iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-12--Restraint Doesn’t Work, Only A 1000% Tax On Sugar Will Help Solve The Global Obesity Health Crisis

It ’ s Christmas season , and so it ’ s a good time to think twice about indulging in all the sweets out there .
I wrote about sugar earlier , but a refresher doesn ’ t hurt .
10 reasons to drastically reduce sugar , and to TAX it The latest research not only shows sugar is addictive , but how it is behind the global epidemic of diabetes and heart disease .
It also causes cancer , obesity , violent behavior and hyperactivity in children .
Today tens of thousands of food products found in supermarkets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
Depending on the data source , the average American now consumes some 50 kilograms of sugar in the form of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup annually .
That ’ s a kilogram of the poison every week .
A couple of centuries ago the average person consumed just a few kilograms per year .
The human body was just never designed for today ’ s massive sugar intake .
Nowadays we are finding out that sucrose ( table sugar ) and like high fructose corn syrup are causing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Dr. Robert Lustig , Endocrinology Division , University Of California San Francisco , there will be up to 165 million obese people in USA by 203o — 130 million of whom will be diabetic .
A national health crisis .
Globally in 2011 there were an estimated 366 million diabetic persons , and according to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) there were 422 million diabetic persons in 2014 .
Moreover , Lustig claims there were 640 million obese people globally and that the figure will approach 1 billion by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sugar .
Funding healthcare systems to treat all this will not be possible .
Lustig believes that the bottom will fall out of the healthcare system within 10 years .
What follows are 10 reasons to avoid sugar and to tax it massively .
Table sugar , sucrose , which is 50 % glucose and 50 % fructose , causes blood sugar ( glucose ) levels to spike .
High blood sugar is detrimental to the organs and blood vessels , and causes severe damage over time .
The sugar you ingest is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fructose molecules , which rapidly get absorbed into the bloodstream .
The result : your blood sugar ( glucose ) spikes to dangerously high levels and this triggers the secretion of insulin by the pancreas .
The insulin acts to remove the excessive levels of glucose from the blood and store the excess as fat in your cells .
Blood sugar spikes lead to the creation of fat .
On the other hand , complex carbohydrates , which are chains of sugar molecules that need time to be broken down by your digestive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sugar rises and are thus far better .
Complex carbs have great amounts of fiber and often fraught with important nutrients like minerals .
Over time , after years of being on the blood sugar roller coaster , there ’ s a high risk of cells becoming insulin resistant , meaning they will no longer stop taking in glucose from the blood to convert it into fat .
Blood sugar thus remains high ( hyperglycemia ) and is very harmful .
There ’ s a high chance that the pancreas will give up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mellitus 2 .
Calories are not equal .
Some calories fuel the cells of our bodies , which is good , while others can not be used and end up going straight to the gut and clogging your organs .
The two most notorious here are calories from alcohol and fructose .
Table sugar is 50 % fructose which can not be used by the body , and so it gets converted into visceral fat by the liver .
This fat gets stored inside everywhere between the organs .
It ’ s natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not great amounts .
The following image shows a comparison of a healthy set of organs to a diseased one fully clogged with visceral fat : The fat-clogged organs ( right ) were extracted from a deceased 350-lb man .
According to renowned plastinator Gunther von Hagens , the fat-clogged set of organs weighed three times more than the healthy set ( left ) .
Image cropped from : Visceral Fat Explained .
Just how bad visceral fat can get is poignantly illustrated by this short video here ( Warning : not for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average American eats close to 50,000 grams of sugar annually .
That converts to over 200,000 calories .
It ’ s easy to calculate the potential fructose-induced visceral fat production from this .
When your body goes on a sweets consumption-induced blood-sugar roller-coaster , the insulin overshoots and ends up removing too much glucose from the blood .
The result : low blood sugar , known as hypoglycemia ( 3 ) .
The brain sets off the alarms and tells you to get the sugar level back up .
The body can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep the cells going : Figure 3 : After eating very sugary food , blood sugar skyrockets ( 1 ) , insulin is secreted by the pancreas to bring blood sugar back down ( 2 ) , but overshoots and can result in blood sugar that is too low ( 3 ) , and lead to powerful cravings and unruly behavior .
Eating more sweets to satiate your craving will only lead to the next high blood sugar roller-coaster cycle .
Compounding the problems , obesity itself wreaks havoc with hormones and adds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ syndrome .
If table sugar in itself wasn ’ t bad enough already , it ’ s also addictive .
Over the recent years , researches have found that sugar has an addictive effect on the body much in the same way as alcohol or nicotine .
It does this in two ways .
Firstly , fat cells produce leptin , the appetite modulator , which signals the brain you have had enough to eat .
But over time with too much exposure to sugar , leptin gets disrupted and the person no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one eats sugar , neuro-transmitter dopamine gives you a feeling of pleasure .
According to Dr. Robert Lustig , over time dopamine-tolerance develops within the pleasure zone of the brain and so greater quantities are needed to produce the same pleasure effect – very much in the same manner as alcohol or nicotine .
Result : Tolerance + withdrawal = addiction .
Blood sugar leads to the natural process known as glycation .
Sugar in your bloodstream attaches to proteins and fat to form harmful new molecules called advanced glycation end products ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many , as is the case with high sugar consumption , your body can not get rid of them and thus lead to oxidative stress and inflammation in the body .
According to Doris J .
Day , M.D.
, clinical associate professor of dermatology at New York University Langone Medical Center , glycation attacks the skin protein ’ s collagen and elastin ( the ones that make you look young ) .
When bonded with glucose , the skin becomes stiff and inflexible , more lines and wrinkles form .
Moreover , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elastin and so skin repair is difficult .
Free radicals in your brain stemming from the consumption of sugar have been found to be linked to dementia and Alzheimers .
Free radicals cause damage to cells and make them age faster , especially brain cells .
According Dr. Russell Blaylock , a former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center : Reason 8 : Sugar causes cells to become cancerous If accelerated aging wasn ’ t bad enough , sugar consumption is also strongly linked to cancer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on glucose .
But this is not something recently discovered .
It was known already in the 1930s by Otto Warburg , who won the Nobel Prize .
New research shows that sugar may even create cancer cells .
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation ( JCI ) : “ Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways ” .
The study summarizes : “ These results may provide additional evidence for how hyperglycemia in diseases such as obesity and diabetes could provide a microenvironment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancers ( 69 , 70 ) .
” There are numerous studies showing how violent behavior is linked to hypoglycemia ( low blood sugar ) , according to Dr. Russel Blaylock .
Hypoglycemia significantly increases “ excitability ” .
When the brain is in a state of hypoglycemia , neurotransmitter glutamate is released .
It is the “ primary thing that turns the brain into high gear “ .
According to Blaylock ( 7:30 ) , convicted criminals become far less violent when they are put on a healthy , low blood sugar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they return to sugary diets , violent behavior increases .
There ’ s a clear link between crime and nutrition , says Blaylock .
A group of researchers led by psychologist Simon Moore from Cardiff University in the United Kingdom have also shown in a study that boys who ate sweets daily at age 10 are far more likely to commit violent crimes in adulthood .
The human body needs a steady supply of some 90 essential vitamins , minerals , trace elements , amino acids and fatty acids to stay in good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in just a single nutrient can wreak havoc on the body ’ s health and lead to chronic disease .
Unfortunately sugar , high fructose corn syrup , highly refined flours and starches provide only so-called empty calories , i.e .
they deliver near zero essential nutrients .
Should the calorie intake by children or adults come in large part from nutrient-void source like sugar , white flour , processed starches , meaning nutrient-rich foods get booted off the table , then over the years nutrient deficiencies invariably result and lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run .
Nowadays it ’ s not uncommon to see some children get 30 – 40 % of their calories from near-zero nutrient junk food .
This is really sad .
Of course no one is calling for a sugar ban .
However it is imperative that action be taken QUICKLY to get sugar and junk food consumption down drastically to the much lower levels that nature intended for our bodies .
Junk and sugary foods need to be seen as treats given out from time to time , and not something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table as part of the normal diet .
Today , a hefty sugar tax ( 1000 % , yes 1000 % ) would make great sense and is probably the only way to partially avert the coming human health collapse .

