View Full Version : Climate Change News and Article Collection

Lauren Johnson
01-11-2013, 09:30 PM
Climate Change skeptic suggests scientists should go to jail

A FoxNews.com article (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HbjuLWQj) questioned whether 2012 was actually the hottest year on record, quoting "skeptics" who suggest a government office is manipulating data to fabricate proof of rising temperatures. In fact, statistical adjustments made by the agency are required, publicly-documented changes to correct for errors and known sources of bias in the raw data.
In January, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) announced (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us) that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous U.S. - an announcement that Fox News ignored (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/09/after-hottest-year-on-record-fox-news-buries-it/192124) until one of Fox News' few liberal commentators, Bob Beckel, tried (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/09/fox-host-shouts-down-first-mention-on-network-o/192140) to bring it up on The Five. Soon after, FoxNews.com reporter Maxim Lott (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/06/20/fox-news-maligns-scientists-with-baseless-accus/185442#lott) solicited the views of a few professional climate "skeptics" to claim that scientists made unjustified data adjustments to exaggerate 2012's heat.

Under the headline "Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data," Lott quoted Roy Spencer, a rare climate contrarian scientist who considers (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/06/261843/roy-spencer-job-minimize-the-role-of-government/?mobile=nc) it his job to "minimize the role of government," and Steve Goddard, a climate denier-cum-birther (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/obama-runs-into-problems-without-his-teleprompter/) writing under a pseudonym, to cast doubt on the temperature record. According to Goddard, the U.S. only "appears" to have warmed as a result of the agency's adjustments, making the data "meaningless garbage." Lott gave the final word to former television weatherman and blogger Anthony Watts (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545#watts), who said, "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."
But the NCDC has publicly explained (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php) that it needs to make adjustments to the raw temperature data to account for flaws that can result, for example, when stations are moved, are measuring temperatures at different times of day, or are measuring temperature with different instruments. The NCDC carefully applies these adjustments after publishing (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php) their methods in multiple peer-reviewed papers. As several scientists tried to explain to FoxNews.com, these adjustments make the temperature data more accurate:

Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity, said that there was consensus for the adjustments.
"These have been shown through at least three papers that have appeared in the past 12 months to be an improvement," he said.
NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen agreed.
"These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal, and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history," he said.
Peter Thorne (http://cicsnc.org/people/peter-thorne/), a climate scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites who was quoted by FoxNews.com, wrote in an email to Media Matters that recent changes to the data served to improve accuracy. The changes were posted prominently by NCDC in the September 2012 State of the Climate report (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/9) and, according to Thorne, were "supported by extensive documentation" and "flagged with significant due process undertaken prior to release."
John Abraham (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/jpabraham.htm), an IPCC reviewer concluded that Fox News had "misinformed its readers about climate change again."


Lauren Johnson
01-12-2013, 04:40 PM
By: Andrew Restuccia
January 11, 2013 02:25 PM EST

Human activities play a primary role in causing climate change, and evidence is mounting that those changes will lead to more frequent extreme weather events, according to a major draft report (http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/) released Friday.

The draft of the third National Climate Assessment comes as the Northeast continues to recover from devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy and just days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said 2012 was the hottest year (https://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=17777) on record in the contiguous United States.

The draft report, which runs more than 1,000 pages and was approved for release Friday by a federal advisory committee, warns that “human induced climate change is projected to continue and accelerate significantly if emissions of heat trapping gases continue to increase.”

But don’t hold your breath for serious action on climate change in Congress. Republicans and some moderate Democrats remain opposed to measures to address climate change. The Obama administration, meanwhile, is moving forward with its own efforts on climate change, including beefed-up fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants.

The report also stresses that climate change harms public health.

“Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food and water and threats to mental health,” the report says.

And it warns that the effects of climate change — including sea level rise, storm surges and extreme heat — could have wide-ranging negative effects on the country’s infrastructure, findings that could gain traction in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

The report also says climate change will threaten water supplies across large swaths of the United States, including the Southwest, the Great Plains and the Southeast, along with “adverse impacts to crops and livestock over the next 100 years.”

The report predicts that temperatures will rise 2-4 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming decades in most areas. By the end of the century, temperatures could increase 3-5 degrees “under a lower emissions scenario involving substantial reductions” and 5-10 degrees “under a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions.”

“The chances of record-breaking high temperature extremes will continue to increase as the climate continues to change. There has been an increasing trend in persistently high nighttime temperatures, which have widespread impacts because people and livestock get no respite from the heat. In other places, prolonged periods of record high temperatures associated with droughts contribute to conditions that are driving larger and more frequent wildfires. There is strong evidence to indicate that human influence on the climate has already roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat events like the record-breaking summer of 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma,” the report says.

The report adds: “The rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century.” And sea level rises will continue, with the report estimating 1- to 4-foot increases this century.

“The stakes are high, as nearly 5 million Americans live within 4 feet of the local high-tide level,” the report says.

But there is at least some good news for farmers in the near term.

“Over the next 25 years or so, the agriculture sector is projected to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours. U.S. food security and farm incomes will also depend on how agricultural systems adapt to climate changes in other regions of the world,” the draft report says.

The report also breaks down the effects of climate change by region. In the Northeast for example, the report warns of “heat waves, coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge, and river flooding due to more extreme precipitation events.”

And in Alaska, “summer sea ice is receding rapidly, glaciers are shrinking and permafrost is thawing.” The changes are causing major changes to the ecosystem that are impacting Alaskan native communities.

Additionally, the report warns of ocean acidification and the “alteration of marine ecosystems” because oceans absorb about one-quarter of human-caused carbon emissions and 90 percent of heat that results from warming.

The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee reached consensus at a meeting Friday morning to release its draft National Climate Assessment, which will be available online later Friday afternoon.
The report fulfills the requirements of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which requires a climate change assessment be provided to the president and Congress every four years. This is the third National Climate Assessment.

The report is coordinated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 13-agency working group. But it is written by NCADAC, an advisory committee that consists of 60 scientists and other experts.
The federal government and the public will have the opportunity to make comments and recommend changes to the report before it is finalized. The comment period ends in April 2013. The final report is slated to be released in early 2014.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro (http://www.politicopro.com) at 2:12 p.m. on January 11, 2013.

Lauren Johnson
01-12-2013, 04:51 PM
Corn and wheat prices surged today. The immediate reason appeared to be the year-end USDA report (http://www.businessinsider.com/wheat-and-corn-surge-after-wasde-crop-report-2013-1), that showed supplies were lower than projected.

But concurrent with that report was the release of the Commerce Department's National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee National Climate Assessment survey (http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf).
One of the findings: we can expect up to a century of drought.

Here's a chart from the report projecting percent of the country in drought conditions in the coming years.

Commerce/NOAA (http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf)

The red line is based on observed temperature and precipitation. The blue line is from the average of 19 different climate models. The gray lines in the background are individual results from over 70 different simulations from these models.

The projections are derived from the Palmer Drought Severity Index, one of the most widely used measure of drought, the report says.
"These results suggest an increasing probability of drought over this century throughout most of the U.S.," the committee says. "Droughts have become more frequent and intense in some regions, and confidence is that these trends are projected to continue."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-commerce-department-drought-report-2013-1#ixzz2HmStZeek

Lauren Johnson
01-12-2013, 06:10 PM
Tim Flannery (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/tim-flannery)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), Friday 11 January 2013 13.59 EST

This summer, life in Australia resembles a compulsory and very unpleasant game of Russian roulette. A pool of hot air (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/heat-likely-to-return-despite-southerlies/story-fngw0i02-1226550697712)more than 1,000 miles wide has formed across the inland. It covers much of the continent, and has proved astonishingly persistent. Periodically, low pressure systems spill the heat towards the coast, where most Australians live. At Christmas it was Perth. Then the heat struck Adelaide, followed by Tasmania, Victoria, and southern New South Wales and Canberra. Over this weekend, it's southern Queensland and northern New South Wales that look set to face the gun. And with every heatwave, the incidences of bushfires (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jan/10/australia-bushfires-temperatures-video) and heat-related deaths and injuries spike.

Australians are used to hot summers. We normally love them. But the conditions prevailing now (http://climatecommission.gov.au/) are something new. Temperature records are being broken everywhere. At Leonora, in the Western Australian interior, it reached 49C this week – the national high – and just one record temperature among many. The nation's overall temperature record (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html) was set on 7 January. Then the following day that record was exceeded, by half a degree Celsius.

The breaking of so many temperature records indicates that Australia's climate is shifting. This is supported by analysis of the long-term trend. Over the past 40 years we've seen a decline in the number of very cold days, and the occurrence of many more very hot days. All of this was predicted by climate scientists decades ago, and is consistent with the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.

The new conditions have seen the Bureau of Meteorology add two new colour categories to Australia's weather prediction maps (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/08/australia-bush-fires-heatwave-temperature-scale). Temperatures of 48-50C used to be the highest, and where such extremes were anticipated, the weather map was marked black. Over the last week, purple patches have begun to appear on some maps. They mark temperatures above 50C. Pink, which is yet to be deployed, will denote temperatures above 52C.

Climate extremes have a way of stacking up to produce unpleasant consequences. Two years ago, the ocean temperature off northwestern Australia reached a record high, and evaporation of the warm seawater led to Australia's wettest year on record. This was followed, in central Australia, by the longest period without rain on record. The vegetation that had thrived in the wet now lies dried and curing, a perfect fuel for fires.

With abundant fuel and increased temperatures, the nature of bushfires is changing. Australians have long rated fire risk on the MacArthur index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_Forest_Fire_Danger_Index). On it, a rating of 100 – the conditions that prevailed in the lead-up to the devastating 1939 bushfires – represents "extreme" risk. But after the 2009 fires a new level of risk was required. "Catastrophic" represents a risk rating above 100. Under such conditions fires behave very differently. The Black Saturday fires of 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/australia-black-saturday-bushfires-play), which killed 173 people, were rated at between 120 and 190. They spread so fast, and burned so hot, that the communities they advanced upon were utterly helpless.

The superheated air currently monstering the continent is fickle. This week, Sydneysiders watched in relative thermal comfort as those living just 100km to the south endured scorching heat, blustering winds, and unstoppable fires. The forecast for coming days indicates that Sydney might once again be lucky, with the worst fire conditions striking 50km to the north of the city. But, of course, things might work out differently.

The unprecedented conditions of recent weeks have seen many Australians rethinking their attitude to climate change. A good friend of mine farms just outside Canberra. A few years ago the drought was so severe that his 300 year-old gum trees died of thirst. Then the rains came on so violently that they stripped the precious topsoil, filling his dams with mud and sheep droppings. This week he watched as his cousin's property at Yass was reduced to ashes. When I called he was trying to secure his own historic homestead and outbuildings from fire. He asked me if I thought the family would still be farming the area 50 years from now. All I could say was that it depended upon how quickly Australia, and the world, reduced their greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia's average temperature has increased by just 0.9 of a degree celsius over the past century. Within the next 90 years we're on track to warm by at least another three degrees. Having seen what 0.9 of a degree has done to heatwaves and fire extremes, I dread to think about the kind of country my grandchildren will live in. Even our best agricultural land will be under threat if that future is realised. And large parts of the continent will be uninhabitable, not just by humans, but by Australia's spectacular biodiversity as well.

This week's extreme conditions have once again raised the political heat around climate change. The Greens party condoned an anti-coal activist (http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/1226096/greens-condone-12-billion-coal-hoax/) who created a false press release claiming that the ANZ bank had withdrawn support for a major coal project, causing its share price to plunge. Meanwhile the acting leader of the (conservative) opposition, Warren Truss, said it was simplistic to link the hot spell to climate change (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/heatwave-climate-change-link-simplistic-truss-20130109-2cfv6.html#ixzz2HcLTYSsU), and "utterly simplistic to suggest that we have these fires because of climate change".

Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, and the mining lobby is exceptionally strong. As calls to combat climate change have increased, the miners have argued that "mum and dad investors" will lose out if any effort is made to reduce the export or use of fossil fuels. But the smart money is no longer backing fossil fuels. In South Australia, wind energy has gone from 1% to 26% of the mix in just seven years, and nationally solar panel installations are 13 years ahead of official projections. Last year, in fact, Australia led the world in terms of number of individual solar installations.

And finally, with a carbon price in place, Australia's emissions curve is beginning to flatten out. Despite these efforts, Australians are already enduring the kind of conditions they'd hoped to avoid if strong, early action had been taken. Now, more than ever, we're in a race against time to avoid a truly catastrophic outcome.


Greg Burnham
01-12-2013, 10:06 PM
[I think that prior to accepting the conclusion that humans are significantly capable of, and currently are, contributing to global warming one must consider where, when, and by whom these allegations originally emerged. When one bothers to do their homework it becomes evident that "anthropogenic global warming" has now evolved into "man-made climate change" for no apparent reason beyond a CYA fallback position by the peddlers of the myth. Moreover, the same scientists who originated this "theory" failed to admit that it was a theory at all--rather selling it as settled science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, the scientific practices themselves do not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny. There was deception on a mass scale, apparently, in order to continue funding the "research" from which these scientists receive their salaries. The following was written by John O'Sullivan regarding the work of my good friend, John Costella, Ph.D., of Australia.]

Good old-fashioned honest journalism by Pittsburghlive.com (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_664008.html) pointedly embarrasses Penn State and their pernicious professor, Michael Mann. Their editorial reviewing the “Climategate Analysis,” by Australian physicist, Dr. John P. Costella and now available from the non-profit Science & Public Policy Institute (scienceandpublicpolicy.org (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/)), has really caught the attention of Pennsylvanian readers. Since running the editorial on Dr. Costella’s latest exposé, the Tribune-Review’s (local paper) found its circulation jumped 14.8 percent from 146,520 to 168,218 on the back of Costella’s story. Dr. Costella was clearly delighted with the response, “I’ll give you 168,218 to 1 that it ruined at least one of Mann’s meals!” Thanks to Costella’s newly re-published analysis of the leaked emails from on the world’s key Climatic Research Units at the University of East Anglia, researchers into the Climategate scandal have been having a field day unpicking 13-years’worth of lies, deceit and fraudulent junk science all perpetrated at taxpayers’ expense. The cost to the U.S. economy for implementing policies based in such junk could run into trillions of dollars. In the wake of the Climategate scandal has come a flood of other shocking revelations to derail the juggernaut of pro-green climate policy pursued by world governments. After Climategate, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate and Amazongate, now President Obama’s U.S. Administration is expected to be defeated in Congress on its unpopular and expensive climate cap-and-trade bill after Republican, Scott Brown, scored a sensational victory (http://www.climategate.com/al-gore-meet-senator-scott-brown) capturing the staunch Democrat seat of recently deceased Edward Kennedy. The true depths of the climate scandal is causing great interest in the Pennsylvania heartlands of disgraced dodgy tree-ring counter, Michael Mann. Pittsburghers have been fascinated to find that the greatest fraud ever committed in the history of science was being perpetrated within their midst. Michael E. Mann is famous for his ‘hockey stick’ graph often used by former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore when preaching his sermons on the ‘terrible threat’ of global warming. Mann’s graphs were much trumpeted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) before being debunked as fraudulent by independent analysts. The impact in the hometown of disgraced climatologist Michael Mann has been so great it will surely add to the pressure on Penn State. The university’s own investigations to root out all the rotten apples in this scandal. In 2009 Mann was appointed Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. Since 2005 he has been Director of the university’s interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. He previously taught at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences (1999 – 2005). John Costella’s study has been accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless exposure of the trickery and deceit of public-funded climate scientists intent on bolstering the now discredited theory of man made global warming. Pittsburghlive.com (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_664008.html) explains,“John P. Costella, the 149-page report’s author, does a tremendous service by documenting, step by step, how science was perverted to advance misguided ideology, cynical politics and personal and professional interests. Costella proved that there was massive ‘research’ funding — with strings attached requiring production of ‘evidence’ backing preordained eco-wacko ‘findings.’ The fakery that took place in Penn. State Uni. and other government-funded institutions helped spread such venality far and wide among ‘scientists.’ What Climategate reveals and his report itemizes is ‘science’ unworthy of the name — and on a vast scale.” Costella was ably assisted by retired British nuclear physicist, Dr. Phillip Bratby, who edited and proofread this sterling analysis before Costella presents all the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in precise chronological order, with an insightful scientific commentary. Pittsburghlive.com broke to Costella the news of his article’s succes late into the night, Australian time.John says, ”I used some of the Australia Day public holiday yesterday to read the SPPI Reprint myself. Although I’ve visited the U.S. three times, I’ve never been to Pennsylvania (the closest I got was D.C.). But if plans to fly me over in the coming months pan out, I will most certainly be visiting the good folk of Pittsburgh. I like them already. “The SPPI Reprint is at:
The original web page is at: http://johncostella.webs.com/ ”The only differences are very small edits and typos that I continue to make to the web page as they are picked up. (The SPPI Reprint seems to have lost all italics, and occasional spaces, but that is of little consequence),” John said. “However, the SPPI Reprint, with its inclusion of my op-ed piece as an ‘Introductory Essay’, seems to have spread like wildfire, not least of which being an incredible discussion at the legendary Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/21/climategate-analysis/) site a few days ago, ”Yesterday, another top climatologist caught up in the Climategate conspiracy — Alabama State Climatologist and UN IPCC lead author, Dr. John Christy — was dismayed at the unethical conduct of Michael Mann and other climatologists, has demanded that the IPCC seek to restore its damaged reputation in their next climate report by providing “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists.” Thanks to John Costella and other brave scientists who have stepped forward, it is hoped a Federal Department of Justice criminal investigation will bring down this blatant racketeering.

Greg Burnham
01-12-2013, 10:56 PM
The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_comm on_thread.html#ixzz2HnxTlfLz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

America, it's time to meet your newest top-secret government employee: a professional cover-up artist with a radical agenda.

Graham Spanier is the former Penn State University president who was fired during the Jerry Sandusky investigation for failing to properly investigate Sandusky when the pedophilia allegations first surfaced. Spanier's "investigation" of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired. When it was completed, Spanier stated (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-05/justice/justice_pennsylvania-coach-abuse-charges_1_grand-jury-sexual-assault-jerry-sandusky/2?_s=PM:JUSTICE) that he had "complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky," and he was fired very shortly thereafter. The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing. In other words, it was a cover-up (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/freeh_report_exposes_jerry_san.html).

It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing. In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his 'hockey stick trick," to "hide the decline" and lend false credibility to climate change theory. The difference between the Mann investigation and the Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.

The Climategate "Investigation"

The methodology, however, was equally bad (http://thecitysquare.blogspot.com/2010/07/penn-state-and-michael-mann-whitewash.html). The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees. It is available here (http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf). The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all. The next step was to read 376 e-mails written by Mann and dismiss 329 of them. After this, they conducted a two-hour interview with Michael Mann, in which he (shocker!) denied doing anything wrong.

The next step was to interview two outside climatologists, noted within the report itself for their personal support of Mann himself and his science, named Dr. Gerald North from Texas A&M and Dr. Donald Kennedy from Stanford University. Naturally, these two friends supported Mann. Next, they interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who accused them of ignoring the most important allegations. They ignored him and moved on. The report actually states this. "We did not respond to him."

After this, the investigators deemed that Michael Mann hadn't done anything wrong. They did not investigate three quarters of the allegations against him, and they did not interview anyone with an opposing viewpoint. President Spanier then stated (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/02/01/mann_inquiry_concludes_board_t.aspx), "I know they have taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides." This statement is blatantly untrue, as the report itself indicates. It also sounds disturbingly similar to Spanier's statement about the Sandusky cover-up -- "I have complete confidence in how they handled the allegations against Sandusky" -- which got him fired.

When Graham Spanier organizies an internal investigation of his own celebrity employees, he finds what he wants to find, and he doesn't seem to care a lick whether it is true. An internal investigation overseen by Spanier is about as credible as a child rape investigation (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/hypocrisy_and_sexual_predation_at_the_united_natio ns.html) by the U.N.

