HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES
Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?
To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.
Sallie Baliunas argues that an increasing brightness of the sun plays a large role in the present global warm-up. (Staff photo by Jon Chase)
This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.
From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.
To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."
Nature still rules
Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
Willie Soon describes changes in Earth's climate during the past 1,000 years, shifts that caused The Little Ice Age recently and a global warming in medieval times. (Staff photo by Jon Chase)
Soon and colleagues believe their findings will contribute to computer models that simulate natural and human influences on climate more accurately. That should lead to better climate forecasts, including those on local and regional levels. Such forecasts, in turn, could help make it easier to reach international agreements on treaties to control emissions of industrial gases that contribute to global warming. One reason the administration of President Bush gives for not signing the international 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions is that sufficient scientific information about the cause of global warming is lacking.
Vikings enjoy Greenland beaches
Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for warmer times and decades of more frigid and extreme weather than we are now experiencing.
Extended television and government forecasts didn't exist during the 16th to 18th centuries, but many Flemish and Dutch artists, like Pieter Brueghel and Hendrick Avercamp, depicted severe Little Ice Age winters in their paintings.
CfA's Sallie Baliunas, a co-author of the study, refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. "The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder," she notes. "And good evidence exists that vineyards flourished in Scotland and England during the medieval warmth."
The evidence also shows that the warmer and colder times occurred not just in Europe, but in places all over the world. Entered into computer simulations that can send us backward and forward hundreds of years in a matter of days, the new information should make forecasts and hindcasts of climate much more accurate.
ARCTIC ICE CAP SUSTAINS DECLINING MELT RATES
National/World | 08/23/2013
This year's melt rates are in line with a sustained decline of the Arctic
Last year, the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean shrank to a record low. This year's melting season won't be as extreme, but NASA scientists say the long-term trend is moving strongly downward.
This year's melt rates are in line with a sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover, which has been monitored by NASA for several decades.
IN THE 1980'S THE ICE CAP WAS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOWER 48 STATES. IT'S LOST ABOUT HALF ITS SIZE SINCE THEN AND SCIENTISTS NOW SAY WE MIGHT SEE AN ICE-FREE ARTIC IN 30 TO 50 YEARS.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
UN CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT DRAFT WARNS OF 3 FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE BY 2100
The Huffington Post | By James Gerken | 08/19/2013
A leaked draft of the U.N.'s next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unbated, The New York Times reported Monday.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) REPORT IS ALSO MORE CONFIDENT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES, LIKE THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS, ARE THE CHIEF CAUSE OF THE ATMOSPHERIC WARMING SEEN SINCE THE 1950S. THE REPORT'S AUTHORS SAY IT IS AT LEAST 95 PERCENT LIKELY THAT HUMANS ARE BEHIND THIS WARMING, ACCORDING TO AN INITIAL REPORT FROM REUTERS LAST FRIDAY.
THIS CONFIDENCE IS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT'S LANGUAGE. IT'S "EXTREMELY LIKELY" THAT HUMANS CAUSED "MORE THAN HALF OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE IN GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE FROM 1951 TO 2010," THE TIMES QUOTES FROM THE U.N. REPORT.
The study outlines several several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet."
THE NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC ADMINISTRATION'S 2012 STATE OF THE CLIMATE REPORT, RELEASED EARLIER THIS MONTH, SHOWED GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REACHED A NEW RECORD HIGH IN 2011, AND ESTIMATES SUGGEST THE RECORD WAS BROKEN AGAIN IN 2012.
"Its good to see that the IPCC has moved in the right direction this time by at least trying to account for the key contribution to sea level rise from melting ice sheets," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an emailed statement, explaining that it was ignored in the previous IPCC report from 2007.
"However, THE PROJECTIONS THEY PROVIDE ARE STILL OVERLY CONSERVATIVE, WITH AN UPPER LIMIT OF ROUGHLY ONE METER BY 2100, WHEN THERE IS PUBLISHED WORK THAT SUGGESTS THAT POSSIBILITY OF AS MUCH AS TWO METERS (SIX FEET) SEA LEVEL RISE BY 2100," he added.