It’s Christmas season, and so it’s a good time to think twice about indulging in all the sweets out there. I wrote about sugar earlier, but a refresher doesn’t hurt.
10 reasons to drastically reduce sugar, and to TAX it
Not about “socialism”!
The latest research not only shows sugar is addictive, but how it is behind the global epidemic of diabetes and heart disease. It also causes cancer, obesity, violent behavior and hyperactivity in children.
Today tens of thousands of food products found in supermarkets and restaurants are spiked with sugar, lots of it. Depending on the data source, the average American now consumes some 50 kilograms of sugar in the form of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup annually.
That’s a kilogram of the poison every week.
A couple of centuries ago the average person consumed just a few kilograms per year. The human body was just never designed for today’s massive sugar intake.
Unimaginable epidemic
Nowadays we are finding out that sucrose (table sugar) and like high fructose corn syrup are causing a public health disaster of monstrous proportions. According to Dr. Robert Lustig, Endocrinology Division, University Of California San Francisco, there will be up to 165 million obese people in USA by 203o — 130 million of whom will be diabetic. A national health crisis.
1 billion obese worldwide by 2050
Globally in 2011 there were an estimated 366 million diabetic persons, and according to the World Health Organization (WHO) there were 422 million diabetic persons in 2014. Moreover, Lustig claims there were 640 million obese people globally and that the figure will approach 1 billion by 2050 – all thanks mostly to zero-nutrient sugar.
Funding healthcare systems to treat all this will not be possible. Lustig believes that the bottom will fall out of the healthcare system within 10 years. What follows are 10 reasons to avoid sugar and to tax it massively.
10 Reasons to tax/avoid sugar
Reason 1: High blood sugar
Table sugar, sucrose, which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, causes blood sugar (glucose) levels to spike. High blood sugar is detrimental to the organs and blood vessels, and causes severe damage over time.
Fig. 1: Blood sugar impacts from simple carbohydrates (red) and complex carbohydrates (blue).
The sugar you ingest is quickly broken down into simple glucose and fructose molecules, which rapidly get absorbed into the bloodstream. The result: your blood sugar (glucose) spikes to dangerously high levels and this triggers the secretion of insulin by the pancreas. The insulin acts to remove the excessive levels of glucose from the blood and store the excess as fat in your cells.
Blood sugar spikes lead to the creation of fat.
On the other hand, complex carbohydrates, which are chains of sugar molecules that need time to be broken down by your digestive system, lead to only moderate blood sugar rises and are thus far better. Complex carbs have great amounts of fiber and often fraught with important nutrients like minerals.
Reason 2: Metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus 2
Over time, after years of being on the blood sugar roller coaster, there’s a high risk of cells becoming insulin resistant, meaning they will no longer stop taking in glucose from the blood to convert it into fat. Blood sugar thus remains high (hyperglycemia) and is very harmful.
There’s a high chance that the pancreas will give up producing insulin. The result: diabetes mellitus 2.
Reason 3: Sugar leads to nasty visceral fat
Calories are not equal. Some calories fuel the cells of our bodies, which is good, while others cannot be used and end up going straight to the gut and clogging your organs. The two most notorious here are calories from alcohol and fructose.
Table sugar is 50% fructose which cannot be used by the body, and so it gets converted into visceral fat by the liver. This fat gets stored inside everywhere between the organs. It’s natural to have some visceral fat, but not great amounts.
The following image shows a comparison of a healthy set of organs to a diseased one fully clogged with visceral fat:
The fat-clogged organs (right) were extracted from a deceased 350-lb man. According to renowned plastinator Gunther von Hagens, the fat-clogged set of organs weighed three times more than the healthy set (left). Image cropped from: Visceral Fat Explained.
Just how bad visceral fat can get is poignantly illustrated by this short video here (Warning: not for sensitive stomachs).
Recall how the average American eats close to 50,000 grams of sugar annually. That converts to over 200,000 calories. It’s easy to calculate the potential fructose-induced visceral fat production from this.
Reason 4: cravings lead to more eating!
When your body goes on a sweets consumption-induced blood-sugar roller-coaster, the insulin overshoots and ends up removing too much glucose from the blood. The result: low blood sugar, known as hypoglycemia (3). The brain sets off the alarms and tells you to get the sugar level back up. The body cannot live without the blood sugar needed to keep the cells going:
Figure 3: After eating very sugary food, blood sugar skyrockets (1), insulin is secreted by the pancreas to bring blood sugar back down (2), but overshoots and can result in blood sugar that is too low (3), and lead to powerful cravings and unruly behavior.
Eating more sweets to satiate your craving will only lead to the next high blood sugar roller-coaster cycle. Compounding the problems, obesity itself wreaks havoc with hormones and adds an impetus to the development of metabolic syndrome.
Reason 5: Sugar is addictive
If table sugar in itself wasn’t bad enough already, it’s also addictive. Over the recent years, researches have found that sugar has an addictive effect on the body much in the same way as alcohol or nicotine. It does this in two ways.
Firstly, fat cells produce leptin, the appetite modulator, which signals the brain you have had enough to eat. But over time with too much exposure to sugar, leptin gets disrupted and the person no longer feels satiated.
Secondly: when one eats sugar, neuro-transmitter dopamine gives you a feeling of pleasure. According to Dr. Robert Lustig, over time dopamine-tolerance develops within the pleasure zone of the brain and so greater quantities are needed to produce the same pleasure effect – very much in the same manner as alcohol or nicotine. Result: Tolerance + withdrawal = addiction.
Reason 6: Accelerated aging
Blood sugar leads to the natural process known as glycation. Sugar in your bloodstream attaches to proteins and fat to form harmful new molecules called advanced glycation end products (AGEs). When there are too many, as is the case with high sugar consumption, your body cannot get rid of them and thus lead to oxidative stress and inflammation in the body.
According to Doris J. Day, M.D., clinical associate professor of dermatology at New York University Langone Medical Center, glycation attacks the skin protein’s collagen and elastin (the ones that make you look young). When bonded with glucose, the skin becomes stiff and inflexible, more lines and wrinkles form. Moreover, AGEs hinder production of new collagen and elastin and so skin repair is difficult.
Reason 7: Significantly greater risk of Alzheimers
Free radicals in your brain stemming from the consumption of sugar have been found to be linked to dementia and Alzheimers. Free radicals cause damage to cells and make them age faster, especially brain cells. According Dr. Russell Blaylock, a former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center:
Big consumers of sugar have 6 times higher incidence of Alzheimers.”
Reason 8: Sugar causes cells to become cancerous
If accelerated aging wasn’t bad enough, sugar consumption is also strongly linked to cancer. It turns out that cancer cells thrive on glucose. But this is not something recently discovered. It was known already in the 1930s by Otto Warburg, who won the Nobel Prize.
In fact cancer cells consumer glucose 19 times faster than normal cells, reports Dr. Murray Susser, MD.
New research shows that sugar may even create cancer cells. According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI): “Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways”. The study summarizes: “These results may provide additional evidence for how hyperglycemia in diseases such as obesity and diabetes could provide a microenvironment that results in higher risk of some cancers (69, 70).”
Reason 9: Hypoglycemia triggers violent behavior
There are numerous studies showing how violent behavior is linked to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), according to Dr. Russel Blaylock. Hypoglycemia significantly increases “excitability”. When the brain is in a state of hypoglycemia, neurotransmitter glutamate is released. It is the “primary thing that turns the brain into high gear“.
According to Blaylock (7:30), convicted criminals become far less violent when they are put on a healthy, low blood sugar inducing diet. But as soon as they return to sugary diets, violent behavior increases. There’s a clear link between crime and nutrition, says Blaylock.
A group of researchers led by psychologist Simon Moore from Cardiff University in the United Kingdom have also shown in a study that boys who ate sweets daily at age 10 are far more likely to commit violent crimes in adulthood.
Reason 10: Nutrient deficiency, chronic disease
The human body needs a steady supply of some 90 essential vitamins, minerals, trace elements, amino acids and fatty acids to stay in good health. Everyone knows that a deficiency in just a single nutrient can wreak havoc on the body’s health and lead to chronic disease.
Unfortunately sugar, high fructose corn syrup, highly refined flours and starches provide only so-called empty calories, i.e. they deliver near zero essential nutrients. Should the calorie intake by children or adults come in large part from nutrient-void source like sugar, white flour, processed starches, meaning nutrient-rich foods get booted off the table, then over the years nutrient deficiencies invariably result and lead to a host of chronic diseases over the long run.
Nowadays it’s not uncommon to see some children get 30 – 40% of their calories from near-zero nutrient junk food. This is really sad.
Time to tax sugar (heftily)
Of course no one is calling for a sugar ban. However it is imperative that action be taken QUICKLY to get sugar and junk food consumption down drastically to the much lower levels that nature intended for our bodies.
Junk and sugary foods need to be seen as treats given out from time to time, and not something that is to be served daily at the table as part of the normal diet.
Today, a hefty sugar tax (1000%, yes 1000%) would make great sense and is probably the only way to partially avert the coming human health collapse.
Donate – choose an amount
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/2JYQm1x
December 12, 2020 at 10:08AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-12--Raise your hand if you knew Newfoundland was devastated by a major tsunami in 1929