This brings us back to Jerry Sandusky, the child rapist. There are two reasons Graham Spanier helped cover for Sandusky. First is Spanier's well-known instinct (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/sports/ncaafootball/penn-states-graham-spanier-enjoyed-success-and-secrecy.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&src=rechp) to protect his friends. Second is that Spanier himself has a radical sexual agenda.

The Child Rape Cover-Ups
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/300px-Graham_Spanier.jpgHis career started in the early '70s, when he became one of the world's leading academic voices for "swinging," or mate-swapping. He wrote his doctoral dissertation (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3811743?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101111662251) on the subject, and he frequently published additional essays throughout the 1970s. His conclusion was that mate-swapping is good for marriages as long as it is not done in secret. In an article on mate-swapping that he co-wrote with Charles L. Cole from 1975, we find this gem (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g18580h5t244324u/?MUD=MP): "We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others consider wrong. An individual's behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant."

With this attitude toward sexual morality, does it surprise you that Spanier himself personally refused to investigate a completely different sex scandal just a few days before the allegations against Sandusky were first brought to his attention?
In February 2002, a man named Paul McLaughlin spoke personally with Graham Spanier and told him that he had been sexually molested as a child by a Penn State professor named John Neisworth, on the Penn State campus. McLaughlin offered Spanier a copy of a tape recording in which the professor admitted the abuse.

Spanier told him, "Don't bother (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-22/sports/30427860_1_psu-professor-professor-molested-sting-operation)," and never pursued the case at all. A few days later, on March 1, football assistant Mike McQuery reported finding Jerry Sandusky anally raping a boy in the shower, and Spanier again dismissed the allegation, eventually leading to the current shambles of Penn State. The crime was evil. The cover-up destroyed an institution.

If you are counting at home, that is two charges of child rape in one week that Graham Spanier personally refused to investigate. The reason the Neisworth abuse case isn't more famous is because it didn't involve a celebrity football coach. We know that the charges were true on both counts. Sandusky is in jail, and in 2005, Neisworth was charged with additional cases of child sexual abuse. In 2006 he agreed to an out-of-court six-figure payment to McLaughlin.

The Twisted Agenda
The truth is, in March of 2002, Graham Spanier didn't have time to investigate charges of sexual abuse among his faculty because he was too busy promoting it (http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13317/#ixzz1cuRQIyCK) on campus. I was there. That very month, Penn State hosted a "Women's Health Conference" and a "Sex Faire." These events are not to be confused with the "C*nt Fest" and the "Tent of Consent," from a few months prior, but Spanier wanted to make sure his twisted sexual agenda was as clear as possible. Penn State knew what agenda they were getting. When they hired him in 1995, the student body president at the University of Nebraska (which Spanier had headed) warned (http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1995/03/03-16-95tdc/03-16-95dnews-7.asp) Penn State, saying, "Watch out for his social agenda and make sure he doesn't make it a priority over academics." The warning was prescient.

The important keynote speaker at the Sex Faire and "Women's Health Conference" in 2002 was a person named Pat Califia, who has authored dozens of books and essays about sexual pervserion including S&M and pedophilia. Califia is quoted on the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website (http://www.nambla.org/califia.html) with the following:

Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the only people offering a hand to help young women and men cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the gay community. They are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them.

Jerry Sandusky couldn't have said it better himself. Califia's words came from an interview in 1980, at a time when Spanier was one of the most prominent sociologists in the world, specializing in sexuality. It is impossible to imagine him being unaware of who Califia was. Penn State paid Califia with state-subsidized money within a month of President Spanier hearing of two seperate child rape allegations against his staff and actively covering them up.

The 2002 Sex Faire and related festivities were not an isolated incident. We had one the previous year as well, including a presentation of "The Vagina Monologues," a pornographic play. The Pennsylvania state legislature called Spanier to a hearing for using taxpayer subsidies to pay for it. At the hearing, when he was pressed on the question of whether the sex faire was wrong, Spanier reached into his Ph.D. bag of tricks and responded (http://articles.philly.com/2001-02-28/news/25318012_1_lawless-student-group-penn-state/2), "I don't understand what you mean by 'wrong.'" Indeed.

Spanier's deep history of pushing his twisted agenda and actively covering up wrongdoing by his faculty members is astonishing. The only reason he has avoided the media spotlight of the Jerry Sandusky scandal is because Joe Paterno was a celebrity football coach. A Google search for "Joe Paterno Scandal" actually retrieves 2.4 million more results than a search for "Jerry Sandusky Scandal." Graham Spanier deserves this kind of fame, too. Does any of this matter now that he has been fired, Sandusky is in jail, and Paterno is dead?

The Big Promotion

America, meet your newest secret consultant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-federal-worker-is-a-mystery/2012/07/26/gJQAbAx5BX_blog.html). Graham Spanier, the professional cover-up artist with a history of promoting and covering evil deeds, has now been hired by your federal government for a top-secret consulting job that is so secret that we aren't even allowed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-federal-worker-is-a-mystery/2012/07/26/gJQAbAx5BX_blog.html) to know what it is. Sounds like a good fit. This man's primary skill is covering up dark things that make people look bad. They need him for something. They hired him as soon as he was available.

Don't believe another word they tell you.

T.S. Weidler is a Penn State graduate who personally witnessed (but did not participate in) the Sex Faire, the C*nt Fest, and many of the events mentioned in the article. Contact him at tsweidler at yahoo dot com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_comm on_thread.html#ixzz2HnxK7zyF
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

Phil Dragoo
01-13-2013, 12:20 AM

Thank you for Weidler's craniotomy of Spanier, that perfect presentation of Warrenite La-La-La We-Can't-Hear-You-With-The-Shower-Running.

We have had records for cold, for snow, for drought, for heat, and yet we are not dead.

Vikings closed their winery with the vineyards of Greenland under a blanket of white and frosty carbon from their smokestacks

The Guardian now resurrects the pedophilia agenda

Sandy as though bad weather should be banned from Camelot

Walter Duranty is proof Mann's hockey stick wasn't the first epic fraud on naive society

My grandfather got his degree in electrical engineering from Penn State, summers spent drilling on the PRR with a two-man device similar to


A railroad carries a freight visible and tangible, valuable and utilitarian; Gorian blovation of the hockey-stick pedo-persuasion is too much the normal load of the ivied halls of academe today.


Greg Burnham
01-13-2013, 07:45 PM
From the Jun 24, 1974, Time Magazine (http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html), entitled: "Another Ice Age?"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Greg Burnham
01-14-2013, 10:20 PM
[ You can read the actual CIA documents here: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ]

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.

Climate has not been a prime consideration of intelligence analysis because, until recently, it has not caused any significant perturbations to the status of major nations. This is so because during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century. An early twentieth century world food surplus hindered US efforts to maintain and equalise farm production and incomes.”

“The University of Wisconsin was the first accredited academic center to forecast that a major global climatic change was underway. Their analysis of the Icelandic temperature data, which they contend has historically been a bellwether for northern hemisphere climatic conditions, indicated that the world was returning to the type of climate which prevailed during the first part of the last century.” “Their “Food for Thought” chart (Figure 7) conveys some idea of the enormity of the problem and the precarious state in which most of the world’s nations could find themselves if the Wisconsin forecast is correct.”

CIA Report 1974, Figure 7

The x axis shows annual temperature in centigrade. The y axis is persons per hectare of arable land.

With respect to Figure 7, the CIA report states “As an example, Europe presently, with an annual mean temperature of 12°C (about 53°F), supports three persons per arable hectare. If, however, the temperature declines 1°C only a little over two persons per hectare could be supported and more than 20 percent of the population could be supported and more than 20 percent of the population could not be fed from domestic sources. China now supports over seven persons per arable hectare; a shift of 1°C would mean it could only support four persons per hectare – a drop of over 43 percent.

A unique aspect of the Wisconsin analysis was their estimate of the duration of this climatic change. An analysis by Dr J.E.Kutzbach (Wisconsin) on the rate of climate changes during the preceding 1,600 years indicates an ominous consistency in the rate of (sic) which the change takes place. The maximum temperature drop normally occurred within 40 years of inception. The earliest return occurred within 70 years (Figure 8). The longest period noted was 180 years.”

CIA Report 1974, Figure 8

The CIA Report warning on the impact of cooling on the stability of nations is supported by a 2007 study by Zhang et al:

“We show that long-term fluctuations of war frequency and population changes followed the cycles of temperature change. Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war outbreak, famine, and population decline successively. The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change.
We studied a long span of Chinese history and found that the number of war outbreaks and population collapses in China is significantly correlated with Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature variations and that all of the periods of nationwide unrest, population collapse, and dynastic change occurred in the cold phases of this period.”

The CIA Report of 1974 drew heavily on the work of Professor Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin, who continues to warn of the danger posed by gobal cooling. Professor Kutzbach is a co-author of a study that modelled the effect of a 3.1°C cooler climate (Phillipon-Berthier et al 2010). The premise of the study is that using a carbon dioxide concentration of 240 ppm based on typical values reached during the latter stage of previous interglacials, the climate would 3.14°K cooler than it currently is. Of that cooling, 0.45°K is attributed to vegetation effects and the balance of 2.69°K is due to the carbon dioxide level being 150 ppm less than it is currently. The 2.69°K figure is an obvious and deliberate overstatement. Based on the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide, the true heating differential between 240 ppm and 390 ppm is 0.32°K, as shown by this figure:

Figure 3: The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide

In a world in which even papers in solar physics have to genuflect to global warming in order to get published, it is likely that this overstatement was necessary to get this paper published. Viewed in that light, it seems that the authors wanted to warn the world of the effects of a 3.0°C-odd cooling and the only way they could get the paper past the censors was to concoct a story based on carbon dioxide levels in previous interglacials. A 3.0°C cooling is very similar to what Libby and Pandolfi 1979 warned of, and what is predicted from the length of Solar Cycle 25 as determined by Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, as shown in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/
So what did the study find? Philippon-Berthier and colleagues calculated that as a result of the colder and drier conditions, along with lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (a plant fertilizer), terrestrial photosynthesis would decline by 39% and leaf area would decline by 30%. In the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, forest cover would decline by 60% and grassland area would decline by 17%. In the high latitudes, the area of boreal forests would drop by 69% while the area of polar desert would increase by 286%. And in the Tropics, grass area would decline by 3%, forest area by 15%, and the area of bare ground would increase by 344%.

Adding back the effect of current higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on plant growth, the decline in terrestrial photosynthesis would be about 25% rather than the calculated 39%. That is likely to be good estimate of the decline in food production, all things being equal, that humanity has in prospect over the next twenty-five years as solar-driven cooling continues per the Libby and Pandolfi and green corona emissions-derived forecasts.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/clip_image007_thumb1.jpg?w=576&h=620 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/clip_image0071.jpg)
Figure 4: Total grass (top) and tree (bottom) differences (percentages) from current climate conditions with a 3.1°K cooling (source: Philippon-Berthier et al., 2010).


CIA 1974, A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems

Libby, L.M. and Pandolfi, L.J. 1979, Tree Thermometers and Commodities: Historic Climate Indicators, Environment International Vol 2, pp 317-333

Philippon-Berthier, G., et al., 2010. Role of plant physiology and dynamic vegetation feedbacks in the climate response to low GHG concentrations typical of the late stages of previous interglacials. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L08705, doi:10.1029/2010GL042905.

Peterson, T.C., et al. (2008): The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89, 9, 1325-1337,doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1).

Lauren Johnson
01-15-2013, 02:28 AM
Matt Lagarde manages a fleet of towboats in Louisiana (http://topics.bloomberg.com/louisiana/) and watched with dread as a drought last year seared crops across the farm belt 1,000 miles upstream on the Mississippi River (http://topics.bloomberg.com/mississippi-river/).

Now the effects of the worst dry spell in 70 years are making their way to the river’s delta, said Lagarde, 41, who has worked on the nation’s busiest waterway for half his life.

“Things just look fairly dismal over the next couple of months,” said Lagarde, with AEP River Operations LLC in Convent, 57 miles west of New Orleans. “In the next couple of weeks, you’re really going to see things start to tighten out.”

Though rain has been plentiful in Louisiana, operators all along the Mississippi (http://topics.bloomberg.com/mississippi/) have lost work as diminished crops sap export tonnage and low water narrows the channel and jams up barges. AEP, a unit of American Electric Power Co. (AEP) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AEP:US), has had to shift workers around as it idled boats. It is working through January without the usual profit from the previous year to tide it over, Lagarde said.

Louisiana, a state sustained by river commerce, is braced for the impact as barge traffic slows in the shallow water. About 7,000 jobs in the state -- more than any other -- would be at risk if record-low water forced shipping to halt, according to the American Waterways Operators, an Arlington, Virginia- based industry group.

Grain Shipments

About $2.8 billion worth of cargo, including coal, fertilizer and crude oil, moves along the river in a typical January, the group estimates. Barges carried about 388,000 tons of grain on the river in the week ended Jan. 5, a 24 percent drop from a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported Jan. 10.

“Many shippers moved product in early December, anticipating navigation difficulties due to low flows,” the agency said in its weekly “Grain Transportation Report.” An unusually large amount of grain is traveling to New Orleans (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-orleans/) by rail or being stored in silos until the river rises, it said.

While grain shipments have declined, barge owners have had enough residual work from the harvest and shipments of other commodities to keep business afloat, said Lagarde.

“There’s no question that this has the potential to be a crisis,” John Little, terminals manager in the New Orleans area for International-Matex Tank Terminals, said in a phone interview. The company, which stores liquid products including vegetable oil that are delivered by barge, has no plans to dismiss workers for a “short-term blip like this,” he said.

9 Feet

If the current situation lasts beyond May, it will cease to be short-term, he said.

The National Weather Service (http://topics.bloomberg.com/national-weather-service/) on Jan. 9 forecast (http://www.riverwatch.noaa.gov/riverwatch/forecasts/STLRVSLSX_LR.php) that the river at St. Louis (http://topics.bloomberg.com/st.-louis/) will fall to about 9 feet by the end of the month, a level most towboats can’t navigate safely, according to the Waterways Operators. The U.S. Army Corps (http://topics.bloomberg.com/army-corps/) of Engineers has completed the first phase of emergency work to keep the river open, excavating rock obstacles near southern Illinois (http://topics.bloomberg.com/illinois/).

Those efforts aren’t enough for some cargo carriers. American Commercial Lines Inc. can’t send barges from Louisiana to St. Louis to fetch 200,000 tons of coal because the vessels can’t reach the docks there, according Doug Faust, a licensed towboat captain who manages marine operations for the company in New Orleans.

Not Hiring

“If the water falls out and shuts down the river, they’re trapped,” Jeff Kindl, vice president of Gulf operations for American Commercial and chairman of the local port safety council, said in an interview after a council luncheon at the New Orleans Yacht Club on Lake Pontchartrain (http://topics.bloomberg.com/lake-pontchartrain/).
The company, based in Jeffersonville, Indiana (http://topics.bloomberg.com/indiana/), has lost about $27 million in revenue and foregone business since the drought began and has idled boats and workers, he said.

“We’re not hiring where we normally would be hiring,” Kindl said.

Canal Barge Co. in New Orleans may consider restricting bonus pay and raises if conditions persist, Chief Executive Officer Merritt Lane said in an interview at the company’s downtown headquarters. He said he wants to avoid furloughs that would cost him experienced workers.

The barge operator, which transports oil to refineries upriver for companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/XOM:US) of Irving, Texas (http://topics.bloomberg.com/texas/), has experienced shipping delays, according to Lane.

Disrupted Business

“It hurts our customers because it’s completely disrupting their business,” he said. “Ultimately it’s clear that the consumer gets hurt. There’s going to be either scarcity or higher prices.”

Unlike in New York (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/) and New Jersey (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-jersey/), where cargo handling is clustered among a handful of waterfronts, the work in Louisiana is spread among an array of complexes dotting the river for more than 100 miles (161 kilometers) north of the Mississippi River delta.

Much agricultural cargo is unloaded with the help of machines at the Port of South Louisiana (http://www.portsl.com), which stretches for 54 miles along the river between New Orleans and Baton Rouge (http://topics.bloomberg.com/baton-rouge/). There the goods are transferred to grain elevators operated by companies including Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (ADM) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ADM:US) of Decatur, Illinois.

Cargo in 20- and 40-foot-long shipping containers goes through the Port of New Orleans. Longshoremen arrive at a hiring yard near the wharves there at 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. daily seeking work.

“The stevedores haven’t been affected yet because there’s a lot of inbound cargo” from the Gulf, said Frank Morton, director and founder of Turn Services Inc., an affiliate of stevedoring company Associated Terminals Inc. (http://www.associatedterminals.com/index.php) which manages and repairs barge fleets.
“The problem is the uncertainty,” Morton said. “How long are we going to be able to do this?”


Greg Burnham
01-15-2013, 04:10 AM
The mini ice age starts here (2010)


The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’. This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/09/article-0-07CAC2A5000005DC-748_233x423.jpgThis image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday shows the extent of the freezing weather

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.
Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September. Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. 'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. ‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’ As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view. On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years. As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/09/article-0-032F8F20000005DC-103_468x291.jpgA composite photograph released last year to highlight the issue of melting ice and global warming

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs). For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming. But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/09/article-0-07BEC4D4000005DC-766_468x286.jpgPictures of the snow in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, last week show the city is the coldest it has been since 1970

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise. Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago. For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer. 'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’ As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted. Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole. In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow. ‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing. For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’ Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'
But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’

Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?
Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.

William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/09/article-1242011-067B1FA20000044D-427_233x423.jpgDr David Viner stands by his claim that snow will become an 'increasingly rare event'

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz2I0uUAtUH

Greg Burnham
01-15-2013, 04:40 AM

Jan Klimkowski
01-15-2013, 07:43 PM
The mini ice age starts here (2010)


Greg - David Guyatt, Magda Hassan and I know all about "David Rose".

Britain has strong libel laws, so I'll leave it like this.

To the cognoscenti, the inverted commas say everything I need to say.

Lauren Johnson
01-16-2013, 05:14 PM
Dengue is fastest-spreading tropical disease, WHO saysGENEVA (Reuters) - Dengue is the world's fastest-spreading tropical disease and represents a "pandemic threat", infecting an estimated 50 million people across all continents, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday.

Transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes, the disease is occurring more widely due to increased movement of people and goods - including carrier objects such as bamboo plants and used tires - as well as floods linked to climate change, the United Nations (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/crime-law-justice/international-law/united-nations-ORCUL000009.topic) agency said.

The viral disease, which affected only a handful of areas in the 1950s, is now present in more than 125 countries - significantly more than malaria (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/malaria-HEDAI00000212.topic), historically the most notorious mosquito-borne disease.

The most advanced vaccine (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/health/vaccines-HEDAR00000154.topic) against dengue is only 30 percent effective, trials last year showed.

"In 2012, dengue ranked as the fastest spreading vector-borne viral disease with an epidemic potential in the world, registering a 30-fold increase in disease incidence over the past 50 years," the WHO said in a statement.

Late last year, Europe's suffered its first sustained outbreak since the 1920s, with 2,000 people infected on the Portuguese Atlantic island of Madeira.

Worldwide, 2 million cases of dengue are reported each year by 100 countries, mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, causing 5,000 to 6,000 deaths, said Dr. Raman Velayudhan, a specialist at the WHO's control of neglected tropical diseases department.

But the true number is far higher as the disease has spread exponentially and is now present on all continents, he said.

"The WHO estimates that on average about 50 million cases occur every year. This is a very conservative estimate," Velayudhan told Reuters, adding that some independent studies put the figure at 100 million.

"Dengue is the most threatening and fastest spreading mosquito-borne disease. It is pandemic-prone, but it is a threat only. Definitely a bigger threat now than ever," he said

Malaria caused more deaths but was on the decline, affecting fewer than 100 countries.


Speaking to a news briefing after the WHO released a report on 17 neglected tropical diseases affecting 1 billion people, Velayudhan said: "The mosquito has silently expanded its distribution.

"So today you have (the) aedes mosquito in over 150 countries. The threat of dengue exists all across the globe."

In Europe, the aedes mosquitoes that cause both dengue and chikungya disease have spread to 18 countries, often via the importation of ornamental bamboo or second-hand tires, he said.

