January 2010: extremes and monthly summary
The globe recorded its fourth warmest January since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated January 2010 as the 2nd warmest January on record, behind January 2007. January 2010 global ocean temperatures were the 2nd warmest on record, next to 1998. Land temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record, but in the Northern Hemisphere, they were the 18th warmest. The relatively cool Northern Hemisphere land temperatures may have been due to the well-above average amount of snow on the ground--January 2010 snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere was the 6th highest in the past 44 years. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the warmest on record in January, according to both the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and RSS data sets. This was the second time in the past three months that the UAH data set has shown a record high global atmospheric temperature.
Figure 1. Departure of surface temperature from average for January 2010. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
A few notable global weather highlights from January 2010:
According to the United Kingdom's Met Office, the U.K. as a whole had its coolest January since 1987 and the eighth coolest January since records began in 1914. Scotland had its coolest January since 1979. During the first two weeks of January, the Irish Republic experienced a spell of extreme cold weather that began in mid-December, resulting in the most extreme cold spell over Ireland since early 1963, according to the Irish Meteorological Service. Most places of the Irish Republic had its coolest January since 1985 and the coolest January since 1963 in the Dublin area.
A rare summer snowfall occurred on January 18th in the town of Bombala, New South Wales, Australia. The town received a light dusting of accumulation, marking the first summer snow in the high terrain of southeast Australia since records began in 1965. The town has an elevation of around 3,000 feet (900 meters) above sea-level. Forecasters said that snow at such low elevations is unusual at any time of year, especially summer. Six days before the snow, temperatures had hit 37°C (99°F) in Bombala.
Eleven inches (28 cm) of snow fell in Seoul, South Korea on the 3rd, marking the greatest snowfall amount for that city since records began in 1937 (Source: BBC).
Central Beijing, China received 3 inches (8 cm) of snow on the 2nd, the most for a single day since January 1951, while suburbs of the city reported 13 inches (33 cm). Over 90 percent of flights at Beijing.s International Airport were affected. On January 6th, temperatures in Beijing dropped to -16.7°C (1.9°F), the lowest minimum temperature in the first ten days of January since 1971.
Figure 2. An unusual sight: Virtually all of Britain was covered by snow on January 7, 2010. Image credit: NASA.
January 2010: near-average temperatures in the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., the average January temperature was 0.3°F above average, making it the 55th coolest January in the 115-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The U.S. has been on quite a roller coaster of temperatures over the past four months--the nation recorded its third coldest October on record, followed by its third warmest November, followed by its 14th coolest December, followed by an average January. The coolest January temperature anomalies were in Florida, which had its 10th coldest such month. The Pacific Northwest was very warm, with Oregon and Washington recording their 4th warmest January on record. Seattle experienced its warmest January since records began in 1891.
Figure 3. Ranking of temperatures by state for January 2010. Florida had its 10th coldest January on record, while Washington and Oregon had their 4th warmest. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
U.S. drought
Precipitation across the U.S. was near average in January. Notably, Arizona had its 5th wettest January and New Mexico its 7th wettest. The only state much drier than average was Michigan, which had its 8th driest January. At the end of January, 3% of the contiguous United States was in severe-to-exceptional drought, a decrease of 4% from the previous month. This is the lowest drought footprint for the country since detailed drought statistics began in 1999.
U.S. records
A few notable records set in the U.S. during January 2010, courtesy of the National Climatic Data Center::
All-time low pressure records were set across most of California, Arizona, Nevada, and southern Oregon on January 20 - 21. This was approximately 10 - 15% of the area of the U.S.
Arizona set its all-time 24-hour state snowfall record: 48" at Sunrise Mountain Jan. 21 - 22.
The 50.7 inches (129 cm) that fell in Flagstaff, AZ Jan. 16 - 23 was the third highest five-day total ever recorded there.
Yuma, Arizona's total of 2.44 inches of rain (62 mm) was their 2nd greatest January total ever, narrowly missing the record of 2.49 (63 mm) set in 1949. Their daily total of 1.95 (50 mm) inches on the 21st was the greatest one-day January total ever.