Only a few months ago , I discovered that the Burin Peninsula on the south shore of Newfoundland in eastern Canada was devastated by a major tsunami in 1929 , which inspired my new short novel , UPHEAVAL .
My story is about an ice tsunami that devastates Cape Breton Island in 2026 ( an ocean wave triggered by an earthquake or underwater landslide becomes an ice tsunami when it travels under sea ice before it comes ashore ) .
Here are the details on that little-known 1929 tsunami event – which even a colleague who is a tsunami advisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members who had lived in Nova Scotia had never heard of before .
On 18 November 1929 a tsunami struck Newfoundland ’ s Burin Peninsula and caused considerable loss of life and property .
Giant waves hit the coast at 40 km/hr , flooding dozens of communities and washing entire homes out to sea .
The disaster killed 28 people and left hundreds more homeless or destitute .
It was the most destructive earthquake-related event in Newfoundland and Labrador ’ s history and occurred at the beginning of a worldwide depression .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tsunami , no one in Newfoundland and Labrador anticipated the approaching danger .
Large-scale seismic events are rare in eastern North America and virtually non-existent in Newfoundland and Labrador ; in 1929 , the country did not even possess a seismograph or tide gauge which could warn of the tsunami .
Moreover , a recent storm had severed the single telegraph line linking the Burin Peninsula with the rest of the island ; it was not until almost three days after the tsunami struck that the Squires government learned of the disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At 5:02 p.m. on Monday 18 November 1929 , an underwater earthquake occurred on the southern edge Grand Banks , about 265 kilometres south of Newfoundland ’ s Burin Peninsula .
It measured 7.2 on the Richter scale and was recorded in locations as far west as New York and Montreal and as far east as Portugal .
On the Burin Peninsula , ground tremors lasted for about five minutes but did not cause any serious damage to houses or other structures .
No one in the area had experienced an earthquake before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was happening , none imagined the tsunami that would follow .
On the Grand Banks , the earthquake triggered a sizeable underwater landslide , which in turn forced a series of large waves across the ocean ’ s surface .
The tsunami raced towards Newfoundland at speeds of up to 140 km/hr , before slowing to about 40 km/hr in shallower water .
It registered on tide gauges in Bermuda , Portugal , the Azores , and along the United States ’ eastern coast .
Newfoundland , however , had no knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaching its southern coast .
Tsunami Reaches Burin Peninsula At about 7:30 p.m. , residents along the Burin Peninsula noticed a rapid drop in sea level as the lowest point of the tsunami ’ s first wave , known as a trough , reached the coast .
As the water receded , it exposed portions of the ocean floor that were normally submerged and caused boats docked at various harbours to tumble over onto their sides .
Minutes later , three successive waves hit the shore and water levels rose dramatically .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three to seven metres above normal , but in some of the peninsula ’ s long narrow bays , such as at Port au Bras , St. Lawrence , and Taylor ’ s Bay , the water rose by between 13 and 27 metres .
The force of the waves lifted houses off their foundations , swept schooners and other vessels out to sea , destroyed stages and flakes , and damaged wharves , fish stores , and other structures along the peninsula ’ s extensive coastline .
Approximately 127,000 kilograms of salt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tsunami , which affected more than 40 communities on the Burin Peninsula .
At Point au Gaul , giant waves destroyed close to 100 buildings as well as much of the community ’ s fishing gear and food supplies ; St. Lawrence lost all of its flakes , stages , and motor boats .
Government assessment later placed property damage on the Burin Peninsula at $ 1 million .
Worse than the damage to property , however , was the loss of human life .
The tsunami killed 28 people in southern Newfoundland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented earthquake-related event in Canadian history .
Twenty-five victims drowned during the disaster ( six bodies were washed out to sea and never found ) and another three later died from shock or other tsunami-related conditions .
The deaths were confined to six communities : Allan ’ s Island , Kelly ’ s Cove , Point au Gaul , Lord ’ s Cove , Taylor ’ s Bay , and Port au Bras .
Fortunately , the tsunami struck on a calm evening when most people were still awake and could quickly react @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to evacuate their homes and flee to higher ground .
Read the whole thing here .
See also The 1929 Magnitude 7.2 “ Grand Banks ” earthquake and tsunami ’ 90 years later , a tsunami in southern Newfoundland still brings vivid memories ‘ ( CBC News report , Nov. 18 2019 ) : The Newfoundland Tsunami of November 18 , 1929 : An Examination of the Twenty-eight Deaths of the “ South Coast Disaster ” ( 2006 ) : Ruffman , Alan .
1994 .
The November 18 , 1929 ‘ Tidal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tragic Earthquake [ Abstract ] .
Atlantic Geology , Vol .
30 , No .
2 , July , pp .
157-158 .

Reposted from Polar Bear Science
Posted on December 10, 2020 |
Only a few months ago, I discovered that the Burin Peninsula on the south shore of Newfoundland in eastern Canada was devastated by a major tsunami in 1929, which inspired my new short novel, UPHEAVAL. My story is about an ice tsunami that devastates Cape Breton Island in 2026 (an ocean wave triggered by an earthquake or underwater landslide becomes an ice tsunami when it travels under sea ice before it comes ashore). Here are the details on that little-known 1929 tsunami event – which even a colleague who is a tsunami advisor for his area of Alaska and family members who had lived in Nova Scotia had never heard of before.
Summary
On 18 November 1929 a tsunami struck Newfoundland’s Burin Peninsula and caused considerable loss of life and property. Giant waves hit the coast at 40 km/hr, flooding dozens of communities and washing entire homes out to sea. The disaster killed 28 people and left hundreds more homeless or destitute. It was the most destructive earthquake-related event in Newfoundland and Labrador’s history and occurred at the beginning of a worldwide depression.
Despite the magnitude of the earthquake which precipitated the tsunami, no one in Newfoundland and Labrador anticipated the approaching danger. Large-scale seismic events are rare in eastern North America and virtually non-existent in Newfoundland and Labrador; in 1929, the country did not even possess a seismograph or tide gauge which could warn of the tsunami. Moreover, a recent storm had severed the single telegraph line linking the Burin Peninsula with the rest of the island; it was not until almost three days after the tsunami struck that the Squires government learned of the disaster and was able to send help.
‘Grand Banks’ Earthquake
At 5:02 p.m. on Monday 18 November 1929, an underwater earthquake occurred on the southern edge Grand Banks, about 265 kilometres south of Newfoundland’s Burin Peninsula. It measured 7.2 on the Richter scale and was recorded in locations as far west as New York and Montreal and as far east as Portugal. On the Burin Peninsula, ground tremors lasted for about five minutes but did not cause any serious damage to houses or other structures. No one in the area had experienced an earthquake before, and although a few people understood what was happening, none imagined the tsunami that would follow.
On the Grand Banks, the earthquake triggered a sizeable underwater landslide, which in turn forced a series of large waves across the ocean’s surface. The tsunami raced towards Newfoundland at speeds of up to 140 km/hr, before slowing to about 40 km/hr in shallower water. It registered on tide gauges in Bermuda, Portugal, the Azores, and along the United States’ eastern coast. Newfoundland, however, had no knowledge of the giant waves that were quickly approaching its southern coast.
Tsunami Reaches Burin Peninsula
At about 7:30 p.m., residents along the Burin Peninsula noticed a rapid drop in sea level as the lowest point of the tsunami’s first wave, known as a trough, reached the coast. As the water receded, it exposed portions of the ocean floor that were normally submerged and caused boats docked at various harbours to tumble over onto their sides. Minutes later, three successive waves hit the shore and water levels rose dramatically. In most places, the sea level swelled three to seven metres above normal, but in some of the peninsula’s long narrow bays, such as at Port au Bras, St. Lawrence, and Taylor’s Bay, the water rose by between 13 and 27 metres.
The force of the waves lifted houses off their foundations, swept schooners and other vessels out to sea, destroyed stages and flakes, and damaged wharves, fish stores, and other structures along the peninsula’s extensive coastline. Approximately 127,000 kilograms of salt cod were also washed away by the tsunami, which affected more than 40 communities on the Burin Peninsula. At Point au Gaul, giant waves destroyed close to 100 buildings as well as much of the community’s fishing gear and food supplies; St. Lawrence lost all of its flakes, stages, and motor boats. Government assessment later placed property damage on the Burin Peninsula at $1 million.
Worse than the damage to property, however, was the loss of human life. The tsunami killed 28 people in southern Newfoundland, which is more than any other documented earthquake-related event in Canadian history. Twenty-five victims drowned during the disaster (six bodies were washed out to sea and never found) and another three later died from shock or other tsunami-related conditions. The deaths were confined to six communities: Allan’s Island, Kelly’s Cove, Point au Gaul, Lord’s Cove, Taylor’s Bay, and Port au Bras. Fortunately, the tsunami struck on a calm evening when most people were still awake and could quickly react to the rising water; many managed to evacuate their homes and flee to higher ground.
Read the whole thing here.
See also The 1929 Magnitude 7.2 “Grand Banks” earthquake and tsunami
’90 years later, a tsunami in southern Newfoundland still brings vivid memories‘ (CBC News report, Nov. 18 2019):
The Newfoundland Tsunami of November 18, 1929: An Examination of the Twenty-eight Deaths of the “South Coast Disaster” (2006):
Ruffman, Alan. 1994. The November 18, 1929 ‘ Tidal Wave’: Canada’s Most Tragic Earthquake [Abstract]. Atlantic Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, July, pp. 157-158.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-12--Britain’s Wild Weather–1940 Style

