Dyaks

18 Nov 2018

At https://phys.org/print461583534.html ... the Antarctic Circumpolar Current helps keep the southern continent frozen we are told. It is the strongest ocean current on the planet - stretching from the surface all the way down to the sea bed and entirely encircling Antarctica. It does however have a major bottleneck where it has to funnel its water between the West Antarctic peninsular and Tierra del Fuego. The point is that the current serves to keep the cold locked into the continent, we are told, and the warmth out - although tropical water does circulate close to the peninsular in order to enter the South Atlantic (and is probably mixed with the current as it passes through the straits at the bottom of Tierra del Fuego). We are then led to believe that climate change is going to alter this particular ocean current and melt the Antarctic ice sheet - even though it has been frozen for 17 million years, surviving some really big climate changes in the past.

At https://phys.org/print461587359.html ... here we are informed that half the world's precipitation falls in just 12 days of the year according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters (November 2018). Once this is digested we are told that climate change will cause the rainiest days to get wetter - and wetter. In other words, more dramatic monsoonal rains. Flooding will become a bigger issue (and so on and so forth). Needless to say this is a computer simulation but at the heart of the study is not what is happening outside the windows but the climate models on their desktop computer. Yes, they ran the models and came out with this result - but none of the models have yet to conform with what happens in the real world. It is all very surreal.

Next, at https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/srT7KM ... we have a story about Greenpeace. The author has clearly been incensed by the NGO that was instrumental in causing the biofuels problem in the first instance now calling for an end to the oil palm plantations that have led to the destruction of the rain forest in Borneo. Hypocritical is his reaction and indeed it is. The author also seems to have some fond memories of being 'out in Borneo' in the 1960s when there was a simmering war along the mountainous border between the Malaysian half of the island and the Indonesian communist leader in which servicemen from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Ghurkhas took part, stationed in small forts deep in the interior. They were aided by the local tribesmen, the head hunting Dyaks. In fact many servicemen came back with shrunken heads as mementoes of their time out there. They were the size of tennis balls - very small as the skull bone had been carefully removed, but just the right size to hang as a trophy from a belt around the waist (in the case of the Dyaks that is). I have sometimes wondered how they have fared since the introduction of palm oil plantations - and the answer is, not very well. They are on the verge of extinction - much like the orang utans and other wildlife. One can put part of the blame to the British withdrawl from Borneo but most of the blame must lie with NGOs and other groups that set up the clammer for biofuels to replace fossil fuel in the engines of cars in Europe and elsewhere. In the USA the biofuels come from a foodplant, corn,  (ethanol) and in Europe we have various schemes to produce biofuels from different materials etc. Palm oil plantations have decimated the rain forest of Borneo but we hear very little criticism of this but lots of criticism of loggers in Brazil. Yes, definitely hypocritical.

At https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6395781/Study-finds-robu...     ... sent in by Gary, or was it Robert. We are told polar bear numbers in the Chukchi Sea between Alaska and Siberia have climbed to 3000 - but then are informed that climate change could still cause them to die of starvation. Well at least they seem to be admitting polar bear numbers are increasing in some places. They have been in denial for several years. The ban on hunting the bears has caused numbers to rise - and they will keep on rising. It is the law of nature. Polar bears do not have any predator to control their numbers - only the forces of nature (storms and the like). The Daily Mail goes on to say polar bears have been dying in large numbers and experts warn the Chukchi bears may suffer the same plight in the future (but its always in the future and never in the present). Interestingly, this follows a federal government report in Canada that polar bear numbers around Inuit communities have become a danger to human life. The response to this from the CAGW crowd has been complete denial. A typical comment is, 'they just want to start hunting them again ...' - a prettly small minded response when somebody is fearful for the lives of their children. A few eskimos here and there might not matter to the CAGW people but it does matter in the long run as the Inuit will become entirely disenfranchised with western science and culture. The Inuit appear to be a broad minded people and generally peaceful souls - but that does not mean they should be taken advantage of. After all, it is they who are living in Arctic climes and they that have to deal with rising polar bear numbers. Just because the climate change mantra of bears dying as a result of shrinking ice is not true is no reason for anyone to ignore the situation, but that is what happens when climate change becomes a dogma, or an act of faith. It must be happening even if it is not happening. After all, there is no shortage of ice in the Arctic. What climate change amounts to is projection - projections based on climate models (computer driven). Eskimos may have smart phones nowadays but they also live in the real world.