Near Wikieup, AZ, the Big Sandy River crested at 17.9 feet, washing away numerous roads and setting a new all-time record crest, breaking the previous record of 16.4 feet set back in March 1978.
Burlington, VT had its largest single snowstorm on record, 33.1" on Jan. 1 - 3.
Sioux City, IA tied its all-time max snow depth record (28" on Jan. 7).
Beckley, WV had its snowiest January on record (40.9"; old record 37.3" in 1996)
Bellingham, Washington tied its record highest January temperature of 65°F on January 11.
Hondo, Texas tied its record coldest January temperature of 12°F on January 9.
Cotulla la Salle, Texas tied its record coldest January temperature of 16°F on January 9.
Records were broken or tied at Daytona Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, and Vero Beach Florida for the greatest number of consecutive days in which the daily high temperature remained below 60 degrees F (15.5 C). Daytona Beach's string was twelve days.
Jackson, KY and London, KY tied their record for longest streak of consecutive days falling below 32°F (11 days). Pensacola, FL had its 2nd longest such streak (10 days), and Mobile, AL its 3rd longest (10 days).
Key West, FL had its 2nd coldest temperature ever measured, 42°F. The record is 41°F, set in 1981 and 1886.
Moderate El Niño conditions continue
Moderate El Niño conditions continue over the tropical Eastern Pacific. Ocean temperatures in the area 5°N - 5°S, 120°W - 170°W, also called the "Niña 3.4 region", were at 1.2°C above average on February 10, in the middle of the 1.0°C - 1.5°C range for a moderate El Niño, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The strength of El Niño has been roughly constant for the first two weeks of February. A burst of westerly winds that developed near the Date Line in January has pushed eastwards towards South America over the past month, and this should keep the current El Niño at moderate strength well into March. All of the El Niño models forecast that El Niño has peaked and will weaken by summer. Most of the models predict that El Niño conditions will last into early summer, but cross the threshold into neutral territory by the height of hurricane season.
January sea ice extent in the Arctic 4th lowest on record
January 2010 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was the 4th lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979. Ice extent was lower than in 2009 and 2008, but greater than in 2005, 2006, and 2007, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The weather pattern over the Arctic in the first half of January 2010 featured a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation (AO). This pattern tends to slow the winds that typically flush large amounts of sea ice out of the Arctic between Greenland and Iceland. In this way, a negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multi-year ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, the ice pack is the thinnest on record for this time of year, and much above average temperatures this summer would likely cause a new record summertime sea ice loss.
Next post
My next post will be Monday or Tuesday.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
Why don't you post than your peer reviewed study which supports the cooling trend you talking about.
Atmo~ I got a laugh out it..
I agree-- I even enjoy listening (reading) to all of the different opinions/beliefs/studies on Global Warming/Climate Change but when it becomes a war, I dont even enjoy reading it. I wish the blog (specifically on climate change topics) were more like some of my Graduate Courses in where a few people will have VERY differing views, but it is gone about in a RESPECTFUL manner (with no name calling haha). Its more of an intellectual discussion/debate rather than an argument or war.
If the CFS model is right,Neutral ENSO will be there by July.
Link
I know people have strong feelings about climate change, I do also.
I believe we ALL should practuce good stewardship of our natural resources.
Earth is a gift from God, to be used responsibly by all.
All the tools are availiable for all mankind to be prosperous and share the bounty of the planet, without destroying everything we see, from trees, ground water, oceans, forests and our atmosphere.
An upper level disturbance will move through North Texas late Saturday night and Sunday. Areas of rain and thunderstorms will increase in coverage late Saturday night and move through the region during the day Sunday. Isolated severe thunderstorms are expected...mainly producing large hail. A strong cold front will swing through North Texas by Sunday evening.
Than post the part where it says that ocean is cooling. You talking about ...
Of course not. We have access to use of solar, wind, tidal, hydro-electric, wind, even nuclear power and natural gas. We can recycle, reuse, leave a lighter footprint on the planet.