Britain’s Wild Weather–1940 Style

According to the BBC/Met Office , Britain ’ s weather has been wild this year , and it is getting wilder .
And their evidence ?
A wet February , dry May and a couple of hot days in August .
Statistically of course , you are likely to get one of two of these sort of events every year , with records going back 150 years or so .
So let ’ s go back and compare 2020 with some earlier years on record .
Far from cherry picking years , I am only going to look at years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1940 .
The years 1950 and 1960 will follow later .
The year started with what was the coldest January on record at the time , a record which has only been beaten since by the infamous winter of 1962/63 .
Heavy snowfall affected most of the country , often two feet deep , and continued into February , to be followed by another period of intense cold later in mid month : On 21st January , temperatures went as low as an astonishing minus 23.3C at Rhayader in Wales , which still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night for any month in Wales .
The winter of 1939/40 as a whole still stands as the fourth coldest in England .
By the spring however , Britain was basking in a heatwave .
May was the hottest since 1919 , and it got even hotter in June , which still holds the record for the warmest June on record .
Temperatures reached 91F during the month at Cranwell , and it is the sunniest June on record in both Scotland and N Ireland .
The wild weather continued into July , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was the wettest July in Scotland , only since surpassed by 1988 , and parts of eastern England received three times the usual amount of rain .
Floods swept away houses and a bridge in Cromarty , and storms brought 65mph gales .
The crazy weather continued to seesaw , with August the driest on record at the time in England .
It still remains the third driest , behind 1947 and 1995 .
Britain ’ s wild weather had not finished though , with November breaking rainfall records across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the wettest November on record at the time , beaten since only by 1951 and 2009 .
November 1940 is still the wettest November recorded in South East England .
The month also brought several particularly strong storms , with winds of over 80mph measured at inland sites .
Have I cherry picked 1940 ?
No , as I say I am only looking at ten yearly intervals .
As this is 2020 , I am beginning with 1940 , 1950 and 1960 .
There are plenty of other years I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , with plenty of extreme weather – years like 1941 , 1947 and 1948 .
Clearly the BBC has no basis on which to claim that there has been anything unusual at all about British weather this year .
For them to broadcast such misleading and inaccurate claims is , I am afraid , par for the course for the BBC .
But it is utterly shameful for the Met Office to collaborate in such a propaganda exercise .
It certainly does not befit their status as supposedly objective and trustworthy publically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
The Winter of 1939/40
https://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/displayimage.php?album=123&pid=6858
According to the BBC/Met Office, Britain’s weather has been wild this year, and it is getting wilder. And their evidence?
A wet February, dry May and a couple of hot days in August. Statistically of course, you are likely to get one of two of these sort of events every year, with records going back 150 years or so.
So let’s go back and compare 2020 with some earlier years on record. Far from cherry picking years, I am only going to look at years ending in a zero, starting with 1940. The years 1950 and 1960 will follow later.
The year started with what was the coldest January on record at the time, a record which has only been beaten since by the infamous winter of 1962/63.
Heavy snowfall affected most of the country, often two feet deep, and continued into February, to be followed by another period of intense cold later in mid month:
https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_b2b36b36-15ee-40f0-a44e-002de00b4203/
On 21st January, temperatures went as low as an astonishing minus 23.3C at Rhayader in Wales, which still stands as the record for the coldest night for any month in Wales.
The winter of 1939/40 as a whole still stands as the fourth coldest in England.
By the spring however, Britain was basking in a heatwave. May was the hottest since 1919, and it got even hotter in June, which still holds the record for the warmest June on record.
Temperatures reached 91F during the month at Cranwell, and it is the sunniest June on record in both Scotland and N Ireland.
.
The wild weather continued into July, lurching from heatwaves to cold and wet. It was the wettest July in Scotland, only since surpassed by 1988, and parts of eastern England received three times the usual amount of rain.
Floods swept away houses and a bridge in Cromarty, and storms brought 65mph gales.
The crazy weather continued to seesaw, with August the driest on record at the time in England. It still remains the third driest, behind 1947 and 1995.
Britain’s wild weather had not finished though, with November breaking rainfall records across the country.
Across the UK, it was the wettest November on record at the time, beaten since only by 1951 and 2009. November 1940 is still the wettest November recorded in South East England.
The month also brought several particularly strong storms, with winds of over 80mph measured at inland sites.
Have I cherry picked 1940? No, as I say I am only looking at ten yearly intervals. As this is 2020, I am beginning with 1940, 1950 and 1960. There are plenty of other years I could have picked in the 1940s, for instance, with plenty of extreme weather – years like 1941, 1947 and 1948.
Clearly the BBC has no basis on which to claim that there has been anything unusual at all about British weather this year. For them to broadcast such misleading and inaccurate claims is, I am afraid, par for the course for the BBC.
But it is utterly shameful for the Met Office to collaborate in such a propaganda exercise. It certainly does not befit their status as supposedly objective and trustworthy publically funded organisation.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3meluXW
December 12, 2020 at 07:36AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Mass extinctions of land-dwelling animals occur in 27-million-year cycle

The lead author of the study puts the blame on “ the largest cataclysmic impacts and massive volcanism , perhaps sometimes working in concert.
” The study says : ‘ The correlations and similar cycles in marine and non-marine extinction episodes suggest a common cause ’ .
Note : this is a follow-up to a 2015 study with the same lead author , also featured at the Talkshop .
– – – Mass extinctions of land-dwelling animals—including amphibians , reptiles , mammals , and birds—follow a cycle of about 27 million years , coinciding with previously reported mass extinctions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis published in the journal Historical Biology .
The study also finds that these mass extinctions align with major asteroid impacts and devastating volcanic outpourings of lava called flood-basalt eruptions—providing potential causes for why the extinctions occurred , reports Phys.org .
“ It seems that large-body impacts and the pulses of internal Earth activity that create flood-basalt volcanism may be marching to the same 27-million-year drumbeat as the extinctions , perhaps paced by our orbit in the Galaxy , ” said Michael Rampino , a professor in New York University ’ s Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead author .
Sixty-six million years ago , 70 percent of all species on land and in the seas , including the dinosaurs , suddenly went extinct , in the disastrous aftermath of the collision of a large asteroid or comet with the Earth .
Subsequently , paleontologists discovered that such mass extinctions of marine life , in which up to 90 percent of species disappeared , were not random events , but seemed to come in a 26-million-year cycle .
In their Historical Biology study , Rampino and co-authors Ken Caldeira of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhu of NYU ’ s Center for Data Science , examined the record of mass extinctions of land-dwelling animals and concluded that they coincided with the extinctions of ocean life .
They also performed new statistical analyses of the extinctions of land species and demonstrated that those events followed a similar cycle of about 27.5 million years .
What could be causing the periodic mass extinctions on land and in the seas ?
Mass extinctions are not the only events occurring in cycles : the ages of impact craters—created by asteroids and comets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow a cycle aligning with the extinction cycle .
Astrophysicists hypothesize that periodic comet showers occur in the Solar System every 26 to 30 million years , producing cyclical impacts and resulting in periodic mass extinctions .
The Sun and planets cycle through the crowded mid-plane of the Milky Way Galaxy about every 30 million years .
During those times , comet showers are possible , leading to large impacts on the Earth .
The impacts can create conditions that would stress and potentially kill off land and marine life , including widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rain , and ozone depletion .

The lead author of the study puts the blame on “the largest cataclysmic impacts and massive volcanism, perhaps sometimes working in concert.” The study says: ‘The correlations and similar cycles in marine and non-marine extinction episodes suggest a common cause’. Note: this is a follow-up to a 2015 study with the same lead author, also featured at the Talkshop.
– – –
Mass extinctions of land-dwelling animals—including amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds—follow a cycle of about 27 million years, coinciding with previously reported mass extinctions of ocean life, according to a new analysis published in the journal Historical Biology.
The study also finds that these mass extinctions align with major asteroid impacts and devastating volcanic outpourings of lava called flood-basalt eruptions—providing potential causes for why the extinctions occurred, reports Phys.org.
“It seems that large-body impacts and the pulses of internal Earth activity that create flood-basalt volcanism may be marching to the same 27-million-year drumbeat as the extinctions, perhaps paced by our orbit in the Galaxy,” said Michael Rampino, a professor in New York University’s Department of Biology and the study’s lead author.
Sixty-six million years ago, 70 percent of all species on land and in the seas, including the dinosaurs, suddenly went extinct, in the disastrous aftermath of the collision of a large asteroid or comet with the Earth.
Subsequently, paleontologists discovered that such mass extinctions of marine life, in which up to 90 percent of species disappeared, were not random events, but seemed to come in a 26-million-year cycle.
In their Historical Biology study, Rampino and co-authors Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science and Yuhong Zhu of NYU’s Center for Data Science, examined the record of mass extinctions of land-dwelling animals and concluded that they coincided with the extinctions of ocean life.
They also performed new statistical analyses of the extinctions of land species and demonstrated that those events followed a similar cycle of about 27.5 million years.
What could be causing the periodic mass extinctions on land and in the seas? Mass extinctions are not the only events occurring in cycles: the ages of impact craters—created by asteroids and comets crashing to the Earth’s surface—also follow a cycle aligning with the extinction cycle.
Astrophysicists hypothesize that periodic comet showers occur in the Solar System every 26 to 30 million years, producing cyclical impacts and resulting in periodic mass extinctions.
The Sun and planets cycle through the crowded mid-plane of the Milky Way Galaxy about every 30 million years. During those times, comet showers are possible, leading to large impacts on the Earth. The impacts can create conditions that would stress and potentially kill off land and marine life, including widespread dark and cold, wildfires, acid rain, and ozone depletion.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/34aAwb5
December 13, 2020 at 05:33AM


Tip Jar

It ’ s that time of year again !
Many thanks to all of you who have donated in the @ @ @ @ @ is appreciated .
If anybody would like to donate again , simply click on the @ @ @ @ @ follow the Pay Pal instructions via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

It’s that time of year again!
.
Many thanks to all of you who have donated in the past year. It really is appreciated.
.
If anybody would like to donate again, simply click on the DONATE button below, and follow the Pay Pal instructions
.
Many thanks
Paul
.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3gJsmLY
December 13, 2020 at 04:48AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--The Ocean Mixed Layer, SST, and Climate Change