"This fits a pattern of the IPCC tending to err on the side of conservative, in part--I believe---because of fear of being attacked by the climate change denial machine."
Describing the IPCC's projections, Climate Progress' Joe Romm wrote on Sunday, "Like every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can’t model."
A RECENT STUDY PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE SHOWS THAT WITH ONLY 15.75 INCHES OF SEA LEVEL RISE BY MID-CENTURY, LOSSES DUE TO FLOODING IN 136 OF THE WORLD'S COASTAL CITIES MAY APPROACH $1 TRILLION, REPORTED CLIMATE CENTRAL.
IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the leaked drafts, but told the BBC on Monday, "We are not trying to keep it secret." He said, "After the report is finished we are going to publish all the comments and response so that people can track the process."
Reuters' breakdown of the IPCC draft also draws attention to the apparent slowdown in warming observed since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Romm contends the slowdown "turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up."
The Times emphasizes the international scientific panel's further confidence in the future effects of unchecked emissions and notes, the experts "largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change contrarians, as probably related to short-term factors.
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is set to be released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Yes, indeed, the UN has been so, so scientifically accurate for the past 15 years or so. The FACTS are about to drop outside the lower limits of their climate change model's projection of average surface temperature of the earth. Got that? The LOWER edge of the range for the past 10 years. So much for models. It's really amazing how reality trumps models.
The reality is that humanity has almost zero impact on the climate, it is all about the sun, etc. The people saying man is responsible are of the same ilk as those who denied the world was round, who claimed the earth was the center of the solar system, that helicobacter pylori is not the cause of 95% of all ulcers (too much acid is, they claimed, for decades while the Aussie scientists proved otherwise). Better get Plimer's book "Heaven and Earth" so you can educate yourselves on the science, not the PC Gore-type hype to try to control people. That's the real agenda. Control of people and governments.
HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING,
SCIENTISTS NOW SURER THAN EVER
By Countercurrentsorg | 17 August, 2013
Human activity is causing global warming. Now, climate scientists are surer than ever. Leaked drafts of a major UN report show this.
However, scientists are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.
REUTERS REPORTED THAT DRAFTS BY THE UN PANEL OF EXPERTS, DUE TO BE PUBLISHED NEXT MONTH, SAY IT IS AT LEAST 95 PERCENT LIKELY THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES – CHIEFLY THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS – ARE THE MAIN CAUSE OF WARMING SINCE THE 1950S. THIS WAS UP FROM AT LEAST 90 PERCENT IN THE LAST REPORT IN 2007, 66 PERCENT IN 2001, AND OVER 50 IN 1995.
THE SCIENTISTS ARE STEADILY SQUEEZING OUT THE ARGUMENTS BY A SMALL MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS THAT NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE CLIMATE MIGHT BE TO BLAME.
THAT SHIFTS THE DEBATE ONTO THE EXTENT OF TEMPERATURE RISES AND THE LIKELY IMPACTS, FROM MANAGEABLE TO CATASTROPHIC.
“WE HAVE GOT QUITE A BIT MORE CERTAIN THAT CLIMATE CHANGE … IS LARGELY MANMADE,” SAID RETO KNUTTI, A PROFESSOR AT THE SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN ZURICH. “WE’RE LESS CERTAIN THAN MANY WOULD HOPE ABOUT THE LOCAL IMPACTS.”
And gauging how warming would affect nature, from crops to fish stocks, was also proving hard since it goes far beyond physics. “You can’t write an equation for a tree,” he said.
The IPCC report, the first of three to be released in 2013 and 2014, will face intense scrutiny, particularly after the panel admitted a mistake in the 2007 study which wrongly predicted that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Experts say the error far overestimated the melt and might have been based on a misreading of 2350.