Ever heard of recycled paper?
Ever heard of electric cars or hybrids?
Ever heard of clean energy?
Obviously not.
At the bottom of the above post is a link to "skeptical science" (I know, me too). Within that link is comment #7. Comment #7 quotes a different study that shows ocean content decreasing and ocean temperatures cooling according to preliminary 2009 data. I am not questioning "skeptical science" (I know, I know), I'm just pointing out that there are several opinions on this issue. Hope this helps.
Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly
The map shows an estimate of the change in upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) from 2007 to 2008 derived from both in situ data and altimeter sea surface height mapping performed according to Willis et al. 2004.
Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. A preliminary ad-hoc fall rate correction has been applied to the XBT data in an attempt to correct for biases between XBT data and more accurate CTD data. Additional displays of the upper OHCA and sampling error are available in the Plots section.
Argo Recent estimates are based primarily on Argo profiling CTD float data. Satellite altimeter data from Aviso are used to estimate errors
Aviso
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
Data distribution figures, temperature anomaly fields, and heat content fields updated from the paper Global ocean heat content
(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems published in Geophysical Research Letters.
See the manuscript below for details.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The world will not stop using fossil fuels. There is enough resources availiable to make cars get 100MPG today, but the major oil companies do NOT want that technology used.
There are deserts around the globe, including the SW US that are almost always sunny. The Great Plains of the USA have an average wind speed of 12+MPH, the wind almost always blows there and in many other portions of the world.
We have the Gulf Stream off of FL that can be tapped to produce commercially viable electricity, using tidal.
Wind farms supply a large amount of energy to Denmark and the Netherlands. Natural Gas and Nuclear can be used to suppliment availiable resources. Even clean-coal technology can. be used, it's availiable.
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/warming_ocean/ocean_heat_content.html
True, but what do we do when fossil fuels are deemed too expensive? All the resources are availiable to have a wealthy, green planet.
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology which produces negative carbon emissions by combining biomass use with carbon capture and storage.[1] It was pointed out in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a key technology for reaching low carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration targets.[2] The negative emissions that can be produced by BECCS has been estimated by the Royal Society to be equivalent to a 50 to 150 ppm decrease in global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.[3]
The concept of BECCS is drawn from the integration of biomass processing industries or biomass fuelled power plants with carbon capture and storage. BECCS is a form of bio-energy with carbon storage(BECS). BECS also includes other technologies such as biochar and biomass burial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage
Efficiency by the Numbers
Which, in my view, is what gas turbines are. No other technology currently available or likely to be deployed in the next decade has the potential to obtain so much power from so little energy. In a future where fuel supplies are likely to be constrained (due to geological, climatological, political, or economic factors) the inherent efficiency of the gas turbine will not be overlooked.
…But while that heat cannot be used by the first machine, it can be used to provide energy input to another engine, provided that the temperature of the rejected heat is high enough for the “bottoming” engine to produce more work, and in turn, reject heat as required by the Second Law. Two engines working together in this way are in what has become known as a “combined cycle.”
In the case of modern Brayton cycle gas turbine, its Qout (typically at 1,000 oF (538 oC) is sufficient to produce steam to run a Rankine cycle steam turbine to generate more electrical power.
A reasonable value for a Rankine cycle operating at typical CC conditions would be 30 percent. The sum of those two individual efficiencies minus their product becomes:
hcc= 0.40 + 0.30 – (0.40)(0.30) = 58 percent.
The efficiency of the two turbines working in combined cycle is, in fact, greater than either of the two heat engines working separately.
http://memagazine.asme.org/Web/Efficiency_by_Numbers.cfm
Why sea level rise isn’t level at all
This famous climate scientist I know used to always begin his talks on sea level rise by showing a cartoon of a bathtub. A faucet would fill up the bathtub, representing water coming from melting glaciers and ice sheets, and then a small campfire would add heat, causing the water to expand. It was a nice way of getting people to think about the causes of sea level rise. But you might guess that the real ocean is a bit more complicated than the cartoon lets on. And you’d be right. Even though it’s sometimes convenient to think of the ocean as a great big bathtub, where turning on the tap at one end raises the water level in the whole tub, real sea level rise doesn’t quite happen that way. To understand why, you first have to realize that ‘sea level’ isn’t really level at all.
http://climate.nasa.gov/blogs/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=239
A wind farm would not take barely any land they would be able to grow crops all around the wind farm.
