"fiasco"..."debacle"...a few statements in a report thousands of pages long is wrong and it's given such a label. If only deniers were held to such high standards. The Himalayan error is a reason why peer-reviewed references should be mandatory 100% of the time in my view. There are a couple of ironies here:

1. that deniers are upset that the IPCC referenced a non-peer-reviewed source - nearly all of their claims are not peer-reviewed.

2. that deniers are attacking Pachauri's integrity, claiming he's not qualified, etc...ironic considering fossil fuels lobbied to oust his predecessor and bring in Pachauri, figuring an economist who worked with Diesel Locomotive Works would be alright with them.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/12/ipcc_report/

ahhahahahHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....More Avalanche to report regarding the FRAUD PERPETRATORS!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/

I wonder when our resident Climate Commies on this blog are going to let it go. I sincerely hope NEVER. The comedy is just way too good!

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles.

"The FACT is we CAN'T account for the LACK OF WARMING at the moment and it's travesty that we CAN'T."

MMMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMM......

that's a good q&a? i'd hate to read a bad one. too bad they didn't get to ask him about the latest inaccuracy. the percentage of the netherlands below sea level is 26%, not 55% as it says in the report.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/

but of course this is a fox news story so it must be a lie or hate speech or er, ah, the corporations!

Hmmm did he explain this one just out today - using non-sourced reports?

How many more climategate and other fiascos are there?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1

excerpts
The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP. ....
....No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Brett - Make sure you see Coleman's evidence on fraud by the NCDC - please give a report - see
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_665698.html

Brett - Here's the link
John Coleman’s hourlong news special “Global Warming – The Other Side” now online, all five parts here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/

The Economist didn't ask Pachauri directly about his dimissal of Raina's criticism as "Voodoo Science". Hmmmm...

My first reaction was that they were letting him off scott-free with stuff like:

"I’ve never ever mentioned that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035."

And this: "To tell you the truth, I hardly interact with Professor Hasnain... I’ve been delegating most of these things to people at the next level. So, I’ve never discussed this situation with him at all."

And this:

The Economist: Were you not involved in TERI’s bid to receive funding under the EU Framework Programme as part of the High Noon project?

Dr Pachauri: Not at all; as far as the High Noon project is concerned, I only got to find out about it later. This is something that TERI researchers do on their own, that’s the culture of the organisation.

And this:

The Economist: Given that you’ve said that you’re not a glaciologist, last year you said some very strong things about Dr Raina’s report on the state of the glaciers.

Dr Pachauri: Well, I mean, I was reacting to the fact that he is questioning whether glaciers are melting at all, and those of them that are.

And this:

The Economist: It’s been reported that you knew of this before Copenhagen but didn’t end up talking about it before Copenhagen. Pallava Bagla, the journalist who wrote about the story for Science, he says he pointed out the error to you in several e-mails and several discussions before Copenhagen.

Dr Pachauri: I possibly didn’t read his e-mails, as you can imagine, I get thousands of e-mails every day.

Then it hit me. They were not letting him off. They were simply giving him enough rope.

He's fashioning his own noose all by himself.

Yeah, this is the kind of professional I want leading my organization. An organization which influences policy within governments. "I don't sit through all the speeches. I give mine and leave." "I didn't read the entire article." "I don't try to influence policy, I try to influence human beings." "I don't know what my salary is."

Double-speak and tap dancing. And a whole lot of 'hummana-hummana-hummanas'.

Considering that Pachauri has no academic background in ANY branch of science, I wonder why anybody would give one FIG what he (or the organization he purports to "lead") has to say about climate change. I certainly don't (and, neither do the overwhelming majority of meteorologists).

I also wonder when the utterly dishonest media will start calling this hideously corrupt FRAUD out on his COMPLETE lack of credentials.

Pauhauri is an interesting guy. In this interview he claims all his income is derived from TERI,an energy company but has no idea what his income is. Yet,in another interview on the TERI website he claims the need to bargain down for his suits at a small tailoring shop behind company headquarters.

