Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters

National Climate Data Center

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html

---- 2011 (preliminary) ----

Economic damage costs to date in the US is approximately $52 Billion. Here is a preliminary summary of 12 U.S. Billion dollar disasters that have occurred so far in 2011:

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona Wildfires Spring-Fall 2011 Continued drought conditions and periods of extreme heat provided conditions favorable for a series of historic wildfires across Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. The Bastrop Fire in Texas was the most destructive fire in Texas history destroying over 1,500 homes. The Wallow Fire consumed over 500,000 acres in Arizona making it the largest on record in Arizona. The Las Conchas Fire in New Mexico was also the state’s largest wildfire on record scorching over 150,000 acres while threatening the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Over 3 million acres have burned across Texas this wildfire season. Total damage in Texas alone due to loss of property, timber and agriculture exceed $750 million. Losses for wildfire activity across all three states exceeds $1.0 billion; at least 5 U.S. deaths.

Hurricane Irene, August 20-29, 2011 Minimal Category 1 hurricane makes landfall over coastal NC and moved northward along the Mid-Atlantic Coast (NC, VA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT) causing torrential rainfall and flooding across the Northeast. Wind damage in coastal NC, VA, and MD was moderate with considerable damage resulting from falling trees and power lines, while flooding caused extensive flood damage across NJ, NY, and VT. Over seven million homes and businesses lost power during the storm. Numerous tornadoes were also reported in several states further adding to the damage. Over $7.3 billion in damages/costs; at least 45 deaths.

Upper Midwest Flooding, Summer, 2011 Melting of an above-average snow pack across the Northern Rocky Mountains combined with above-average precipitation caused the Missouri and Souris Rivers to swell beyond their banks across the Upper Midwest (MT, ND, SD, NE, IA, KS, MO). An estimated 11,000 people were forced to evacuate Minot, North Dakota due to the record high water level of the Souris River, where 4,000 homes were flooded. Numerous levees were breached along the Missouri River, flooding thousands of acres of farmland. Estimated losses exceed $2.0 billion. The flooding also stretched into the Canadian Prairies, where property and agriculture losses were expected to surpass $1.0 billion; at least 5 U.S. deaths.

Mississippi River flooding, Spring-Summer, 2011 Persistent rainfall (nearly 300 percent normal precipitation amounts in the Ohio Valley) combined with melting snowpack caused historical flooding along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Estimated economic loss ranges from $3.0-4.0 billion; at least 2 deaths. Below are more detailed stats, which are still preliminary: $500 million to agriculture in Arkansas; $320 million in damage to Memphis, Tennessee; $800 million to agriculture in Mississippi; $317 million to agriculture and property in Missouri's Birds Point-New Madrid Spillway; $80 million for the first 30 days of flood fighting efforts in Louisiana; at least 7 deaths.

Southern Plains/Southwest Drought and Heatwave, Spring-Fall, 2011 Drought and heatwave conditions created major impacts across Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, southern Kansas, and western Louisiana. In Texas and Oklahoma, a majority of range and pastures were classified in 'very poor' condition for much of the 2011 crop growing season. The total direct losses to crops, livestock and timber approach $10.0 billion; both direct and total economic losses will rise as the drought continues.

Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes and Severe Weather June 18-22, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central states (OK, TX, KS, NE, MO, IA, IL) with an estimated 81 tornadoes. Additional wind and hail damage across the Southeast (TN, GA, NC, SC). Over $1.0 billion insured losses; total losses greater than $1.3 billion and at least 3 deaths.

Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, May 22-27, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (MO, TX, OK, KS, AR, GA, TN, VA, KY, IN, IL, OH, WI, MN, PA) with an estimated 180 tornadoes and at least 177 deaths. Notably, an EF-5 tornado struck Joplin, MO resulting in at least 160 deaths, making it the deadliest single tornado to strike the U.S. since modern tornado record keeping began in 1950. Over $6.5 billion insured losses for event; total losses greater than $9.1 billion; 177 deaths.

Southeast/Ohio Valley/Midwest Tornadoes, April 25-30, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (AL, AR, LA, MS, GA, TN, VA, KY, IL, MO, OH, TX, OK) with an estimated 343 tornadoes and 321 deaths. Of those fatalities, 240 occurred in Alabama. The deadliest tornado of the outbreak, an EF-5, hit northern Alabama, killing 78 people. Several major metropolitan areas were directly impacted by strong tornadoes including Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, and Huntsville in Alabama and Chattanooga, Tennessee, causing the estimated damage costs to soar. Over $7.3 billion insured losses; total losses greater than $10.2 billion; 321 deaths.

Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, April 14-16, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (OK, TX, AR, MS, AL, GA, NC, SC, VA, PA) with an estimated 177 tornadoes. Despite the large overall number of tornadoes, few were classified as intense, with just 14 EF-3, and no EF-4 or EF-5 tornadoes identified. Over $1.4 billion insured losses; total losses greater than $2.1 billion; 38 deaths [22 of which were in North Carolina].

Southeast/Midwest Tornadoes, April 8-11, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (NC, SC, TN, AL, TX, OK, KS, IA, WI) with an estimated 59 tornadoes. Over $1.5 billion insured losses; total losses greater than $2.2 billion; numerous injuries, 0 deaths.

Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, April 4-5, 2011 Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (KS, MO, IA, IL, WI, KY, GA, TN, NC, SC) with an estimated 46 tornadoes. Over $2.0 billion insured losses; total losses greater than $2.8 billion; 9 deaths.

Groundhog Day Blizzard, Jan 29-Feb 3, 2011 A large winter storm impacting many central, eastern and northeastern states. The city of Chicago was brought to a virtual standstill as between 1 and 2 feet of snow fell over the area. Insured losses greater than $1.0 billion; total losses greater than $1.8 billion; 36 deaths.

Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms

By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau  January 16, 2012

Los Angeles Times

Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man-made global warming. A national watchdog group says it will start monitoring classrooms.

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Conflation and misconstruction as modus operendi?

I often wonder at just how expert one can be in getting it all wrong? It's not a field of study, it's an inability to see the forest for the trees. This months winners for missing the point seem to be Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Sr. They continue to put their arguemnts together incorrectly and generally get it wrong.

Comment On Gavin Schmidt’s Post On His Weblog Real Climate Regarding The Dominate Role Of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Concentrations On The Global Average Temperature Trends

Gavin Schmidt has presented  information in his weblog post on Real Climate titled

The AR4 attribution statement

which is incomplete and misleading.

His post starts with the text [highlight added]

Back in 2007, the IPCC AR4 SPM stated that:

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This is a clear statement that I think is very well supported and correctly reflects the opinion of most climate scientists on the subject (and was re-affirmed in two recent papers (Jones and Stott, 2011;, Huber and Knutti, 2011)). It isn’t an isolated conclusion from a single study, but comes from an assessment of the changing patterns of surface and tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, ocean heat content changes, land-ocean contrasts, etc. that collectively demonstrate that there are detectable changes occurring which we can attempt to attribute to one or more physical causes.

He persists is using multi-decadal global model predictions as the tool to claim that the cause of global average temperatures increases over the last 50 years or so can mostly be explained by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration [and when he says "global average" he means "global annual average"] . In our article

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union

we wrote

Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings in altering….. global climate ……… It also placed too much emphasis on average global forcing from a limited set of human climate forcings.

To this we should add that “the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of NATURAL climate forcings in altering….. global climate ………”

Actually, it is straightforward to shed doubt on Gavin’s (and the IPCC) claim.  If the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration were so  dominate we would expect the global average [annual] lower troposphere temperature to more-or less monotonically continue to rise in the last decade or so.  This clearly has not occurred, as illustrated, for example, in the figure below for the lower troposphere [from RSS; Figure 7]

and from the UAH analysis (see)

The first tic mark on the x-axis in the RSS figure is 1979.

The lower tropospheric ~global annual average lower tropospheric temperatures have been essentially flat for at least 10 years, presumably due to other human climate forcings, solar forcing, decadal and longer natural variability and/or  radiative feedbacks.

If Gavin were correct, we should also see the lower stratosphere continue to cool. As shown below (from RSS, figure 7), there has been no significant cooling for over 17 years!

Gavin is failing to see this complexity in the climate system. It is quite puzzling as most all climate scientist accept a positive radiative forcing from the human addition of greenhouse gases, but many of us do not accept that is the only first order effect, nor that it is the most dominate in terms of the effect of these forcings on society and the environment.

He may yet be correct for 50 year time scales, but the recent evidence he refers to is actually working to refute his hypothesis.

In this context, he also has ignored  the implications from the recent Loeb et al 2012 paper which posted on;

Brief Comment On The Nature Geoscience Paper “Observed Changes In Top-Of-The-Atmosphere Radiation And Upper-Ocean Heating Consistent Within Uncertainty” By Loeb Et Al 2012

In that post,  I wrote

Jim Hansen concluded in 2005 that the decadal mean planetary energy imbalance at the end of the 1990s was

,…..0.85 Watts per meter squared is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”

This value falls within the uncertainty range of the Leob et al 2012 study.  However, we are 13 years since the end of the 20th century, so Jim Hansen’s value for the imbalance must be larger (~0.95 Watts per meter squared from GISS?).