"But we are trying to address this in a more systematic way, by controlling entry of vectors at points of entry - seaports, airports, as well as the ground crossings," Velayudhan said, noting that it was hard to detect mosquitoes and their eggs.

Dengue causes flu (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/flu-HEDAI0000047.topic)-like symptoms that subside in a few days in some sufferers. But the severe form of the disease requires hospitalization for complications, including severe bleeding, that may be lethal.

There is no specific treatment but early detection and access to proper medical care lowers fatality rates below 1 percent, according to the Geneva-based WHO.

"You have to bear in mind that it has no treatment and vaccines are still in the research stage," Velayudhan said.

The most advanced, being developed by French drugmaker Sanofi SA, proved only 30 percent effective in a large clinical trial in Thailand, far less than hoped, according to results published in September.

But researchers said it did show for the first time that a safe vaccine was possible.

The WHO also said aims to eliminate globally two neglected tropical diseases, dracunculiasis (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/dracunculiasis--HEDAI00000242.topic), known as guinea worm disease, in 2015, and yaws, or treponematoses, in 2020.


Lauren Johnson
01-16-2013, 05:18 PM
Last year’s drought increased the spread of a carcinogenic mold called aspergillus (Aspergillus flavus), a fungal pathogen that poisons cattle, kills pets and has infected the 2012 corn crop, rendering significant portions of the harvest unfit for consumption.

Whereas the deadly organism mainly affects countries like China and developing African nations, many U.S. states have experienced an increase in corn contamination since 2011. Farmers are likely to see more of the carcinogen as temperatures continue to rise and droughts become more frequent.

“It's really a climate variable issue,” says Barbara Stinson, founding and senior partner of Meridian Institute, a public policy organization. “We're probably looking at an increase in aflatoxin as a result of that.”

A. flavus releases toxic spores that can be fatal when ingested, prompting symptoms that include jaundice, liver cancer and internal bleeding. The poison is so deadly that in 1995 Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein confessed to weaponizing the mold spores for use in biological warfare. The high toxicity of the mold means crops with more than 20 parts per billion—the equivalent of about 100 kernels in a truckload of corn—can’t cross state lines, says Ronnie Heiniger, professor of cropping systems at North Carolina State University.
That’s bad news for the agricultural industry, which suffers annual losses of more than $190 million due to aspergillus. Last year the green-black mold contaminated more than half the corn harvested in Missouri by October. In contrast, only 8 percent of the 2011 crop suffered, according to the Missouri Grain Inspection Service.

“We have a big aflatoxin problem,” says Charles Woloshuk, a botanist and plant pathologist at Purdue University. “There are loads of corn coming to the [grain] elevators that have been rejected.”

Grains like corn and cereals are well documented hosts of aspergillus, although the fungus is also found in oilseed, spices, tree nuts, groundnuts, milk, meat and dried fruit—all staples on which a significant portion of the world’s population rely for sustenance. Drought conditions don’t cause the mold, but they do help speed its expansion. Unlike the fuzzy stuff that grows on bathroom tiles or in the back of the garage, A. flavus prefers hot, dry climes—precisely like the drought afflicting more than half the U.S.

Although the international community has adopted strict legislation to regulate the acceptable amount of aflatoxin for individual countries, cases of poisoning, called aflatoxicosis, still surface regularly. Because the level of aflatoxins found in any given load of corn can be higher than the legal maximum, farmers are allowed to mix contaminated corn with safe corn to dilute the amount—but sometimes contaminants slip through the cracks.

“That's always the problem with a contaminant at these low levels—the distribution of that contaminant in that load,” Heiniger says. “The detection of these contaminants is almost more of an art than a science because you're searching for this one little kernel.” He adds, “If you selected one bite from that whole area and happened to hit that one kernel you'd get the contaminant.”

Aflatoxin contamination is a global food security issue, but it’s especially a problem in developing countries, which are often largely populated by subsistence farmers who don’t have the resources, technology or infrastructure needed for adequate grain testing. Lack of education about the effects of the mold also contributes to aflatoxicosis poisoning.

“The average person can’t tell whether the mold contains aflatoxin. You can’t tell if it’s highly toxic or an innocuous fungus,” Stinson says. “So people are used to eating it and don’t know that they’re poisoning themselves or their children.”

To make matters worse, aflatoxins react strongly to the hepatitis B virus (HBV), the most common cause of liver cancer in the world. In countries where HBV is endemic, such as in China and some African nations, ingesting the mold intensifies and speeds liver failure by acting as an immunosuppressant. Consequently, there are over 750,000 new reported cases of primary liver cancer reported yearly worldwide, making it the sixth most common cancer for humankind, according to 2008 statistics from the World Cancer Research Fund International.

The cost in human life is likely due, in part, to international trade issues. Because aspergillus standards in developed countries are so high, African nations export much of their pure commodities overseas, leaving the tainted crops at home for consumption by locals. Natural disasters that increase foreign demand for African products—like floods and droughts in industrialized countries—only compound the issue.

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) estimate more than five billion people worldwide are at risk for chronic exposure through contaminated foods, according to a March 2012 study published in PLoS One.

“Strict aflatoxin standards mean that many nations will export their best-quality foods and keep contaminated foods domestically, resulting in higher aflatoxin exposure in low- or middle-income nations where hepatitis prevalence is high,” wrote co-authors Felicia Wu and Hasan Guclu, both Pitt faculty members.

Whereas the U.S. is most often spared the cost in human health, the repercussions aren’t nil. Dairy cows and cattle, already stressed from living in close proximity to large numbers of animals, are at particularly high risk for succumbing to aflatoxicosis, though they can handle higher doses of toxin. Pets, too, are susceptible to the poison. In 2007 aflatoxins forced a nationwide pet food recall—but not before dozens of man’s best friends fell ill and died.

Researchers have not yet found an animal species immune to the aspergillus’s effects. The spores are so poisonous that even destroying the contaminated crops is an ordeal. Scientists worldwide keep careful tabs on aflatoxins in a large-scale effort to avoid outbreaks of aflatoxicosis, according to Stinson.

“Our understanding is that in some cases you can't even incinerate (contaminated food) safely because the aflatoxin can get airborne and be inhaled,” she says. “If there is a high level of aflatoxin…they're going to be in the position of having to store and destroy crops.”


Lauren Johnson
01-16-2013, 05:45 PM
t was another top-ten hottest year on record during 2012, which ranked as the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13) said today. NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) rated 2012 as the 9th warmest on record. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century--1998--was warmer than 2012. The year 2012 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global land temperatures were the 7th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures were the 10th warmest. Global satellite-measured temperatures in the lower atmosphere were the 9th or 11th warmest in the 34-year record, according to UAH and RSS, (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/2012/13) respectively. Following the two wettest years on record (2010 and 2011), 2012 saw near average precipitation on balance across the globe. In a NASA Press Release today, climate scientist Gavin Schmidt said, "One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant. What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2012. The continental U.S. and the eastern 2/3 of Canada were Earth's warmest regions, relative to average. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13).

Global extremes of 2012
Weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera has put together a list of global extremes for 2012, and maintains a comprehensive list of extreme temperature records for every nation in the world on his website (http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm). If you reproduce this list of extremes, please cite Maximiliano Herrera as the primary source of the weather records. Here, then, is Maximiliano's list of 2012 global extremes:

Hottest temperature in the world in 2012: 53.6°C (128.5°F) in Sulaibiya, Kuwait, July 31
Coldest temperature in the world in 2012: -84.2°C (-119.6°F) at Vostok, Antarctica, September 16
Hottest temperature in the Southern Hemisphere: 47.5°C (117.5°F) at Birdsville, Australia, January 7
Coldest temperature in the Northern Hemisphere: -63.1°C (-81.6°F) at Summit, Greenland, December 28
Highest annual precipitation: Cherrapunji, India, 13364 mm (526")
Lowest annual precipitation: Several stations in Southern Egypt saw not even a trace of precipitation

All-time world record warm minimum temperature tied: 41.7°C (107°F), Death Valley (USA), July 12
All-time world record highest 24-hour average temperature: 47.5°C (117.5°F), Death Valley (USA), July 11-12
World record high temperature in an island: 51.8°C (125.2°F), Failaka Island, Kuwait, July 31
World record high temperature on a coast: 52.1°C (125.8°F), Kuwait City, Kuwait, July 31
World record highest temperature with rain: 46.1°C (115°F), Needles (USA), August 13
World record for lowest humidity with rain: 11%, Needles (USA), August 13

Figure 2. True-color MODIS satellite image of California and Arizona taken at 1:25 pm PDT August 13, 2012. Developing thunderstorms surround Needles, CA, and the line of clouds to the southwest of the city would develop into a thunderstorm that brought rain to the city at 4 pm PDT, at a temperature of 115°F and a relative humidity of 11%--both world records. Image credit: NASA. (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=USA5.2012226)

New country and territory hottest temperature records set in 2012
Five nations and two territories tied or set their hottest temperature readings in recorded history during 2012; no coldest all-time national records were set. For comparison, Seven countries and one territory set all-time hottest temperature records in 2011, and one nation set an all-time coldest temperature record. The most all-time national heat records in a year occurred in 2010, when twenty nations and one territory did so. Here are the 2012 national heat records:

Morocco recorded its hottest temperature on record on July 17, 2012 in Marrakech, when the mercury hit 49.6°C (121.3°F).

Kuwait recorded its hottest temperature on record on July 31, 2012 in Sulaibya (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=84), when the mercury hit 53.6°C (128.5°F). This surpasses the highest undisputed temperature ever recorded in Asia--the 53.5°C (128.3°F) measured at Moen Jo-Daro, Pakistan on May 26, 2010. The only higher temperature ever measured in Asia was a 54°C (129.2°F) reading from Tirat Tsvi, Israel on June 22, 1942. The Israeli Met Office pursued an investigation of the record in 2012 (prompted by an inquiry from the WMO and wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt), and concluded that the record was valid. However, they have refused to make public the details leading to their conclusions, and until they do so, the record remains suspect.

Moldova recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 7, 2012 in Falesti, when the mercury hit 42.4°C (108.3°F).

Montenegro tied its hottest temperature on record on August 8, 2012 in Danilovgrad, when the mercury hit 44.8°C (112.6°F).

The Czech Republic recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 20, 2012 in Dobrichovice, when the mercury hit 40.4°C (104.7°F).

The territory of Hong Kong tied its hottest temperature on record on July 21 on Ping Chau Island, when the mercury hit 37.7°C (99.9°F).

The Sprska Republic set a new territorial high of 42.8°C (109°F) on August 24 at Visegrad.

New U.S. State Records set in 2012
New state record high: South Carolina, at Columbia University WS and Johnston, 45.0°C (113°F), June 29
State record high temperature tied: Colorado, at Las Animas, 45.6°C (114°F), June 23

Wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt maintains a database of national heat and cold records on wunderground.com's extremes page (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extremes.asp), where all of this year's national heat records are updated. Weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera is the primary source of these national weather records.

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?

The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out close to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. During 2012, a weak La Niña event was present through March. Warming of the Eastern Pacific waters in the spring brought on neutral conditions, which lasted for the remainder of the year. The year 2012 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present, surpassing the previous record set just the year before, in 2011. Global temperatures were 0.09°C (0.16°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and 2012 would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead of a La Niña, as seen by looking at the year-to-date global temperature plot for 2012. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/ytd-global-temp-anoms/201212.png)

Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2012, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2012 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Earth's warmest years tend to occur when an El Niño is present; cooler years occur when a La Niña is occurring. A La Niña (El Niño) year is defined here as occurring when the first three months of a calendar year meet the La Niña (El Niño) criteria as defined by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13).

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution

We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 34 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. Through 2010, the three major research groups that maintain global surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (maintained by UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022), took these five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. The known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 34 years, and the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity is the primary cause of increasing global temperatures in recent decades.

Figure 4. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022) by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Video 1. Human emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide have continued to warm the planet over the past 16 years. However, a persistent myth has emerged in the mainstream media challenging this. Denial of this fact may have been the favorite climate contrarian myth of 2012. Video courtesy of skepticalscience.com. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html)

Top Ten Weather Lists for 2012

My Top Ten Global Weather Events of 2012 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2326)

My Top Ten U.S. Weather Events of 2012. (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2316)

NCDC's Top Ten Annual Weather/Climate Events (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-reports/top-ten.php?list=global&year=2012)

Wunderground's Angela Fritz's has a list of Top Climate Events of 2012 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/angelafritz/comment.html?entrynum=37).

A group of seventeen climate scientists and climate bloggers created a Climate Disruption: Critical 2012 Events and Stories (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/climate-disruption-critical-2012_b_2393478.html) list of 19 key climate change events that occurred in 2012.

TWC's Stu Ostro has his annual post (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/stuostro/comment.html?entrynum=19) showing his pick for top weather images of 2012.

Climate Central (http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/2012-year-in-pictures-the-top-10-most-striking-images-15368) has a top-ten most striking images of 2012 post.

Jeff Masters

Lauren Johnson
01-16-2013, 06:30 PM

Lauren Johnson
01-17-2013, 05:37 PM

Greg Burnham
01-17-2013, 06:06 PM




Greg Burnham
01-17-2013, 11:48 PM
By John Coleman
According to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Global Warming with all its dire consequences is the result of the increase of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels to power our automobiles and airplanes, our electric power generating plants and our factories. How much do you know about CO2? Let me ask some questions:

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Question 2. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Question 3. Is CO2 a pollutant?
Question 4. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

The answers to these questions are key in evaluating the global warming scare. However, a sampling with these questions proved almost no one knows the correct answers. Without this basic knowledge there is no way you can logically decide whether Global warming is really happening and whether it is natural or not.

Here are some respondents' perceptions followed by the correct answers.

Question 1. What percentage of the air is CO2?

Respondents' answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10% - 20%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
Question 2. What percentage of CO2 is man-made?

Respondents' answers ranged from as high as 100%, with most estimating it to be between 25% and 75%.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a minuscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that's all.

Question 3. Is CO2 a pollutant?

Respondents' answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is necessary for life - just as a harmless, trace gas. It is necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is essential to photosynthesis, the basic process that makes plants grow. Without CO2 there would be no crops, no flowers, trees, grass or bushes. CO2 is a natural gas. It is clear, tasteless and odorless. It is in no way a pollutant.

Calling CO2 a 'pollutant' leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey 'smoke' coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it's just steam (water vapor) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it's not.

Question 4. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondents' answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can't cause a greenhouse effect.

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That's why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster - heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no 'runaway' greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters perhaps due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling.

The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today's changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.

What I presented here was mostly written by an Australian man, Gregg D Thompson. I edited and excerpted from his climate posting. He is a Climate Researcher, Astronomer and Environmentalist. He has written two science books, been Business Manager and Director of 3 companies, Author of science magazine articles and Designer and project manager of special effects attractions. He is also a Nature photographer.

When you hear on the news about the government regulating greenhouse gases or the pollutant CO2, another news writer, reporter or editor is displaying dulability, ignorance or bias.

This situation drives me nuts. But, maybe I was sort of nutty before.

John Coleman
[emphasis added]