The new study will state with greater confidence than in 2007 that rising manmade GHG emissions have already meant more heatwaves.
But it is likely to play down some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human activities have contributed to more droughts.
THE REPORT WILL FLAG A HIGH RISK THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WILL INCREASE THIS CENTURY BY MORE THAN THAT LEVEL, AND WILL SAY THAT EVIDENCE OF RISING SEA LEVELS IS NOW “UNEQUIVOCAL”.
The scientists say IT IS PROVING HARDER TO PINPOINT LOCAL IMPACTS in coming decades in a way that would help planners.
Drew Shindell, a NASA climate scientist, said the relative lack of progress in regional predictions was the main disappointment of climate science since 2007.
The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.
An IPCC draft says there is “medium confidence” that the slowing of the rise is “due in roughly equal measure” to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
“It might be down to minor contributions that all add up,” said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is just a blip.
The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a fraction of 1 degree Celsius to almost 5C this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.
The low end, however, is because the IPCC has added what diplomats say is an improbable scenario for radical government action – not considered in 2007 – that would require cuts in global greenhouse gases to zero by about 2070.
Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.
Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from Sept. 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new findings.
“OVERALL OUR UNDERSTANDING HAS STRENGTHENED,” SAID MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, A PROFESSOR AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, POINTING TO AREAS INCLUDING SEA LEVEL RISE.
AN IPCC DRAFT PROJECTS SEAS WILL RISE BY BETWEEN 29 AND 82 CM BY THE LATE 21ST CENTURY – ABOVE THE ESTIMATES OF 18 TO 59 CM IN THE LAST REPORT, WHICH DID NOT FULLY ACCOUNT FOR CHANGES IN ANTARCTICA AND GREENLAND.
THE REPORT SLIGHTLY TONES DOWN PAST TENTATIVE FINDINGS THAT MORE INTENSE TROPICAL CYCLONE ARE LINKED TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES.
WARMER AIR CAN CONTAIN MORE MOISTURE, HOWEVER, MAKING DOWNPOURS MORE LIKELY IN FUTURE.
“THERE IS WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT AMONG HURRICANE SCIENTISTS THAT RAINFALL ASSOCIATED WITH HURRICANES WILL INCREASE NOTICEABLY WITH GLOBAL WARMING,” SAID KERRY EMANUEL, OF THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.
“BUT MEASURING RAINFALL IS VERY TRICKY,” he said
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Elk,, Although I agree that man has contributed to global warming,, your article mentions nothing about the storms on the sun and change in earths axis both of which have incredible effects on climate,, now to cut pollution by 2070 would be virtually impossible,, what are you going to do about the 3rd world countries,,
EXTREME HEAT WAVES TO QUADRUPLE BY 2040, ACCORDING TO NEW STUDY
August 15, 2013 | AlterNet  / By Rod Bastanmehr
Hello everyone, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to quickly check in and remind you that we are literally destroying this planet and making it into hell on earth.
According to a new study designed to both inform and ruin your day a little bit, SEVERE HEAT WAVES—THE KIND THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GROW CROPS OR HAVE, LIKE, FORESTS—ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME INCREASINGLY AND HORRIFICALLY FREQUENT OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT 30 YEARS (AND HERE'S THE WORST PART, SO SIT DOWN IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DIED OF HEAT STROKE): THIS WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HUMANS CURB GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
MUCH OF THE EFFECTS THAT WE'LL BE SEEING COME FROM STEADY MOMENTUM STARTED BY THE CONSTANT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY, BUT DECREASING EMISSIONS FOR THE SECOND HALF IS, ACCORDING TO THE STUDY, IMPERATIVE—EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT SEE THE IMPACT OF SUCH REDUCTIONS FOR ANOTHER SEVERAL DECADES.