As described in my previous post , the ocean “ mixed layer ” is sandwiched between the very thin “ skin ” layer at the ocean surface and the deep ocean .
The skin layer loses thermal energy ( “ heat ” ) to the atmosphere primarily through evaporation , gains thermal energy from the Sun during the day , and constantly attempts to come to thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere above it .
During the day , with the Sun beating down on the ocean and calm clear conditions , the skin layer might be as thick as ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ windy conditions , it can be less than a millimeter thick .
The mixed layer is a zone where turbulence , caused by surface currents and wind has so thoroughly mixed the water that temperature , density , and salinity are relatively constant throughout the layer .
Originally , the “ mixed layer depth , ” the name for the base of the layer , was defined as the point where the temperature was 0.5°C different from the surface ( Levitus , 1982 ) .
This was found to be an inadequate definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the temperature there , in certain areas , can be nearly constant to 2,000 meters , but the mixed layer turbulent zone isn ’ t that deep ( Holte & Talley , 2008 ) .
Two of the areas that create problems when picking the mixed layer depth with the 0.5°C criteria are the North Atlantic , between Iceland and Scotland and in the Southern Ocean southwest of Chile .
The areas are noted with light blue boxes in Figure 1 .
Figure 1 .
The North Atlantic and Southern Ocean areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult because of downwelling surface water during the local winter .
The regions shown in Figure 1 are areas where significant downwelling of surface water to the deep ocean takes place , these are not the only areas where this happens , but these areas often contain nearly constant temperature profiles for the upper 1,000 meters , or even deeper .
Figure 2 shows the average July temperature profile for the Southern Ocean area in Figure 1 .
Figure 2 .
A Southern Ocean July average temperature profile from the blue region shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the profile is from more than 12 years , centered on 2008 .
Data from NOAA MIMOC .
As explained by James Holte and Lynne Talley ( Holte & Talley , 2008 ) , the deep convection in this part of the Southern Ocean has distorted the temperature profile to such an extent that a simple temperature cutoff can not be used to set the mixed layer depth .
Numerous solutions to the problem have been proposed over the years and these are listed and discussed in their article .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to define the mixed layer in the NOAA MIMOC dataset discussed below ( Schmidtko , Johnson , & Lyman ) .
The Holte and Talley method is complicated , as are many of the other solutions .
It does not seem that a generally accepted methodology for defining the mixed layer has been found to date .
Depending upon location and season , the mixed layer depth changes .
It is thickest in the local winter in the higher latitudes .
There it can extend to 400 meters below the surface or farther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and much deeper using the 0.5°C temperature cutoff .
Figure 3 shows a map of the mixed layer depth in January .
Figure 3 .
Ocean mixed layer depth in January using the Holte and Talley logic .
The oranges and reds are 400 to 500 meters .
Data from NOAA MIMOC .
However , the Northern Hemisphere mixed layer thickness thins during the northern summer months and it thickens in the Southern Hemisphere , especially in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica , as shown in Figure 4 .
Figure 4 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Holte and Talley logic .
Again , the oranges and reds are 400 to 500 meters .
Data from NOAA MIMOC .
The thicker mixed layer zones always occur in the local winter and reach their peak near 60° latitude as seen in Figure 5 .
Figure 5 .
Average mixed layer thickness by latitude and month .
The thickest mixed layer is reached in the Southern Hemisphere at about 55 degrees south .
In the Northern Hemisphere the peak is reached around 60 degrees .
The mixed layer depth in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Holte and Talley .
Data from NOAA MIMOC .
The significance of the Mixed Layer In our previous post , we emphasized that the mixed layer is in thermal contact with the atmosphere , with a small delay of a few weeks .
It also has about 22 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere , which smooths out the radical changes in atmospheric temperature caused by weather events .
Thus , when looking at climate , which is much longer term than weather , observing the trend in mixed layer temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compare the yearly global average mixed layer temperature from Jamstec , MIMOC and the University of Hamburg to the global sea-surface temperature ( SST ) estimates from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit and NOAA .
These are not anomalies , these are actual measurements , but they are all corrected and gridded .
I have simply averaged the respective global grids .
Figure 6 .
The Jamstec computed global mixed layer temperature is plotted in black .
It is compared to HadSST version 4 , NOAA ’ s ICOADS SST , and NOAA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the University of Hamburg ’ s mixed layer temperatures are nearly identical and centered on 2006 , they are plotted as a boxes , which overly one another .
Data is from the respective agencies .
Decent ocean coverage is only available since 2004 , so the years before then are suspect .
In Figure 6 , all data are plotted as yearly averages .
The Hadley CRU temperatures agree well with the Jamstec mixed layer record and , surprisingly , both records show similar declining temperature trends of about two to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ICOADS ( International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set ) SST trend is flat to increasing and over a degree warmer than the other two records .
The number of Jamstec mixed layer observations are plotted in orange ( right scale ) to help us judge the data quality for each year .
Jamstec reached 150,000 observations in 2004 and we held the subjective opinion that this was enough .
The NOAA MIMOC and University of Hamburg mixed layer temperatures are much lower than HadSST and the Jamstec mixed layer temperatures .
Yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centered on 2006 , fall right on top of the ERSST SST record and they are over four degrees lower than HaddSST and Jamstec .
The difference can not be simply where the temperatures are taken .
It can ’ t even be in the data , all these records use nearly the same input raw data , it must be in the corrections and methods .
The various mixed layer temperature estimates are different and so are the SSTs .
Why are two records declining and the rest flat or increasing ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature or trend .
Sea surface and mixed layer temperatures should not need to be turned into anomalies unless they are compared to terrestrial temperatures .
They are all taken at approximately the same elevation and in the same medium .
All the datasets are global , with similar input data .
All are gridded to reduce the impact of uneven data distribution .
The grids are different sizes and the gridded areas do differ in their northern and southern limits , but all the grids cover all longitudes .
Table one lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they aren ’ t that different .
Table 1 .
The north and south data limits for each dataset in 2019 .
In Figure 7 we have plotted the HadSST and ERSST anomalies .
How did they get these anomalies from the measurements in Figure 6 ?
The HadSST record is maintained by John Kennedy and his colleagues at the MET Hadley Climatic Research Unit ( Kennedy , Rayner , Atkinson , & Killick , 2019 ) .
They note that their record is different from ERSST and admit it is due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the raw data .
Kennedy mentions that SST “ critically contributes to the characterization of Earth ’ s climate.
” We agree .
Kennedy also writes that : One glance at Figure 6 verifies this statement is correct .
Most of Kennedy ’ s 90-page paper catalogues the difficulties of building an accurate SST record .
He notes that even subtle changes in the way SST measurements are made can lead to systemic errors of up to one degree , and this is the estimated 20th century global warming .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2005 is worthwhile .
The ambiguous data sources ( mainly ships and buckets to WWII and ship intake temperatures after ) and the imprecise corrections swamp any potential climate signal .
The data is much better since 2005 , but Figure 6 shows wide differences in compilations from different agencies .
Next , we review the agency definitions of the variables plotted in Figure 6 .
This data was read from a HadSST NetCDF file .
NetCDF files are the way most climate data are delivered , I ’ ve explained how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high quality free statistical program ) in a previous post .
The variable read from the HadSST file was labeled “ tos , ” it is a 5-degree latitude and longitude grid defined as “ sea water temperature.
” The documentation says it is the ensemble-median sea-surface temperature from HadSST v4 .
The reference given is the paper by John Kennedy already mentioned ( Kennedy , Rayner , Atkinson , & Killick , 2019 ) .
HadSST uses data from ICOADS release 3 , supplemented by drifting buoy data from the Copernicus Marine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy mentions the difference between his dataset and ERSST v5 seen clearly in Figure 6 .
The Hadley Centre SST is corrected to a depth of 20 cm .
In Figure 6 we plot yearly global averages of the ERSST v5 NetCDF variable “ sst , ” which is defined as the “ Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature.
” They note that the actual measurement depth varies from 0.2 to 10 m , but all measurements are corrected to the optimum buoy measurement depth of 20 cm , precisely the same reference depth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ERSST takes its data from ICOADS release 3 and utilizes Argo float and drifting buoys between 0 and 5 meters to compute SST .
This makes sense , since ERSST agrees with the University of Hamburg dataset and NOAA ’ s MIMOC ( mixed layer ) datasets , which also rely heavily on Argo float data .
As discussed above , SST ( at 20 cm ) and the mixed layer temperature should agree closely with one another almost all the time .
The ERSST anomalies plotted in Figure 7 are from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ssta to the HadSST reference period of 1961-1990 , from the original reference of 1970-2000 .
The basic reference to ERSST v5 is a paper by Boyin Huang and colleagues ( Huang , et al.
, 2017 ) .
Like Kennedy , Boyin Huang directly addresses the differences between ERSST and HadSST .
Huang believes that the differences are due to the different corrections to the raw data applied by the Hadley Centre and NOAA .
The global average NOAA MIMOC mixed layer “ conservative temperature ” is plotted in Figure 6 as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line .
It is plotted as one point in 2006 because the MIMOC dataset uses Argo and buoy data over more than 12 years centered on that year .
The global average temperature of all that data is 13.87°C from 0 to 5 meters depth .
Conservative temperature is not the same as SST .
SST is measured , conservative temperature is computed such that it is consistent with the heat content of the water in the mixed layer and takes into account the water salinity and density .
However , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservative temperature .
Since the conservative temperature more accurately characterizes the heat content of the mixed layer , it is more useful than SST for climate studies .
The primary reference for this dataset is the already mentioned paper by Schmidtko ( Schmidtko , Johnson , & Lyman ) .
The University of Hamburg dataset is similar to MIMOC in that it is not divided by year , but pools all available data over the past 20 to 40 years to make a high resolution dataset and set of grids of ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MIMOC it relies heavily on Argo and buoy data .
The global average temperature of the upper five meters of the oceans in this data set is 13.88°C , barely different from the MIMOC value .
The NetCDF variable used is “ temperature.
” It is defined as the “ optimally interpolated temperature.
” The documentation states that the zero depth is SST , it is not “ conservative temperature.
” However , the value is nearly identical to conservative temperature .
The main reference for this data set is an Ocean Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 ) .
The NOAA ICOADS line in Figure 6 is downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer and labeled “ sst.
” The description is : “ Sea Surface Temperature Monthly Mean at Surface.
” ICOADS version 3 data is used in all the other agency datasets described here , but the organization does not do a lot of analysis .
By their own admission they provide a few “ simple gridded monthly summary products.
” Their line is shown in Figure 6 for reference , but it is not a serious analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does help show how imprecise the data is .
The Jamstec MILA GPV product lines up well with HadSST as can be seen in Figure 6 .
This line is from the NetCDF variable “ MLD_TEMP.
” It is the central temperature of the mixed layer .
The temperature is not a true “ conservative temperature , ” but the way it is computed ensures that it will be close to that value .
The reference for this product is a Journal of Oceanography article by Shigeki Hosada and colleagues ( Hosada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 ) .
Jamstec uses mostly Argo float and buoy data .
The total temperature spread shown in Figure 6 is over 5.5°C and yet these agencies are starting with essentially the same data .
This is not an attempt to characterize the SST and mixed layer temperature one-hundred years ago , these are attempts to tell us the average ocean surface temperature today .
To put Figure 6 into perspective , the total heat content of our atmosphere is roughly 1.0×1024 Joules , the difference between the HadSST line in Figure 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average mixed layer depth of 60 meters ( from Jamstec ) , is 3.9×1023 Joules or nearly 39 % of the total thermal energy in the atmosphere .
I have no idea whether HadSST ’ s or ERSST ’ s temperatures are correct .
They can not both be correct .
I lean toward the ERSST temperatures since it is hard to have an 18-degree ocean in a 15-degree world , but then why are the HadSST temperatures so high ?
The single most important variable in determining how quickly the world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record .
We have better data available since about 2004 , but obviously no agreed method of analyzing it .
When it comes to global warming ( or , perhaps , global cooling ) the best answer is we don ’ t know .
Given that oceans cover 71 % of the Earth ’ s surface and contain 99 % of the heat capacity , the differences in Figure 6 are enormous .
These discrepancies must be resolved , if we are ever to detect climate change , human or natural .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make this post , I think I did it correctly , but I do make mistakes .
For those that want to check my work , you can find my R code here .
None of this is in my new book Politics and Climate Change : A History but buy it anyway .
You can download the bibliography here .