I now understand his own government (India)has pulled out of the IPCC because they have lost confidence in his leadership and the entire IPCC organization.

Brett: Not post on the Menne paper, which is meterology? regards, Don

Brett Anderson posts "This is a good Q & A........."

Good Q, evasive A.

Sorry, forgot to add the link!

He's a real honest fellow and you can take that straight to the bank, oops....I mean his bank.

This guy is the wolf looking after the chicken coop.

http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2009/12/29/meet-dr-rajendra-pachauri-global-climate-hustler/

"What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC�s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in �carbon trading� and �sustainable technologies�, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India�s largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain�s largest steel company).

It is one of these [carbon trading] deals, reported in last week�s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential �1.2 billion in �carbon credits� (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work). [Sound familiar? This was previously blogged as "How Cap and Trade Plans to Cripple Our Economy" - ed.]

More than three-quarters of the world �carbon� market benefits India and China in this way. India alone has 1,455 CDM projects in operation, worth $33 billion (�20 billion), many of them facilitated by Tata � and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India�s own carbon exchange"

This is all you need to know about the credibility of this joker...

"To be quite honest and you may not believe it, I really don’t know what my salary is. This is just something that comes to my bank"

Go ask 100 people. How many of them don't know what their salary is?

It is either an out right lie...or the guy is so rich and disconnected from the real world that nobody should take his opinion.

Dr. Pachauri is a great entertainer in the field of song and dance. Obviously he is Not much of a scientist. His defense of the IPPC Report is pure political Kabuki Theater designed to obsfucate the sloppy work masquerading as science.
His not so brilliant defense of the indefensible sure makes me want to swear off filet mignon.
LOL The farce of defending AGW really gets funnier every day.

People get excitedly the Himalayan Glaciers and Amazon forest boobs, by the IPCC.
A much bigger clanger is shown in the diagram ipcc_fig1-2.
In the diagram EM radiation is shown in and about the surface of the Earth.
In an effort to balance the energy from the Suns Radiative Balance with the Earth.
What they dont seem to comprehend is that EM radiation has no fixed direction ,it can be refleced and refracted.
Going by their diagram the Sun provides 342 w/m2 to earths surface.
the same square metre provides 168+324 down and 350+40 up.
Remember that the photons do not worry about direction this means that the available energy just above the surface is 900w/m2 .
The energy moving around at the surface of the Earth is almost three times the input energy from the Sun.
Put another way a double sided solar panel raised say 2 metres above the ground could make use of this plentiful free energy.
Would it work? - well according to the IPCC, "the Physics is incontrovertible thousands of peer reviewed scientists.....zzzzzz

Well they may be continuing to try to spin it but the top just got a lot more wobbly:

Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1

Excerpts:

A picture released by the Projectbureau Delfandse Kust shows a general view...

Scam Scam Scam: European Parliament Member Rips Global Warming Hysteria

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.

The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.

The IPCC's 938-page Fourth Assessment Report spurred politicians around the world to vow action with its warning that climate change was on the march, but the body has faced fierce criticism over the glacier mistake.

Glaciologists have discredited the Himalaya claim, which is being withdrawn, and the controversy has given fresh ammunition to climate sceptics.

No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Pundits never learn...they stack up tons of dominoes for the purpose of bolstering a pet crusade, unfortunately the more they stack, the faster they fall.....

brett: I really enjoy your site and would love to hear your insights about the instrumental record in the US, as per the Menne paper.
regards, Don

Reply: I will look at it Don.

Dr. Pachauri is done. He has put politics above science and has been exposed as a self interested fraud who had far more interest in money, power, and prestige than he is in truth. Given the fact that he has embarrassed the IPCC and that the world media (with the exception of the US) has caught on to the scam, it is only a matter of time before he is forced out.

With the hysteria of global "warming" finally calming down to the reality that weather "change" is nothing more than normal climate cycles.... I would urge AccuWeather.com to adjust their menu bar heading to reflect that reality. Your Global Warming Center should be correctly referred to as the "Climate Change Center". It would give you more credibility with those of us in the know.