Additionally, THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH WE'VE BEGUN SEEN HEAT WAVES HAS STRONGLY INCREASED SINCE ABOUT THE 1950S, AND "RIGHT NOW THEY COVER ABOUT 5% OF THE GLOBAL LAND AREA," said Dim Coumou, a climate scientist for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany (or PICID, for those tallying up some of the world's most heinous sounding acronyms). As of now, IF LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE CONTINUE TO INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AS THEY ARE TODAY, RESEARCHERS BELIEVE THAT HEAT EXTREMES MIGHT COVER 85% OF THE EARTH'S LAND BY 2100. AND WORSE (WORSE!) FIVE-STIGMA EVENT, AN EVEN HOTTER AND CURRENTLY NONEXISTENT HEAT WAVE—WOULD AFFECT 60% OF THE GLOBE'S LAND AREA.
In the meantime, scientists have began explaining the kind of changes we will be seeing to the culture at large, including the need to breed crops that are more resilient to heat and drought, or preparing the healthcare system for the wave of heat-stressed patients that will surely be cropping up (also, phrases like "cropping up" will surely become obselete once it is revealed that we are no longer able to grow crops).
"We know that such events can have strong impacts on society as well as ecosystems, " Coumou said. "Our study shows that in the near-term such events will become more regular, but it doesn't mean that we cannot adapt."
And while Coumou's insistence that we can adapt to substantial climate changes pretty much entirely undoes the sense of urgency that flows through the study's insistence that we need to change our ways at the risk of destroying this floating rock for good, it's good to know that there is a light at the end of the tunnel should human beings continue their love of not changing anything other than cell phone carriers.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
ORGANIZING FOR ACTION DELIVERS UNICORN TROPHIES TO 135 'CLIMATE DENIERS' IN CONGRESS
The Huffington Post | By Katie Burkhart | 08/13/2013
Following President Barack Obama's pledge to bring his climate change plan to fruition, Organizing for Action volunteers on Tuesday delivered congressional naysayers their very own "Climate Denier Awards": unicorn trophies.
THE AWARDS FEATURE MOUNTED UNICORNS WITH ENGRAVED MESSAGES "HONORING" RECIPIENTS FOR "EXCEPTIONAL EXTREMISM AND IGNORING THE OVERWHELMING JUDGMENT OF SCIENCE." OFA ZEROED IN ON A CONTINGENT OF CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS DISMISSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING, INCLUDING REPS. MICHAEL GRIMM (R-N.Y.), DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CALIF.), REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINN.), ANDY HARRIS (R-MD.) AND SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-N.H.). ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL DISTRIBUTED BY OFA, A TOTAL OF 135 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN EXPECT TO RECEIVE A TROPHY AT THEIR OFFICES TODAY.
"THESE AWARDS ARE AS REAL AS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SAYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING," SAID SOCIAL DIRECTOR CALEB GARDNER IN AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON OFA'S WEBSITE. "THE VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE DELIVERING THEM ARE HOPING THEY WILL SERVE AS A PHYSICAL REMINDER THAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS WILL HOLD THESE LAWMAKERS ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR VOTES ON CLIMATE ISSUES."
OFA, which manages the president's Twitter account, took to social media early this week to begin gearing up for Tuesday's "award" delivery.
Subsequent tweets and materials delivered to "climate change deniers" assert that "NASA + 97% of scientists accept the science of climate change." Despite the statistic, 55 percent of congressional Republicans -- including House Science Subcommittee on Environment chair Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) -- reject climate change as a legitimate threat.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
ARCTIC ICE GROWS DARKER AND LESS REFLECTIVE
August 2013 by Fred Pearce | New Scientist
ARCTIC ICE IS LOSING ITS REFLECTIVE SHEEN. IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT EACH SUMMER, MORE AND MORE OF THE ICE MELTS LEAVING THE DARK WATERS OF THE OCEAN UNCOVERED – A PROCESS THAT ACCELERATES GLOBAL WARMING BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR RADIATION REFLECTED BACK INTO SPACE. NOW IT TURNS OUT THAT THE SURVIVING SEA ICE IS ALSO BECOMING DARKER AND LESS REFLECTIVE.