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 12:52 AM
1933: Rare Hurricane Slams Into South Africa
(http://www.real-science.com/78-years-week-south-africa-hit-hurricane)1933: Bitter Winter Weather In Russia & Europe: Snow Causes Wolves To Attack Train
(http://www.real-science.com/december-1933-wolves-attacked-russian-train)1933: West Australian Heat Wave - "Severest In History"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/1933-worst-heatwave-in-west-australia-history/)1933: Heat Waves, Floods, Droughts, Famines Plague China
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D4I_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MlUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4134,2997359&dq=heat-wave+china&hl=en)1933: Spain's Heat Wave: 130 Degrees In Shade
(http://www.real-science.com/130-degrees-spain-1933)1933: Heat Wave Causes New Jersey Road To "Explode"
(http://www.real-science.com/1933-heatwave-new-jersey-road-explode)1933: Hottest June In U.S. History - Heat Wave & Drought
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/june-1933-hottest-june-in-us-history-and-the-worst-spring-drought/)1933: 21 Perish During Texas, Louisiana Tornado & Hail Storms
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7bFIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wAENAAAAIBAJ&dq=windstorm&pg=5064%2C6255133)1933: Drought In South Africa - "Worst Outlook For 50 Years"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/1933-severe-drought-in-south-africa-2/)1933: Flooding In China Kills 50,000
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/1933-50000-dead-in-chinese-flood/)1933: India's Ganges River Bursts Its Banks - Widespread Flood Damage & Fatalities
(http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37704828)1934: 80% of U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/1930s-was-by-far-the-most-extreme-decade-in-the-us/)1934: "Heat Wave In China Kills One In Every Thousand"
(http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C13FC3B5A107A93CBA81783D85F40 8385F9)1934: Antarctic Has Incredible Heat Wave – 25 Degrees Over Zero
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: February Tornado Strikes Several U.S. States
(http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70313477?searchTerm=february%20tornado&searchLimits=)1934: World Wide Drought & Heat Causes Vast Majority of Alps' Glaciers To Melt
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/1934-world-wide-drought-glaciers-receding/)1934: Iowa Heat Wave In May - Pushes Temps Over 110 Degrees
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/may-1934-temperature-reached-111-f-in-iowa/)1934: All 48 U.S. States Over 100 Degrees During June
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/june-1934-all-48-states-over-100-degrees/)1934: 14 Days of Above 100°F Temps Kill Over 600 Americans
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/1934-hottest-year-on-record-until-hansen-adjusted-it-downwards/)1934: South African Drought Severely Hits Farmers
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: Nebraska Temperatures Soar To 117 Degrees
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/july-17-1934-117-degrees-in-nebraska/)1934: Drought, Heat, Floods, Cyclones, & Forest Fires Hit Europe
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/1934-drought-heat-floods-cyclones-forest-fires-hit-europe/)1934: British Drought Stunts Hay Growth
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: Worst Drought In England For 100 Years
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/1934-worst-drought-in-england-for-100-years/)1934: 7 Days of Incessant, Torrential Rains Cause Massive Flooding In Eastern Bengal
(http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/70567967)1934: Global Warming Causes 81% Of Swiss Glaciers To Retreat
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/shock-news-global-warming-81-of-swiss-glaciers-in-retreat-in-1934/)1934: Canadian Crops Blasted By Intense Heat Wave
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: "South African Floods Are Unprecedented"
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kEswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XKgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5767,625142&dq=africa+floods&hl=en)1934: Typhoon Hits Japan Followed By A Massive Tsunami
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/1934-typhoon-hits-japan-followed-by-a-massive-tsunami/)1934: Record Heat And Drought Across The Midwest
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/august-1934-at-a-very-safe-309-ppm-record-heat-and-drought-across-the-midwest/)1934: China's Fall Crops Burning Up During Drought & Heat
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: Five Million Americans Face Starvation From Drought
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/summer-of-1934-five-million-americans-faced-starvation-from-drought-co2-at-a-safe-309-ppm/)1934: Adelaide, Australia Has Record Dry Spell
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/)1934: Gigantic Hailstorm Blankets South African Drought Region
(http://www.real-science.com/november-1934-10-years-drought-south-africa)1934: Drought And Sweltering Heat In England
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/june-1934-drought-and-sweltering-heat-in-england/)1934: Record Heat Bakes Wisconsin - 104°F
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/1934-record-heat-drought-and-constant-dust-storms/)1934: 20 Nebraskans Succumb To Unprecedented 117 Degree Heat
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/july-18-1934-117-degrees-in-nebraska/)1934: Poland Swamped By Floods - Hundreds Perish (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/july-18-1934-floods-in-poland-kill-hundreds/)
1934: 115 Degrees In Iowa Breaks Record
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/august-1934-115-degrees-in-iowa/)1934: 115 Degrees Reached In China In The Shade - Heat Wave Ruining Crops
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wawoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xdIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6058,6240793&dq=heat-wave+china&hl=en)1934: Majority of Continental U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/july-1934-was-a-national-drought/)1934: Severe Northern Hemisphere Drought Causes Wheat Prices To "Skyrocket"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/1934-severe-drought-in-us-canada-and-europe/)1934: Extreme U.S. Winter Weather Leaves 60 Dead In Its Path
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O0swAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bKgFAAAAIBAJ&dq=bering%20sea%20ice&pg=6065%2C3419263)1935: Severe Wind Storm Lashes Western States With 60 MPH Gusts
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NtZBAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6703,2842678&dq=wind-storm&hl=en)1935: Florida Burns Its Dead After The Most Powerful Hurricane In US History
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/1935-burning-the-dead-after-the-most-powerful-hurricane-in-us-history/)1935: “The Worst Dust Storm In History” - Kansas City
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/1935-safe-levels-of-co2-bring-the-worst-dust-storm-in-history/)1935: Worst Drought Since 1902 Has Queensland, Australia In Its Grip
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/1935-severe-drought-and-a-disastrous-storm-in-queensland/)1935: “50 Dust Storms In 104″ Days
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/stable-climate-in-1935-brought-50-dust-storms-in-104-days/)1935: France Cooked By Heat Wave
(http://www.real-science.com/1935-heatwave-in-france)1935: Tropical Windstorm Strikes Texas With 85 MPH Gusts
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QGlFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QrwMAAAAIBAJ&dq=windstorm&pg=4996%2C3045619)1935: 'Black Dusters' Strike Again In The Texas Dust Bowl
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/1930s-heat-drought-and-wind-in-texas/)1935: India Hit With Extreme Heat Wave - 124 Degrees
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/1935-unprecedented-heat-in-india/)1935: Heat Wave, Drought & Torrential Rains Cause Misery In Europe
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tHlTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PDgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2901,6077274&dq=spain+heat-wave&hl=en)1936: "Niagara Falls Freezes Into One Giant Icicle"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/1936-hottest-summer-in-us-history-and-niagara-falls-froze/)1936: February Was Coldest In U.S. History
(http://www.real-science.com/ultimate-global-weirding-in-1936)1936: Italian Alps Glacier Shrinks: WWI Army Bodies Uncovered By Melting
(http://www.real-science.com/1936-glacial-melt-revealed-dead-soldiers)1936: Ice Bridge In Iceland Collapses From Heat Wave & Glacier Melt
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TClQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mFUDAAAAIBAJ&dq=heat-wave%20iceland&pg=4177%2C4646991)1936: Violent Tornadoes Pummel The South - 300 Dead
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YGkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hbYFAAAAIBAJ&dq=windstorm&pg=1962%2C3745700)1936: Dust, Snow & Wind Storm Hit Kansas Region In Same Day
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3eotAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6jEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=windstorm&pg=5676%2C2922532)1936: Unprecedented Heat Wave In Moscow
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/1936-unprecedented-heat-wave-in-moscow/)1936: Ukraine Wheat Harvest Threatened By Heat Wave
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/1936-ukraine-wheat-harvest-threatened-by-heat-wave/)1936: 780 Canadians Die From Heat Wave
(http://www.ottawacitizen.com/1936+that+heat+wave/5141249/story.html)1936: Iowa Heat Wave Has 12 Days of Temperatures Over 100 Degrees
(http://www.real-science.com/july-1936-twelve-consecutive-days-over-100-degrees-in-iowa)1936: Heat Wave Deaths In Just One Small U.S. City: 50 Die In Springfield, IL
(http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1212192445/1936-heat-wave-culminated-75-years-ago-today-50-deaths-resulted)1936: Missouri Heat Wave: 118 Degrees & 311 Deaths
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/july-1936-118-degrees-in-missouri-311-deaths-in-10-days/)1936: Ontario, Canada Suffers 106 Degree Temps During Heat Wave
(http://www.real-science.com/july-1936-106-degrees-in-ontario)1936: Alaska's 10-Day Heat Wave Tops Out At 108 Degrees
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9J00AAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZXEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3436,4118797&dq=record+heat&hl=en)1936 : Record Heat Wave Bakes Midwest; "Condition of Crops Critical"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/july-1936-record-heat-bakes-midwest/)1936: Midwest Climate So Bad That Climate Scientist Recommends Evacuation of Central U.S.
(http://www.real-science.com/1936-climate-scientist-wanted-to-evacuate-the-central-us)1936: 12,000 Perish In U.S. Heat Wave - Murderous Week
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/1936-heat-wave-killed-12000-people-in-one-week/)1936: Single Day Death Toll From Heat Wave - 1,000 Die
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/july-15-1936-1000-perish-on-12th-day-of-hot-spell-in-nation/)1936: Iceland Hurricane Sinks Polar Research Ship Filled With Scientists
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PbAwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-qsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3990,4726213&dq=hurricane+iceland&hl=en)1936: Severe Drought & Disastrous Floods In Southern Texas
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/1936-severe-drought-disastrous-floods-in-us/)1936: 20,000 Homeless In Flame Ravaged Forests of Oregon
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QMMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=obYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4579,1932010&dq=forest-fires&hl=en)1936: Northern California Seared By Forest Fires Over 400-Mile Front
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H7hCAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QKsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1564,2257499&dq=forest-fires&hl=en)1936: Tremendous Gale & Mountainous Waves Pound S. California - 7 Persons Missing
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sXAxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vbUDAAAAIBAJ&dq=windstorm&pg=2131%2C4069887)1936: Glacier Park Hotel Guests Flee As Forest Fire Advances - Worst Fire In Years
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/1936-huge-fire-in-glacier-national-park/)1936: Iowa Christmas Season Heat Wave Sets Temperature Records - 58 Degrees
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/1934-record-warmth-at-christmas/)1936: 3rd Major USA Drought In 6 Years
(http://www.real-science.com/1936-major-drought-years)1937: Brazil Heat Wave Sets Off Tempers & Combustion
(http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70E1FFB38541B728DDDA80A94DA405B 878FF1D3)1937: Exceptionally Early Season Iceberg Menaces Shipping
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/1937-low-co2-iceberg-menaces-shipping/)1937: Dramatic Climate Change In The Arctic - 7° Change In Average Temperatures Is Experienced
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/1937-dramatic-climate-change-in-the-arctic/)1937: Soviet Camp At North Pole Threatened By Heat Wave And Rain
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/june-1937-heat-wave-and-rain-at-the-north-pole/)1937: Arctic Winter Temperatures Up 5-7 Degrees
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/1920-1937-arctic-winter-temperatures-up-5-7-degrees/)1937: Arizona Struck By Rain, Hail and Dust Storms
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y5pfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kjEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1680,3866388&dq=arizona+dust-storms&hl=en)1937: Heat Wave Brings 114 Degrees In Saskatchewan, Canada
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hO8uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5NsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4405,4290741&dq=spain+heat-wave&hl=en)1937: "Huge Forest Fire In Canada"
(http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/1937-massive-forest-fire-saskatchewan)1937: Mississippi Flood Forced Evacuation Of 600,000 People
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/1937-mississippi-flood-forced-evacuation-of-600000-people/)1937: 45 MPH Wind Storm Blasts Evansville, Indiana After Super-Flood Hits
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=P_tlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WUgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1625,1835395&dq=wind-storm&hl=en)1937: Eastern Canada Suffers From Snow & Dust Storm Combination
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rSVkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y3sNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3955,3817854&dq=arizona+dust-storms&hl=en)1938: Monster Hurricane Surprises Then Slams NY and New England
(http://www.weatherbell.com/jd/?p=715)1938: Extreme Winter Weather Drives Wolves From Mountains Into Romanian Villages
(http://www.real-science.com/wolves-invade-london)1938: February "Tornado Demolishes Village" In Louisiana
(http://www.real-science.com/february-tornadoes-never-used-to-happen)1938: 5 Dead After 14-Day Old Hurricane Strikes Near San Francisco
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZmZeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F2ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=1225,5403842&dq=wind-storm&hl=en)1938: Soviet Explorers Say “World Climate Growing Warmer”
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/1938-soviet-explorers-world-climate-growing-warmer/)1938: Melting Ice Caps To Raise Sea Level 100 Feet - Islands Will Disappear
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/1938-melting-ice-caps-to-raise-sea-level-100-feet/)1938: Tornadoes Wreak Havoc Across 5 States
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/a-safe-and-stable-climate-at-310-ppm-co2/)1938 : Surging Floods In China Kill 150,000
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/1938-safe-co2-levels-drown-hundreds-of-thousands-of-chinese/)1938: Chinese 'Dust Bowl' - No Rain In Szechuan For A Year – One Million Starving To Death
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/1938-no-rain-in-szechuan-for-a-year-one-million-starving-to-death/)1938: Worst Drought In 150 Years Hits Europe - "Dispels War Clouds Over Europe"
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/1938-worst-drought-in-150-years-hits-europe/)1938: Three Major Forest Fires Burning Up Kentucky
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LR1BAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UqgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5095,5394805&dq=forest-fires&hl=en)1938: "Unprecedented Drought," Wildfires In Everglades Threaten Property & Lives
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pu5QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bjsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6127,4498999&dq=everglades+drought&hl=en)1938: Severe Drought Threatens Russian Harvest
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/1938-extreme-drought-in-russia/)1938: Drought Spreads From Texas To Canada
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/1938-drought-from-texas-to-canada/)1938: Heat Wave Grips America - 110 Degrees In Dakotas Reached
(http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QWVeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I2ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=1177,665057&dq=heat-wave+china&hl=en)1938: U.S. Suffers A Forest Fire Every 3 Minutes During 1938
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/1939-a-forest-fire-every-three-minutes-in-the-us/)1938: "Pacific States Swept By Fires" - 600 Fires Burning Forests
(http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/july-1938-600-forest-fires-burning-simultaneously)1938: Great New England Hurricane Delivers 800 Deaths & Massive Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_New_England_Hurricane_of_1938)

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 01:10 AM
CO2 was @ 310 ppm at the time.


Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 01:18 AM

And in 1889 the highest December temperature on record for Iowa was set at 67 degrees. Must have been all those cows emitting methane, I suppose. Or maybe, just maybe--like today--it had something to do with the sun and/or other natural factors.

In 2012 the HIGH temperature on Christmas day in Dubuque was 18 degrees.

Dubuque, IA
on Tuesday, December 25, 2012


January February March April May June July August September October November December
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994

Previous Day (http://weather.mercurynews.com/auto/mercurynews/history/airport/KDBQ/2012/12/24/DailyHistory.html)
Next Day (http://weather.mercurynews.com/auto/mercurynews/history/airport/KDBQ/2012/12/26/DailyHistory.html)

Daily Summary



Mean Temperature

Max Temperature
58°F (1936)

Min Temperature
-19°F (1879)

Degree Days

Heating Degree Days

Month to date heating degree days

Since 1 July heating degree days

Cooling Degree Days

Month to date cooling degree days

Year to date cooling degree days


Dew Point

Average Humidity

Maximum Humidity

Minimum Humidity


0.00 in
0.05 in
0.68 in (2009)

Month to date precipitation

Year to date precipitation


0.00 in
0.40 in
in ()

Month to date snowfall

Since 1 July snowfall

Snow Depth
8.00 in


Wind Speed
10 mph

Max Wind Speed
20 mph

Max Gust Speed
22 mph

10 miles


Key: T is trace of precipitation, MM is missing value

Source: NWS Daily Summary

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 01:25 AM
Newspaper clip here (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/1934-hottest-year-on-record-until-hansen-adjusted-it-downwards/) reports over 600 killed from heat in Midwest that year. In a city in Oklahoma the temperature reached 117 degrees after 36 days IN A ROW where the temperature exceeded 100 degrees!

I lived in Palm Springs during the early 1980's. It is in the Southern California desert. In the summer it is among the hottest places on the planet. Why wouldn't it be: it is the DESERT. We had a solid week in 1981 or 1982
where the temperature never fell below 100 degrees. That was 7 days solid before it broke. But, Oklahoma? That's not even desert. Over 100 degrees for 36 days in a row in 1934.

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 02:06 AM

Source: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/36712632

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 02:16 AM
The US Census Bureau released figures indicating that there were over 3,000 more deaths due to extreme heat wave conditions spanning 86 cities in one week in 1936 than were
recorded in the worst heat week in 1934.

See article here (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screenhunter_42-jun-24-09-32.gif).

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 02:38 AM
My point to all this, of course, (and I can easily go on from here) is that it is not very difficult to show "alarming" data biased toward one's own agenda. The problem with drawing conclusions based on same is obvious:
Data is only as good as the interpretation accompanying it. Moreover, the independent analysis of it must be solidly based in GOOD scientific practices. Where any examples of similar systemic behavior of climate exist
separate from the presumed "forcing factors" being argued by MMGW proponents, a re-evaluation of the hypothesis is in order. Rather, what we have here is a stubborn "Church of Climatology" doctrine being promoted
irrespective of fatal flaws being employed in direct opposition to Scientific Method.

Greg Burnham
01-18-2013, 03:15 AM
Source: NOAA (http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf).gov

Lauren Johnson
01-20-2013, 05:28 PM
My point to all this, of course, (and I can easily go on from here) is that it is not very difficult to show "alarming" data biased toward one's own agenda. The problem with drawing conclusions based on same is obvious:
Data is only as good as the interpretation accompanying it. Moreover, the independent analysis of it must be solidly based in GOOD scientific practices. Where any examples of similar systemic behavior of climate exist
separate from the presumed "forcing factors" being argued by MMGW proponents, a re-evaluation of the hypothesis is in order. Rather, what we have here is a stubborn "Church of Climatology" doctrine being promoted
irrespective of fatal flaws being employed in direct opposition to Scientific Method.

Greg, In many ways your points are spot on and well taken IF climate change science were the fraud that you believe it to be.

I don't. I don't intend to argue the point. I will continue to post what I consider to be relevant and you of course are invited to do the same.

From a deep political point of view, I regard climate change as a very effective weapon for the continuance of The Agenda, while following the model of gaining money and power while breaking something and then doing the same thing while fixing it. I suspect the elites buy into climate science. They just want to weaponize it.

Greg Burnham
01-20-2013, 08:31 PM
My point to all this, of course, (and I can easily go on from here) is that it is not very difficult to show "alarming" data biased toward one's own agenda. The problem with drawing conclusions based on same is obvious:
Data is only as good as the interpretation accompanying it. Moreover, the independent analysis of it must be solidly based in GOOD scientific practices. Where any examples of similar systemic behavior of climate exist
separate from the presumed "forcing factors" being argued by MMGW proponents, a re-evaluation of the hypothesis is in order. Rather, what we have here is a stubborn "Church of Climatology" doctrine being promoted
irrespective of fatal flaws being employed in direct opposition to Scientific Method.

Greg, In many ways your points are spot on and well taken IF climate change science were the fraud that you believe it to be.

I don't. I don't intend to argue the point. I will continue to post what I consider to be relevant and you of course are invited to do the same.

From a deep political point of view, I regard climate change as a very effective weapon for the continuance of The Agenda, while following the model of gaining money and power while breaking something and then doing the same thing while fixing it. I suspect the elites buy into climate science. They just want to weaponize it.

In my view and in the view of many actual climate scientists who are not beholden to those who provide the funding for their salaries, the evidence does NOT support the conclusions relied upon by alarmists, namely, that:

1) CO2 is a "pollutant"
2) there has been any significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere
3) humans contribute more than a minute amount to increased atmospheric CO2
4) CO2 is a "forcing factor" that is dramatically effecting climate

...among others.

The evidence does NOT support the 4 conclusions above. If that is true, then our climate may well be "normal" for all intents and purposes--and most probably it is. The sun, ocean currents, and water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) contribute
far more to the climate than humans will ever be capable--even if we were to attempt it with all our might. Short of blasting off all nukes at one time, or over a relatively short period of time, we cannot control the climate.

January in San Diego is about the same as it's always been. Last year it was a little cooler, this year a little warmer. But, that's how it has always been--some years it's a bit cooler and some a bit warmer.

Peter Lemkin
01-20-2013, 09:37 PM
We have been too kind to those who are destroying the planet.
We have been inexcusably, unforgivably, insanely kind.
-Derrick Jensen

These are Jensen's opening remarks from the Nov. 2011 Earth At Risk Conference........

What is the problem?

There’s a sense—a very real and overwhelmingly devastating sense—in which you could say that the problem is that this culture is killing the planet. One hundred and twenty species were driven extinct today. Another 120 will be driven extinct tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after. Ninety-seven percent of native forests are gone. Ninety-nine percent of native grasslands. Amphibian populations are collapsing, migratory songbird populations are collapsing, mollusk populations are collapsing, fish populations are collapsing, and so on. Nearly all rivers in the US (and world) are dammed. Dams are the death of rivers. There are two million dams in the United States alone: with 60,000 dams over 13 feet tall and 70,000 dams over 6 and a half feet tall. If we took out one of those 70,000 dams every day it would take two hundred years to remove those dams. And the salmon don’t have that time. Sturgeon don’t have that time. Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are gone. There is six to ten times as much plastic as phytoplankton in much of the oceans. The oceans are being acidified. The oceans are being murdered. Big cats are going. Great apes are going. Vertebrate evolution has effectively been ended by this culture. The world is being poisoned: there is dioxin (and many other carcinogens) in every (human and nonhuman) mother’s breast milk. More than half of the fish in many rivers are changing genders because of endocrine disrupting chemicals put out by this culture. And of course humans have grotesquely overshot carrying capacity, and are committing unparalleled drawdown.

And our response is utterly incommensurate with the multiple crises we face.

There’s a sense, however, in which the fact that this culture is killing the planet isn’t so much the problem as it is the ultimate expression of this insane culture’s deeper problem, which is that it is omnicidal. It doesn’t “just” destroy every nonhuman community it encounters, but it also destroys other human cultures: human languages are being driven extinct at an even greater relative rate than nonhuman species. It dispossesses or otherwise destroys indigenous cultures. It harms women: the gold standard studies reveal that 25 percent of all women in this culture have been raped in their lifetimes, and another 19 percent have had to fend off rape attempts.

Not every culture has destroyed its landbase. The Tolowa Indians, on whose land I live, lived here for at least 12,500 years, if you believe the myths of science. If you believe the myths of the Tolowa, they lived here since the beginning of time. Likewise, not every culture has had such extraordinarily high rates of rape, in fact many cultures, prior to conquest by this culture, have had either extraordinarily low rates of rape, or have been rape free. The same is true for child abuse.

Why do members of this culture act as they do? Well, we can discuss (and I have in book after book) reason after reason, whether it is this culture’s system of social rewards (it generally socially rewards behaviors that benefit the individual at the expense of the group, rather than behaviors that benefit the group as a whole), which leads inevitably to competition, and ultimately to atrocious behavior; or whether it is that a way of life based on constant conquest gives that culture a short-term competitive advantage over other groups who are organized sustainably (if you cut down forests and mine mountains to make war machines, you will probably have a more well-equipped army than a group that does not do this: this is not a hypothetical example: the forests of North Africa, to provide one example among far too many, were felled to build the Phoenician and Egyptian navies), while of course leading to the collapse of landbase after landbase; or whether it is that a way of life based on the importation of resources can never be sustainable; or whether it is that a way of life that produces waste products that do not benefit the natural world can never be sustainable; or whether it is, as many indigenous peoples (for example, Jack Forbes, as in his wonderful book Columbus and Other Cannibals) suggest, that members of the dominant culture are insane, or suffer from a spiritual illness that turns them into types of vampires or zombies who need to consume the souls of others in order to survive. All of those and other suggestions make some sense to me. But I guess for now I’ll just say that many indigenous peoples have said to me that the fundamental difference between western and indigenous ways of being is that most westerners perceive the world as consisting of resources to be exploited, as opposed to other beings to enter into relationship with. And this is crucial, because how you perceive the world affects how you behave in the world. There is a great line by a Canadian lumberman: when I look at trees I see dollar bills. If when you look at trees you see dollar bills, you will treat them one way. If when you look at trees you see trees, you will treat them differently. And if when you look at this particular tree you see this particular tree, you’ll treat it differently still. So part of the problem is that members of this culture perceive the world as consisting of resources. This is insanely narcissistic, indeed sociopathic. And of course it is destructive.