By Andy May
As described in my previous post, the ocean “mixed layer” is sandwiched between the very thin “skin” layer at the ocean surface and the deep ocean. The skin layer loses thermal energy (“heat”) to the atmosphere primarily through evaporation, gains thermal energy from the Sun during the day, and constantly attempts to come to thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere above it. During the day, with the Sun beating down on the ocean and calm clear conditions, the skin layer might be as thick as ten meters. At night, especially under windy conditions, it can be less than a millimeter thick.
The mixed layer is a zone where turbulence, caused by surface currents and wind has so thoroughly mixed the water that temperature, density, and salinity are relatively constant throughout the layer. Originally, the “mixed layer depth,” the name for the base of the layer, was defined as the point where the temperature was 0.5°C different from the surface (Levitus, 1982). This was found to be an inadequate definition near the poles in the winter, because the temperature there, in certain areas, can be nearly constant to 2,000 meters, but the mixed layer turbulent zone isn’t that deep (Holte & Talley, 2008). Two of the areas that create problems when picking the mixed layer depth with the 0.5°C criteria are the North Atlantic, between Iceland and Scotland and in the Southern Ocean southwest of Chile. The areas are noted with light blue boxes in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The North Atlantic and Southern Ocean areas where defining the mixed layer depth is difficult because of downwelling surface water during the local winter.
The regions shown in Figure 1 are areas where significant downwelling of surface water to the deep ocean takes place, these are not the only areas where this happens, but these areas often contain nearly constant temperature profiles for the upper 1,000 meters, or even deeper. Figure 2 shows the average July temperature profile for the Southern Ocean area in Figure 1.
Figure 2. A Southern Ocean July average temperature profile from the blue region shown in Figure 1. The data used to make the profile is from more than 12 years, centered on 2008. Data from NOAA MIMOC.
As explained by James Holte and Lynne Talley (Holte & Talley, 2008), the deep convection in this part of the Southern Ocean has distorted the temperature profile to such an extent that a simple temperature cutoff cannot be used to set the mixed layer depth. Numerous solutions to the problem have been proposed over the years and these are listed and discussed in their article. Their proposed methodology is used by Sunke Schmidtko to define the mixed layer in the NOAA MIMOC dataset discussed below (Schmidtko, Johnson, & Lyman). The Holte and Talley method is complicated, as are many of the other solutions. It does not seem that a generally accepted methodology for defining the mixed layer has been found to date.
Depending upon location and season, the mixed layer depth changes. It is thickest in the local winter in the higher latitudes. There it can extend to 400 meters below the surface or farther using the Holte and Talley logic, and much deeper using the 0.5°C temperature cutoff. Figure 3 shows a map of the mixed layer depth in January.
Figure 3. Ocean mixed layer depth in January using the Holte and Talley logic. The oranges and reds are 400 to 500 meters. Data from NOAA MIMOC.
However, the Northern Hemisphere mixed layer thickness thins during the northern summer months and it thickens in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. The ocean mixed layer depth in July using the Holte and Talley logic. Again, the oranges and reds are 400 to 500 meters. Data from NOAA MIMOC.
The thicker mixed layer zones always occur in the local winter and reach their peak near 60° latitude as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Average mixed layer thickness by latitude and month. The thickest mixed layer is reached in the Southern Hemisphere at about 55 degrees south. In the Northern Hemisphere the peak is reached around 60 degrees. The mixed layer depth in this plot is computed using the methodology developed by Holte and Talley. Data from NOAA MIMOC.
The significance of the Mixed Layer
In our previous post, we emphasized that the mixed layer is in thermal contact with the atmosphere, with a small delay of a few weeks. It also has about 22 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which smooths out the radical changes in atmospheric temperature caused by weather events. Thus, when looking at climate, which is much longer term than weather, observing the trend in mixed layer temperature seems ideal. In Figure 6 we compare the yearly global average mixed layer temperature from Jamstec, MIMOC and the University of Hamburg to the global sea-surface temperature (SST) estimates from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit and NOAA. These are not anomalies, these are actual measurements, but they are all corrected and gridded. I have simply averaged the respective global grids.
Figure 6. The Jamstec computed global mixed layer temperature is plotted in black. It is compared to HadSST version 4, NOAA’s ICOADS SST, and NOAA’s ERSST. NOAA MIMOC, and the University of Hamburg’s mixed layer temperatures are nearly identical and centered on 2006, they are plotted as a boxes, which overly one another. Data is from the respective agencies.
Decent ocean coverage is only available since 2004, so the years before then are suspect. In Figure 6, all data are plotted as yearly averages. The Hadley CRU temperatures agree well with the Jamstec mixed layer record and, surprisingly, both records show similar declining temperature trends of about two to three degrees per century. NOAA’s ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set) SST trend is flat to increasing and over a degree warmer than the other two records. The number of Jamstec mixed layer observations are plotted in orange (right scale) to help us judge the data quality for each year. Jamstec reached 150,000 observations in 2004 and we held the subjective opinion that this was enough.
The NOAA MIMOC and University of Hamburg mixed layer temperatures are much lower than HadSST and the Jamstec mixed layer temperatures. Yet, these two multi-year averages, that are centered on 2006, fall right on top of the ERSST SST record and they are over four degrees lower than HaddSST and Jamstec. The difference cannot be simply where the temperatures are taken. It can’t even be in the data, all these records use nearly the same input raw data, it must be in the corrections and methods.
The various mixed layer temperature estimates are different and so are the SSTs. Why are two records declining and the rest flat or increasing? The different estimates do not agree on temperature or trend.
Sea surface and mixed layer temperatures should not need to be turned into anomalies unless they are compared to terrestrial temperatures. They are all taken at approximately the same elevation and in the same medium. All the datasets are global, with similar input data. All are gridded to reduce the impact of uneven data distribution. The grids are different sizes and the gridded areas do differ in their northern and southern limits, but all the grids cover all longitudes. Table one lists the latitude data limits of the grids, they aren’t that different.
Table 1. The north and south data limits for each dataset in 2019.
In Figure 7 we have plotted the HadSST and ERSST anomalies. How did they get these anomalies from the measurements in Figure 6?
Figure 7. HadSST and ERSST version 4 temperature anomalies.
The HadSST record is maintained by John Kennedy and his colleagues at the MET Hadley Climatic Research Unit (Kennedy, Rayner, Atkinson, & Killick, 2019). They note that their record is different from ERSST and admit it is due to the difference in corrections and adjustments to the raw data. Kennedy mentions that SST “critically contributes to the characterization of Earth’s climate.” We agree. Kennedy also writes that:
“One of the largest sources of uncertainty in estimates of global temperature change is that associated with the correction of systematic errors in sea-surface temperature (SST) measurements. Despite recent work to quantify and reduce these errors throughout the historical record, differences between analyses remain larger than can be explained by the estimated uncertainties.” (Kennedy, Rayner, Atkinson, & Killick, 2019)
One glance at Figure 6 verifies this statement is correct. Most of Kennedy’s 90-page paper catalogues the difficulties of building an accurate SST record. He notes that even subtle changes in the way SST measurements are made can lead to systemic errors of up to one degree, and this is the estimated 20th century global warming. We do not believe the SST record from 1850 to 2005 is worthwhile. The ambiguous data sources (mainly ships and buckets to WWII and ship intake temperatures after) and the imprecise corrections swamp any potential climate signal. The data is much better since 2005, but Figure 6 shows wide differences in compilations from different agencies. Next, we review the agency definitions of the variables plotted in Figure 6.
Met Office Hadley Centre HadSST 4 data set.
This data was read from a HadSST NetCDF file. NetCDF files are the way most climate data are delivered, I’ve explained how to read them with R (a high quality free statistical program) in a previous post. The variable read from the HadSST file was labeled “tos,” it is a 5-degree latitude and longitude grid defined as “sea water temperature.” The documentation says it is the ensemble-median sea-surface temperature from HadSST v4. The reference given is the paper by John Kennedy already mentioned (Kennedy, Rayner, Atkinson, & Killick, 2019). HadSST uses data from ICOADS release 3, supplemented by drifting buoy data from the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS). Kennedy mentions the difference between his dataset and ERSST v5 seen clearly in Figure 6. The Hadley Centre SST is corrected to a depth of 20 cm.
NOAA ERSST v5
In Figure 6 we plot yearly global averages of the ERSST v5 NetCDF variable “sst,” which is defined as the “Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature.” They note that the actual measurement depth varies from 0.2 to 10 m, but all measurements are corrected to the optimum buoy measurement depth of 20 cm, precisely the same reference depth as HadSST. Also, like HadSST, ERSST takes its data from ICOADS release 3 and utilizes Argo float and drifting buoys between 0 and 5 meters to compute SST. This makes sense, since ERSST agrees with the University of Hamburg dataset and NOAA’s MIMOC (mixed layer) datasets, which also rely heavily on Argo float data. As discussed above, SST (at 20 cm) and the mixed layer temperature should agree closely with one another almost all the time. The ERSST anomalies plotted in Figure 7 are from the variable “ssta.” I moved ssta to the HadSST reference period of 1961-1990, from the original reference of 1970-2000. The basic reference to ERSST v5 is a paper by Boyin Huang and colleagues (Huang, et al., 2017).
Like Kennedy, Boyin Huang directly addresses the differences between ERSST and HadSST. Huang believes that the differences are due to the different corrections to the raw data applied by the Hadley Centre and NOAA.
NOAA MIMOC
The global average NOAA MIMOC mixed layer “conservative temperature” is plotted in Figure 6 as a box that falls on the ERSST line. It is plotted as one point in 2006 because the MIMOC dataset uses Argo and buoy data over more than 12 years centered on that year. The global average temperature of all that data is 13.87°C from 0 to 5 meters depth. Conservative temperature is not the same as SST. SST is measured, conservative temperature is computed such that it is consistent with the heat content of the water in the mixed layer and takes into account the water salinity and density. However, we would expect SST to be very close to the conservative temperature. Since the conservative temperature more accurately characterizes the heat content of the mixed layer, it is more useful than SST for climate studies. The primary reference for this dataset is the already mentioned paper by Schmidtko (Schmidtko, Johnson, & Lyman).
University of Hamburg dataset
The University of Hamburg dataset is similar to MIMOC in that it is not divided by year, but pools all available data over the past 20 to 40 years to make a high resolution dataset and set of grids of ocean temperature by depth. Like ERSST and MIMOC it relies heavily on Argo and buoy data. The global average temperature of the upper five meters of the oceans in this data set is 13.88°C, barely different from the MIMOC value. The NetCDF variable used is “temperature.” It is defined as the “optimally interpolated temperature.” The documentation states that the zero depth is SST, it is not “conservative temperature.” However, the value is nearly identical to conservative temperature. The main reference for this data set is an Ocean Science article by Viktor Gouretski (Gouretski, 2018).
NOAA ICOADS
The NOAA ICOADS line in Figure 6 is downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer and labeled “sst.” The description is: “Sea Surface Temperature Monthly Mean at Surface.” ICOADS version 3 data is used in all the other agency datasets described here, but the organization does not do a lot of analysis. By their own admission they provide a few “simple gridded monthly summary products.” Their line is shown in Figure 6 for reference, but it is not a serious analysis and probably should be ignored. It does help show how imprecise the data is.
Jamstec ML Temperature
The Jamstec MILA GPV product lines up well with HadSST as can be seen in Figure 6. This line is from the NetCDF variable “MLD_TEMP.” It is the central temperature of the mixed layer. The temperature is not a true “conservative temperature,” but the way it is computed ensures that it will be close to that value. The reference for this product is a Journal of Oceanography article by Shigeki Hosada and colleagues (Hosada, Ohira, Sato, & Suga, 2010). Jamstec uses mostly Argo float and buoy data.
Conclusions
The total temperature spread shown in Figure 6 is over 5.5°C and yet these agencies are starting with essentially the same data. This is not an attempt to characterize the SST and mixed layer temperature one-hundred years ago, these are attempts to tell us the average ocean surface temperature today. To put Figure 6 into perspective, the total heat content of our atmosphere is roughly 1.0×1024 Joules, the difference between the HadSST line in Figure 6 and the ERSST line, assuming an average mixed layer depth of 60 meters (from Jamstec), is 3.9×1023 Joules or nearly 39% of the total thermal energy in the atmosphere.
I have no idea whether HadSST’s or ERSST’s temperatures are correct. They cannot both be correct. I lean toward the ERSST temperatures since it is hard to have an 18-degree ocean in a 15-degree world, but then why are the HadSST temperatures so high? The single most important variable in determining how quickly the world is warming or cooling is the ocean temperature record. We have better data available since about 2004, but obviously no agreed method of analyzing it. When it comes to global warming (or, perhaps, global cooling) the best answer is we don’t know.
Given that oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and contain 99% of the heat capacity, the differences in Figure 6 are enormous. These discrepancies must be resolved, if we are ever to detect climate change, human or natural.
I processed an enormous amount of data to make this post, I think I did it correctly, but I do make mistakes. For those that want to check my work, you can find my R code here.
None of this is in my new book Politics and Climate Change: A History but buy it anyway.
You can download the bibliography here.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--WHO WILL PAY FOR THE NEW HEATING SYSTEM FORCED ON YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT?