For the first time, a detailed analysis of 30 years of satellite data for the Arctic Ocean has quantified how much the albedo, or reflectivity, of Arctic ice is diminishing. Aku Riihela of the Finnish Meteorological Institute told New Scientist he estimates that darker ice means the Arctic Ocean's albedo at the end of the summer is of the order of 15 per cent weaker today than it was 30 years ago.
THE CAUSE OF THE DARKENING, SAYS RIIHELA, IS PARTLY DUE TO THINNING ICE AND THE FORMATION OF OPEN WATER FISSURES, AND PARTLY BECAUSE IN THE WARMER AIR, PONDS OF LIQUID WATER FORM ON THE SURFACE OF THE ICE. THE SHALLOW PONDS ON THE ICE CAN DRAMATICALLY REDUCE REFLECTIVITY AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR RADIATION THAT THE ICE ABSORBS. "This shows that the increasing melt affects the inner Arctic sea ice, too," said Riihela.
Earlier this year, Marcel Nicolaus of the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, reported a trans-polar study aboard a German icebreaker, which found that "MORE THAN 50 PER CENT OF THE ICE COVER NOW CONSISTS OF THIN ONE-YEAR ICE ON WHICH THE MELTWATER IS PARTICULARLY WIDESPREAD".
THE MELTING AND DARKENING OF THE ARCTIC IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN CLIMATE CHANGE. IT ACTS AS A POSITIVE FEEDBACK, BECAUSE THE MORE ICE MELTS OR DARKENS, THE MORE THE ARCTIC WARMS AND THE MORE ICE MELTS.
IT MAY HELP EXPLAIN THE SPEED OF ARCTIC ICE LOSS, WHICH FAR EXCEEDS THE PREDICTIONS OF EXISTING CLIMATE MODELS, including those used in the 2007 climate assessment of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change.
At the end of summer 2012, Arctic sea ice extent hit a record low. Some recent predictions suggest the Arctic Ocean could have no ice left at the end of each summer by 2030.
The authors of the new paper have not yet calculated the effect of their findings on those predictions. But they can only hasten the day when the Arctic is ice-free in summer.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
elk, the same cabal that aggregates wealth and power via polluting industries, which society is dependent upon, stand to aggregates more wealth, power and control via this scheme. You've bought a front row seat and keep calling in the story, but fail to see the truth.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is also an essential gas for plant growth and ozone creation. It is a small part of what shapes the Earth's climate...Which is affected by more than just the sun...There's also cosmic rays! The earth's magnetosphere sucks up these energies like a vacuum and in confined collisions energy becomes matter (not nearly enough room to explain here) and the earth slowly grows.
Most people would find this surprising, but the earth itself is generating a considerable amount of heat. If anyone doubts it I suggest spelunking in a volcano sometime.
Certainly some people will find it folly to think that volcanic ridges, which span and create the ocean floors, might actually have an effect upon ocean temperatures, thermal expansion of the waters, evaporation rates and currents... and only a dumb-dumb would think these things would have any effect upon weather systems.
True genius lies in the ability to cut-n-paste propaganda instead of wasting time trying to actually think.