Whats going to stop you from farming in between these instruments?
Drive down to Pasadena, park your car downwind of the oil refineries there in town, then you tell me what it smells like? Think about what the cracking process throws into the atmosphere.
00Z GFS @ 114 hours.
12Z GFS @ 102 hours.
Local forecast offices seem very reluctant to buy into it due to different model solutions, but the latest GFS consistency may be something they have to take into consideration...
Than you apparently read not a lot of news.
Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research
What, exactly, will the American taxpayer get for its global warming research dollars? The EPA is spending $43 million to implement the greenhouse-gas reporting rule, to perform regulatory work for the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gases, and to develop new standards for cars and trucks.
Research being funded at the National Science Foundation seeks to promote "discoveries needed to inspire societal actions leading to environmental and economic sustainability," according to an agency statement. The NSF's portfolio for global warming will reach $766 million.
a fact sheet from the White House Office of Management and Budget portrays the global warming funding as part of the Obama administration's new jobs-creation policy, which aims at making the U.S. "the world leader in developing the clean energy technologies that will lead to the industries and jobs of tomorrow."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/obama-spending-increase-global-warming-research/
Saudi Arabia to Replace Oil with Sun Power for Desalination Plants
Much of this may be changing, however, as Saudi Arabia is now interested in using solar energy to provide the power needed, instead of oil. According to an article on the UAE Top News media site, the Kingdom is now planning to build solar energy based desalination plants in order to save on energy costs, as well as be in tune with new environmental polices. This might be to secure membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency, otherwise known as IRENA.
Saudi Finance Minister Ibrahim Al Assaf said “desalination is our strategic choice to supply an adequate supply of drinking water to people across the Kingdom.”
He added that by using solar energy instead of oil, it will focus more on using renewable energy and even become an exporter of this clean form of energy as it has been doing with oil.
In addition to desalination, solar energy will also be supplying energy to a country which has been historically known as being a world supplier of oil, especially to countries like the US. Solar energy will eventually enable to Saudis to not only have a renewable energy source to supply their own energy needs but will significantly reduce the cost of fresh water, as well as being able to export renewable energy, as well as oil.
http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/02/01/16722/saudi-arabia-desalination-solar/
Oil Industry Ready to Work on Global Warming
“President Obama comes to office with a strong commitment to tackle climate change,” said Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP. “Suddenly the challenges many of us have been wrestling with for a long time — the importance of energy security in providing economic security, and tackling the issue of climate change in a way that is commercially viable — are center stage.”
Exxon Mobil, which had long been skeptical of global warming, offered its own suggestions. One of the company’s top executives, Michael J. Dolan, said that Exxon would back a tax on carbon, while criticizing a so-called cap-and-trade approach.
Mr. Dolan, a senior vice president at Exxon, said that a carbon tax would be simpler and less subject to manipulation than a trading system. “A carbon tax reduces policy risks for businesses and investors in a way that cap-and-trade schemes do not,” Mr. Dolan said during his address at the industry conference, organized by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm.
“In addition,” he said, “by reducing other taxes — such as income or excise taxes — we can make a carbon tax revenue-neutral and offset the impact of higher taxes on the economy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/earth/12oil.html?_r=1&ref=business
China’s renewable energy views
The price of solar energy & wind turbines is falling all over the world. There was an article recently in the New York Times which showed the role of China in all of this. The main point is that China is a world leader when it comes to the manufacture of solar panels & wind turbines. This is why it can easily achieve economies of scale and is also able to offer products at a low market price.
There are 2 consquences of this:
1. The installation of renewable sources of energy will become cheaper.
2. Competitors manufacturing in different countries around the world have problems in competing with the Chinese manufacturers.
