F. Boberg and J.H. Christensen. Overestimation of Mediterranean summer temperature projections due to model deficiencies. Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1454
Abstract: How anthropogenic climate change will affect the climate in dry and semi-arid regions has important implications for the course of regional development. It has become increasingly common to use high-resolution regional climate models (RCMs) nested within coarser-resolution global climate models to downscale climate change projections. The aim is to obtain physically consistent information about future climate with enhanced geographical detail1, 2, 3. Recently, it has been demonstrated4, 5 that RCMs share systematic temperature-dependent biases, which affect their ability to capture accurately certain observable climate conditions. Here, we show that owing to a broad tendency for climate models (regional and global) to show systematic biases in warm, dry climates, it is likely that, at present, many climate models overestimate regional amplification of global warming. We study Europe using the central Mediterranean as an example. To correct for individual model deficiencies, we apply a bias correction conditioned on temperature. The results demonstrate that projections of intense mean summer warming partly result from model deficiencies, and when corrected for, the Mediterranean summer temperature projections are reduced by up to one degree, on average by 10–20%. Individual models may be overestimating warming by several degrees.
Posted in Climate
Carroll Boone Water District (CBWD) board, is considering whether to add fluoride…..The district serves 25,000 people.
Delta Dental Insurance company reportedly offered CBWD about $763,000 to cover the cost…..but the cost now is $1.23 million…..click here…..
I didn’t know that the purpose of drinking water treatment was to directly, financially, benefit dental insurance companies? What a surprise…..
The heavy cost of a non-problem
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
California State Assembly
21 March 2012
IN the 6 decades since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 F°/century. The IPCC’s central estimate is that in the 9 decades to 2100 the rate will be 6 F°/century, three times the observed rate.
Two-thirds of the warming predicted by the IPCC’s (non-peer-reviewed) models is supposed to arise from temperature feedbacks. None of these feedbacks can be measured. There is no consensus about how big they are. There are powerful scientific reasons to suspect the IPCC has very greatly overstated them.
The principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports are questionable:
- 2007: The IPCC twice concludes that the rate of warming is speeding up and we are to blame. But it uses a false statistical technique to reach its conclusion.
- 2001: The IPCC concludes that today’s temperatures are warmer than in 1300 years. How it reached this conclusion is under criminal investigation.
- 1995: The scientists had concluded that no discernible human effect on climate could be found. Just one man rewrote the report to say the opposite.
- 1990: The IPCC predicted rapid warming. A generation has passed and the predicted warming has not happened. This and many other predictions are overblown:
- Global temperature is rising more slowly than IPCC’s least estimate;
- Sea level has been rising for eight years at just 1.3 inches/century;
- Ocean heat content has barely risen in 6 years;
- Hurricanes and tropical cyclones are quieter than for 30 years;
- Global sea-ice extent has changed little in 30 years;
- Methane concentration is up just 20 parts per billion since 2000;
- The tropical hot-spot the IPCC predicts as our footprint is absent;
- Outgoing radiation is escaping to space much as usual.
California’s carbon tax, with other statewide measures to curb CO2 emissions, will cost $450 billion by 2020. Even if 25% of California’s emissions are abated by 2020, just 0.4% of global emissions will have been abated; CO2 concentration by 2020, instead of the business-as-usual 413 parts per million by volume the IPCC predicts, will be 412.9 ppmv; just one-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree of warming will be abated; the cost of abating the 0.3 F° warming the IPCC predicts to 2020 by measures as cost-(in)effective as California’s policies would be $180 trillion, or $25,500 per head of global population, or a third of global GDP over the period; and the cost of preventing the 6 F° warming the IPCC predicts by 2100 would be $2700 trillion, or more than 10 times the maximum 3%-of-GDP cost of climate-related damage arising from not mitigating this predicted 21st-century warming at all.
Environmental over-regulation, cap-and-tax, “renewable”-energy mandates, and a 40-year ban on most offshore drilling are crippling California. The Monterey Shale holds 15 billion barrels of oil, yet over-regulation has cut production by more than a third to just 200 million barrels a year. Now 11% are jobless in California, second only to Nevada in the US (50% are jobless in construction); the 2012/13 State deficit is $6 billion; unfunded pension liabilities are $250 billion; 50,000 rich Californians (one-third of them) fled in 2007-2009, taking their businesses and jobs with them: twice as many firms fled the once-Golden State in 2011 as in 2010; Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled. The waggons are heading East.
The bottom line: No policy to abate global warming by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation. CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of any warming that may occur is many times more cost-effective. Since the premium greatly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. Every red cent spent now on trying to stop global warming is a red cent wasted. Don’t mitigate: sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary. That, however unfashionable, is the economically prudent and scientifically sensible course.
Source: Watts Up With That
The story line now is changing for pro-fluoridation articles…..click here for the latest example of an alarming “he said, she said” article by the discredited MSNBC…..a re-branding of water fluoridation if you will….
The implication now is that the 0.7 mg/L dose recommended by CDC solves the potential problem of harmful effects….but it doesn’t….
Try brushing teeth with fluoride-containing toothpaste……state laws mandating water fluoridation are no longer needed…..
Posted in Fluoride
This study in Brazil attempts to show the benefits of water fluoridation by comparing the results of dental caries prevalence in children in 2 different groups separated by 21 years. Factors other than fluoridation that would confound the results over such a long period of time (e.g., brushing, dentifrice availability, etc)…..regardless of what the statistics imply.
Hashizume, LM, Mathias, TC, Cibils, DM, and M. Maltz. Effect of the widespread use of fluorides on the occurrence of hidden caries in children. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2012 Feb 20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01231.x.
Background. It has been suggested that the widespread use of fluorides could interfere in the prevalence of clinically undetected occlusal dentine caries. Aim. The objective of this study was to determine the role of public water fluoridation and fluoride dentifrice on the prevalence of hidden caries in 8-10-year-old children.
Design. Clinical and radiographic data on schoolchildren collected in an epidemiologic study in Porto Alegre, Brazil, at two moments, 1975 (n=228) and 1996 (n=213), were analysed. Only the first permanent molars were studied. Only children of the 1996 examinations had benefited from fluoridated water soon after birth and had regular access to fluoride dentifrices. The criterion applied for hidden caries, when data from 1975 to 1996 were compared, was clinical sound surfaces that presented a radiolucent zone in the dentine.
Results. The prevalence of clinically sound surfaces and percentage of hidden caries was 0.51 and 26.4% in 1975 and 2.67 and 12.9% in 1996, respectively. The prevalence of hidden caries differed statistically between the two periods (P<0.05).
Conclusions. The results do indicate that the widespread use of fluoride via public water supply and dentifrices decreases the prevalence of hidden caries.