Which leads to the final thing I guess I want to say for now, which is that another part of the problem is, and this is of course in line with the narcissism and sociopathy, perceived entitlement. This culture as a whole perceives itself as entitled to take whatever it is it wants. And many of its members individually perceive themselves as entitled to take whatever it is they want. God gave man dominion over the earth, after all. And it doesn’t much matter whether you believe God gave man dominion over the earth, or whether you believe, as one social change author puts it, that “We humans are Creation’s most daring experiment,” or whether you believe, as Richard Dawkins put it, that “Science boosts its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command,” (which means that the very epistemology of this culture is based on enslaving others, on forcing them to jump through hoops on command), if you believe you are somehow superior to these others—and it doesn’t matter whether these others are nonhumans, women, children, the indigenous, members of other races or classes: anyone other than the “Chosen People”—then you can easily come to believe that it is acceptable for you to take what these others have, including their bodies, including their lives. So I guess for now I’d say a significant part of the problem includes beliefs in male supremacy and entitlement, which certainly leads to the atrocities of this rape culture; white supremacy and entitlement, which certainly leads to the race-based atrocities we see, whether they are the horrors of the Middle Passage, or the current rates of incarceration of African-Americans in the United States; imperial supremacy and entitlement, which certainly leads to the atrocities of colonialism; civilized supremacy and entitlement, which certainly leads to the ongoing dispossession and extermination of land-based peoples the world over; and finally (for now) human supremacism, the belief that humans are separate from and superior to nonhumans, and the consequent belief that somehow it is acceptable to destroy nonhuman communities, which certainly leads to the ecocide we see around us at every turn.

I want to put this one more way, and I want to be very clear about this. If you asked ten thousand scientists if they believed that all of evolution has taken place so that humans could come into being, I’m sure the overwhelming majority would say no. They might even laugh at the absurdity of the question. But when they were finished laughing, and got back to work, what would they do? Most likely their work consists of in some way contributing to, as Dawkins put it, science’s “spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command.” So if you judge the answers not by what these scientists say—not by mere rhetoric—but by what they do—by their actions—the answer from an equally overwhelming majority would be a resounding yes: you cannot act as though the world consists of resources to be exploited unless you believe—deeply, oftentimes beyond conscious statement—the world was made (or evolved) for you. I recently got into an argument with a high school science teacher who believes this culture won’t collapse, because “we will find better and better ways to exploit our resources and maintain our way of living while still protecting our forests and oceans and the rest of our environment.” Leave aside the utter lack of historical or current evidence for this possibility, and leave aside that humans have grossly exceeded carrying capacity, meaning his statement is also physically impossible, and just focus on his language: exploit; our resources; our forests and oceans; our environment. I pointed out to him that forests and oceans are not ours but that they belong to themselves, and have lives and relationships all their own. I pointed out to him that resources do not exist, that perceiving a tree or fish or river as a resource means you are, as he stated, perceiving it as something to be “exploited” and not as something with its own life, own desires, independent of him, that was not put here for him. No matter how many times I explained it, he could not understand. Even though he does not believe in Christianity, and even though he does not believe God created the world for him, or that God created the world at all, his belief that the world was made for him to use remains such a deeply fundamentalist article of faith that it is entirely invisible to him: from his perspective it is not faith, but simply the way the world is, and it is utterly inconceivable to him that any other way of perceiving is possible, even when at least one other way has been laid out before him. I may as well have been quacking like a duck.

The fundamental religion of this culture is that of human dominion, and it does not matter so much whether one self-identifies as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Scientist, or just a regular member of this culture, one’s actions will be to promulgate this fundamentalist religion of unbridled entitlement and exploitation. This religion permeates every aspect of this culture. This is a big problem, a problem big enough that it is killing the planet.


Lauren Johnson
01-24-2013, 05:54 AM
USN are big believers in climate change.


Magda Hassan
01-24-2013, 01:00 PM
USN are big believers in climate change.

And they are one of the biggest causes of it. All their bloody air-conditioned tents in the Middle East and Asia and gas guzzling tanks and other hardware. Insane.

Lauren Johnson
01-24-2013, 08:28 PM
USN are big believers in climate change.

And they are one of the biggest causes of it. All their bloody air-conditioned tents in the Middle East and Asia and gas guzzling tanks and other hardware. Insane.

Titley's speech is of course absurd. He wants the Navy to be as carbon neutral and indeed the rest of the planet as carbon neutral as possible so that our fine young men and women in uniform can continue to dominate the planet.

From Peter's post above:
There’s a sense, however, in which the fact that this culture is killing the planet isn’t so much the problem as it is the ultimate expression of this insane culture’s deeper problem, which is that it is omnicidal.

Greg Burnham
01-24-2013, 09:35 PM
What I believe and, in some cases, know to be true:

1) Planetary survival is not threatened by human activity

2) The continued survival of humans and other species is threatened by aggressive, power mongering, human activity

3) Human inhabitability of planet Earth could become threatened by seemingly innocuous human activity, but not the Earth itself

4) The human contribution to global and regional pollution is evident, it is irresponsible, sometimes dangerous, and in most cases, (but not all--at this time) avoidable

5) Irresponsible public policy toward pollution is driven by the Central Bank's "need under our present system" for an ever expanding economy, which is entirely driven by (consumer and government) debt

6) Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a trace element in the atmosphere, essential to all life...

7) Carbon Dioxide is not a forcing factor on climate

8) Carbon Dioxide has become "the patsy" for Wall Street banking interests who will be trading Carbon Credits for cash to prop up their depleted so-called "reserves"

In the absence of real contributions to their fellowman's well being, environmental alarmists opt to create straw men with which to wage pseudo battles against insurmountable opposition in order to avoid doing anything of real consequence.

My advice: Volunteer your time at a local hospital; or care for the homeless; or spend a day at a local beach, lake, or river cleaning up the litter from the shore; adopt a highway and clean it up; ...put up or shut up.


Lauren Johnson
01-27-2013, 05:35 AM
A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.
The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.
Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Some commentators believe that such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate scepticism – some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.
The Knowledge and Progress Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised fund", meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.

Anonymous private funding of global warming sceptics, who have criticised climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobi (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-kochtopus-stifled-green-debate-8466316.html)l. One such organisation, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch, claimed that the "Climategate" emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate chang (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/top-climate-scientist-denounces-billionaires-over-funding-for-climatesceptic-organisations-8467665.html)e, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Dr Brulle said: "We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.

"By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise."


Jan Klimkowski
01-27-2013, 10:43 AM
A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.
The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.
Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Ah the luverly Koch Brothers.

DPF has a thread on them here (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?8655-Koch-Brothers&highlight=koch).

Lauren Johnson
01-30-2013, 05:19 PM
In the Northern Atlantic south of Iceland, an extratropical storm that brought up to 6" of snow to Maryland on Thursday has put on a remarkable burst of rapid intensification over the past 24 hours, with the center pressure dropping 58 mb in 24 hours. The Free University of Berlin, which names all major high and low pressure systems that affect Europe, has named (http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/de/wetter/maps/anabwkna.gif) the storm "Jolle." This meteorological "bomb" was analyzed with a central pressure of 988 mb at 12Z (7 am EST) Friday morning by NOAA's Ocean Prediction Center (http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/A_sfc_full_ocean.jpg), and hit 930 mb by 7 am EST Saturday morning. The storm may deepen a few more millibars today, but it is close to maximum intensity. A 930 mb central pressure is what one commonly sees in Category 4 hurricanes, and is one of the lowest pressures attained by an Atlantic extratropical storm in recent decades. Since extratropical storms do not form eyewalls, the winds of the massive Atlantic low are predicted to peak at 90 mph (Category 1 hurricane strength), with significant wave heights reaching 52 feet (16 meters.) The powerful storm brought sustained winds of 52 mph, gusting to 72 mph, to Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/BIVM/2013/01/26/DailyHistory.html) at 6 pm local time Saturday. Fortunately, the storm is expected to weaken dramatically before Jolle's core hurricane-force winds affect any land areas.

Figure 1. Winter Storm Jolle, as seen at 10 am EST January 26, 2013. Three hours prior to this image, Jolle was analyzed with a central pressure of 930 mb--one of the lowest pressures in recent decades for an Atlantic extratropical storm. Image credit: Navy Research Lab, Monterey.

According to wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt's post on (http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/htdocs_dyn_pregen_sat/PUBLIC/nexsat/pages/Europe/Latest.html)Super Extratropical Storms (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/article.html?entrynum=49), the all-time record lowest pressure for a North Atlantic extratropical storm is 913 mb, set on January 11, 1993, near Scotland's Shetland Islands. The mighty 1993 storm broke apart the super oil tanker Braer on a rocky shoal in the Shetland Islands, causing a massive oil spill.

Other notable Atlantic extratropical storms, as catalogued by British weather historian, Stephen Burt:

920.2 mb (27.17”) measured by the ship Uyir while she sailed southeast of Greenland on December 15, 1986. The British Met. Office calculated that the central pressure of the storm, which was centered some distance southeast of the ship, was 916 mb (27.05”).

921.1 mb (27.20”) on Feb. 5, 1870 measured by the ship Neier at 49°N 26°W (another ship in the area measured 925.5 mb)

924 mb (27.28”) on Feb. 4, 1824 at Reykjavik, Iceland (the lowest on land measured pressure in the North Atlantic)

925.5 mb (27.33”) on Dec. 4, 1929 by the SS Westpool somewhere in the Atlantic (exact location unknown)

925.6 mb (27.33”) on Jan. 26, 1884 at Ochtertyre, Perthshire, U.K. (the lowest pressure recorded on land in the U.K.)

For comparison’s sake, the lowest pressure measured on land during an extra-tropical storm in the United States (aside from Alaska) was 952 mb 28.10” at Bridgehampton, New York (Long Island) on March 1 during, the Great Billy Sunday Snowstorm. (http://whitesbog2.blogspot.com/2010/02/great-blizzard-of-march-1-1914.html)

Figure 2. Infrared satellite image of the North Atlantic Storm of January 11, 1993 at 0600Z when it deepened into the strongest extra-tropical cyclone ever observed on earth, with a central pressure of 913 mb (26.96”). Satellite image from EUMETSAT Meteosat-4.

You can see a nice AVHRR image (http://saturn.unibe.ch/rsbern/noaa/dw/realtime/n1b/N19_20130126124538-fc-corrected.jpg) of the east side of the storm at the University of Bern (http://saturn.unibe.ch/rsbern/noaa/dw/realtime/n1b/). The raw MODIS pass is here. (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=crefl1_143.A2013026131000-2013026131500.1km.jpg)

The Meteorological Institute of Norway (http://www.yr.no/satellitt/europa_animasjon.html) has a nice satellite animation of Jolle.

Wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt's posts on Super Extratropical Storms (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/article.html?entrynum=49) and World and U.S. Lowest Barometric Pressure Records

Claudio Cassardo's January 23, 2013 post, (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/article.html?entrynum=50)Very low minima of extratropical cyclones in North Atlantic (http://claudiocassardo.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/very-low-minima-north-atlantic/)

Read my story (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=304) of what it was like to fly though a 936 mb Atlantic low pressure system on January 4, 1989.

Intense winter storms are expected to increase in number due to climate change
In my 2010 blog post, The future of intense winter storms (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1441), I discuss how evidence for an observed increase in intense wintertime cyclones in the North Atlantic is uncertain. In particular, intense Nor'easters affecting the Northeast U.S. showed no increase in number over the latter part of the 20th century. This analysis is supported by the fact that wintertime wave heights recorded since the mid-1970s by the three buoys along the central U.S. Atlantic coast have shown little change (Komar and Allan, 2007a,b, 2008). However, even though Nor'easters have not been getting stronger, they have been dropping more precipitation, in the form of both rain and snow. Several studies (Geng and Sugi, 2001, and Paciorek et al., 2002) found an increase in intense winter storms over both the North Atlantic, but Benestad and Chen (2006) found no trend in the western parts of the North Atlantic, and Gulev et al. (2001) found a small small decrease of intense winter storms in the Atlantic.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a scientific advisory board created by the President and Congress, concluded this in their 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report (http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change#key8): "Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent". The USGRP concluded that an increase of between four and twelve intense wintertime extratropical storms per year could be expected over the Northern Hemisphere by 2100, depending upon the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air (Figure 3). If we assume that the current climate is producing the same number of intense winter storms as it did over the period 1961-2000--about 53--this represents an increase of between 8% and 23% in intense wintertime extratropical storms. Two studies--Pinto et al. (2007) and Bengtsson et al. 2006 (http://www.cima.fcen.uba.ar/%7Ecarolina/ictp1877/bengtsson_etal2006.pdf)--suggest that the more intense winter cyclones will affect only certain preferred regions, namely northwestern Europe and Alaska's Aleutian Islands. At least three other studies also find that northwestern Europe--including the British Isles, the Netherlands, northern France, northern Germany, Denmark and Norway--can expect a significant increase in intense wintertime cyclones in a future warmer world (Lionello et al., 2008; Leckebusch and Ulbrich 2004; and Leckebusch et al., 2006). None of these studies showed a significant increase in the number of intense Nor'easters affecting the Northeast U.S.

Figure 3. The projected change in intense wintertime extratropical storms with central pressures < 970 mb for the Northern Hemisphere under various emission scenarios. Storms counted occur poleward of 30°N during the 120-day season beginning November 15. A future with relatively low emissions of greenhouse gases (B1 scenario, blue line) is expected to result in an additional four intense extratropical storms per year, while up to twelve additional intense storms per year can be expected in a future with high emissions (red and black lines). Humanity is currently on a high emissions track. Figure was adapted from Lambert and Fyfe (2006), and was taken from Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-Chapter3.pdf), a 2009 report from the the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The USGRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change".

Jeff Masters


Peter Lemkin
02-10-2013, 07:58 AM
4323An epic blizzard is bearing down on New England — fed in part by relatively warm coastal waters.

I asked Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to comment on the role climate change has on this storm. He explained:

This is a perfect set up for a big storm, with the combination of two parts: a disturbance from the Gulf region with lots of moisture and a cold front from the west.
Ingredients for a big snow storm include temperatures just below freezing. In the past temperatures at this time of year would have been a lot below freezing but the ability to hold moisture in the atmosphere goes down by 7% per degree C (4% per deg F), and so in the past we would have had a snow storm but not these amounts.
The moisture flow into the storm is also important and that is enhanced by higher than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs). These are higher by about 1 deg C [almost 2°F] than a normal (pre-1980) due to global warming and so that adds about 10% to the potential for a big snow.

Every storm and “event” is unique. It always has unique ingredients. So it is hard if not impossible to take apart, because any piece missing means the storm behaves differently. So event attribution is not well posed. Instead we look for the environment in which the storm is occurring and how that has changed to make conditions warmer and moister over the oceans.

Like a baseball player on steroids, our climate system is breaking records at an unnatural pace. And like a baseball player on steroids, it’s the wrong question to ask whether a given home run is “caused” by steroids. As Trenberth wrote in his must-read analaysis, “How To Relate Climate Extremes to Climate Change,” the “answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

On the warmer SSTs, Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman explains:

As was the case when Hurricane Sandy struck in late October, sea-surface temperatures are running a couple degrees above average off the East Coast, which according to climate scientists may reflect both natural climate variability and the effects of manmade global warming.

The presence of unusually warm waters could aid in the rapid development of the storm system, and infuse it with additional moisture, thereby increasing snowfall totals.

Heavy precipitation events in the Northeast, including both rain and snowstorms, have been increasing in the past few decades, in a trend that a new federal climate report links to manmade global climate change. As the world has warmed, more moisture has been added to the atmosphere, giving storms additional energy to work with, and makingprecipitation extremes more common in many places.

Sea surface temperature anomalies off the East Coast. Credit Wunderground/NOAA via CC.

The blizzard is also pulling in an extraordinary amount of moisture, which is consistent with recent trends in the Northeast toward more frequent one-day precipitation extremes during the cold season, including snowstorms. The satellite-derived image of total precipitable water shows that the storm has been drawing tropical moisture from the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean

Trenberth’s second point is an important one — warmer than normal winters favor snow storms (See “We get more snow storms in warm years“). A 2006 study, “Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States“ found we are seeing more northern snow storms and that we get more snow storms in warmer years:

The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000…. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity….

Assessment of the January-February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71%-80% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years…. a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901-2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) U.S. Climate Impacts Report from 2009 reviewed that literature and concluded, “Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.

So it is no surprise that a 2012 study found extreme snowstorms and deluges are becoming more frequent and more severe. Freedman points out:

For the northern hemisphere as a whole, winter storms have become more common and intense during the past 50 years, according to the draft federal report. Observed changes in winter air circulation in the northern hemisphere, possibly related to Arctic sea ice loss, has been linked to large swings in seasonal snowfall from one winter to the next in the Northeast. Other studies indicate that as global warming continues, nor’easters such as the one about to hit New England may become more frequent in this region, and less common in the Mid-Atlantic states, as storm tracks shift closer to the poles.

Again, the Northeast has been especially vulnerable to deluges and Snowmaggedons, experiencing a sharp increase in one-day precipitation extremes during the October to March cold season:

The other big impact of global warming on the destructiveness of superstorms like this (and Sandy) is sea level rise:

The coastal flooding threat for this storm in New York pales in comparison to what it was during Hurricane Sandy, when large parts of the city’s iconic subway system flooded in the face of a record storm surge, and many New Yorkers drowned in flood waters.

Rising sea levels due to warming seas and melting ice caps are already making typical nor’easters such as the upcoming event more damaging, since they provide the storms with a higher launching pad for causing coastal flooding. According to the draft National Climate Assessment report released in January, even without any changes in storms, the chance of what is now a 1-in-10-year coastal flood event in the Northeast could triple by 2100, occurring once every 3 years, due to rising sea levels.

According to research by Climate Central scientists, the sea level trend in Boston Harbor from 1959 to 2008 in Boston Harbor has been 2.31 milimeters per year, which is slightly below the global average over the same period. In the past 50 years, the water level has risen by about 4.5 inches at that location, although it has increased much more in other spots along the northeastern coast.

On Nantucket Island, where coastal flooding is anticipated from this storm along with hurricane-force winds, the sea level has risen by about half a foot during the past 50 years.

People should take the weather forecasts of this storm seriously and act accordingly.

Similarly, the nation should take seriously the climatic projections of ever worsening storms from global warming — and act accordingly.

Lauren Johnson
02-12-2013, 04:19 AM
CHAKBARA, BANGLADESH—It is hard to imagine Shamisur Gazi sprinting up a tree. He is 86, has a hump on his back and, at the best of times, he needs a cane to walk.

But people do extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances.

On May 25, 2009, a few hours before Cyclone Aila hit Bangladesh and India, Gazi remembers the rain — it was relentless, it came down in brown sheets and visibility was barely two metres.

The wind was fierce, but toward mid-afternoon, it suddenly picked up more momentum and began toppling houses and hurling fences. Within minutes, Gazi knew that if he didn’t find refuge, he would be blown away.

Gazi climbed a palm tree.

He doesn’t remember how he did it or how long it took. But he did it. He stayed there for six hours as the wind howled and giant waves surged.

Climate change means higher temperatures, more rain, stronger winds. It will trigger a migration unlike anything the world has seen.

As it gradually render parts of Asia and Africa uninhabitable, as many as 250 million people — seven times the population of Canada — will be forced to move by 2050, experts predict.

They will go from deserts to places where water is less scarce, the land not so arid; from coasts, they will move inland, where they are safe from cyclones and tidal waves. They will move from flatlands to higher ground, where sudden storm surges don’t flood their villages and destroy farmland with salt water.

They will leave to look for jobs and for safety.

They will migrate to neighbouring towns and cities; some will leave for neighbouring countries. Some will also leave for countries far away. But they will leave — they won’t have a choice.

The worst-case scenario is predicted for the Maldives and other small islands in the Pacific. Those islands will disappear, as early as the end of this century.

It is already happening: the sea level has risen 20 centimetres in the past century in the Maldives, say scientists who fear in another 100 years, it will rise an additional 56 centimetres.

But the biggest migration is expected to be in Bangladesh.