This question about whether or not the IPCC model predictions (as represented by the GISS models) are still consistent even with the large Loeb et al estimate should have been a major part of their article.  The Loeb et al 2012 even cited the Hansen paper but did not take the next step and complete model and observational comparisons. That the IPCC models are close to being refuted with respect to the magnitude of global warming even with the large Loeb et al values is an unspoken result of their findings. They missed a major implication from their results.

Gavin is very selective when he seeks to defend the dominance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases with respect to global annual average temperature changes.  In reality, Gavin’s conclusion on the role of the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases as dominating changes in climate statistics is close to being refuted.

source of image

Gavin Responds to Pielke Seniors Conflation:

“In reality, Gavin’s conclusion on the role of the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases as dominating changes in climate statistics is close to being refuted.”

[Response: What a strange comment. It mixes up projections with hindcasts, conflates the IPCC statement with a strawman that no other factors have any effect, and finishes up with an apparent claim that because there is month to month variability in the MSU data, the long term trends are not attributable. Plus the confusion about the dominant factors in MSU4 (hint, it isn't CO2). - gavin]

Judith Curry Defends Her Ambiguity And Lack Of Understanding

Judith Curry and P.J. Webster put out a new paper in BAMS (the American Meteorological Society) journal and did a greawt job of muddling up some very important issues. The point is well made by Gavin Schmit on RealClimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/

Gavins comments on related issues can be found here:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/#comment-13587

October 31, 2011 5:00 pm ET by Leslie Rosenberg

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, referring to global waring"It's a Hoax" "There are plenty of stupid people in this country", clearly referring to anyone that believes 'Al Gore' regarding global warming. The key point that Rush Limbaugh misses is that the science has nothing to do with Al Gore. The science is done by scientists, universities, and national weather services all around the world collecting and analyzing data.

Source: Media Matters

(Incandescent) lights to go out in China

World's most-populous country to phase out energy-inefficient bulbs

BEIJING — China announced Friday it will phase out incandescent light bulbs within five years in an attempt to make the world's most polluting nation more energy efficient.

China will ban imports and sales of 100-watt and higher incandescent bulbs from Oct. 1, 2012, the country's main planning agency said.

It will extend the ban to 60-watt and higher bulbs on Oct. 1, 2014, and to 15-watt and higher bulbs on Oct. 1, 2016. The time frame for the last step may be adjusted according to an evaluation in September 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission said.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45166535/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/

National Climate Data Center - September Report

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9

Global Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for September 2011 was the eighth warmest on record at 15.53°C (59.95°F), which is (0.53°C) 0.95°F above the 20^th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is +/- 0.11°C (0.20°F).
• Separately, the global land surface temperature was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), making this the fourth warmest September on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.24°C (0.43°F). Warmer-than-average conditions occurred across Europe, northern and western Africa, the Middle East, western Russia, the western and northeastern United States, and Mexico. Cooler-than-average regions included much of eastern Asia, western Canada and southeastern Alaska, and part of the central United States.
• Separately, the global land surface temperature was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), making this the fourth warmest September on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.24°C (0.43°F).
• The September global ocean surface temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20^th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), making it the 14^th warmest September on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.04°C (0.07°F). The warmth was most pronounced across the north central and northwest Pacific Ocean and within about the 30°N–40°N latitude belt across the Atlantic.
• The September global ocean surface temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20^th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), making it the 14^th warmest September on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.04°C (0.07°F).
• The United Kingdom marked its warmest September since 2006 and sixth warmest in the last 100 years, at 1.5°C (2.7°F) above the 1971–2000 average.
• Spain had its warmest September since 1990 for the and fifth warmest over the past 50 years, at 1.8°C (3.2°F).
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January – September period was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), making it the 11^th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.10°C (0.18°F).
• The January – September worldwide land surface temperature was 0.80°C (1.44°F) above the 20^th century average — the 7th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.20°C (0.36°F). The global ocean surface temperature for the year to date was 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average and was the 12^th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.04°C (0.07°F).

Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters

November, 2011

Synoptic Map of Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters--1980-2010
(Click on the image for a larger view- print in landscape mode.)

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is the “Nation’s Scorekeeper” in terms of addressing severe weather/climate events in their historical perspective. As part of its responsibility of “monitoring and assessing the climate,” NCDC tracks and evaluates climate events in the U.S. and globally that have great economic and societal impacts. NCDC is frequently called upon to provide summaries of global and US temperature and precipitation trends, extremes, and comparisons in their historical perspective.

This web page/report describes those events that have had the greatest economic impact since 1980. The authors (Ross and Lott) have also written a paper (PDF version - larger than 1.0 MB), "A Climatology of 1980-2003 Extreme Weather and Climate Events", which provides a climatology of some of these events, and relates the events to population/societal trends and climate change. Also, a 2006 conference paper provides additional details regarding this report.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#narrative

Richard Somerville ABC Interview

Source Link

Summer 2011: Arctic sea ice near record lows

The summer sea ice melt season has ended in the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent reached its low for the year, the second lowest in the satellite record, on September 9. The minimum extent was only slightly above 2007, the record low year, even though weather conditions this year were not as conducive to ice loss as in 2007. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data.
Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of "noise" pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends. Data derived from Sea Ice Index data set. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image

Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average.

As in recent years, northern shipping routes opened up this summer. The Northern Sea Route opened by mid August and still appeared to be open as of the end of September. The southern "Amundsen Route" of the Northwest Passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, opened for the fifth year in a row. Overall, sea ice in the wider and deeper northern route through Parry Channel reached a record low, according to Stephen Howell of Environment Canada, based on Canadian Ice Service analysis. Parry Channel had a narrow strip of ice that blocked a short section of the channel, but it did appear to open briefly in early September.

For additional numbers for previous years, see Table 1.

 

Figure 2. The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of October 1, 2011, along with daily ice extents for the previous three lowest years for the minimum ice extent. Light blue indicates 2011, dashed green shows 2007, dark blue shows 2010, purple shows 2008, and dark gray shows the 1979 to 2000 average. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

 

Conditions in context

While the melt season in 2011 got off to a slow start, the ice loss pace quickened during June. Ice retreated quite rapidly in the Kara and Barents seas, with rates more than double the average rate. Rapid ice loss continued during the first half of July but then slowed considerably as a series of low pressure systems moved over the central Arctic Ocean. By the end of July, ice extent was slightly above that seen in 2007.

Ice extent stayed above 2007 for the remainder of the melt season, reaching its minimum of 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles) on September 9, 2011. Since the minimum, a rapid freeze-up has begun. On October 1, the five-day average extent rose above 5 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles).

Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 12.0% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

 

September 2011 compared to past years

Ice extent for September 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite record for the month. The last five years (2007 to 2011) have had the five lowest September extents in the satellite record. The linear rate of decline is now -84,700 square kilometers (-32,700 square miles) per year, or -12% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average. In contrast to 2007, when a "perfect storm" of atmospheric and ocean conditions contributed to summer ice loss, this year's conditions were less extreme. From the beginning of the melt season in March, to the minimum extent on September 9, the Arctic Ocean lost 10.3 million square kilometers (4.0 million square miles) of sea ice. It was the fifth year in a row with more than 10 million square kilometers of ice extent change from maximum to minimum. In comparison, the average seasonal ice loss during the 1980s was 9.0 million square kilometers (3.5 million square miles)

Figure 4. Ice motion charts for August 2011 show different movement patterns for this summer compared to 2007. The arrows show the direction of ice motion, with larger arrows indicating stronger motion. In 2007, northward ice motion helped push the ice together and flush it out of the Arctic.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

 

Atmospheric conditions

In 2007, a persistent dipole anomaly weather pattern, with unusually high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and unusually low pressure over the Kara Sea, helped contribute to the record ice loss. This pattern resulted in strong southerly winds from the Bering Strait region across the North Pole, which brought warmer winds and ocean waters northward to melt the ice edge and push the ice northward. In addition, especially strong high pressure over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in June 2007 resulted in less than average cloudiness, allowing more sunlight to reach the ice.

The Arctic saw a similar weather pattern this summer, but not as strong and persistent as in 2007. The location of the high and low pressure centers was also shifted, so that the winds blew east to west instead of toward the north as in 2007. This shift is reflected in the movement of the sea ice, particularly during August.

Patterns of air temperatures (measured at the 925 millibar level or about 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface) were also quite different this year compared to 2007. In summer 2007, temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas were 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average. This year, temperatures in that region were near average, but north of Greenland and in the Canadian Archipelago, conditions were even warmer than in 2007. These high temperatures likely played a role in the opening of the Northwest Passage.

Figure 5. Sea surface temperatures this year were generally lower than in 2007, although some areas of the ocean surface still had higher than average temperatures.
—Credit: NSIDC courtesy M. Steele and W. Ermold, Univ. Washington PSC, and NOAA
High-resolution image

 

Sea surface temperatures

Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs), based on National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data provided by Michael Steele and Wendy Ermold of the University of Washington Polar Science Center, indicate above normal temperatures on the surface of the Arctic Ocean. However, the temperatures anomalies were not as extreme as in 2007 and were comparable to those recorded for 2009 and 2010. These lower temperatures may be the result of less solar heating of the exposed ocean surface or less transport of warm waters from the south. In 2007, ice retreated early from the shores of Alaska and Siberia, allowing the ocean mixed layer to heat up and enhance melting of the ice from below. In contrast, ice was slower to retreat in this region in summer 2011, and less bottom melt was observed.