This article contains some very concerning thinking by the government ’ s climate change committee ( CCC ) .
The @ @ @ @ @ : '' Chris Stark , the CCC chief executive , said : ‘ I think @ @ @ @ @ should be met by households , especially those who are able to afford it '' @ @ @ @ @ the case , but no one has admitted it until now .
Just imagine the @ @ @ @ @ it becomes widely known .
All those families who have a perfectly good gas boiler @ @ @ @ @ .
being told that they will have to fork out to replace them in , @ @ @ @ @ We will not be happy .
All this to comply with a policy which will @ @ @ @ @ the climate .
What a ridiculous state of affairs .

This article contains some very concerning thinking by the government’s climate change committee (CCC). The following extract is rather important:
"Chris Stark, the CCC chief executive, said: ‘I think a large proportion of this should be met by households, especially those who are able to afford it"
I expected this would be the case, but no one has admitted it until now. Just imagine the reaction of the people when it becomes widely known. All those families who have a perfectly good gas boiler, gas cooker, etc. being told that they will have to fork out to replace them in, say two years time. We will not be happy.
All this to comply with a policy which will have no measurable effect on the climate. What a ridiculous state of affairs.
via climate science
https://ift.tt/37bgrU4
December 13, 2020 at 01:30AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Trump’s Last Regulatory White Paper (Fall 2020 Regulatory Plan)