Rising sea levels, a result of melting glaciers, could flood 17 per cent of the country — or erode the land — and create between 20 million and 30 million refugees by 2050, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC is a scientific body assessing climate change for more than 190 countries. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. vice president Al Gore.)

Bangladesh also faces more extreme weather patterns: monsoon rains are already shorter and fiercer; the periods of drought longer. Tornadoes and cyclones are more powerful, more devastating.

“All this could happen faster because of lack of reduction of greenhouse gases,” says Atiq Rahman, one of the authors of the IPCC report. “And even if we stopped now, it would take a lot of time for things to get better.”

Rahman lives in Dhaka. His office in the chic Gulshan neighbourhood is crammed with dozens of maps and graphs showing Bangladesh’s predicament.

He uses one to explain why Bangladesh is Ground Zero: geographically, the country is flat, especially in the south. Its 150 million people live in the delta of three mighty rivers — the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna — and the majority of the country sits a scant six metres above sea level; some coastal areas are barely three to four metres above sea level. By the end of the century, experts say part of the country could be under water.

But the issue is not just disappearing land. According to the IPCC, rising sea levels will wipe out more cultivated land in Bangladesh than anywhere else in the world. By 2050, rice production — a dietary staple in the country — is expected to drop almost 10 per cent and wheat production as much as 30 per cent. That’s a huge risk for a population that is poor and growing. Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh and one of the authors of the IPCC report, says climate change poses a quadruple whammy for Bangladesh.

The country faces rising sea levels in the south, more annual flooding in the central region because of stronger monsoons, drought in the northwest, and inadequate water for rice production, due to a shorter monsoon season, in the east.

“We face (climate change) challenges in every corner of the country,” says Huq. “The convergence of climate-related factors has created the ultimate storm here.”

It is a storm that Bangladesh didn’t create, but one it will have to deal with.

Cyclone Aila certainly wasn’t the first cyclone to hit Bangladesh.

Every year, there are typhoons, there are cyclones. Most of the land is barely above sea level; every storm sweeps across the country without obstacles and tidal surges batter the coast. People lose everything: their animals, their crops, their homes.

In the past, resilient Bangladeshis would have built new huts, bought more livestock, stockpiled food and carried on.

But Aila was different.

It hit the country less than 18 months after Cyclone Sidr, which inhaled dozens of villages, killed hundreds and flooded coastal regions. People were still picking up the pieces when Aila struck.

Aila killed 300 people, inundated dozens of villages with a three-metre storm surge and destroyed 4,000 kilometres of roads and embankments.

It also brought in saline water from the Bay of Bengal, making the soil unfit for agriculture, the livelihood of most rural people.

That saline water never receded.

“There was no choice . . . people had to leave,” says Majid Khan, 52.

He lives in Baringa, a village of about 600 in southwest Bangladesh, less than a kilometre from a river that makes its way into the Bay of Bengal. It is like every village near the coast: there are mud-caked huts, children in tattered clothes on the streets, fields that no one plows anymore and fish ponds where no one fishes.

In Baringa, villagers used to earn a living growing rice or gathering fish eggs in ponds scattered throughout the village.

Saline water wrecked even that.

Before Aila made landfall, Khan and his four sons earned a “good living” collecting fish eggs. “We were OK, we were happy . . . everyone lived in the same house,” says Khan, wiping away tears. After Sidr, they tried fishing in the sea but never caught enough; then they lost their fishing net in a storm.

A few months after Aila, three of his four sons left with their wives: two went to Dhaka, one to Jessore. Two work in construction, one pulls a rickshaw. It is a rough life and they hate what they are doing, says Khan. “This (the village) is their life, this is what they wanted to always do. . . .”

Khan, too, almost left. But he couldn’t abandon his 90-year-old mother.

He walks out to see the Bay of Bengal every day. From his vantage point, there are signs the water is rising. “Look at those,” he says, pointing at stone steps leading to a mud hut near a bank. When he was growing up, he could count 15; now, it is just a dozen.

Khan is no scientist or climatologist but he knows something is happening.

“I don’t think my great grandkids will see their village . . . It will be gone,” he says.

Salt has contaminated the drinking water supply. Aid workers say water-related illnesses are rising. Malaria is up, so is dengue fever. Research shows elevated incidence of high blood pressure, especially among women, and problems during childbirth.

In nearby Gabura, Roshan Ara, a shy 34-year-old, says she left the village when grey sludge deposited by Aila destroyed her shrimp ponds. The same thing happened to hundreds of thousands of shrimp ponds in the area, she says.

She moved to Satkhira, a town of narrow streets, chaotic traffic and shanties about 120 kilometres inland. A farmer’s daughter and a farmer herself, Ara now works as domestic help and earns less than $15 a month. She sends half of it to her parents.

“I want nothing more than to come back here, but I don’t think it will ever happen,” she says, throwing her hands up in despair during a visit to Gabura. “Because villages like mine will disappear. What did we do wrong?”

Bangladeshis, like others in developing countries, are least responsible for climate change but among the worst affected by it.

In Bangladesh, the issues are compounded by population density and poverty, says James Pender, a missionary who wrote an exhaustive paper in 2010 on Bangladesh and the impact of climate change. The country’s dependence on agriculture makes it much more vulnerable, he says.

About 35 per cent of the population lives under the poverty line of $1 a day, and about 40 per cent depend on agriculture for a living.

(Pender has lived in Bangladesh for years and has focused on climate change adaptation.)

Food production will be “particularly sensitive to climate change, because crop yields depend directly on climatic conditions,” wrote Pender. In tropical areas, even a tiny increase in warming will reduce the harvest. Higher temperatures will lead to large declines in wheat and rice production around the world.

Bangladesh is one of the world’s most densely populated countries at about 1,200 people per square kilometre. (In Canada, it’s 3.7 people per square kilometre.) With so many people, it can scarcely afford to lose farmland. Lost land means less land for a growing population and less farmland to feed them.

But not everyone agrees with such dire predictions.

“There is an emerging pattern but it is tough to say how much land (will become submerged), how many people will move,” says Babar Kabir, senior director of disaster environment and climate change with BRAC, the world’s largest NGO, which has offices in every district in Bangladesh.

“(Migration) is not happening to the degree we think it is.”

He is sitting in his ninth floor office at the BRAC building in Dhaka. But Kabir spends a lot of time in coastal villages, where residents are being taught new livelihoods.

For instance, after Cyclone Sidr, BRAC gave rice farmers money to buy tiny crabs, which were fattened up and sold back for export to other Asian countries. “The project did well,” says Kabir. “It showed other uses for land if it can’t grow crops.”

But he knows people are moving to higher, safer ground.

All migration is “not climate-change related,” he argues; there is economic migration, too. “People are leaving certain areas where they can no longer sustain a living,” he says.

Still, he concedes that agriculture affected by changing weather patterns is a main reason for these migrations.

While rising seas and eroding soil may be eating into this country’s land, some scientists point out that more than one billion tonnes of sediment has been brought into the delta by the Himalayan rivers. The sediment can counter the rise in sea levels, says Maminul Haque Sarker, executive director of the Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services in Dhaka.

After the IPCC’s doomsday report, the agency conducted its own research and concluded much of the country’s coastline will survive. “Sediment plays a role in the growth, it always has in this country,” says Sarker. “They have shaped our coast for thousands of years.”

Rahman acknowledges the IPCC report did not include the impact of sediment deposit, but he discounts its impact.

“Even if sediments save some part of the coast from going under water, that area can never be used for agriculture,” he says. “There is too much turbulence there.” There is another kind of turbulence in coastal villages.

It is a social change that bothers Pintu Bhai.

Bhai, 51, lives in the sprawling village of Munshiganj, about five kilometres from the coast, and runs a grassroots environmental group. He regularly visits coastal villages and worries about the skewed gender ratio, and the women left behind.

He says some women are abandoned because the men never return. Children are growing up without their fathers.

Lately, armed bandits have been stealing livestock from these areas. “They know there are few men left so no one will fight back,” Bhai says. “It’s dangerous.”

Then there are prowling tigers from the adjacent Sundarbans mangrove forest, believed to be one of the largest reserves in the world for the endangered Bengal tiger.

Tigers rarely used to leave the forest, but changing tide patterns have driven away some of their prey and made it easier and necessary for them to roam. Now, they sometimes come to the villages at night. There are supposed to be tiger lookouts, but Bhai says there are not enough people to stand guard.

But humans are also invading tigers’ space. As traditional livelihoods have dwindled, some villagers have taken to gathering wild honey in the thick of the Sundarbans forest.

Mohammad Robiul Islam, 35, lost a cousin to a tiger two years ago. “He was in the forest when he was attacked,” says Islam.The death hasn’t deterred other villagers from venturing into the forest to earn the equivalent of a few dollars a month.

There aren’t many other ways to earn a living here, says Islam. “You either move to the cities or live here and take risks.”

Back in Chakbara, Gazi also faces an impossible choice: to leave the land where he was born, raised and spent more than eight decades, or move to the city to be with his children and grandchildren.

Life has become harder in the past few years, but he knows it could be even tougher in the city. And he would also miss the tempestuous Bay of Bengal, he says.

A warm, good-natured man with a short beard and a wry smile, he says he would have liked his sons to stay in his village.

“All I wanted was to grow old with my children and their children. But now they are gone and I don’t think they will ever return.”

The palm tree, the one that saved his life during Aila, is still there.

When he climbed down, his coastal village in southwest Bangladesh had changed forever: houses were decimated, livestock drowned. The village was submerged.

Four years later, Gazi is still there. The houses have been rebuilt, as has the school, but the population has dwindled to about 500 from 800 before Aila.

Many of those gone are men, who have left behind women, children and elders. They work as labourers or pull rickshaws in nearby towns such as Jessore, Satkhira and Khulna; the enterprising ones have gone to the capital, Dhaka, to work in construction. Yet others have crossed the border to India, where they live in fear of being exposed as illegal immigrants and thrown into prison.

It is the same story in nearby villages, and in much of rural southwest Bangladesh.

Gazi’s two sons are in Dhaka with their families. Gazi is clinging to village life the way he did the palm tree. It is the only existence he knows, but he realizes he soon may not have a choice but to leave. “Climate change has wrecked everything,” he says. “Our people are living in other towns and cities, like refugees.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/09/bangladesh_faces_mass_migration_loss_of_land_from_ climate_change.html

Greg Burnham
02-13-2013, 03:50 PM
Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifA Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifCauses of Global Climate Change
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifPlaying with Numbers
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifA Matter of Opinion
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifUnraveling the Earth's Temperature Record
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifStopping Climate Change

A Brief History of Ice Ages and WarmingGlobal warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America from Asia.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor24446) Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gifOver the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.
Courtesy of Illinois State Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/)
During ice ages our planet is cold, dry, and inhospitable-- supporting few forests but plenty of glaciers and deserts. Like a spread of collosal bulldozers, glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional ecosystems not once, but several times. During Ice Ages winters were longer and more severe and ice sheets grew to tremendous size, accumulating to thicknesses of up to 8,000 feet!. They moved slowly from higher elevations to lower-- driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. They left in their wake altered river courses, flattened landscapes, and along the margins of their farthest advance, great piles of glacial debris.
During the last 3 million years glaciers have at one time or another covered about 29% of Earth's land surface or about 17.14 million square miles (44.38 million sq. km. (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_9/GEO_CHAPTER_9.HTML)) . What did not lay beneath ice was a largely cold and desolate desert landscape, due in large part to the colder, less-humid atmospheric conditions that prevailed.
During the Ice Age summers were short and winters were brutal. Animal life and especially plant life had a very tough time of it. Thanks to global warming, that has all now changed, at least temporarily.

( view full size map) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html)
The World 18,000 Years AgoBefore "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forestswere rare.
Not a very fun place to live.

(view full size map) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/present_interglacial.html)
Our Present World"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to agarden. Today extreme deserts and glaciershave largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:
manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect. What does geologic history have to offer in sorting through the confusion?Quite a bit, actually.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"If 'ice age' is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances." Illinois State Museum (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/)
Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.

Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig1.html) Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor29241)
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."

Dr. John R. Christy (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html)
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/smokestacks.gifGlobal warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."
Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?

Causes of Global Climate ChangeClimate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.
"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) to Earth's greenhouse effect.
Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 (http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0517011.htm) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Maya_Civilization_Done_In_By_Brightening_Of_The_Su n.pdf)year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sunspots_and_climate.pdf))
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html#precession) )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html#tilt) )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Milankovitch_Cycles.pdf))

(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

For more details see:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Remote_corals_reveal_100k_year_climate_cycle.pdf)

Playing with NumbersGlobal climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperaturesshow no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.
Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001 (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/sayonara_kyoto.htm), insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the"urban heat island effect" (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/satanic5.pdf)). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).

A Matter of OpinionHas manmade pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra, consider the following:


Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html)
1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image167_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
(view full-size image) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
Figure 1

2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica (http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/ees/climate/labs/vostok/), CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been on the increase for 18,000 years. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not a primary driver of the temperature changes (9).
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html)
Figure 2

3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
Figure 3

4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html). Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former President Bill Clinton (http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/08/global_warming.html)in a 1997 address to the United Nations http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gifNobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...
former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/An_inconvenient_truth.pdf)May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html)
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/)
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/turner.htm) and his $1 billion "gift" http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
Unraveling the Earth's Temperature Record
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image194a.gifBecause accumulating layers of glacial ice display annual bands which can be dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can be determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long have been extracted from permanent glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to determine not only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of entrapped hydrogen and oxygen.
ice core photo by: Vin Morganhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/UTAS.pdf)
Palaeo Environment (Ice Cores) Field Work (http://marinescience.its.utas.edu.au/)Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 1900 it has been determined that from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years.


Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig3.html)
As illustrated in this final graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.


Temperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice volume. Based on data from J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig5.html) The Polar Ice Cap Effecthttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image195.gifAs long as the continent of Antarctica exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably will be repeatedly pulled back into glacial ice ages (http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html). This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain great thickness over open ocean, can and do achieve great thickness over a polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the equator, but over geologic time has moved by continental drift (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/continents.html) to its present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking over the climate and growing bigger during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off the effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar radiation to be reflected back into space, which acts to perpetuate global cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of even more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly important role in ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free global circulation of equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the continents today, as it was during the Carboniferous Ice Age (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole 300 million years ago.
Stopping Climate ChangePutting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" (http://www.zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/l13i.html) , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.
Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis (http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/igs/seddies/francis/), who maintains:

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image89.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image90.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html)


Monte HiebThis site last updated October 5, 2007

Table of Contents

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image38.gif (mhieb79@geocraft.com)...EMAIL COMMENTS TO: mhieb77@geocraft.com (mhieb79@geocraft.com)References
(1) A scientific Discussion of Climate Change (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=78), Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
(2) The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html); Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives
(3) Statement Concerning Global Warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html)-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(4) Excerpts from,"Our Global Future: Climate Change (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Wirth_10-97_Our_global_future.html)", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate Change Campaign (http://globeint.org/html/climate%20change/cc.html)
(5) Testimony of John R. Christy (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/jchristy.html) to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.
(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
(8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.
(9) Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be; CO2 Science;
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003; http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.phphttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_lags_behind_Temps.pdf)

Additional Reading
Understanding Common Climate Claims (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf): Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global Emergencies.
Geological Constraints on Global Climate Variability: (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf) Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format presentation. 8.5 MB.
Thoughts of Global Warming: (http://www.junkscience.com/news/jonker.htm) "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.
NOAA Paleoclimatology: (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/) An educational trip through earths distant and recent past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the causes of climate change.
Cracking the Ice Age: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/) From the PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global warming.
Little Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/solariceage.jsp) From the online magazine, "CO2 Science."
Solar Variability and Climate Change: (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91) by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000
Earth's Fidgeting Climate: (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm) NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

Lauren Johnson
02-13-2013, 05:01 PM
Disinformation about Global Warming

Feature (http://www.csicop.org/si/archive/category/feature)

David Morrison (http://www.csicop.org/author/davidmorrison)

Volume 34.2, March / April 2010 (http://www.csicop.org/si/archive/category/volume_34.2)

For the past decade I have followed the growing evidence for climate change and global warming, talking to colleagues who are atmospheric scientists and at*tend*ing presentations by leading scientists at professional meetings such as the American Association for the Advance*ment of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Rarely in that time did I meet anyone who seriously disagreed with the growing consensus about global warming and the threats it imposes. This past October, however, I found these ideas disputed by both fellow skeptics and some in the audience we were speaking to. This was a shock, and it made me look again at the claims of the warming dissenters. I would like to share some of what I learned.

There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation about global warming on the Internet, driven in part by political and economic issues. These political and economic aspects are complex, and relatively few scientists understand them in detail. It is important to remember that climate is long term by definition; trends in climate require at least a decade to reveal themselves. Thus we can understand the climate trends in the 1990s pretty well but not yet in the 2000s.

One of the goals of the deniers seems to be to sow confusion and give the impression that the science behind global warming is weak. This disinformation campaign is at least partly successful; polls (for example, the 2009 Pew/AAAS poll, SI, November/December 2009) show that about half the people in the United States think there is substantial disagreement among scientists, when actually there has been a consensus on this topic for about a decade. The scientific case becomes stronger all the time, but public acceptance is lagging. Most of the counterarguments don’t make scientific sense, or else they are based on information that is obsolete. It is fine to be skeptical, but we need to be concerned when skepticism drifts into denial.

This is not the place to make the case for global warming; that is done very well in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See especially the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and Frequently Asked Questions posted at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm). Instead, I list below (in bold) some “red-flag” arguments from global warming deniers that can help you spot disinformation.

We should not worry about carbon dioxide since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. This statement misrepresents the heating process. It is the carbon dioxide (and methane) that controls the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is highly variable and essentially follows the carbon dioxide, providing a positive feedback that amplifies the effects of carbon dioxide.
What we are seeing are “natural variations” caused primarily by variations in solar output. This is false; we have been monitoring solar energy for a quarter century, and the variations are taken into account in all the climate models. Most of the temperature variations up to the beginning of the twentieth century can be traced to small changes in solar output, plus long-term cyclical changes in Earth’s orbit and short-term cooling associated with large volcanic eruptions. There are also heating and cooling events associated with El Nino and other shifts in the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Since mid-century, however, the rapid heating from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is overwhelming these “natural” cycles.
The apparent increase in temperature is an artifact caused by the fact that much of the data are from cities, which are warmer than their surroundings. This is also wrong; the “heat island” effect has been corrected in plots of global temperatures. A great deal of scientific effort is going into understanding and combining the various measurements of temperature to produce a consistent data set, combining direct measurements on the ground and from space with indirect “proxy” information, for example from isotopic measurements that track temperature very closely. Also, of course, there are large-scale effects of rising temperature that are easily seen, such as retreat of glaciers, melting on the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
While temperatures seem to have been rising in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), they are dropping in the stratosphere. People who say this don’t realize that this is the expected signature of greenhouse warming (because greenhouse gases in the troposphere impede the flow of radiant heat from Earth’s surface to the stratosphere). If there were an external cause, such as increased energy from the Sun, both troposphere and stratosphere would be heating. Today’s computational models allow greenhouse warming to be distinguished from other causes and reveal the primacy of greenhouse warming over the past several decades.
Human activity and volcanic eruptions both add to the cloud cover and cause more sunlight to be reflected from the atmosphere. This largely counteracts any heating from the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric pollution, both natural (from volcanoes) and human-caused (from smoke and other aerosols), does influence temperature, reflecting sunlight and reducing the warming we would have from increased greenhouse effect alone. Without these contributions to cooling, the added greenhouse heating would be significantly greater than what we measure. There are also temperature increases caused by darkening of the surface, because more sunlight is absorbed. As the ice melts in the Arctic Ocean, the dark water absorbs a great deal more sunlight, an effect that will accelerate future global warming. http://www.csicop.org/uploads/images/si/Morrison-fig-1.jpg
The warming trend during the 1990s is no big deal; temperatures are actually lower than they were in the medieval warm period. This is wrong; over at least the past few thousand years, temperatures have never been as high as they are today. By the middle of the twentieth century the temperature passed the record highs from about a thousand years ago, and they have been rising ever since, taking us into unknown climate territory. http://www.csicop.org/uploads/images/si/Morrison-fig-2.jpg
While there was warming in the 1990s, this has stopped and the world is now beginning what may be a long-term cooling cycle. This is a misinterpretation of the temperature measurements. There are always short-term fluctuations in global temperature superimposed on the the overall warming trend. Those who say the temperature has plateaued or is cooling over the past decade start with the anomalously high temperature in 1998, reflecting a major El Nino event that year. If you adopt such a high temperature excursion as your baseline, of course the values tend to be lower for the next several years (called the regression to the mean). But putting aside the temperature spike in 1998, temperatures during the past decade have continued the warming trend of the 1990s.
More carbon dioxide is good, since it makes plants grow better. This might be true if we could increase carbon dioxide without greenhouse heating, but high temperatures are not good for most plants. In addition, the increase in carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans, which can destroy coral reefs or have deleterious effects on zooplankton, on which much ocean life depends. Over much of the Earth, localized long-term droughts caused by global warming will have a major negative effect on plants.
There is no consensus; many scientists disagree about global warming. This is not true at all. Dissenters have published hardly any peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past decade. The dissenters are mostly not climate scientists, and they have offered no alternative models to explain the data. The national academies of science in all of the industrialized countries have endorsed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents a strong scientific agreement on both the reality of global warming and the challenges it implies.
How can we trust climate scientists when numerous e-mails from the U.K. climate scientists show that they have distorted their data and actively suppressed dissenting opinions? These stolen e-mails from a British climate center reveal how real scientists work, warts and all. People write things in personal e-mails that they would never want published. There is no evidence, however, of fudging or suppressing the climate data. There appear to have been efforts to influence editors of scientific journals not to publish papers by global-warming deniers. At one level this is exactly what scientists normally do: vet papers through the peer-review process to weed out poor science. If the actions go further and represent impropriety, that will be revealed by the current investigation. But there is nothing in this controversy that undercuts the overwhelming scientific consensus about human-caused global warming.