How did China reach this position? The articles in the New Your Times said the following:
“The biggest advantage that China has over all other countries in the world is that their demand for electricity is consistently rising by 15% every year. In U.S., power companies usually have to choose between purchasing equipment for renewable energy or to continue using their fossil fuel powered plants which are already built. In China, these companies need to buy lots of equipment and the alternative sources of energy like nuclear & wind are priced very competitively.” Or, in the U.S. and in Europe, various renewable energies are having to compete with the existing power supply whereas in China they do not have to. There is more than enough space for the rapid expansion of renewable energy as well as for coal power plants. The unlimited demand needes the expansion to be across the board. Another reason for the low price is the low cost of labor in China.
http://www.biofuelswatch.com/china-renewable-energy-views/
Microsoft co-founder Gates tackling climate change
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_iNFAG254im4XHNHGNRIpKj6bLA
Rep. Israel pines for 'space race' enthusiasm in clean energy debate
http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/78927-rep-israel-pines-for-space-race-enthusiasm-i n-clean-energy-debate
Dehydration from the increased air flow?
LIKE maybe underground power lines......just my guess!
THE GREATEST CRIME?
Publication of deliberately false climate change data literally ought — i.e., MUST — be treated, not as a peccadillo, but as a Crime Against Humanity.
My remark here is not an expression of an emotion, but of an intellectual and humanitarian reaction of a scientist to falsification of data that could be as bad in its effect as long-term global warming itself, by permitting the latter to thrive, and acquire an egregious and panhumanly disastrous momentum.
If this were World War III such people would be shot, and with far, far greater warrant than even those human catastrophes.
A scientist is a kind of Protective Angel for Humanity. Why? Simply because he lives and breathes for Truth.
——— * ———
As for the falsifiers of data, or criminal social parasites, let me switch from the second to the first of my scientific careers, long ago at M.I.T., where I was — a then VERY rare! — theorist in neuroscience, trying to make sense of the human brain as a whole and all the astonishing behavior and abilities it gives rise to.
A SIDE interest of mine, then and later, was the queer and baffling, and decidedly chilling, phenomenon of the psychopath, a.k.a. sociopath. The essential trait of such people is that have little or no conscience, and yet they can be at the same time profoundly convincing to the layman — i.e., virtually all of us.
The incidence of these curious and horrific people in the body of the whole of humanity is estimated to be of the order of 1/200. This is misleading, however, because the pathology is a matter of degree, or properly illustrated by an intensity-frequency curve.
To put it simply, a psychopath can and does lie without a blink, either external or internal. And often does so for profit or simply out of total indifference to the harm he works upon the innocent and the virtuous.
I have little doubt that the purveyors of purposefully, and dangerously, falsified Global Warming data ARE in many instances psychopaths, whose falsifications tend to put ALL of us at risk.
Even heads of great corporations can be, in various ways and degrees, psychopathic. (Psychopathy probably had some partly useful — personal OR social — function in the long-ago past of Homo sapiens. It is certainly common enough in our politicians nowadays!)
— Patrick Michael Gunkel (Princeton, NJ)
POSTSCRIPT: Two decades ago I was neutral, but skeptical, about global warming. Later I realized that we simply could not tolerate the risks it potentially posed. One does not play games, or take chances, when essentially the whole of civilization and humanity MAY be in peril.
None of us can escape from the need for such caution, and where even the very survival of our species over Eternity may just be confronted with the possibility of extinction through carelessness or ignorance, or a shallow and selfish morality, or ideology or skepticism, or a universal involvement in petty and personal disputes between men fighting in diapers. (Phenomena we have seen often enough in World Wars and in Wars Ancient, but no less pathetic and mindless.)
In short, All of the Future hangs by a single tenuous thread from each and ever Present.
There's still ways around that like the black cloth or plastic netting to protect certain plants.
Not that much wind comes off the blades.
There is already wind moving over the soil and the wind instruments wouldnt gain more wind, probably would slow the wind down some.
Here's an analogy to explain why "CO2 followed warming in ancient times" is not a valid argument against AGW.