“ Four years of regulatory reform has promoted the prosperity and liberty of Americans and advanced the rule of law .
This Regulatory Plan continues that tradition.
” [ below ] “ Reforms of environmental and energy regulations have propelled America to a position of energy dominance while maintaining and advancing the cleanliness of our air , water , and land.
” [ below ] Two per year , each U.S. federal agency publishes a Regulatory Agenda .
The Trump Administration just last week released its Fall 2020 agenda , excerpted below .
MasterResource has closely followed Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( see here ) .
It has been a positive story as mentioned in our final comment below .
But what is good is bad to the regulate-regulate-regulate crowd , seeing market failure as ubiquitous and both analytic failure and government failure as unimportant .
Stated James Goodwin of the Center for Progressive Reform , “ Regulatory reform marks one of the central and abiding successes of President Trump ’ s Administration .
From the beginning , the President has focused on regulatory reform as a principal means both to promote economic growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many of the most important deregulatory actions have issued in the past fiscal year , leading to the greatest reduction in regulatory burden in decades .
As significant , the President has reformed the way regulation happens in the United States , thereby promoting the rule of law.
” “ The American system of government is built on the rule of law .
That concept includes certain basic requirements , for instance , that legal mandates will be imposed only in accordance with valid procedures ; that those subject to the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it ; that penalties may be imposed only for violations of the law ; and that violations must be determined through a fair process .
One of President Trump ’ s principal goals in pursuing regulatory reform has been to promote the rule of law in the administrative process.
” “ Further to promote the rule of law , the President in Executive Order 13924 set forth ten principles to reform administrative enforcement and adjudication .
This “ Regulatory Bill of Rights ” [ see here ] is based on one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government : that enforcement may be both effective and fair , that we may safeguard our citizens while respecting their rights .
“ The list includes the principle that the agency , not the citizen , bears the burden of proof ; that enforcement actions must be prompt ; that agency adjudicators must be independent of enforcement staff ; that the government must provide favorable evidence in its possession to the subject of enforcement ; and others equally important.
” “ These principles are at the very heart of American notions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Executive Order , agencies have worked with OIRA to review their existing procedures and conform to these principles.
” “ At the beginning of his Administration , President Trump made the reduction of regulatory burden a major priority for all Executive agencies .
Executive Order 13771 , Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs ( Jan. 30 , 2017 ) , directs a two-fold approach to reform : It requires that agencies , consistent with legal obligations , eliminate two regulations for each new significant regulation and achieve yearly burden reduction goals.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under EO 13771 , as agencies achieved regulatory cost savings of more than a hundred billion dollars .
Agencies also continued to exceed EO 13771 ’ s two-for-one directive in Fiscal Year 2020 , issuing more than three deregulatory actions for every regulatory action .
Adding these accomplishments to the successes of previous fiscal years , agencies have achieved the following : Eliminated $ 198.6 billion in overall regulatory costs across the federal government ; andEliminated 5.5 regulations for every new significant one added ( 538 deregulatory actions overall ) .
These hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington , allowing Americans to make decisions for themselves and as members of their States and various communities , with their actions directed by their own judgment and initiative rather than by federal mandates .
“ Farmers are now free to farm their land as they see fit and protect their livestock from predators , subject to the laws they themselves enact through their State and local officials .
Small businesses can expand and create jobs .
Truckers can safely move vital goods more quickly to the Americans who need them most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more affordable cars that American families desire .
Major infrastructure projects can move forward more quickly .
And organizations of religious believers are free to provide health insurance in a way that comports with their deeply-held moral convictions.
” “ Many deregulatory actions have prepared America for the economy of the future .
Reforms of environmental and energy regulations have propelled America to a position of energy dominance while maintaining and advancing the cleanliness of our air , water , and land.
” “ DOE ’ s regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department ’ s statutory obligations .
To that end , DOE is including threeongoing rulemakings in its Regulatory Plan this year and highlighting two completed actions.
” “ There are two other proposed rulemakings in DOE ’ s Regulatory Plan that are deregulatory actions aimed at reducing regulatory costs and burdens .
The first action would establish a short cycle product class for clothes washers and clothes dryers of 30 minutes each ( 45 minutes for front-loading clothes washers ) .
” “ The other action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a ‘ showerhead ’ with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ’ ( ASME ) consensus standard so that , for products with multiple showerheads , compliance with the water conservation standard would be based on each individual showerhead.
” “ DOE has also completed a rule to modernize the procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures as part of DOE ’ s Appliance Program , also known as the ‘ Process Rule.
’ Lastly , DOE has completed a rule in response to a petition for a new product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is characterized by a 60 minute or less normal wash cycle.
” If Trump falls short of a second term , it certainly will not be by much .
Expect the progress and rising expectations that his administration instilled to continue to persist in a Biden dark period .
And expect the elections in 2022 and 2024 to return to a prove-it regulatory approach to economic life .

“Four years of regulatory reform has promoted the prosperity and liberty of Americans and advanced the rule of law. This Regulatory Plan continues that tradition.” [below]
“Reforms of environmental and energy regulations have propelled America to a position of energy dominance while maintaining and advancing the cleanliness of our air, water, and land.” [below]
Two per year, each U.S. federal agency publishes a Regulatory Agenda. The Trump Administration just last week released its Fall 2020 agenda, excerpted below.
MasterResource has closely followed Trump’s deregulatory actions on energy and the environment (see here). It has been a positive story as mentioned in our final comment below. But what is good is bad to the regulate-regulate-regulate crowd, seeing market failure as ubiquitous and both analytic failure and government failure as unimportant. Stated James Goodwin of the Center for Progressive Reform,
In short, on paper, the new additions are consistent with the ‘goals’ of the Trump anti-safeguard executive order but benefit from its asymmetric nature…. To the extent we can learn anything from this at all, it reinforces how lucky the public health and the environment are that Trump lost reelection.”
Introduction
“Regulatory reform marks one of the central and abiding successes of President Trump’s Administration. From the beginning, the President has focused on regulatory reform as a principal means both to promote economic growth and to secure the liberty of Americans…. Many of the most important deregulatory actions have issued in the past fiscal year, leading to the greatest reduction in regulatory burden in decades. As significant, the President has reformed the way regulation happens in the United States, thereby promoting the rule of law.” “The American system of government is built on the rule of law. That concept includes certain basic requirements, for instance, that legal mandates will be imposed only in accordance with valid procedures; that those subject to the law must be able to understand and comply with it; that penalties may be imposed only for violations of the law; and that violations must be determined through a fair process. One of President Trump’s principal goals in pursuing regulatory reform has been to promote the rule of law in the administrative process.” “Further to promote the rule of law, the President in Executive Order 13924 set forth ten principles to reform administrative enforcement and adjudication. This “Regulatory Bill of Rights” [see here] is based on one of the great insights of our system of government: that enforcement may be both effective and fair, that we may safeguard our citizens while respecting their rights. “The list includes the principle that the agency, not the citizen, bears the burden of proof; that enforcement actions must be prompt; that agency adjudicators must be independent of enforcement staff; that the government must provide favorable evidence in its possession to the subject of enforcement; and others equally important.” “These principles are at the very heart of American notions of the rule of law. Since issuance of the Executive Order, agencies have worked with OIRA to review their existing procedures and conform to these principles.”
General Achievements
“At the beginning of his Administration, President Trump made the reduction of regulatory burden a major priority for all Executive agencies. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs(Jan. 30, 2017), directs a two-fold approach to reform: It requires that agencies, consistent with legal obligations, eliminate two regulations for each new significant regulation and achieve yearly burden reduction goals.” “Fiscal Year 2020 witnessed record success under EO 13771, as agencies achieved regulatory cost savings of more than a hundred billion dollars. Agencies also continued to exceed EO 13771’s two-for-one directive in Fiscal Year 2020, issuing more than three deregulatory actions for every regulatory action. Adding these accomplishments to the successes of previous fiscal years, agencies have achieved the following: Eliminated $198.6 billion in overall regulatory costs across the federal government; andEliminated 5.5 regulations for every new significant one added (538 deregulatory actions overall). These hundreds of deregulatory actions have diminished the influence of Washington, allowing Americans to make decisions for themselves and as members of their States and various communities, with their actions directed by their own judgment and initiative rather than by federal mandates. “Farmers are now free to farm their land as they see fit and protect their livestock from predators, subject to the laws they themselves enact through their State and local officials. Small businesses can expand and create jobs. Truckers can safely move vital goods more quickly to the Americans who need them most. Automakers can build the safer and more affordable cars that American families desire. Major infrastructure projects can move forward more quickly. And organizations of religious believers are free to provide health insurance in a way that comports with their deeply-held moral convictions.” “Many deregulatory actions have prepared America for the economy of the future. Reforms of environmental and energy regulations have propelled America to a position of energy dominance while maintaining and advancing the cleanliness of our air, water, and land.”
Department of Energy
“DOE’s regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the Department’s efforts to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department’s statutory obligations. To that end, DOE is including threeongoing rulemakings in its Regulatory Plan this year and highlighting two completed actions.” “There are two other proposed rulemakings in DOE’s Regulatory Plan that are deregulatory actions aimed at reducing regulatory costs and burdens. The first action would establish a short cycle product class for clothes washers and clothes dryers of 30 minutes each (45 minutes for front-loading clothes washers).” “The other action would harmonize the Department’s definition of a ‘showerhead’ with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ (ASME) consensus standard so that, for products with multiple showerheads, compliance with the water conservation standard would be based on each individual showerhead.” “DOE has also completed a rule to modernize the procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures as part of DOE’s Appliance Program, also known as the ‘Process Rule.’ Lastly, DOE has completed a rule in response to a petition for a new product class of short cycle dishwashers, which is characterized by a 60 minute or less normal wash cycle.”
——————————
If Trump falls short of a second term, it certainly will not be by much. Expect the progress and rising expectations that his administration instilled to continue to persist in a Biden dark period. And expect the elections in 2022 and 2024 to return to a prove-it regulatory approach to economic life.