Finally, let me comment on the role of the skeptic. (See also Stuart Jordan, “The Global Warming Debate: Science and Scientists in a Democracy (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/global_warming_debate_science_and_scientists_in_a_ democracy),” SI, November/December 2007, and Jordan’s response to several global warming disputers in “Response to ‘Assessing the Credibility of CFI’s Credibility Project (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/response_to_assessing_the_credibility_of_cfis_cred ibility_project/),’” SI, January/February 2010.) Note that I have said nothing about future warming trends, rises in sea level, or warming-induced increases in the severity of storms. As the saying goes, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. It is certain that warming will continue since temperatures are dominated by the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In spite of promises, there has been no reduction in the rate of CO2 production, and even if governments take drastic action we will continue to pump out lots of greenhouse gases at least through the middle of this century. In addition, the climate system itself has inertia, and the warming lags the CO2 concentration by ten to fifteen years. There are also major uncertainties about feedback effects, especially from warming in the polar regions, which might accelerate melting ice and contribute to release of CO2 and methane from the tundra. Scientists have tried to model these processes, and their simulations agree for the next ten to twenty years. Beyond that, the models diverge, however, due both to uncertainties in the computations and to differences in the assumptions made. It is reasonable to be skeptical about specific predictions, especially after 2030, but that should not blind us to what is happening to our planet now.

The IPCC reports and the peer-reviewed articles they reference are the basic resources for this article. In addition to the IPCC materials, I recommend two reliable Web sites: RealClimate—Climate Science from Climate Scientists, available at www.realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org), and SkepticalScience—Examining the Sci*ence of Global Warm*ing Skepticism, available at www.skepticalscience.com (http://www.skepticalscience.com).

David Morrison is a long-time NASA senior scientist and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow. He now divides his time between the SETI Institute and the NASA Lunar Science Institute. He hosts the "Ask an Astrobiologist" (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/) column at NASA's website.


Lauren Johnson
02-28-2013, 09:52 PM
We are on the cusp of a tipping point in the climate. If the global climate warms another few tenths of a degree, a large expanse of the Siberian permafrost will start to melt uncontrollably. The result: a significant amount of extra greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and a threat – ironically – to the infrastructure that carries natural gas from Russia to Europe.

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet (http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/), and climatologists have long warned that this will cause positive feedbacks that will speed up climate change further. The region is home to enormous stores of organic carbon, mostly in the form of permafrost soils (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html) and icy clathrates (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17625-as-arctic-ocean-warms-megatonnes-of-methane-bubble-up.html) that trap methane – a powerful greenhouse gas that could escape into the atmosphere (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21830-release-of-arctic-methane-could-accelerate-warming.html).

The Siberian permafrost is a particular danger. A large region called the Yedoma could undergo runaway decomposition (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0221-x) once it starts to melt, because microbes in the soil would eat the carbon and produce heat, melting more soil and releasing ever more greenhouse gases (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0572-8). In short, the melting of Yedoma is a tipping point: once it starts, there may be no stopping it.

For the first time, we have an indication of when this could start happening. Anton Vaks (http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/people/profiles/research_fellows/antonv) of the University of Oxford in the UK and colleagues have reconstructed the history of the Siberian permafrost going back 500,000 years. We already know how global temperatures have risen and fallen as ice sheets have advanced and retreated, so Vaks's team's record of changing permafrost gives an indication of how sensitive it is to changing temperatures.

Stalagmite record

But there is no direct record of how the permafrost has changed, so Vaks had to find an indirect method. His team visited six caves that run along a south-north line, with the two southernmost ones being under the Gobi desert. Further north, three caves sit beneath a landscape of sporadic patches of permafrost, and the northernmost cave is right at the edge of Siberia's continuous permafrost zone.

The team focused on the 500,000-year history of stalagmites and similar rock formations in the caves. "Stalagmites only grow when water flows into caves," Vaks says. "It cannot happen when the soil is frozen." The team used radiometric dating to determine how old the stalagmites were. By building up a record of when they grew, Vaks could figure out when the ground above the caves was frozen and when it wasn't.

As expected, in most of the caves, stalagmites formed during every warm interglacial period as the patchy permafrost melted overhead.

But it took a particularly warm interglacial, from 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, for the stalagmites in the northernmost cave to grow – suggesting the continuous permafrost overhead melted just once in the last 500,000 years.

At the time, global temperatures were 1.5 °C warmer than they have been in the last 10,000 years (http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606291103). In other words, today's permafrost is likely to become vulnerable when we hit 1.5 °C of global warming, says Vaks.

"Up until this point, we didn't have direct evidence of how this happened in past warming periods," says Ted Schuur (http://www.biology.ufl.edu/ecosystemdynamics/Schuur.html) of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

It will be very hard to stop the permafrost degrading as a warming of 1.5 °C is not far off. Between 1850 and 2005, global temperatures rose 0.8 °C, according to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). Even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, temperatures would rise another 0.2 °C over the next 20 years. That would leave a window of 0.5 °C – but in fact our emissions are increasing. What's more, new fossil fuel power stations commit us to several decades of emissions.

Soggy permafrost

What are the consequences? The greatest concern, says Tim Lenton (http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=Timothy_Lenton) of the University of Exeter in the UK, is the regional landscape. Buildings and infrastructure are often built on hard permafrost, and will start subsiding. "Ice roads won't exist any more."

The increasingly soggy permafrost will also threaten the pipelines that transport Russian gas to Europe. "The maintenance and upkeep of that infrastructure is going to cost a lot more," says Schuur.

As for the methane that could be released into the atmosphere, Schuur estimates (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/480032a) that emissions will be equivalent to between 160 and 290 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

That sounds like a lot, but is little compared to the vast amount humans are likely to emit, says Lenton. "The signal's going to be swamped by fossil fuel [emissions]."

He says the dangers of the permafrost greenhouse gases have been overhyped, particularly as much of the methane will be converted to carbon dioxide (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21130-thawing-microbes-could-control-the-climate.html) by microbes in the soil, leading to a slower warming effect.

Schuur agrees with Lenton that the methane emissions are "not a runaway effect but an additional source that is not accounted in current climate models".

Journal reference: Science (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228729), DOI: 10.1126/science.1228729

Lauren Johnson
03-29-2013, 03:31 PM
By James Stafford, editor of OilPrice. Cross posted from OilPrice
At a time when extreme weather incidents are causing billions in damages, businesses, governments and the public need the right information to make the right decisions. The bad news is that nature of superstorms like Hurricane Sandy has a human fingerprint. The good news is that if man is harming the climate, man can also do something about it.

Dr. John Abraham is a thermal sciences researcher and professor at the University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota who has straddled many worlds in his quest for answers to climate change, from working with the US defense industry to pro-bono work creating low-cost energy solutions to Africa’s remote areas.

Dr. Abrahams discusses:
• What climate change REALLY means
• How the Earth’s warming bears a human fingerprint
• How we can do something now about climate change, with today’s technology
• How and why the public remains ill-informed on the issue
• How Hurricane Sandy can be viewed from the climate change spectrum
• How the Earth’s warming has a human fingerprint
• Where the silver lining in all of this is
• Why Keystone XL will probably (but shouldn’t) be green-lighted
• How ‘micro-wind’ may be a hot seller in our renewable future
• How the future could see a merger of interests in the fossil fuel and alternative energy sectors

James Stafford: It is hard to imagine that our industrialization is NOT contributing to climate change in some significant way; still, this message meets with myriad roadblocks when attempting to portray it to a non-scientific public. And politics has hijacked the debate to an extent that has polarized the public. What should the message be, and how should it be delivered? Is the polarization irreversible?

John Abraham: First, the main message is:
1. Humans are causing climate change, we’ve know that for well over 100 years
2. We can do something about it now, with today’s technology
3. If we make smart decisions, not only will we help the climate, we will create jobs, improve national security, and diversify our energy supply
4. Doing nothing about the problem is a choice, with tremendous costs

Now, you are right, what should be a scientific issue has become a political issue. There are a number of reasons for that. It is clear that a lot of money is spent by organizations that want to ensure we do not invest in clean renewable energy or conservation. But that isn’t the entire story.

A major indicator of how people feel about climate science is how they view collective action. Persons who think working together on a shared problem (like energy and climate) can lead to exciting and profitable solutions are much more likely to accept the science. People who reject collective action or government intervention are much less likely to accept the science. The real tragedy is that many people in this latter category could develop the technologies to lead us into the energy future; instead they have held our country back. We are now at a technological disadvantage and every year we delay taking action increases the future costs to ourselves and our children.

James Stafford: Earlier this month, we conducted an interview (https://mail.stthomas.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=ILULWA5SDECKZJ7cqVraIAyl0yPn_c8IvLVuo Xiq_EwVhaOgp5tVZayr_qVjpipYiKKc5lEFItM.&URL=http%3a%2f%2foilprice.com%2fInterviews%2fClima te-Change-without-Catastrophe-Interview-with-Anthony-Watts.html) with former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose thoughts on climate change have been very controversial. Watts describes himself as a “pragmatic skeptic” on climate change. In your opinion, why is this “pragmatic skepticism” so controversial and how do you think it contributes to the dynamics of the climate change debate?

John Abraham: The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.

Let me expand on this by going back to his interview. Mr. Watts’s claimed that:
“Global warming” suggests a steady linear increase in temperature, but since that isn’t happening, proponents have shifted to the more universal term “climate change,” which can be liberally applied to just about anything observable in the atmosphere.

First, scientists have never predicted a linear increase in temperature–we are not that naive. Things are much more complex than that.

Mr. Watts also argues that “proponents” have shifted from using the phrase global warming to “climate change”. He didn’t bother telling you that this was actually suggested by a conservative consultant, Frank Luntz, as a way to reduce public concern. Ironically, “climate change” is a better description of what is happening, and climate scientists use it to be more accurate. Let me give you some examples….
• We are causing the ocean chemistry (pH) to change–that isn’t warming or cooling (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification).
• We are causing some areas to become wetter and others to become drier–again, not warming.
• We are increasing humidity in the atmosphere.
• We are cooling the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5764/1138.short).
• We are making weather swings more severe (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract?systemMessage=Pay+Per+View+will+be+unavai lable+for+upto+3+hours+from+06%3A00+EST+March+23rd +on+Wiley+Online+Library.+We+apologise+for+the+inc onvenience).
• We are losing polar ice at a rapid rate (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5764/1138.short).
• Warmer oceans make hurricanes more severe here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07234.html) and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008303/abstract).

In these areas, and others, the changes are not just “warming” but the far more complex reality: the climate is changing.

Mr. Watts and others who deny that humans are a major cause of climate change have helped to create an environment where scientists are attacked mercilessly for their science. I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues. How can we encourage young scientists to go into this field when they are promised personal attacks and vilification? Fortunately, young bright scientists go into this field anyway and I am excited about the new crop of young minds that are rising through the ranks.

James Stafford: Watts spends a great deal of time discussing the “heat sink” effect in urban areas. Can you offer us an alternative view on what this means in terms of climate change?

John Abraham: This issue has been the calling card of Mr. Watts. Unfortunately, he did not disclose much in his comments.
• He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper (http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf) on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
• He didn’t tell you that other groups have looked at this issue and made similar conclusions.
• He didn’t tell you that recently a Koch-funded study looked at this issue and concluded that the real climate scientists were right: locations of temperature sensors didn’t matter.
• He didn’t tell you that he initially supported the Koch-funded study (http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/) until the results were made known.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the atmosphere made by weather balloons and satellites agree the Earth is warming.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the ocean show a significant and long-term increase in temperature.
• He didn’t tell you that the vast majority of glaciers (http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/summary.pdf) are losing ice, as are Greenland and Antarctica (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012/20121226_GreenlandIceSheetUpdate.pdf).
• Finally, he didn’t tell you that in the last 30 years, approximately 75% of the Arctic ice (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/) which remains at the end of the melting season has disappeared.

It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.

James Stafford: Would you describe your own view as “pragmatic”?

John Abraham: I work mainly in the private sector, and I am strongly motivated by the belief that while we are causing climate change, we can do meaningful things right now to slow it down. I am also truly pragmatic.

One outcome of being pragmatic is that I search for efficient and low-cost solutions to our problems. If someone were to show me that adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation, I would support adaptation. If someone were to show me that the “solutions” to climate change are more expensive than just ignoring it, I would opt for ignoring it.

I have, however, come to a few conclusions on this topic. It is clear that climate change is happening, humans are a main cause, and the consequences will be expensive. It is also clear that the public is not well informed on this topic. When we are not well informed, we are likely to make poor decisions. It is also clear to me that many of the solutions to climate change involve wiser use of our energy supplies and, as a result, we will save money.

Much of my work is pro bono. I have travelled to Africa multiple times, bringing low cost energy to remote locations at my own expense. I do not want to be accused of using energy/environmental issues to my own benefit. A fact that would surprise my detractors is that I have also worked for many years for the defense industry.

James Stafford: Is there any way to remove the “camp” element from the issue of climate change? How far do disastrous weather events—like Hurricane Sandy—go towards reshaping the climate change debate.

John Abraham: It is a piece of irony that a few weeks before superstorm Sandy hit, Mr. Watts wrote to me, forwarding demeaning comments in response to an interview I had given about hurricanes becoming more powerful in a warming world. In his remarks to you he stated…
The idea that Hurricane Sandy, a minor class 1 storm, was somehow connected to CO2-driven ‘climate change’ is ludicrous.

Well, scientists studying this disagree with him. As the oceans warm, hurricanes become more severe. They have increased rainfall, more intense winds, and higher storm surges. We can even quantify some of the impacts. With respect to Sandy, the human impact was likely about 8-10 inches of the storm surge, about 15% of the precipitation, and the very warm oceans (partly human caused) off the Eastern Coast made Sandy larger and travel further north than it otherwise would have.

Finally, it is likely that Sandy took an unusual turn westward because of pressure zones caused by the loss of Arctic ice. So, were it not for humans, Sandy may never have hit the US at all! It isn’t just me saying this, it is experts in the field. There are many articles that clearly show human emissions are increasing extreme weather events.

In your interview with Mr. Watts, he claimed that the IPCC reports no “trends at all” in severe weather. He must not have read the IPCC reports, which state otherwise. The next IPCC report, called the AR5 report was leaked to the public early, partially with the help of Mr. Watt’s own website. Nevertheless, he must not have read the report. But it isn’t only the IPCC report that discusses extreme weather, it is other scientific articles like this one (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.abstract), this one (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0441-5), or this one (http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/25-2_greene.html). There are many many other articles that clearly show human emissions are increasing extreme weather events.

I look at the price tag of Sandy, and the price tag of the devastating drought of 2012, and the similar Texas/Oklahoma heat waves of 2011 and I ask two questions: First, are humans partly to blame for these expensive disasters (over $100 billion)? Second, if we are, is there something we should do about it?

My answer to those two questions is yes. I believe we can solve this problem with today’s technology. I think we can choose to use energy more wisely and efficiently. I think we can expand clean energy generation and power much of our country from the farm fields of the Midwest, create jobs, improve national security, and diversify our energy portfolio.

James Stafford: How is the issue of global warming, or climate change, being manipulated by the media in both directions?

John Abraham: No one wants to damage the environment and persons in the media don’t want to report poorly. But many media people believe that their duty is to “show both sides equally” as if this were some debate about foreign policy or which soda tastes better. Climate science, as all climate scientists know, is complicated. It takes years of study to understand the interconnections within the climate. When faced with this complexity, it is much easier to just find two representatives of each side to tell their story. Unfortunately, this leads to public misunderstanding, and the belief there is more controversy or uncertainty than actually exists.

Perhaps more important though is the ideology problem. Many people, Mr. Watts included, are committed to an ideology that precludes the ability to objectively view the science. As a result, they convey incorrect information to their readers who then are not able to make informed decisions. The business community is left with an information vacuum and there will be financial consequences because of this. The business community deserves better information than they are getting. They deserve to be armed with real facts so that they can make good decisions to protect their investments and their society.

James Stafford: Ultimately, then, do we have the ability to accurately determine how much of global warming is attributed to man-made causes and how much is evolutionary climate change, so to speak?

John Abraham: Well the first science on greenhouse gases was performed in the mid 1800s. This isn’t a “new” science. It is well tested. It isn’t just that the Earth is warming that convinces scientists. It is warming in the way scientists have anticipated. It has the fingerprints of humans. It doesn’t have the fingerprints of natural causes like the sun or changes to the Earth’s orbit – indeed, scientists have ruled out the possibility that natural causes can explain what we are observing worldwide. These two factors, more than anything else, have convinced scientists that humans are mainly responsible.

While that seems like bad news, there is a silver lining: it means we can take meaningful action to slow climate change. What would be more depressing, knowing that we are changing the climate but that we can do something about it or thinking the changes were natural and mistakenly thinking we were powerless?

James Stafford: Are there any genuine environmental concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline? Are there genuine long-term climate concerns over this pipelines dirty tar sands content?

John Abraham: In order to avoid the most serious and expensive consequences of climate change, we need to reduce carbon emissions. Expansion of Keystone is not consistent with that goal. The total amount of oil in the Alberta Tar sands is equivalent to six Saudi Arabia’s. Mr. Watts and others have claimed that the oil will be burned regardless but just because this statement is uttered doesn’t make it true. Approval of Keystone will increase production by about 35-40% and it will lock us into a long-term supply of the dirtiest of the dirty fossil fuels. Not only are Alberta tar sands dirtier than conventional oil, but their by-product (petroleum coke) is being used as a dirty replacement of coal.
Rather than approve this pipeline, and further contribute to driving society over the climate cliff, we should invest in long-term clean renewable energy production right here in the United States. If we did this, we would receive the economic benefits and the world’s climate would improve at the same time.

James Stafford: Will Keystone XL eventually be green-lighted? Do we really need it?

John Abraham: We don’t know what the Administration will decide: my personal belief is that it will be approved and the Obama Administration will propose a quid pro quo approach to the environment–approving Keystone but enacting other policies to reduce emissions. The problem is that a quid pro quo doesn’t help the climate. It changes a fast burn to a slow simmer. From a political standpoint, if the Obama Administration, with John Kerry as Secretary of State, cannot say “no” to the dirtiest of the dirty fuels, it would show that we cannot say no to anything. I hope I am wrong about this.