Ya know,, I'm by far no expert on this stuff, but, did the earth not shift it's axis a little a couple of years back,, and is the sun not having a bunch of solar activity in the last few years as well,, all of which can have effect on the climate and weather,, now, I still think we add to all of this with pollution,, but, we are not the only country on this planet and we cannot go this alone and make unreasonable measures to curb the pollution,, specifically, coal,,
2012 CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT FROM NOAA REVEALS RISING SEAS, SNOW MELT AND MORE WARMING
By SETH BORENSTEIN 08/06/13 AP
WASHINGTON -- A NEW MASSIVE FEDERAL STUDY SAYS THE WORLD IN 2012 SWELTERED WITH CONTINUED SIGNS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. RISING SEA LEVELS, SNOW MELT, HEAT BUILDUP IN THE OCEANS, AND MELTING ARCTIC SEA ICE AND GREENLAND ICE SHEETS, ALL BROKE OR NEARLY BROKE RECORDS, BUT TEMPERATURES ONLY SNEAKED INTO THE TOP 10.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued A PEER-REVIEWED 260-PAGE REPORT, WHICH AGENCY CHIEF KATHRYN SULLIVAN CALLS ITS ANNUAL "CHECKING ON THE PULSE OF THE PLANET." THE REPORT, WRITTEN BY 384 SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD, COMPILES DATA ALREADY RELEASED, BUT IT PUTS THEM IN CONTEXT OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING TO EARTH OVER DECADES.
"It's critically important to compile a big picture," National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl says. "The signs that we see are of a warming world."
SULLIVAN SAYS WHAT IS NOTICEABLE "ARE REMARKABLE CHANGES IN KEY CLIMATE INDICATORS," MENTIONING DRAMATIC SPIKES IN OCEAN HEAT CONTENT, A RECORD MELT OF ARCTIC SEA ICE IN THE SUMMER, AND WHOPPING TEMPORARY MELTS OF ICE IN MOST OF GREENLAND LAST YEAR. THE DATA ALSO SHOWS A RECORD-HIGH SEA LEVEL.
THE MOST NOTICEABLE AND STARTLING CHANGES SEEN WERE IN THE ARCTIC, SAYS REPORT CO-EDITOR DEKE ARNDT, CLIMATE MONITORING CHIEF AT THE DATA CENTER. BREAKING RECORDS IN THE ARCTIC IS SO COMMON THAT IT IS BECOMING THE NEW NORMAL, says study co-author Jackie Richter-Menge of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.
Karl says when looked at together, all the indicators show a climate that is changing over the decades. Individually, however, the story isn't as simple.
Karl says surface temperatures haven't risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.
Depending on which of four independent analyses are used, 2012 ranked the eighth or ninth warmest year on record, the report says. Last year was warmer than every year in the previous century, except for 1998 when a record El Nino spiked temperatures globally. NOAA ranks 2010 as the warmest year on record.
They don't have to be records every year, Karl says.
OVERALL THE CLIMATE INDICATORS "ARE ALL SINGING THE SAME SONG THAT WE LIVE IN A WARMING WORLD," ARNDT SAYS. "SOME INDICATORS TAKE A FEW YEARS OFF FROM THEIR INCREASE. THE SYSTEM IS TELLING US IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE WE'RE SEEING RAPID CHANGE."
While the report purposely doesn't address why the world is warming, "the causes are primarily greenhouse gases, the burning of fossil fuels," Arndt says.
The study is being published in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Absolutely RIGHT, Elk. All those things are happening. The argument is: Does MAN cause or contribute heavily to this change or not. I say not and I can cite much proof going back thousands of years when the earth was warmer, considerably warmer, than it is now. Farming in Greenland and Iceland. Ice cores prove this. MAN was NOT contributing greatly to that change and is not now to this one. It is climate change but is not man-made. It is "nature", including celestial nature, that is causing this change.
What terrifies man is that CHANGE is happening over which they have zero control but want to think they have, so are constructing this fantasy that our industrial processes are largely to blame and that is the worst thing that can happen to man. We really don't like change hardly at all. But, change is the nature of life and those who embrace it, and see the opportunities in that change are the ones who will thrive and get rich.
Who saw the personal computer?? Who saw Google?? Who saw Facebook?? Who saw the internet (Berners-Lee, not Gore) and its potential?? Who saw Amazon?? Who saw artificial hips, elbows, knees, polio vaccines, etc., etc., that has made life enormously better. Enormous change in just one lifetime. When I was growing up and wanted to make a phone call, I lifted the receiver and heard "Number, please" from the operator at some large switchboard in town. Now we communicate instantly all over the world with some fabulous gadget in our hand or via this computer and chat board. Who woulda thunk it in 1955 when I was 18? Dumbesillah!! That was science fiction. NOBODY even thought what we take for granted today.