Figure 6. Data on ice age show that coverage of the oldest, thickest ice types (ice four years or older) has declined over the past 28 years.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, and M. Tschudi, U. Colorado Boulder
High-resolution image

 

Ice remains younger, thinner

Why did ice extent fall to a near record low without the sort of extreme weather conditions seen in 2007? One explanation is that the ice cover is thinner than it used to be; the melt season starts with more first-year ice (ice that formed the previous autumn and winter) and less of the generally thicker multi-year ice (ice that has survived at least one summer season). First- and second-year ice made up 80% of the ice cover in the Arctic Basin in March 2011, compared to 55% on average from 1980 to 2000. Over the past few summers, more first-year ice has survived than in 2007, replenishing the younger multi-year ice categories (2- to 3-year-old ice). This multi-year ice appears to have played a key role in preserving the tongue of ice extending from near the North Pole toward the East Siberian Sea. However, the oldest, thickest ice (five or more years old) has continued to decline, particularly in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Continued loss of the oldest, thickest ice has prevented any significant recovery of the summer minimum extent. In essence, what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard.

Table 1. Previous Arctic sea ice extents for the month of September

Year	Average Arctic Sea Ice Extent for September		Trend, in % per decade (relative to 1979-2000 avg.)
	in millions of square kilometers	in millions of square miles
2007	4.30	1.66	-10.2
2008	4.67	1.80	-11.1
2009	5.36	2.07	-11.2
2010	4.90	1.89	-11.6
2011	4.61	1.78	-12.0
1979 to 2000 average	7.04	2.72
1979 to 2010 average	6.52	2.52

2011_rel2: GMSL and Multivariate ENSO Index

PDF | EPS

Discussion

The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) is the unrotated, first principal component of six observables measured over the tropical Pacific (see NOAA ESRL MEI, Wolter & Timlin, 1993,1998).  To compare the global mean sea level to the MEI time series, we removed the mean, linear trend, and seasonal signals from the 60-day smoothed global mean sea level estimates and normalized each time series by its standard deviation. The normalized values plotted above show a strong correlation between the global mean sea level and the MEI, with the global mean sea level often lagging changes in the MEI. Since the MEI has recently sharply increased (coming out of a strong La Niña), we expect the global mean sea level estimates to also reverse their recent downward trend and begin to increase as the La Niña effects wane.

The Cost of 'Wait and See'

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/wedges-reaffirmed/P2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/the-cost-of-inaction/

Some say we should just wait and see what happens with global warming. In consideration of the costs and impact potentials it is becoming increasingly clear through both quantitative and qualitative analysis that inaction has a increasingly higher costs if unattended.

Is there a way to assess the cost of inaction on reducing carbon emissions? Yes. When you combine the data regarding crop loss and changes in precipitation, soil moisture content and fresh water supply impacts you can more clearly see that the impacts will undoubtedly have a negative economic impact.

When you combine that value consideration with the impacts of fire and drought and how the total combined effect will resonate throughout the economic food chain it is obvious that the net result of 'wait and see" is negative with a high risk potential. While some claim that the science of climate is too uncertain, they are missing the main point that certainty on the most critical aspects of the science are above 90%. The can claim uncertainty in cloud response which is still scientifically challenging, but there is not evidence to support that there will actually be a negative response. The paleo evidence indicates there is no detectable 'Iris' effect.

The conclusion one can draw is that the evidence outweighs the 'Iris hypothesis'. The paleo evidence and the modern physics and observations indicate that there will warming will result from increased greenhouse gases. The only reasonable conclusion one can come to based on the evidence is that one can not use mere hypothesis to override the risk values estimated by continued emissions at current rates. To 'believe' otherwise would be similar in nature to governments making decisions based on wishful thinking as opposed to observed evidence that has been strongly confirmed. It simply does not make sense.

Skeptic Muller Funded in part of Koch Brothers finds Global Warming is Real

By John P. Reisman Oct. 31, 2011

There was nothing new or surprising in Richard Muller's work. His main concern was there was not enough skepticism prior to 'his' work? It is a bold claim and I am reasonably sure that most of the scientists that have been working in the field would argue with him on that point.

Essentially he was saying that 'he' would not be convinced until 'he' examined the data and that 'he' would not believe the other scientists.

There is no revelation in his work. Global warming was predicted as early as 1896 by Svante Arrhenius and further confirmed through the work of many scientists over decades of research including Callendar, Plass, Revelle, Keeling, Hansen, and in recent decades thousands of scientists and hundreds of research universities and institutions.

Muller only confirmed what was already known, that the world is warming, but 'his' confirmation was not needed, though not unwelcome. The problem remains, he did not delve into the human cause issue. He may still be skeptical on cause but did say "Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world". Yet he contends that the threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is? How can he make such a contention without researching it though? This is yet another example of scientists reaching beyond the scope of their view making unsubstantiated claims.

What is indicated is that he does not trust the field of science until he personally verifies it. It's odd though. He knows the scientific method is being used in climate science. It seems he merely does not trust science, or science done by anyone other than himself. My question then to Richard Muller is, does he fly in airplanes, and if he does, does he ask the pilot to let him fly the plane so that he knows everything is being done correctly?

His statements still lean toward arrogance and his skepticism seems inappropriate as it seems overly skeptical of the very foundations of science itself, and of course the scientific method.

It also seems strange that in his view, the quality of so many thousands of scientists can not be trusted until Richard Muller puts his stamp of approval on it?

This fact remains: The basic physics and knowledge of the greenhouse effect have been examined since 1824 beginning with Joseph Fourier, the hypothesis that we should warm with continued CO2 emissions has been around for more than a hundred years, the general confirmations and realization that this will develop into a global problem have been germinating for over 50 years, and in the last three decades the knowledge that the warming we will experience will affect our climate and agricultural systems is well known.

Muller has added nothing new to our collective understanding or that of the science of climate, other than inform us that there are still some overly stubborn scientists that don't believe anything until they see it with their own eyes. I can understand this only to a degree as I myself sometimes fall into this category. But there is a difference between being skeptical and drawing conclusions that a field of science is not strong based on my not understanding it. It's okay to be skeptical. It's not okay to say the climate scientists are wrong just because I have not looked deep enough into the issue. Muller apparently fell into the latter category. As for my self, it's okay for me to not understand a finding until looking deeper, but neither I nor others should make broad-based assumptions that the science should be doubted based on our own lack of understanding.

I conclude with this thought. There is healthy skepticism and there is arrogant skepticism. The evidence suggests that Richard Muller falls into the arrogant skepticism side of the equation.

In summary, if nothing scientific can be trusted until Richard Muller tests it, then he's going to be a very, very busy man for the rest of his life.

Source link for background on story.

The Judith Curry Mistake

By John P. Reisman Oct. 31, 2011

Dr. Judith Curry continues to misinterpret long term climate trends by focusing on irrelevant time periods (too short). She has been informed by many highly competent scientists that are apparently much more qualified than herself in how to separate the short term natural variation from the human change signal based on changes and influences of increased radiative forcing. The key to relevant context for examination of the data/trend is time. Generally you need at least three decades of change combined with attribution including human and natural factors in order to see (separate) the significance of the human signal from natural variation.

She apparently continues to ignore this reality and point to data segments that are too short to separate the natural variation from the human influenced trend signal. Why would a scientist continue to ignore these well known realities? Let us consider the possibilities:

• Curry's view is subject to confirmation bias
• Possibly there is some as yet unseen special interest influence
• Curry has become a victim of her own tribe mentality problem/hypothesis
• Dr. Curry is not sufficiently knowledgeable in the field of climate science to express a competently informed view

It is possible, if not likely, that one or more of these factors are in play with Dr. Curry's continued focus on irrelevance. Either way, she exemplifies inadequacy in interpretation of the available evidence.

Source link to subject article of this rebuttal.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Washington, DC - A new Ipsos poll conducted behalf of Stanford University and Reuters explores American public opinion on the environment and global warming. A summary of key findings are listed below and the full report is available for download on the right.

Global warming has been a central focus in the recent Republican presidential primary debates. What do the American people actually think on the issue?

Our survey shows that more Americans today believe that global warming is occurring compared to just a year ago. However, at the same time, the skeptics have become more certain in their beliefs that global warming is not happening.

• The recent Reuters/Stanford/Ipsos poll finds a significant increase in the number of Americans who believe the earth has been warming (from 75% in 2010 to 83% now) in the last year. Currently, 83% of all adults say that global warming has been happening while only 15% say they believe that it has not been happening.
• While attitudes on this issue differ between Democrats and Republicans, the divide is not as great as the political debate might imply: Almost three-quarters (72%) of Republicans believe global warming has been happening, as do 92% of Democrats.
• The percentage of Americans who are certain that warming has been happening has also climbed, from 45% to 53%.
• However, those who do not believe in global warming have become more resolute in their attitude (certainty from 35% in 2010 to 53% in 2011).
• A large majority (71%) believe that if warming has been happening, it has been caused either partly (45%) or mostly (27%) by things people have been doing. 27% believe warming to be the result of natural causes.
• Here the political polarization of the issue is more apparent: 37% of Democrats believe global warming is the result primarily of human action, while only 14% of Republicans believe this. Conversely, 43% of Republicans believe global warming is the result of natural causes, up from 35% in 2010. Self-identified Tea Party members display still more certainty (49%) that global warming is caused by natural events.
• Looking forward, a large majority of Americans (72%) expect the world’s temperature to continue rising over the next 100 years if nothing is done to prevent it. Here too, Democrats are much more likely to believe in global warming’s continued impact (88%) compared to Republicans (57%) or Tea Party members (49%).