James Stafford: There is a lot of discussion right now about “Snowball Earth”—an event 635 million years ago in which Earth was covered by ice and now this was apparently reversed by an ‘ultra-high carbon dioxide atmosphere’. What can we learn from this and how can this contribute to the ongoing climate debate?

John Abraham: We have learned that the Earth’s climate has shifted radically in the past for natural reasons. Indeed, we have a good understanding of these changes. These shifts have occurred over very long periods of time. Human society has developed very recently, in a remarkably stable climate, and our infrastructure is tailored to the present conditions. We need to be mindful of pushing the climate into one of its wild swings that would cause significant economic costs.

Interestingly, the Earth recovered from “snowball” conditions by the same greenhouse gases we are concerned about now. It is a testament to the power of carbon dioxide.

James Stafford: Is nuclear power dead? Should it be dead? There is much talk about the development of smaller, safer reactors. How far are we from developing and commercializing new nuclear technology?

John Abraham: Perhaps the only thing Mr. Watts and I agree upon. Nuclear power can produce energy without reliance upon sometimes unreliable wind or sunshine. It can provide a low carbon alternative to coal. I think we should invest in the development of the next generation nuclear reactors that can play an important role in supplying a clean-energy portfolio.

James Stafford: You have been involved in numerous alternative energy projects. Which alternative energy sector has the most potential over the next 5 years … over the next decade?

John Abraham: I am particularly interested to see where microwind power goes. I have numerous articles on this topic here (http://jrse.aip.org/resource/1/jrsebh/v3/i3/p033109_s1?isAuthorized=no), here (http://jrse.aip.org/resource/1/jrsebh/v3/i3/p033109_s1?isAuthorized=no), and here (http://jrse.aip.org/resource/1/jrsebh/v4/i4/p042703_s1?isAuthorized=no) for examples. This technology has the potential of supplying energy at the production site: to businesses, homes, telecommunication equipment, and other infrastructure.

James Stafford: Did the US jump the gun on the ethanol mandate? There seems to be a consensus emerging that we weren’t quite ready for this on a number of levels. There are two bills in Congress attempting to either delay or reverse this mandate and the commercialization of E15. What do you predict the outcome of this will be?

John Abraham: I wrote an important paper (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786450903056370?journalCode=gsol20&&) on this very topic in 2009. We looked at how viable corn ethanol is and compared it to other biofuel sources. We concluded that at best, corn-based ethanol is a bridge fuel that can help the development of the next generation of plant-based fuels which use less water and can be harvested on marginal lands.
James Stafford: Is there any room for a merger of interests here between the fossil fuels industry and the alternative energy industry?

John Abraham: When we can show that clean and renewable energy is the engine that will provide economic opportunity in the future, fossil fuel companies will, I hope, work to bring to market those technologies which not only produce energy, but create jobs and improve the climate. We aren’t there yet but there is always hope.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/real-pragmatism-for-real-climate-change-interview-with-dr-john-abraham.html#RSBYTts03ExvLhHa.99

Lauren Johnson
05-22-2013, 08:34 PM

The scientific agreement that climate change is happening, and that it's caused by human activity, is significant and growing, according to a new study published Thursday (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024). The research, which is the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date, found that 97.1% of the studies (http://www.theconsensusproject.com/) published between 1991 to 2011 that expressed a position on manmade climate change agreed that it was happening, and that it was due to human activity.

The study looked at peer reviewed research that mentioned climate change or global warming. Peer review is the way that scientific journals approve research papers that are submitted. In peer review, group of scientists that weren't involved in the study, but who are experts in the field, look at the research being submitted and have approved that it meets scientific process standards, and the standards of that journal.

In 2011, 521 of those peer reviewed papers agreed that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause. Nine papers in 2011 disagreed.

John Cook, founder of skepticalscience.com (http://www.skepticalscience.com) and the lead author on the study, said the motivation for the analysis was the importance of scientific consensus in shaping public opinion, and therefore policy. "When people understand that climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to support climate policy," Cook said. "But when the public are asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer is around 50%."

This "consensus gap" is what Cook and the research team is trying to close. "Raising awareness of the scientific consensus is a key step towards meaningful climate action," Cook said.

This study is not the first to examine the overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. Surveys of actively publishing climate scientists (http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp) as well as analyses of climate change papers have shown similar results.

In 2004 Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, published what many scientists consider the seminal study on climate change consensus (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full). She also co-authored the book Merchants of Doubt (http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/), which identifies and examines the similarities between today's climate change conversation and previous controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer.

Oreskes believes that the public isn't aware of the consensus because of deliberate efforts to cause confusion. "There has been a systematic attempt to create the impression that scientists did not have a consensus, as part of a broader strategy to prevent federal government action," Oreskes said. "The public have been confused because people have been trying to confuse us."

The study published Thursday is the first to take so many papers and authors into account. Doing a search on the popular science article website Web of Science (http://wokinfo.com/) for "climate change" or "global warming" produces over 12,000 results. Of these, 4,014 papers were identified to state a position on climate change. Among those, 3,896, or 97.1% endorsed the consensus that climate change was happening and that it was caused by human activity.

In an interesting result, Cook and his team found that over time, scientists tend to express a position on climate change less and less in their research papers. This is likely a result of consensus -- that if a scientific conclusion has been reached, there's no need to continue to state that conclusion in new research. "Scientists tend to take the consensus for granted," says Cook, "perhaps not realizing that the public still think it's a 50:50 debate."


Greg Burnham
08-22-2013, 05:09 AM
2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps
from July 24 to August 19, 2013


UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

By: Marc Morano (http://www.climatedepot.com/author/marcmorano/) - Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/)August 21, 2013 9:34 PM
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares (http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/13/ignorant-skeptics-un-scientist-prof-trenberth-says-only-poorly-informed-scientists-disagree-with-un-appeals-to-authority-the-ipcc-has-spoken/a/3137/UN-IPCC-Scientist-Declares-A-Death-Spiral-for-Climate-Alarmism)‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/13/ignorant-skeptics-un-scientist-prof-trenberth-says-only-poorly-informed-scientists-disagree-with-un-appeals-to-authority-the-ipcc-has-spoken/a/160/S-African-UN-Scientist-The-whole-climate-change-issue-is-about-to-fall-apart--Heads-will-roll) – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00023.htm)) & (LINK (http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/13/ignorant-skeptics-un-scientist-prof-trenberth-says-only-poorly-informed-scientists-disagree-with-un-appeals-to-authority-the-ipcc-has-spoken/a/611/UN-IPCC-Scientist-No-convincing-scientific-arguments-to-support-claim-that-increases-in-greenhouse-gases-are-harmful-to-the-climate))

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008 (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008 July.htm#refereeing). “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf)) (LINK (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html)) (LINK (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3193)) & (LINK (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968)) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3) which Climate Depot’s Morano authored (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)during his years (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10FE77B0-802A-23AD-4DF1-FC38ED4F85E3) at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007. McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

Lauren Johnson
09-30-2013, 10:59 PM
RE #46 regarding the record number of lows vs. highs: This phenomenon is what is called "weather" -- it is not "climate." It is not significant with regards to climate.

Lauren Johnson
09-30-2013, 11:13 PM

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the
cold sun (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent) is not noticeably slowing global warming.

NOAA posts regularly updated measurements (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png (http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png)

Change in the heat content in the upper 2000 m of the world’s oceans. Source: NOAA (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/)

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat (http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-5-4.jpg) is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf) from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget (http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/spm2.jpg)over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD09/pr_wod09.html). Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project) has a fine overview of this database (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#). The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/outreach/news_sydney_levitus.html), has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#)).

How to deny data
Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” (http://donnerunddoria.welt.de/2013/07/29/erderwarmung/) – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/) even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes (http://www.argo.net/index_flash.html) is the same as that from each individual one. Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. Anything goes when you have to deny global warming. Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.

Slowdown in the upper ocean
Let us look at the upper ocean (for historic reasons defined as the upper 700 m):
http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/previews-med/heat_content55-07.png (http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/heat_content55-07.png)
Change in the heat content of the upper 700 m of the oceans. Source: NOAA
And here is the direct comparison since 1980:
http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/previews-med/Abraham_2013.png (http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/Abraham_2013.png)
Changes in the heat content of the oceans. Source: Abraham et al., 2013. The 2-sigma uncertainty for 1980 is 2 x 1022 J and for recent years 0.5 x 1022 J
We see two very interesting things.

First: Roughly two thirds of the warming since 1980 occurred in the upper ocean. The heat content of the upper layer has gone up twice as much as in the lower layer (700 – 2000 m). The average temperature of the upper layer has increased more than three times as much as the lower (because the upper layer is only 700 m thick, and the lower one 1300 m). That is not surprising, as after all the ocean is heated from above and it takes time for the heat to penetrate deeper.

Second: In the last ten years the upper layer has warmed more slowly than before. In spite of this the temperature still is changing as rapidly there as in the lower layer. This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface.

That the heat absorption of the ocean as a whole (at least to 2000 m) has not significantly slowed makes it clear that the reduced warming of the upper layer is not (at least not much) due to decreasing heating from above, but rather mostly due to greater heat loss to lower down: through the 700 m level, from the upper to the lower layer. (The transition from solar maximum to solar minimum probably also contributed a small part as planetary heat absorption decreased by about 15%, Abraham, et al., 2013 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract)). It is difficult to establish the exact mechanism for this stronger heat flux to deeper water, given the diverse internal variability in the oceans.

Association with El Niño
Completely independently of this oceanographic data, a simple correlation analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022)) showed that the flatter warming trend of the last 10 years was mostly a result of natural variability, namely the recently more frequent appearance of cold La Niña events in the tropical Pacific and a small contribution from decreasing solar activity. The effect of La Niña can be seen directly in the following figure, without any statistical analysis. It shows the annual values of the global temperature with El Niño periods highlighted in red and La Niña periods in blue. (Weekly updates on the current El Niño situation can be found here (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf).)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/climcent_sat_enso.png (http://www.realclimate.org/images/climcent_sat_enso.png)
Global surface temperature (average of the three series from NOAA, NASA and HadCRU). Years influenced by El Niño are shown in red, La Niña influenced years in blue. Source: Climate Central (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like-16341), updated figure from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) p. 15 (http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1103_en.pdf).

One finds that both the red El Niño years and the blue La Niña years are getting warmer, but given that we have lately experienced a cluster of La Niña years the overall warming trend over the last ten years is slower. This can be thought of as the “noise” associated with natural variability, not a change in the “signal” of global warming (as discussed many (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/&sa=U&ei=kY9CUvGoNdDXsgbWooDQDw&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHNb50ED7so7IfI6a9pw0DFtXBBgA) times (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/) before here at RealClimate).

This is consistent with the finding that reduced warming is not mainly a result of a change in radiation balance but due to oceanic heat storage. During La Niña events (with cold ocean surface) the ocean absorbs additional heat that it releases during El Niño events (when the ocean surface is warm). The next El Niño event (whenever it comes – that is a stochastic process) is likely to produce a new global mean temperature record (http://www.spektrum.de/alias/klimawandel/der-trend-geht-klar-nach-oben/1164441) (as happened in 2010).

Kevin Trenberth, who has recently published a paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract) on this topic, explains (http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/has-global-warming-stalled) the increased heat uptake in the deep ocean:

The reason for the change is a specific change in the winds, especially in the subtropical Pacific, where the trade winds have become noticeably stronger. That altered ocean currents, strengthening the subtropical sea water circulation thus providing a mechanism to transport heat into the deeper ocean. This is related to the decadal weather pattern in the Pacific associated with the La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.

New results from climate modelling

A study by Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620) confirms that the slowing rise in global temperatures during recent years has been a result of prevalent La Niña periods in the tropical Pacific. The authors write in the abstract:

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling.
They show this with an elegant experiment, in which they “force” their global climate model to follow the observed history of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. With this trick the model is made to replay the actual sequence of El Niño and La Niña events found in the real world, rather than producing its own events by chance. The result is that the model then also reproduces the observed global average temperature history with great accuracy.
There are then at least three independent lines of evidence that confirm we are not dealing with a slowdown in the global warming trend, but rather with progressive global warming with superimposed natural variability:

1. Our correlation analysis between global temperature and the El Niño Index.
2. The measurements of oceanic heat uptake.
3. The new model calculation of Kosaka and Xie.

Beam me up Scotty!

Now to the most amusing attempt of “climate skeptics” to wish these scientific results away. Their argument goes like this: It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down, because the heat must pass through the upper layer to reach the depths. A German journalist (http://donnerunddoria.welt.de/2013/07/29/erderwarmung/) put it this way:

Winds can do a lot, but can they beam warm surface waters heated by carbon dioxide 700 meters further down?

This argument reveals once again the shocking lack of understanding of basic physics in “climate skeptic” circles. First the alleged problem is lacking any factual basis – after all, in the last decades the upper layer of the oceans has warmed faster than the deeper (even if recently not quite as fast as before). What is the problem with the heat first warming the upper layer before it penetrates deeper? That is entirely as expected.

Second, physically there is absolutely no problem for wind changes to cool the upper ocean at the same time as they warm the deeper layers. The following figure shows a simple example of how this can happen (there are also other possible mechanisms).

http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/previews-med/thermocline.png (http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/thermocline.png)

The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a). In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram. Panel (b) shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer. The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.

Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o): (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while (b) is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds. The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin. Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration.

Now if during the transition from (a) to (b) the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed. Simple classical physics without beaming.

Beam me up Scotty! There is no intelligent life on this planet.

Tamino provides his usual detailed analysis (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/) of the new study by Kosaka and Xie.
Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/03/global-warming-pacific-ocean-puzzle-piece) on the same paper with some further interesting aspects that I have not talked about here.
Another important point that is often forgotten in the discussion: The data hole in the Arctic (http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/klimadaten/2009-10-08/macht-die-erderwaermung-pause) that explains part of the reduced warming trend (maybe even more than previously thought).
And a reminder: The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade, see Fig. 4 here (http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/klimadaten/2013-01-20/globale-temperatur-2012)), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/709.abstract) where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be.
Recent Literature:
Levitus et al. (Geophysical Research Letters 2012). (ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03%20-%20Global%20warming/Levitus_et_al.GRL12.pdf)Documentation of the heat increase in the world’s oceans since 1955. Included are uncertainty analyses, maps of the measurement coverage and many illustrations of the regional and vertical distribution of the warming.
Balmaseda et al. (Geophysical Research Letters 2013) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract) shows among other things that El Niño events are associated with a strong loss of heat from the oceans. As discussed above, during an El Niño the ocean loses heat to the surface because the surface of the ocean (see Fig. (a) above) is unusually warm. Further, during volcanic eruptions the ocean cools but for another reason: because volcanic aerosols shade the sun and thus the oceans are heated less than normal.
Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years cannot be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.
Abraham et al. (Reviews of Geophysics 2013) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract). Very recent, wide ranging review of temperature measurements in the oceans with a detailed discussion of the accuracy of the data, planetary energy balance and the effect of the warming on sea levels.


Peter Lemkin
10-01-2013, 08:06 AM
To get back to the science and not the attacks, while there is acknowledged by the majority of environmental and climate scientists, worldwide that there is climate warming [and that it is due to changes in several things humans have caused], it is to be expected that the TREND will vary slightly year to year or even in wavering of a few years. It is the trend that is important. The North Polar ice is very drastically lessened in recent years - to the extent that Polar Bears are threatened and new shipping routes have opened up for the first time in memory, along with new polar sea oil rigs being placed, etc. Antarctica is a more complex situation, with ice loss in some areas and in the last two years some ice increase in others...but this doesn't represent any proof of anything. While the Earth overall is warming, in some places temporarily, it will be cooler [while most places, on average, will warm], warmer air and sea also change the conditions everywhere - producing stronger and more storms, greater rain and floods in most areas [a few will experience less rain]. This is my field - Environmental Science - which I studied up to the graduate level and have taught and keep up on. It has always saddened me that some great researchers on other things Deep Political are blind to this - a deep political conspiracy by Big Oil, Big Money, Big Chemical, et al. They can be in denial, but the climate will warm and change for the worse for most humans and most other living things - on land and in the sea and air. We are fouling our own 'bed' - we [humans] are a plague on the Planet unless we reduce our numbers and impact [called a footprint in Environmental Science] on Gaia. No one need or should be harmed or killed to reduce the numbers and Environmental Scientists do not believe in Eugenics or the like...just realizing that any finite resource cannot support infinite use [now becoming abuse!]. Yes, the Koch Bros. have funded a few scientists in secret to produce papers saying that climate change is part of a natural cycle in Earth/Sun...blah, blah....it is not. It is due to increased CO2, methane, other chemicals and aerosols in the atmosphere, cutting of forests and damage to other carbon sinks [absorbers], pollution of all kinds, overuse and/or overhunting of resources - non-living and living. The ways in which we are damaging the Planet and life on it - including ourselves - are many. Warming of the air and seas only one. If denied by a majority [gladly this is not so, at this time] it will mean the end of most life. Technology can NOT do more than provide a temporary patch - and then only for the wealthy. Physics and science, Nature, in the end will rebalance the system, as it must....this new balance will not favor humans nor most living things. We must stop our uncontrolled growth in numbers and use [abuse; overuse] of resources. At the same time, the poor and developing have every right to 'catch up' with the wealthy and developed. It is a very delicate balancing act and THERE technology can help....along with not being in denial about the problem; ultimately greater than the political ones we face, which are more immediate and obvious, but pale next to changing the Earth for the need and greed of one species, temporarily - and even there for a few.....already most humans are beginning to suffer from the double curse of imperialism/wars/financial manipulations/deep-political-shit and environmental destruction. Watch the floods, the stronger storms, droughts, rising sea-level, pollution, habitat destruction, resource exhaustion....and more.....it has been ongoing for some time, but all too obvious since the age of oil and modern technological [over]development. We can still have our computers and such, but must, overall, reduce and change our relationship with our Mother [Earth] and all who live on her....or perish rather sooner than later. The Native Americans [and most other Native People's had it correct - 'civilized' [sic] humans have long had it wrong [their relationship with their environment]. I would suggest people look at the books or lectures by Derrick Jensen and the many other voices calling for immediate change - especially by the most 'developed' peoples to a change toward the views of the Native Peoples who lived for hundreds of thousands of years in harmony with their environment. Below, one of many good films to awaken those still asleep to where we are headed - to the extinction of OUR species and most others......but before that a horrible period of decline, wars, shortages, suffering of the EVER GROWING numbers of poor, RAPID environmental degradation, etc. The film names and interviews most of the better writers, thinkers, speakers on the subject. Change or perish...we haven't long now. ::face.palm:: Nothing short of a total paradigm shift in our mode of thinking about the meaning of life well lived [personal and societal] is needed; our inter-relationship with the living and non-living world that sustain us and won't if we abuse or over-use it/change it into an unsustainable nightmare - these changes; these paradigm shifts, I am sure are paralleled in the Environmental / Social-Philosophical / and Deep Political spheres. The same forces and the same denial - the same allowance of a small group of would-be feudal overlords are destroying our environment; our polity; our philosophy and education - everything. Change your paradigm and the path to rectify all becomes OBVIOUS - then it is just a matter of action. When will you hammer in your picket pin?! [see the film for the context of that remark]. Please watch this film - show it to others. I cry every time I see it...and I have shown it in my environmental courses over 100 times. It touches me. I hope some part of it reaches you. Its message is real in a way - in the exact way - that most of human society [especially the 'advanced' cultures technologically] have become unreal and detached from the real human nature, human philosophy, and Nature itself. Be a part of the solution to all of our problems; not just some of them; and not just a cynical watcher. Act. Feel. Be. Fight. Hammer in your picket pins and stand our ground. Win....and we win the future. Loose and we have lost the Planet for ourselves and future generations - your children and those of others - not to mention the tens of millions of other species who have as much right [or more] to survive than we do. Join those who have decided to force a paradigm shift - first on themselves, then their friends, and then the World of Humans. Join Us.