Everyone here has heard feedback from a PA system, right? It's probably the simplest feedback system you'll find that most people are familiar with. The sounds from the speaker go back into the microphone and come back out louder and louder.
In paleotimes, the speaker is not quite close enough to cause feedback unless there is a large driving force, ie orbital variations. Once those happen, the noise out of the speaker goes into the mic and feeds itself, ie the CO2 released due to heating self-reinforces, until the system reaches a maximum.
What we're doing with AGW is bringing the speaker and microphone closer together. The source of the original sound is the same, but now the feedback from the speaker into the microphone is louder, and can cause the runaway condition much easier.
To sum up, previously the *inputs* changed. The *multiplier* followed, causing more change than strictly dictated by the input. (This evidence also proves the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If you ignore the greenhouse effect of CO2 in ancient times, the temperature curve ends up about half what we see. With CO2 feedback added in, the predicted curve and actual curve match.)
Currently, the *multiplier* has been increased. The input hasn't significantly changed. That multiplier will soon start its own looping process out of our control, if it hasn't already.
That's why we are seeing the CO2 rise now, with the final temperature reached later, instead of the temperature rise followed by the CO2 rise, as demonstrated by paleoclimate.
Just trying to be fair and balanced but, some of those periods happened during major Volcanic events and Astroid hits some believe.
Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.
By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.
Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England's University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.
"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.
"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx
I say bring on another record breaking snowstorm. My daughter, 22, her friend, 26 and my 3 yr old grand daughter and I, the 48 yr old kid are looking forward to it!!
Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming
7 Feb. 2010
Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org, part of a network of climate change sceptics
An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.
The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.
Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.
Many of these critics have broadcast material from the leaked UEA emails to undermine climate change predictions and to highlight errors in claims that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Professor Phil Jones, who has temporarily stood down as director of UEA's climactic research unit, is reported in today's Sunday Times to have "several times" considered suicide. He also drew parallels between his case and that of Dr David Kelly, found dead in the wake of the row over the alleged "sexing up" of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Professor Jones said he was taking sleeping pills and beta-blockers and had received two death threats in the past week alone.
Climate sceptic bloggers broadcast stories last week casting doubts on scientific data predicting dramatic loss of the Amazon rainforest. All three stories, picked up by mainstream media, questioned the credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the way it does its work. A new attack on climate science, already dubbed "Seagate" by sceptics, relating to claims that more than half the Netherlands is in danger of being submerged under rising sea levels, is likely to be at the centre of the newest skirmish in coming weeks.
The controversies have shaken the IPCC, whose chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was subjected to a series of personal attacks on his reputation and lifestyle last week. A poll this weekend confirmed that public confidence in the climate change consensus has been shaken: one in four Britons – 25 per cent – now say they do not believe in global warming; previously this figure stood at 15 per cent.
Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and former chairman of the IPCC, said yesterday that the backlash is the result of a campaign: "It does appear that there's a concerted effort by a number of sceptics to undermine the credibility of the evidence behind human-induced climate change." He added: "I am sure there are some sceptics who may well be funded by the private sector to try to cast uncertainty."
A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.
Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute – a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics". The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years.
A large British contingent was present at the event, with speakers including Dr Benny Peiser, from Lord Lawson's climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); the botanist David Bellamy; Julian Morris and Kendra Okonski from the London-based International Policy Network; the weather forecaster Piers Corbyn; Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher; and Professor David Henderson, a member of GWPF's advisory council. Speakers at the event also included two prominent climate bloggers who associate with Paul Dennis, a 54-year-old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia who has been questioned by police investigating the theft of climate data.
In a posting on the blog of the climate sceptic Andrew Montford on Friday, Mr Dennis insisted: "I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it."
But he confirmed that he had been in email contact with Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org – a site that was one of the first to receive an anonymous link to the original leaked data from UEA.
Mr Dennis said he emailed Mr McIntyre to alert him to a "departmental email saying that emails and files were hacked" and that "police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id [a pseudonym for the climate sceptic Patrick Condon]. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me."