Source Link: IPSOS

OSS Analysis of IPSOS Poll

Sifting through the the policy relevant numbers two stand out around 83% believe global warming is occurring and 63% tend toward natural causes. This indicates that the cause factor is becoming less recognized. Let's take a look at the numbers through the lens of antithesis.The poll indicates that:

• 37% of Democrats say current warming is mostly caused by human activity therefore,
• 63% of Democrats do not recognize significance of human cause factors.

And

• 14% of Republicans say current warming is mostly caused by human activity therefore,
• 86% of Republicans do not recognize significance of human cause factors.

The poll of course measures 'belief' which generally regulates human behavior. Science is not based in belief though, science is based in relative confidence levels based on maths, physics, and observations that produce a cohesive line or lines of evidence. The evidence suggests that confidence in the human caused change factor is greater than 90%. By extrapolating from the numbers above we have a good indicator as to why we do not have motion towards relevant policy at this time.

• Approximately 74.5% of the Republicans and Democrats do not have sufficient understanding to achieve meaningful policy relevance.

Believing global warming is occurring is a mistake on nearly every level. Primarily because beliefs are wind driven, from a psychological point of view at least. Every time someones doubt strings are pulled or argument to emotion pulls at an issue we all can care about combined with an argument form authority, faux or not as even facts can be misrepresented through spinning the context, we simply can not and should not rely on belief as a driver of understanding. We need to rely on what science can reasonably show us when facts are represented in relevant context.

People need to understand, at the very least, that global warming is not about belief, it is simply about physics and math examined with observations and the resulting evidence lines that show substantially and with high confidence that of the many human factors involved in climate change increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary and significant factor. Without that understanding meaningful policy achievement is less possible.

By, John P. Reisman – August 1, 2011

Science is a quest for understanding our world, ourselves and our existence. It is built upon a method of critical examination and reasoning to determine relevance in the strongest form possible. When scientists start going in the opposite direction from adding to the understanding, to detracting from it, one is hard pressed to call it science. Such endeavor can still be done in the name of science, or even done from a premise of misunderstanding; but when the same mistakes that have been scientifically shown to be unsound are repeated by the same scientist over and over again, one can see that something is wrong.

It has already been pointed out to Roy Spencer that cherry picking short time periods and weighing that cherry pick with other cherry picked model examples to show how they don't match is scientifically inappropriate when considering any conclusions that may be drawn. To draw a conclusion for a scientifically short time period separate from the totality of the evidence and aggregated science is not good science. One is hard pressed not to cal it foolish.

Roy Spencer has put out another paper. It's about climate science and how he thinks everyone else has got it wrong. He published it, not in a more qualified climate science journal with a strong peer review, but a journal for geographers. Evidence indicates that this publication does not actually have a strong peer review process in place:

The fee is 500 Swiss Francs to publish:

http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc#amount-apc

“currently planning for the implementation of a discount system for peer-reviewers that kindly offered their services to our journals. This new discount system will be in place in middle of 2010″

There may be an opportunity for someone:

Open positions at MDPI
Assistant Editor
Posted: 1 February 2011
Location: Office in Haidian, Beijing, China
Contact: kelly.chen@mdpi.com

Red Flag: Spencer limited the view to between 2000-2010 (too short to evaluate a projected model due to inability to separate the natural variation in a single decade from the climate signal). His focus is on uncertainty in feedback response.

Spencer's paper was published on July 25, 2011 here: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

Mike Mann posted a response by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo on July 29th.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback

Fox News of course picked up on Spencer's paper with this:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/

A Real Climate Assessment

Trenberth and Fasailo: "The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing  which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published."

Summary: "Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The inter-annual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.  The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”)."

Al Gore Speaks Clearly About Climate Change

by John P. Reisman – August, 10, 2011

Climate change does not care about your politics. Climate change does not care about your beliefs. Climate change is a matter of physics. Al Gore, in a speech in Colorado made the following remarks:

"Some of the exact same people -- by name, I can go down a list of their names -- are involved in this," Gore said Thursday at an Aspen Institute forum in Aspen, Colo. "And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It's not -- It may be volcanoes.' Bullshit! 'It may be sun spots.' Bullshit! 'It's not getting warmer.' Bullshit!" ... "There are about 10 other memes that are out there, and when you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap, over and over and over again. They have polluted this shit. There is no longer shared reality on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened."

In the nexus of American colloquialism, there is nothing inaccurate in his comments. There is a clearly identifiable oligarchy of denialist consensus that is feeding unscientific malarkey, wrapped in the guise of science and understanding, to an uninformed public.

Source: NY Times

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2011 was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the 10^th warmest such value since records began in 1880.
• For March–May 2011, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above average—also the 10^th warmest March–May on record.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12^th warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.48°C (0.86°F) warmer than the 20^th century average.
• The global land average surface temperature for May 2011 was the seventh warmest May on record, while March–May ranked as the 10^th warmest such period.
• In the Northern Hemisphere, both the May 2011 and March–May average temperatures for land areas were seventh warmest such periods on record.
• The May, March–May, and year-to-date (January–May) worldwide ocean surface temperatures all ranked as the 11^th warmest such periods on record.
• La Niña ended during May 2011. Sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean warmed above the La Niña threshold, signifying a return to ENSO-neutral conditions.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/5

Revisiting historical ocean surface temperatures

Filed under: Climate Science, Instrumental Record, Oceans — gavin @ 11 July 2011

Readers may recall discussions of a paper by Thompson et al (2008) back in May 2008. This paper demonstrated that there was very likely an artifact in the sea surface temperature (SST) collation by the Hadley Centre (HadSST2) around the end of the second world war and for a few years subsequently, related to the different ways ocean temperatures were taken by different fleets. At the time, we reported that this would certainly be taken into account in revisions of data set as more data was processed and better classifications of the various observational biases occurred. Well, that process has finally resulted in the publication of a new compilation, HadSST3.

Source: RealClimate

Russian Temperature Anomaly

by John P. Reisman- July 12, 2011

The chart below illustrates the previous 3 months of temperature anomaly over Russia.

Source: OSS Current Climate Conditions: Temperature

Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?

RealClimate Filed under: Climate Science, Oceans — stefan @ 12 July 2011

In a comparrison of the work of Houston and Dean (2011) in Journal of Coastal Research to Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) one finds some interesting issues. The Houston and Dean paper admits to cherry picking it's data points to show 'no acceleration' in sea level rise.

They write in the paper: ‘Since the worldwide data of Church and White (2006)…appear to have a linear rise since around 1930, we analyzed the period 1930 to 2010.’

The interval was thus hand-picked to show a linear rise rather than acceleration.

If one subtracts out the non-climatic sea level change due to water stored in artificial reservoirs on land, as we did in Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009), then the agreement between the acceleration curve predicted from global temperature with the actually observed curve is even better (graph below). Thus, the 1930s acceleration minimum pointed out by Houston & Dean supports our approach and projections rather than challenging them.

Figure 2. The same as Figure 1, but here the sea-level data are corrected for water storage in artificial reservoirs (Chao, Wu, and Li, 2008).

A rebuttal by Stefan Rahmstorf and Martin Vermeer has now been published in JCR.

Source: RealClimate

North Pole Cam 1 & 2

by John P. Reisman - July 17, 2011

Images from the North Pole cameras:

Cam 1 - July 17, 2011

Cam 2 - July 17,2011

Source: OSS Current Climate Conditions: Arctic

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Averaging Below 2007 Anomaly

by John P. Reisman - July 17, 2011

Source: OSS Current Climate Conditions - Arctic

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change

Abstract: Paleoclimate data help us assess climate sensitivity and potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods of the past million years was less than 1{\deg}C warmer than in the Holocene. Polar warmth in these interglacials and in the Pliocene does not imply that a substantial cushion remains between today's climate and dangerous warming, but rather that Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. Thus goals to limit human-made warming to 2{\deg}C are not sufficient - they are prescriptions for disaster. Ice sheet disintegration is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. We suggest that ice sheet mass loss, if warming continues unabated, will be characterized better by a doubling time for mass loss rate than by a linear trend. Satellite gravity data, though too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. Observed accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth's temperature now exceeds the mean Holocene value. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.

What is notable in this analysis is that it demonstrates a clear difference between where Earth is in temperature now, and where we are going in relation to estimated paleo temperatures in the past 800 thousand years, and the last 5.5 million years.  When one considers the total relative radiative forcing levels required to produce these past temperature peaks, and compares that to current industrial imposed forcing, we can see that we are heading into an entirely new climate regime that is not only far outside of the natural range, but based on our current infrastructure, will have far reaching implications for the global economy, based on changes that will impact our existing structure.

Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3

Click Here for Popular Science Summary PDF

UN Security Council Addresses Considers Global Security and Climate Change

July 22, 2011 - Al Jazeera Reports

OSS Editorial Note: The UN Security Council debate on climate change was called for by Germany. Raising the issue at this level is very helpful in some ways as it opens the discussion. It remains important that the discussion be practical and achieve relevant conclusions in their assessment. --
The notion of creating a green peace keeping force has been raised. The general consensus from commentators and those experienced in the field, and the position of our own analysis in the complexity of the interrelated issues precludes such a concept. -- Never the less, raising the issue does help place a spotlight on the importance of the global security issue related to global warming. -- Russia and some others expressed their disappointment in this being an issue. -- This means that there is much more to be done regarding education regarding the implications and expectations of climate change in relation to global security and in context of national security.

The UN Security Council has expressed concern that climate change may aggravate threats to international peace and security after what diplomats described as intense negotiations between Germany and Russia, which initially opposed any council action.

Small island states, which could disappear beneath rising seas, are pushing the Security Council to intervene to combat the threat to their existence. Meanwhile there has been talk of a new environmental peacekeeping force - the green helmets - which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources.

The final statement expressed "concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security".

The Security Council had failed to agree on whether climate change was an issue of world peace in 2007, when Britain brought up the matter. This is one of the first debates that will be occurring within that forum, which raises the whole issue of the security implications around climate change and the potential security implications for the world.

Is it a real opportunity to achieve significant results or an attempt to divert attention away from the root causes of the problem and from the countries that cause global warming and to distribute the burden evenly on all nations?

Note: There is a 25 minute video discussing related issues regarding the meeting. Please follow the source link. Inside Story, with presenter Jane Dutton, discusses with guests: Sabrina Chesterman, a climate change consultant based in South Africa; Tobias Seakin, a senior research fellow and the director of National Security and Resilience; and Cleo Paskal, an associate fellow with the Energy, Environment and Development Programme.

Source: Al Jazeera

New study details glacier ice loss following ice shelf collapse

By NSIDC - July 25, 2011

An international team of researchers has combined data from multiple sources to provide the clearest account yet of how much glacial ice surges into the sea following the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves.

The work by researchers at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), the Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique at the University of Toulouse, France, and the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) details recent ice losses while promising to sharpen future predictions of further ice loss and sea level rise likely to result from ongoing changes along the Antarctic Peninsula.

“Not only do you get an initial loss of glacial ice when adjacent ice shelves collapse, but you get continued ice losses for many years—even decades—to come,” says Christopher Shuman, a researcher at UMBC’s Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (JCET) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. “This further demonstrates how important ice shelves are to Antarctic glaciers.”

Shuman is lead author of the study “2001-2009 elevation and mass losses in the Larsen A and B embayments, Antarctic Peninsula“ published online today in the Journal of Glaciology.

Crane Glacier is one of the several Antarctic glaciers that fed into the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which dramatically collapsed in 2002. A new study provides detailed information on how much ice these glaciers are losing into the ocean.

—Credit: Erin Pettit, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Source: NSIDC

Climate Change To Spawn More Wildfires

Large fires are predicted for the Rockies and Yellowstone with the potential to push the area over a tipping point.

By Emily Sohn
Mon Jul 25, 2011 03:00 PM ET

• Severe wildfires are becoming common in the northern Rockies, as a result of climate change.
• By the end of the century, large fires are likely to strike 10 times more often.
• At risk are many types of plants, animals and people who live in the mountainous west.

As Earth's climate warms up, Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Tetons are likely to experience large fires more frequently, according to a new study. Within just a few decades, big fires may become as much as 10 times more common than they have been in the last 10,000 years.

A bump in fire frequency would reverberate through the environment in unpredictable ways -- affecting the kinds of plants that grow in the area, the kinds of animals that can find habitats there and the amount of carbon that vegetation might be expected to pull out of the atmosphere.

enlarge

Yellowstone and the Rockies will likely see more large fires due to climate change. Click to enlarge this image.
Corbis

Source: Discovery News

Gingrich Says 2006 Climate Change Ad He Starred In Was 'Misconstrued'

By Jason Linkins First Posted: 7/26/11 04:55 PM ET Updated: 7/26/11 04:55 PM ET

Back in 2006, Newt Gingrich was a Man Of Ideas. And one of the ideas he had was that he would appear in a PSA with Nancy Pelosi, paid for by the Alliance for Climate Protection, which was founded by Al Gore. In that PSA, Gingrich said things like:

"We do agree, our country must take action to address climate change,"

and

"if enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need."

Back to the Present – Gingrich recently said on WGIR radio of the 30-second television commercial, says:

"I was trying to make a point that we shouldn't be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment," "Obviously it was misconstrued, and it's probably one of those things I wouldn't do again."

Watch his original statements on YouTube (Click Here)

The fact that politicians think it is completely acceptable to change their positions based on various populist contexts  designed only to augment their current standing implies and/or confirms a near total lack of integrity on their parts.

Source: Huffington Post

Global Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20^th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35^th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20^th century average.
• The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20^th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11^th warmest April on record.
• The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20^th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the 6^th warmest on record.
• For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.08°C (55.66°F) was the 14^th warmest January–April period. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20^th century average.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/4

Dengue Fever Creeps Back Into the U.S. — and Climate Change Isn't Helping

By Bryan Walsh Friday, June 10, 2011

Then there's climate change. As the weather warms, especially in the tropics, the mosquito is able to thrive and expand its potential range. A 2008 report by the Lowy Institute in Sydney estimated that by 2085, more than half the world's population will be living in areas that are at risk for dengue fever, far greater than today. In general, vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue and West Nile Virus could become more prevalent as the weather warms and the winters that once stopped these mosquitoes cold become less of a barrier.

Source: Time Magazine - Healthland Section

Climate Scientists in Australia Moved to Secure Facility

Editorial Note: Reports over the past few days have revealed excessive threats to the lives of climate scientists. This has been seen more and more over the past few years. Those willing to stir up the emotions of the public based on claims that climate science is a hoax and some sort of democratic or liberal conspiracy to foist bigger government on the people of the world are based on nothing more than political ambition and foment the vitriolic threats that are becoming increasingly common. Like climate science, but not as complex 2 + 2 = 4, not because we believe it or not, but simply because it's a fact. The battle is about facts over belief and unfortunately we need to do a lot more to educate the public about the basis, premise, and methods that science uses to achieve levels of confidence in it's findings.

Academics fear climate change hate mail might deter future researchers

Deborah Smith -June 11, 2011

AUSTRALIAN climate scientists have revealed details of the offensive emails they are routinely subjected to, amid concerns that the vitriolic campaign could deter the next generation of researchers.

The emails typically contain obscenities, insults and sexual slurs, with some including threats such as ''the quicker that c---s like you and your kind die, the better''.

The Australian Academy of Science condemned the attacks yesterday, saying researchers had a right to do their work free from abuse, acts of intimidation and threats of violence. 

''We call on leaders across the community to make the same defence of intellectual freedom,'' the academy's president, Professor Suzanne Cory, said.

A climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, David Karoly, said he had been receiving abusive emails for more than two years, but the barrage intensified earlier this year.

He referred a threatening one which said ''Die you lying bastard'' to police in January and they identified the person who sent it.

No action was taken, however, because the police judged he was not at risk of immediate physical violence, Professor Karoly said.

As a result of harassment, he has increased his personal security, making his home phone number silent and removing the location of his office from websites.

While the hate mail was presumably intended to silence him, Professor Karoly said it made him only more determined to publicly discuss the latest scientific findings on climate change. ''The more they do it, the more they encourage me to feel as though this is an important time and the information presented is important.''

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Rick Santorum: Man-made climate change is liberal 'junk science,' in sharp contrast to Mitt Romney

BY Aliyah Shahid - DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER -Thursday, June 9th 2011, 1:39 PM

Man-made climate change? Liberal hogwash, says Rick Santorum.

The Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania senator expressed his skepticism to Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, calling the widely held consensus in the scientific community that humans are responsible for global warming "junk science."

"I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler," Santorum said. "And I think history points out that it does that. The idea that man, through the production of \[carbon dioxide\] - which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas - is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd ."

He then said the issue was an "opportunity for the left" to take more government control.

"It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.' It's just an excuse for more government control of your life."

Source: The New York Daily News

Oliver Milman guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 June 2011 15.09 BST

Australian marine scientists examine coral cores at Clerke Reef, Western Australia. Climate scientists have recently received death threats, universities say. Photograph: Ho/Reuters

A number of Australia's leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country's increasingly febrile carbon price debate.

The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett.

The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls.

Ian Young, ANU's vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks.

"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said.

"These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.

"I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour."

Young said that scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street. Among those targeted is Prof Will Steffen, ANU's climate institute director.

Steffen is the co-author of a high-profile Climate Commission report that was published two weeks ago. The report calls for urgent action to avoid sea level rises of a metre or more over the course of the next century.

The death threats have not been confined to the ANU, with universities in New South Wales and Queensland also tightening security for more than 30 ecology, environmental policy and meteorology researchers, according to The Canberra Times.

Several scientists have reportedly switched to unlisted home phone numbers and deleted social media profiles that have been defaced by abuse and obscene images.

The Australian Federal police said that it was aware of the threats but had yet to receive a complaint.

