senate Floor speech: 

“The Administration’s decision to include cap and trade - and the revenues generated by it - in the budget forces my colleagues here in the Senate to no longer hide the ball. It allows us to have an honest debate about the costs of a program of this magnitude on the American people - not to mention the enormous redistribution of wealth for pet projects and programs under the umbrella of ‘clean energy.’ To put it simply, they are realizing that cap and trade is a regressive energy tax that hits the Midwest and the South harder than the East or West Coasts. 

“In this time of recession and economic pain, the Administration and proponents of mandatory global warming controls now need to be honest with the American people. The purpose of these programs is to ration fossil-based energy by making it more expensive, and therefore less appealing for public consumption. It is a regressive tax that imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich.  That is because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on energy costs than the rich. 

“There is nothing in it for taxpayers, consumers or the climate.  If it is time for anything, it is time for us to get realistic about these policies, and focus on what is achievable, both globally and domestically, to help bring down energy costs to consumers and make us more energy secure so the American public doesn’t get yet another raw deal. 

“Let us be honest. The total costs of the program will be well over the $646 billion when you factor in the private sector mandates and the total costs to reduce emissions. If past economic models are any indication, the total costs of a program could be 3 times more expensive than what the Administration’s numbers predict. And the Administration’s numbers of just the auction revenues aren’t small, roughly $80 billion per year.”

By Craig Idso, CO2 Science

Politicians who bow to the demands of the world’s climate alarmists have long sought various means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the measures they have proposed have been rather mundane, focusing primarily on reducing emissions associated with one’s household activities and transportation habits. For example, we have been encouraged to replace our incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient ones. We’ve also been asked to participate in municipal recycling programs, to drive less, to car pool or to utilize public transportation. But the “rules of the road” will soon be become much more stringent, and you and I may be asked - if not mandated by law - to make an unprecedented lifestyle change that could dramatically curtail one of our most cherished personal freedoms, all in the name of “saving the planet.”

Writing for the scientific journal Global Environmental Change, two academics at Oregon State University - Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax - identify this lifestyle change in a paper entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” In this treatise they attempt to quantify, in their words, “the carbon legacy of an individual,” and to examine “how it is affected by the individual’s reproductive choices,” based on the premise that “a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him.” So what did they find?

The two researchers calculated that a woman in the United States would reduce her lifetime CO2 emissions by about 486 tons if she implemented the green-approved household and transportation activities mentioned previously. But they estimate that if she were to have just one child, that child, over its lifetime, would eventually release nearly 20 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than the reductions achieved by its mother via her more mundane green activities.

In light of these calculations, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that “the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” adding that “enormous [our italics] future benefits can be gained by immediate changes [our italics] in reproductive behavior,” and, therefore, that “an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage.”

We can only hope, in this regard, that everyone’s future reproductive behavior will continue to be a matter of choice. But in light of the supposedly “enormous” CO2-related “benefits” of curtailing child-bearing - especially in the United States - no one can assume that such will continue to be the case, especially in light of the claims of climate alarmists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who consider CO2-induced global warming to be the greatest threat to the survival of civilization ever to be encountered. Faced with such a unique and unparalleled threat, we could well awake one morning and find ourselves with no choice in the matter, mandated by law to only procreate to the extent deemed ecologically appropriate by those enlightened few who somehow simply “know” what is best for the biosphere.

It may seem unthinkable today that our government - of the people, by the people and for the people - would ever assume the power to tell us how many children we can and cannot have. But much has happened in the past few months that truly was unthinkable, and only a single year ago. And if it’s happened before, it can happen again; for in times of crisis - either real, as in the current economic crisis, or imagined, as in Al Gore’s climate crisis - normally-rational people can do some wildly-irrational things. We must, therefore, maintain the eternal vigilance that is needed to preserve our God-given rights that no one has the authority to rescind. Stand up with us and demand that your elected officials carefully scrutinize both sides of the CO2-climate debate and think for themselves. We need thoughtful men and women of integrity to guide our nation, not mindless lemmings. Read text here. See video below and full size here.

See Chris Horner’s take on this here.