The UEA researcher also has connections with another prominent sceptic, Anthony Watts, with whom he has posted and who spoke beside Mr McIntyre. Mr Dennis was not available for comment.
Bob Ward, the policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "A lot of the climate sceptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."
But Dr Richard North, a climate change sceptic and blogger, rejected claims of a conspiracy as "laughable" and denied having any links to vested interests. "Anybody who knows me knows I'm a loner. Nobody tells me what to do or dictates my agenda."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fun d-climate-deniers-1891747.html
Pentagon: “Climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked”
For the first time, the Pentagon’s primary planning document addresses the threat of global warming, noting that it will accelerate instability and conflict around the globe. Former Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) added language requiring the department to consider the effects of climate change on its facilities, capabilities, and missions to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, officially released today, discusses the department’s “strategic approach to climate and energy”:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/01/pentagon-climate-change-energy-security-and-economic-stabilit y-are-inextricably-linked/
I would like to point out that Big Oil ranked 3rd or 4th is 2008 on most money made
You left out Big Oil also ranked 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th
THE GREATEST CRIME?
Publication of deliberately false climate change data literally ought — i.e., MUST — be treated, not as a peccadillo, but as a Crime Against Humanity.
My remark here is not an expression of an emotion, but of an intellectual and humanitarian reaction of a scientist to falsification of data that could be as bad in its effect as long-term global warming itself, by permitting the latter to thrive, and acquire an egregious and panhumanly disastrous momentum.
If this were World War III such people would be shot, and with far, far greater warrant than even those human catastrophes.
A scientist is a kind of Protective Angel for Humanity. Why? Simply because he lives and breathes for Truth.
——— * ———
As for the falsifiers of data, or criminal social parasites, let me switch from the second to the first of my scientific careers, long ago at M.I.T., where I was — a then VERY rare! — theorist in neuroscience, trying to make sense of the human brain as a whole and all the astonishing behavior and abilities it gives rise to.
A SIDE interest of mine, then and later, was the queer and baffling, and decidedly chilling, phenomenon of the psychopath, a.k.a. sociopath. The essential trait of such people is that have little or no conscience, and yet they can be at the same time profoundly convincing to the layman — i.e., virtually all of us.
The incidence of these curious and horrific people in the body of the whole of humanity is estimated to be of the order of 1/200. This is misleading, however, because the pathology is a matter of degree, or properly illustrated by an intensity-frequency curve.
To put it simply, a psychopath can and does lie without a blink, either external or internal. And often does so for profit or simply out of total indifference to the harm he works upon the innocent and the virtuous.
I have little doubt that the purveyors of purposefully, and dangerously, falsified Global Warming data ARE in many instances psychopaths, whose falsifications tend to put ALL of us at risk.
Even heads of great corporations can be, in various ways and degrees, psychopathic. (Psychopathy probably had some partly useful — personal OR social — function in the long-ago past of Homo sapiens. It is certainly common enough in our politicians nowadays!)
— Patrick Michael Gunkel (Princeton, NJ)
POSTSCRIPT: Two decades ago I was neutral, but skeptical, about global warming. Later I realized that we simply could not tolerate the risks it potentially posed. One does not play games, or take chances, when essentially the whole of civilization and humanity MAY be in peril.
None of us can escape from the need for such caution, and where even the very survival of our species over Eternity may just be confronted with the possibility of extinction through carelessness or ignorance, or a shallow and selfish morality, or ideology or skepticism, or a universal involvement in petty and personal disputes between men fighting in diapers. (Phenomena we have seen often enough in World Wars and in Wars Ancient, but no less pathetic and mindless.)
In short, All of the Future hangs by a single tenuous thread from each and ever Present.
Below is excerpt from Dr. Masters' blog for the folks who continue to argue we should do nothing about our unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels and also who probably do not like to read:
...A negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multi-year ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, the ice pack is the thinnest on record for this time of year, and much above average temperatures this summer would likely cause a new record summertime sea ice loss.
If you still cannot bring yourself to read, then I'll summarize it for you:
The caps are melting.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index