Prof David Koroly, of the University of Melbourne's school of Earth science, told the ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media.

"It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.

Source: The Guardian UK

Climate Scientists Forecast Permanently Hotter Summers

ScienceDaily (June 6, 2011) —

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists.

"According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years," said the study's lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh.

In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see "the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat" in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America -- including the United States -- are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.

Source: Science Daily

What's to Blame for Wild Weather? "La Nada"

June 21, 2011: Record snowfall, killer tornadoes, devastating floods: There’s no doubt about it. Since Dec. 2010, the weather in the USA has been positively wild. But why?

The blue and purple band in this satellite image of the Pacific Ocean traces the cool waters of the La Niña phenomenon in December 2010. (from Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite, Credit: NASA JPL)

"La Niña was strong in December," he says. "But back in January it pulled a disappearing act and left us with nothing – La Nada – to constrain the jet stream. Like an unruly teenager, the jet stream took advantage of the newfound freedom--and the results were disastrous."

This satellite image, taken in April 2011, reveals La Niña's rapid exit from the equator near the US coast. The cool (false-color blue) water was gone by early spring. (from Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite, Credit: NASA JPL)

And of course there's this million dollar question: "Does any research point to climate change as a cause of this wild weather?" "Global warming is certainly happening," asserts Patzert, "but we can't discount global warming or blame it for the 2011 tornado season. We just don't know ... Yet.

Editors Note: At this time, direct attribution of single and short term event sequences can not be attributed to climate change due to global warming. To put this in context, we know there is accumulated additional energy in the system; we know that moisture content is increasing in the atmosphere due to warming oceans. Climate is in charge and weather still happens in concert with natural variation. The main difference is that the direction of the road has changed.

Source: NASA

The Rolling Stone Interview

by Al Gore, June 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET

Al Gore clearly outlines the problem of the narrative and the potential for increasing impacts from global warming. Note: the word 'impacts' may not be alarmist enough though. We all need to realize there is a price for continued ignorance. The word 'recession' may be more appropriate. If ignorance of the issue is continued and solutions not developed rapidly enough we may have to consider 'depression' as the next phase.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

Monckton compares Garnaut to Hitler

Updated Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:02am AEST

A British politician has called the Australian Government's chief climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, a fascist.

Footage has been posted on the internet of a speech Lord Christopher Monckton gave to a conference in Los Angeles earlier this month. In it he displayed a Nazi swastika next to a quote from Professor Garnaut.

Lord Monckton compared statements made by Adolf Hitler to Professor Garnaut's suggestion that people should accept the mainstream science of climate change.

"That again is a fascist point of view, that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go," he said.

The British peer is scheduled to speak at the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) conference in Perth next week.

Source: ABC News Australia

Monckton's Nazi jibe over the top: Abbott

Updated Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:22pm AEST

Tony Abbott has moved to distance himself from controversial comments by British politician Lord Christopher Monckton, but says he is still happy to appear at an upcoming mining industry conference which will also host the prominent climate change sceptic.

Footage has been posted on the internet of a speech Lord Monckton gave to a conference in Los Angeles, where he displayed a Nazi swastika beside a quote from the Government's climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut.

Lord Monckton compared statements made by Adolf Hitler to Professor Garnaut's suggestion that people should accept the mainstream science of climate change.

"That again is a fascist point of view, that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go," he said.

Controversial: Christopher Monckton (AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo)

Source:

BY ARTHUR MAX  ASSOCIATED PRESS | Jun 27, 2011

The gray whale, a highly endangered species, had been hunted to extinction in the Atlantic Ocean by the mid-1700s. Yet one appeared off the Israeli coast in May 2010. / GUILLERMO ARIAS/Associated Press

When a 43-foot gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: It must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.

On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicate a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip Reid of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

Source: Detroit Free Press

Wallace Encourages Fox Viewers To Remain Misinformed On Climate Change

June 27, 2011 1:59 pm ET by Shauna Theel

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace criticized a University of Maryland study which indicated that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than the consumers of other news media. Wallace said the study labeled those who "questioned whether climate change is occurring" as misinformed, and suggested that doing so would be improper.

The study actually asked, "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that" 1) Climate change is occurring, 2) Views are evenly divided or 3) Climate change is not occurring. Noting that the correct answer is that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring, the study found that of those who said they watched Fox News "almost every day," 60 percent got it wrong -- significantly higher than the consumers of other news sources.

A Stanford University study similarly found that "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists' claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists."

It is a fact that climate change is occurring, and anthropogenic global warming is so well-supported in peer-reviewed research that, as the Maryland study notes, the United States' National Academy of Sciences and "97% of self-identifying actively publishing climate scientists agree" that it is occurring.

Source: Media Matters

Transparency Maldives launches Global Corruption Report on climate change

By Mariyam Suha |MALE, June 28 (HNS)

Transparency Maldives Sunday launched the Global Corruption Report: Climate Change compiled by Transparency International.

Transparency International officially inaugurated the report, first of its kind to comprehensively explore major climate-related corruption risks, in April of this year at Dhaka, Bangladesh.

International watchdogs identify that improper or poor governance paves the way to corruption especially in the area of climate change governance, as huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms.

The Global Corruption Report: Climate Change focuses on this issue along with making climate governance work, strategies for reducing carbon emissions, building effective adaptation to climate change, actions for sustainable climate governance and recommended actions for governments, businesses and civil societies.

Source: Haveeru Online

Australia academics blast UK lord over Hitler jibe

By Michael Loccisano | AFP – Tue, Jun 28, 2011

Dozens of Australian academics signed a letter Tuesday demanding a lecture by British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton be axed after he compared the country's climate adviser to Hitler.

The open letter calls on Australia's Notre Dame University to cancel a lecture by Monckton Thursday, saying he stood for "the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter".

"In hosting this lecture, Notre Dame University is undermining the academic community," the letter, seen by AFP, said.

The letter, started by Natalie Latter, a PhD student examining global ethics and climate change, has been penned as Monckton prepares to give a speech targeting the government's proposal for a carbon tax.

He is on a tour of Australia at the invitation of the "Climate Sceptics" -- a political party registered ahead of last year's national elections .

The speech is entitled "A Carbon Tax Will Bankrupt Australia".

Source: AFP news agency (Agence France-Presse)

In North Dakota the waters kept rising. Swollen by more than a month of record rains in Saskatchewan, the Souris River topped its all time record high, set back in 1881. The floodwaters poured into Minot, North Dakota's fourth-largest city, and spread across thousands of acres of farms and forests. More than 12,000 people were forced to evacuate. Many lost their homes to the floodwaters.

Yet the disaster unfolding in North Dakota might be bringing even bigger headlines if such extreme events hadn't suddenly seemed more common. In this year alone massive blizzards have struck the U.S. Northeast, tornadoes have ripped through the nation, mighty rivers like the Mississippi and Missouri have flowed over their banks, and floodwaters have covered huge swaths of Australia as well as displaced more than five million people in China and devastated Colombia. And this year's natural disasters follow on the heels of a staggering litany of extreme weather in 2010, from record floods in Nashville, Tenn., and Pakistan, to Russia's crippling heat wave.

These patterns have caught the attention of scientists at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They've been following the recent deluges' stunning radar pictures and growing rainfall totals with concern and intense interest. Normally, floods of the magnitude now being seen in North Dakota and elsewhere around the world are expected to happen only once in 100 years. But one of the predictions of climate change models is that extreme weather—floods, heat waves, droughts, even blizzards—will become far more common. "Big rain events and higher overnight lows are two things we would expect with [a] warming world," says Deke Arndt, chief of the center's Climate Monitoring Branch. Arndt's group had already documented a stunning rise in overnight low temperatures across the U.S. So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

Source: Scientific American

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

AAAS Board: Attacks on Climate Researchers Inhibit Free Exchange of Scientific Ideas

29 June 2011

Reports of personal attacks on climate scientists, including harassment, legal challenges, and even death threats, have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and makes it difficult for factual information to reach policymakers and the public, the AAAS Board of Directors said in a statement of concern.

“AAAS vigorously opposes attacks on researchers that question their personal and professional integrity or threaten their safety based on displeasure with their scientific conclusions,” the Board said in the statement, which was approved on 28 June.

Scientific progress depends on transparency, the Board said, but “the sharing of research data is vastly different from unreasonable, excessive Freedom of Information Act requests for personal information and voluminous data that are then used to harass and intimidate scientists.”

The Board added: “Scientists and policymakers may disagree over the scientific conclusions on climate change and other policy-relevant topics. But the scientific community has proven and well-established methods for resolving disagreements about research results.” It uses a self-correcting system in which research results are shared and critically evaluated by peers, and experiments are repeated when necessary.

Leading U.S. scientists have complained about threatening communications and abusive e-mails as a result of their research on the climate impact of heat-trapping gases from human activity. In Australia, top climate scientists have been targeted by an unrelenting e-mail campaign that has resulted in police investigation of death threats, according to recent media reports.

Lawmakers and activist groups also have sought detailed disclosure of records from climate researchers. The American Tradition Institute (ATI) has asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a climate change skeptic, demanded many of the same documents last year in an effort to determine if Mann had somehow defrauded taxpayers in obtaining research grants. ATI also has sued NASA to disclose records detailing climate scientist James Hansen’s compliance with federal ethics and disclosure rules.