Do some study. Don't drink the climate change koolaid that says MAN is the culprit. Just because a lot of people say it is true doesn't make it true. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
5 WAYS RIGHT-WING MEDIA MAKE THEIR FANS FEAR SCIENCE
August 6, 2013 | Media Matters / By Denise Robbins
A new study  shows five ways conservative media decrease trust in scientists, leading their audience to doubt climate change .
Former Fox News host Glenn Beck once declared  "Do I believe scientists? No. They've lied to us about global warming." But the study, by the Yale Project on Climate Communication , concludes that IT'S ACTUALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND: CONSERVATIVE MEDIA CONSUMERS DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENTISTS, THEREFORE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING.
The study suggests that WATCHING AND LISTENING TO OUTLETS LIKE FOX NEWS AND THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW MAY BE ONE REASON THAT ONLY 19 PERCENT  OF REPUBLICANS AGREE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING, DESPITE THE CONSENSUS  OF 97 PERCENT OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. The Yale researchers depicted five tactics used by conservative media to erode trust in scientists, which Media Matters illustrates with examples.
1. PRESENT CONTRARIANS AS "OBJECTIVE" EXPERTS
Conservative media typically turn to a roster  of professional climate change contrarians and portray  them as "experts" on the issue. WHAT THEY DON'T MENTION IS THAT MOST OF THESE CLIMATE "EXPERTS" DON'T HAVE A BACKGROUND IN CLIMATE SCIENCE  AND ARE OFTEN ON THE BANKROLL  OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.
A Media Matters study  detailed how certain climate contrarians have been given a large platform by the media, particularly Fox News.
For instance, Fox News cut away from President Barack Obama's recent climate change speech to host Chris Horner of the industry-funded  Competitive Enterprise Institute -- giving approximately equal time to Horner and the president.
2. DENIGRATE PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) brings together thousands of the top climate scientists to review and summarize the mainstream scientific understanding of global climate change. Yet conservative media often portray this UN agency as non-credible -- or even akin to terrorists . FOX NEWS ONCE TRIED TO DISMISS  THE WORK OF OVER 1250 AUTHORS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE 2007 IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORT BECAUSE ONE OF THE AUTHORS WAS A GRADUATE STUDENT.
Fox News host Sean Hannity similarly claimed the IPCC has "stopped at nothing to sell its agenda":
3. EQUATE SCIENCE WITH SIMPLY A LIBERAL OPINION
A leaked email obtained  by Media Matters in 2010 showed that A MANAGING EDITOR ORDERED  FOX NEWS JOURNALISTS TO "REFRAIN FROM ASSERTING THAT THE PLANET HAS WARMED (OR COOLED) IN ANY GIVEN PERIOD WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY POINTING OUT THAT SUCH THEORIES ARE BASED UPON DATA THAT CRITICS HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION." THIS DIRECTIVE IS CONSISTENT WITH CONSERVATIVE MEDIA COVERAGE THAT TREATS EVEN THE BASIC FACT THAT THE EARTH HAS WARMED AS MERELY AN OPINION UP FOR DEBATE.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, for example, asked  if Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was "too liberal" because he says "global warming is real and it's manmade." On The O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams and Bernie Goldberg argued  that reporting on the global warming without false balance  is "liberal" "global warming propaganda." And Rush Limbaugh  believes that "manmade global warming ... it's an ideological issue," and that scientists who accept the consensus on global warming are "political advocates " spreading "misinformation."
4. CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS DISTORT DATA IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FUNDING
In 2009, conservative media distorted hacked emails from climate scientists to suggest that they were falsifying data to show a warming trend. IN THE END, EVERY INVESTIGATION INTO THE SO-CALLED "CLIMATEGATE" CONTROVERSY CLEARED  THE SCIENTISTS INVOLVED, AND A STUDY FUNDED IN PART BY THE CONSERVATIVE KOCH BROTHERS CONFIRMED  THE ACCURACY OF THE TEMPERATURE RECORD. BUT THAT DIDN'T PREVENT CONSERVATIVE NEWS PUNDITS FROM SEIZING ON THIS "SCANDAL" AND CLAIMING THAT IT DEBUNKED  THE SCIENCE BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING, and revealed scientists' intent  to "hide the real inconvenient truth that the evidence supporting manmade global warming is far from conclusive."
To explain why scientists would do such a thing, some in the conservative media speculated  that climate scientists were deceitfully manipulating their research  in order to obtain funding, "turn[ing] global warming hysteria into a multi-billion dollar industry." Rush Limbaugh, for instance, swiftly waved off  the consensus of scientists by saying "a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up," adding "they only get the money if they come up with the right result." Hannity had a similar theory:
Right. Because scientists make a living by performing research, "the temperature record of the earth is clearly rigged " to keep up the "multi-billion dollar industry" of testing tree rings and sampling ice cores.
5. CHARACTERIZE CLIMATE SCIENCE AS SIMPLY A "RELIGION"
Climate science has been described by conservative media as a "religion ," an "indoctrination" into socialism , and a "cult ." Limbaugh has claimed that "belief in man-made global warming is a lot like believing in Santa Claus ." Al Gore  was compared more than once to fringe preacher Harold Camping, for supporting the acclaimed IPCC reports showing the threat of global climate change -- or, in conservative jargon, the "Climate Bible ."
BY FRAMING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AS AN ORTHODOXY, CONTRARIANS IMPLICITLY CHARACTERIZE THEMSELVES AS WHAT THE STUDY CALLED  "BRAVE DISSIDENTS AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE SET OF BELIEFS."
Sentiment: Strong Buy
A REPUBLICAN CASE FOR CLIMATE ACTION
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Aug. 1, 2013 | NY Times
EACH OF US TOOK TURNS OVER THE PAST 43 YEARS RUNNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. WE SERVED REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, BUT WE HAVE A MESSAGE THAT TRANSCENDS POLITICAL AFFILIATION: THE UNITED STATES MUST MOVE NOW ON SUBSTANTIVE STEPS TO CURB CLIMATE CHANGE, AT HOME AND INTERNATIONALLY.
THERE IS NO LONGER ANY CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ABOUT THE BASIC FACTS: OUR WORLD CONTINUES TO WARM, WITH THE LAST DECADE THE HOTTEST IN MODERN RECORDS, AND THE DEEP OCEAN WARMING FASTER THAN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. SEA LEVEL IS RISING. ARCTIC SEA ICE IS MELTING YEARS FASTER THAN PROJECTED.
THE COSTS OF INACTION ARE UNDENIABLE. THE LINES OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE GROW ONLY STRONGER AND MORE NUMEROUS. AND THE WINDOW OF TIME REMAINING TO ACT IS GROWING SMALLER: DELAY COULD MEAN THAT WARMING BECOMES “LOCKED IN.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.
Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally.
As administrators of the E.P.A under Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held fast to common-sense conservative principles — protecting the health of the American people, working with the best technology available and trusting in the innovation of American business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost.
That approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain.
The solutions we supported worked, although more must be done. Our rivers no longer burn, and their health continues to improve. The United States led the world when nations came together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Acid rain diminishes each year, thanks to a pioneering, market-based emissions-trading system adopted under the first President Bush in 1990. And despite critics’ warnings, our economy has continued to grow.
Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at risk. If we could articulate one framework for successful governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a problem, deal with it. Look at the facts, cut through the extraneous, devise a workable solution and get it done.
We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.
Mr. Obama’s plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.
Sentiment: Strong Buy