“While we fully understand that policymakers must integrate the best available scientific data with other factors when developing policies, we think it would be unfortunate if policymakers became the arbiters of scientific information and circumvented the peer-review process,” the AAAS Board says. “Moreover, we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.”

Full Text of Statement PDF Download

Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/30/heartland-channels-alfred-e-newman-and-emily-litella-in-climate-debate/

Response to a blog post on Forbes.com to a post by Steve McDonald by Mark Hoofnagle.

Okay, so here's the latest: 50 engineers, administrators and some astronauts wrote a letter to the NASA administrator Charles Bolden saying that NASA needs to stop saying climate change will be a catastrophe.

Well, what is a catastrophe?

1. Sea level is rising and expected to inundate coastal communities. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
2. Thermal limits are being reached more and more in our crops and that is reducing crop yields and this is expected to worsen, which of course will cause inflation in food prices that will reduce discretionary spending. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
3. Warming and expansion of the Hadley cell is altering the hydrological (water) cycle, causing changes in soil moisture content and the frequency and intensity of drought events as well as increased fire events and intensity. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
4. The increased global warming is warming the oceans which are evaporating more moisture into the atmosphere, which in turn causes larger rain storms and causing increased flood event intensity. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
5. The number of named storms is increasing and larger more destructive hurricanes are occurring. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
6. There now seems to be a growing trend in tornado events. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?
7. All of these things combined increase costs to society. Maybe that's not a catastrophe?

Well, Here's the letter:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/m-nasa_rocked_by_global_warming_rebellion.html

ScienceDaily (May 9, 2011) —

Technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are unlikely to offer an economically feasible way to slow human-driven climate change for several decades, according to a new report. The American Physical Society has released a new assessment -- Direct Air Capture of CO₂ with Chemicals -- to better inform the scientific community on the technical aspects of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Source: Science Daily

America's Climate Choices Final Report

May 12: The National Research Council has released the final report of America's Climate Choices. The report is available now through the National Academies Press. It includes a CD of the four panel reports of the America's Climate Choices series as well as materials based on those reports.

Several members of the report's authoring committee discussed will discuss the findings in A Conversation on America's Climate Choices on May 12 (see details below). A video recording of that discussion will be posted on Friday, May 13 on this site.

The report finds that the significant risks that climate change poses to human society and the environment provide a strong motivation to move ahead with substantial response efforts. Current efforts of local, state, and private sector actors are important, but not likely to yield progress comparable to what could be achieved with the addition of strong federal policies that establish coherent national goals and incentives, and that promote strong U.S. engagement in international-level response efforts. The inherent complexities and uncertainties of climate change are best met by applying an iterative risk management framework and making efforts to: significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions; prepare for adapting to impacts; invest in scientific research, technology development, and information systems; and facilitate engagement between scientific and technical experts and the many types of stakeholders making America's climate choices.

Source: http://americasclimatechoices.org/

The Stockholm Memorandum

3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium* on Global Sustainability, Stockholm, Sweden, 16-19 May 2011 –by Stefan Rahmstorf

On Wednesday, 17 Nobel laureates who gathered in Stockholm have published a remarkable memorandum, asking for “fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres and at all scales in order to stop and reverse global environmental change”. The Stockholm Memorandum concludes that we have entered a new geological era: the Anthropocene, where humanity has become the main driver of global change. The document states:

Science makes clear that we are transgressing planetary boundaries that have kept civilization safe for the past 10,000 years. [...]
We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems.
We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial.

Mario Molina (Nobel prize in chemistry 1995) signs the Stockholm Memorandum

The memorandum results from a 3-day symposium (attended also by the king of Sweden) on the intertwined problems of poverty, development, ecosystem deterioration and the climate crisis. In the memorandum, the Nobel laureates call for immediate emergency measures as well as long-term structural solutions, and they give specific recommendations in eight key priority areas. For example in climate policy, they recommend to:

Keep global warming below 2ºC, implying a peak in global CO2 emissions no later than 2015 and recognise that even a warming of 2ºC carries a very high risk of serious impacts and the need for major adaptation efforts.

The memorandum was handed over to the members of the UN high-level panel on global sustainability, who traveled to Stockholm in order to discuss it with the Nobel laureates and experts at the symposium.

p.s. As a little reminder of the ongoing work of the merchants of doubt, a small band of five or six “climate sceptic” protesters were gathered outside the symposium, some of whom flown in from Berlin. Their pamphlet identified them as part of the longstanding anti-climate-science campaign of US billionaire Lyndon Larouche and claimed that climate change is “a hoax” and an “insane theory”, the global temperature measurements are “mere lies”, the Nobel laureates meeting “a conspiracy” and the Stockholm Memorandum a “Fascist Manifesto”. I approached one of the protesters who carried a banner “against Green fascism” and asked him whether he seriously believes what his pamphlet says, namely that our meeting is a “symposium for global genocide”. He nodded emphatically and replied: “Yes, of course!”

Source: RealClimate

Global Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2011 was the 13^th warmest on record at 13.19°C (55.78°F), which is 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This was also the 35^th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20^th century average.
• The March worldwide land surface temperature was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20^th century average of 5.0°C (40.8°F)—the 12^th warmest March on record.
• The March worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.36°C (0.65°F) above the 20^th century average of 15.9°C (60.7°F)—also the 12^th warmest March on record.
• For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 12.73°C (54.87°F) was the 14^th warmest January–March on record. This value is 0.43°C (0.77°F) above the 20^th century average.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature anomaly for March 2011 was 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20^th century average, tying with 2000 as the 13^th warmest March since records began in 1880. Sea surface temperatures (SST) during March 2011 were warmer than average across much of the world's oceans, with cooler-than-average conditions across the central equatorial and eastern portions of the Pacific Ocean and the southern oceans. Warmer-than-average conditions were most pronounced in the equatorial Atlantic, the western Pacific oceans, and across the Southern Hemisphere midlatitudes. The March 2011 worldwide SST tied with 1997 as the 12^th warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.36°C (0.65°F) above the 20^th century average. La Niña continued to weaken during March for the third consecutive month. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), La Niña is expected to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions by June 2011 but is also expected to continue to have global impacts through the Northern Hemisphere spring.

*Signifies a tie

* Global Land tied with 1997 as 21^st warmest on record.
* Global Land and Ocean tied with 2008 as 14^th warmest on record.
* Northern Hemisphere Land and Ocean tied with 1997 as 17^th warmest on record.
* Southern Hemisphere Ocean tied with 1999 as 13^th warmest on record.
* Southern Hemisphere Land and Ocean tied with 1973 as 14^th warmest on record. 1998 and 2010 tied as warmest on record.

Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat

Worldwide, 42% see serious risk, similar to 2007-2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup surveys in 111 countries in 2010 find Americans and Europeans feeling substantially less threatened by climate change than they did a few years ago, while more Latin Americans and sub-Saharan Africans see themselves at risk.

The 42% of adults worldwide who see global warming as a threat to themselves and their families in 2010 hasn't budged in the last few years, but increases and declines evident in some regions reflect the divisions on climate change between the developed and developing world.

Majorities in developed countries that are key participants in the global climate debate continue to view global warming as a serious threat, but their concern is more subdued than it was in 2007-2008. In the U.S., a slim majority (53%) currently see it as a serious personal threat, down from 63% in previous years.

Concern about global warming has also declined across western, southern, and eastern Europe, and in several cases, even more precipitously than in the U.S. In France, for example, the percentage saying global warming is a serious threat fell from 75% in 2007-2008 to 59% in 2010. In the United Kingdom, ground zero for the climate data-fixing scandal known as Climategate in 2009, the percentage dropped from 69% to 57% in the same period.

The following table list the top ten global weather/climate events of 2011. These events are listed according to their overall rank, as voted on by a panel of weather/climate experts. For additional information on these and other significant 2011 climate events, please visit NCDC's Top Ten Global Events webpage.

State of the Climate Report:

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

Global Highlights

• This year tied 1997 as the 11^th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35^th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.


• Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 0.8°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F) and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20^th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 11^th warmest on record.


• La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, then dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasting through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year.


• The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Niña contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia?s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies (1950-2011)

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

January–December 2011 Blended Land and Sea
Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

Global Precipitation

Global precipitation over land in 2011 was well above the 1961–1990 average for the second year in a row, ranking as the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation anomalies were variable across the globe. It was wetter than normal across much of the northeastern United States, Central America, much of coastal South America, Australia, and northwestern China. It was particularly drier than normal in far southwestern Canada, the south central United States, northern Mexico, southern and northeastern China, Mongolia, Hawaii, and French Polynesia and Kiribati in the South Pacific Ocean.

January–December 2011 Global Precipitation Anomalies

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

January–December 2011 Precipitation Anomalies

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

Energy and Power Subcommittee to Examine Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations

March 7, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building.  The hearing is entitled, “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations.” Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Whitfield have joined Democratic leaders in the U.S. House in authoring the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910), a bill to block EPA’s controversial backdoor climate change agenda that would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak.

The hearing is open to the public and press. Opening statements, witness testimony, and a live webcast will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov.

Source: RealClimate/Science AAAS Live Blog of Event

Source: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8304

Into ignorance

Nature Volume: 471, Pages: 265–266 Date published: (17 March 2011)

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's legal basis for regulation, so repealing the 'endangerment finding' would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.

the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible.

Source: nature.com

'Shock and Trance' – President Obama on Energy

By John P. Reisman – March 30, 2011

President Obama outlined our energy reality today. He addressed the fact that petroleum products are a limited resource and that US national security requires awareness of this fact in order to awaken the ingenuity of America's capacity to address the issue. He painted the situation in broad strokes and highlighted that new oil production would require increased safety measures to avoid expensive clean ups as experienced in the Gulf of Mexico last year. He announced a goal of reducing reliance on fossil fuels at least one third. The president explained that America tends to go into shock when gas prices spike and go into a trance on the issue when prices go back down. He highlighted the fact that the overall prices trend is up though. Illustrating that going to sleep on the energy issue will not serve America well in the long run.

The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 21, 2011

Once again the wall street Journal misses the mark by trying to explain long-term changes with facts out of context, with yet another short-term graph.

RealClimate has posted a breakdown of the issues misconstrued as outlined by Barry Bickmore.

The Wall Street Journal posted yet another op-ed by 16 scientists and engineers, which even include a few climate scientists(!!!). Here is the editor’s note to explain the context.

Editor’s Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

A relative sent me the article, asking for my thoughts on it. Here’s what I said in response...

Read more via below link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/

The reality seems to still be that arguments and facts out of context continue to cloud the judgement and rational capacity of those that can't quite get in the right conversation about how science really works. Personal bias often precludes degrees of rationality when the argument itself increases cognitive dissonance.

Source: Wall Street Journal

We also discuss Peak Petroleum as it has relevant contexts with regard to climate change, mitigation and adaptation, and direct economic impact potential. The Sword of Damocles is that hitting peak petroleum before we have made strong moves toward conservation of fossil fuel energy resources increases inflationary pressures that resonate throughout the economy.

If there is one mitigating factor it is the two edges sword of coal/tar sands. As the price of gasoline passes $5 dollars a gallon, tar sands become more affordable monetarily in the short term. Unfortunately tapping this resource increases future costs exponentially with regard to increased radiative forcing which will cause further latitudinal shift of the jet stream, thus further altering the atmospheric hydro-logic cycles, thus impinging on current agricultural infrastructure and likely resulting in increased storm precipitation events.

Peak Petroleum

by John P. Reisman

As pointed out in the February, 2010 Leading Edge report, the world is pressing toward peak petroleum.

These images from Mazama Science illustrate a peak curve and downslope starting two years ago. This can include both supply and demand issues. The economic downturn that began in 2008 is a part of the demand equation. Therefore is is difficult to see if we are at or passing peak petroleum. The analysis presented in the JFCOM report in 2010 may be conservative and actual peak, due to the imprecision of quantitative analysis on supply and demand indicates that peak may be sooner, or possibly later.

Source: http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/index.html

Source: http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/index.html

Strong Negative Phase Arctic Oscillation (AO)

by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Overview of conditions

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 12.27 million square kilometers (4.74 million square miles) set in 2006 and 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

As in November, ice extent in December 2010 was unusually low in both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Arctic, but particularly in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait (between southern Baffin Island and Labrador), and in Davis Strait (between Baffin Island and Greenland). Normally, these areas are completely frozen over by late November. In the middle of December, ice extent stopped increasing for about a week, an unusual but not unique event.

Conditions in context

The low ice conditions in December occurred in conjunction with above-average air temperatures in regions where ice would normally expand at this time of year. Air temperatures over eastern Siberia were 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in December. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Southern Baffin Island had the largest anomalies, with temperatures over 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal. By sharp contrast, temperatures were lower than average (4 to 7 degrees Celsius, 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Alaska-Yukon border, north-central Eurasia, and Scandinavia.

The warm temperatures in December came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere, and an unusual circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south. Although the air temperatures were still below freezing on average, the additional ocean and atmospheric heat slowed ice growth.

Polar Amplification Effect & Current Polar Conditions

by John P. Reisman

Relatively speaking the polar regions are anonymously high in temperature. The negative phase AO, which is a stronger high pressure variance in the Arctic, tends to push the cold polar air down into the lower latitudes. As pointed out in the NSIDC report (above): in December, eastern Siberia was 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, while temperatures were lower than average (4 to 7 degrees Celsius, 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Alaska-Yukon border, north-central Eurasia, and Scandinavia.

Negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation

by NSIDC

As in December 2009, a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation dominated the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere in December 2010, bringing higher-than-normal pressures to the Arctic region, with lower-than-normal pressures in middle latitudes. However, unlike 2009, when higher-than normal pressures centered near the central Arctic , in December 2010 higher pressures centered near Iceland and the eastern tip of the Aleutians in the Pacific, and yielded a different pattern of winds. As a result, different areas experienced warm anomalies in 2010, and a different pattern of ice extent emerged.

Our January 5, 2010 post discussed the connection between very warm temperatures over much of the high Arctic in December 2009 and a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation.

Figure 4. Air temperatures were higher than normal over Baffin Island, Hudson Bay, and eastern Siberia for the month of December, which was associated with low sea ice extent in those areas. The temperature pattern resulted from a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation.
—Credit: NSIDC courtesy NOAA/ESRL PSD

Mass tree deaths prompt fears of Amazon 'climate tipping point'

Scientists fear billions of tree deaths caused by 2010 drought could see vast forest turn from carbon sink to carbon source.

by guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 February 2011 19.00 GMT

Aerial view of a drought-affected area within the Amazon basin in Manaus, Brazil. Photograph: Rodrigo Baleia/LatinContent/Getty Images

Billions of trees died in the record drought that struck the Amazon in 2010, raising fears that the vast forest is on the verge of a tipping point, where it will stop absorbing greenhouse gas emissions and instead increase them.

The dense forests of the Amazon soak up more than one-quarter of the world's atmospheric carbon, making it a critically important buffer against global warming. But if the Amazon switches from a carbon sink to a carbon source that prompts further droughts and mass tree deaths, such a feedback loop could cause runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences.

Reps. Posey, Adams and Bishop Join Colleagues in Calling on House Leaders to Reprioritize NASA for Human Space Flight Missions, Drop Climate Change

Feb. 7, 2011 - John P. Reisman

This is roughly equivalent to a request for our government to bury it's head in the sand; or a child's announcement that if the child has his or her eyes closed, no one else can see him or her.

Moving forward under a constrained budget, it will be critical for the Appropriations Committee to produce legislation that is precise in its budget cuts. For years, Presidents and Congress have charged NASA with completing tasks that fall outside the scope of NASA's primary mission. Specifically, NASA spent over 7.5% –– over a billion dollars –– of its budget on studying global warming/climate change in Fiscal Year 2010. In addition, the lion share of the stimulus funds NASA received went toward climate change studies. Excessive growth of climate change research has not been limited to NASA. Overall, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Global warming funding presents an opportunity to reduce spending without unduly impacting NASA's core human spaceflight mission.

With your help, we can reorient NASA's mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research and reallocating those funds to NASA's human spaceflight accounts, all while moving overall discretionary spending toward FY2008 levels.

Source: Reps. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah)

Download PDF

House Energy & Commerce Committee pushes to repeal EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases

Feb. 9, 20100 - By John P. Reisman

The House Energy & Commerce Committee met to discuss repealing the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The general claims that Senator Inhofe Representative Upton and Representative Whitfield present are interestingly normal. They claim the facts support their argument that the IPCC assessment is flawed and doing anything about greenhouse gases will not have a significant impact on the future. Senator Inhofe claims he is not there to debate the science, yet he claims that the science is flawed. This is a direct contradiction of course and clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of his statements. Point of fact, if he is not there to debate the science, how can he claim the science is flawed?

Excerpt from Senator Inhofe's opening statement:

The draft bill, sponsored by me, Rep. Upton, and Rep. Whitfield, would repeal EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. We’re doing this for one simple reason: EPA’s regulations will impose enormous costs for no meaningful benefits—in other words, all pain for no climate gain.

I have great respect for Administrator Jackson—she is doing what she thinks is right. But I think EPA is taking the wrong course. Let me explain.

Congress didn’t allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Administrator Jackson even agreed with the statement two years ago that the Clean Air Act “is not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases”.

We also know that EPA’s own analysis shows its actions won’t affect climate change, and the scientific basis of its endangerment finding, which the Administrator confirmed to me is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, is flawed.

Now I’m not here to debate science. So let’s assume—as I did during the Lieberman-Warner debate in the Senate—that predictions of more droughts, more floods, more intense storms, and more cases of disease are true. What we know is that EPA’s regulations won’t affect any of this.

EPA’s analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill shows that, without aggressive action by China and India, cap-and-trade won’t reduce greenhouse gases by any meaningful amount. The EPA also found that its regulations covering CO2 from cars would reduce global temperatures by 0.006 degrees Celsius by 2100. In other words: no effect.

Now what if we added actions by other countries? Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that full implementation of Kyoto, including action by the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and others, would reduce global temperature by, at most, 0.21 degrees Celsius by 2100. In other words, the Earth would warm about 6 percent less than it normally would. ...

Source: energycommerce.house.gov/News

Source: Representative Upton's Statement