Thanks
Jerry D. Gish
Omaha, NE

It's nonsense to expect the IPCC reports to be completely flawless. I doubt any work in the entire history of science was free of any flaws or limitations.

I'm waiting for all the "I'm buried in snow so AGW is a joke" bloggers.

Just remember that the DC area has now had three storms of the century in less than a year -- March 2009, Dec. 19 2009 and yesterday.

Thats why they call it climate change.

Wintertime temperatures have been increasing across the northern United States. Since the 1970s, December-February temperature increases have ranged from 1 to 2 degrees in the Pacific Northwest to about 4 degrees in the Northeast to more than 6 degrees in Alaska.

� Winters are getting shorter, too. Spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.

� Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events.

In other news, this past month of January was the warmest on record for the planet according to UAH.

Stay warm,
GettingWarm

Oh! Oiznop! My son just sent me a photo of the snow in Pittsburgh. Beautiful!

GettingWarm,

Here are a few substantiated facts to counter your unsubstantiated assertions:

1) Winters in the continental USA show a 17 year cooling trend.

And, that is based upon data which peer reviewed science shows to demonstrate "an estimated warm bias of about 30%".

Click here for more details and to replicate the chart.

2) NOAA further documents that -- by one critically important metric -- we are 25 years into a global cooling trend.

Again, that is based upon data which peer reviewed science shows to demonstrate "an estimated warm bias of about 30%".

3) Peer reviewed data demonstrate both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, unbroken 10,000 year cooling trend wherein the latest warming is not even remotely unusual.

The citation links and more details are found here and here.

You guys are so pumped up and so happy to shoot on the messenger (Pachauri), that you forgot some important facts.

Pachauri was elected as chair of the IPCC in a 76-49 vote in 2002, with the backing of U.S. President George W. Bush, over the former IPCC head, British-born U.S. scientist Robert Watson {who was also Chief Scientist of The World Bank and seen by some Asian and African UN Member States as a tool of the developed countries}.

Guys, the man is one of yours - and you put him in place. Stop the bashing, he's only the messenger after all - or is he ? Could he be the one (straw man) ?

I don't think so, the guy is not a scientist. He's been put in place to manage the place - that's all. When you're asking scientific question to President of the IPCC it is like if you asked the MLB Commissionner to tell you how to hit homeruns ? It as no value, and you will surely get invalid/incomplete answers, because he's not the specialist/the scientist - he's the organizer, the manager.

Anybody involve in any business with CEO's knows that the guy at the top, has the slightless idea of what the guys under are doing in details. He can give you the large lines of what it is all about, but if you need more info, he will lead you to the guys under. Well, that's exactly what Pachauri did, and now he's being blame about it.

Trying to proove something about the IPCC's president does not change the outcome of AGW nor it's status. It's still getting warmer, and if you get rid of the guy, another one will be put in place immediatly. The kind is dead, long live the king. That's the way it goes.

An interesting comments from George Monbiot's blog :

It's worth remembering that Pachauri was appointed to run the IPCC after the Bush administration had his predecessor, Bob Watson, booted out at the behest of ExxonMobil. On 6 February 2001, 17 days after George W. Bush was sworn in, A. G. (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House. He asked,
"Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"

The US government immediately complied. Once it had extracted Watson, it accepted Pachauri as his replacement. The very qualities which made him acceptable to the climate change deniers in the White House – he wasn't a climate scientist, he had friendly relations with business – are now being used by climate change deniers as a stick with which to beat him.

On the other side of the debate, people are in denial not only about the science of climate change but also about manipulation and deception by other climate change deniers. They stoutly ignore far graver evidence of falsification and fabrication by their own side, even when there is smoking gun evidence that their champions have secretly taken money from fossil fuel companies to make false claims. They make no attempt to hold each other to account or to sustain any standards of truth at all.

And apparently, the Norfolk police has found a possible link to the climategate back to some guys named Watts, McIntyre and Condon. What a coincidence, a skeptic from within the CRU sent emails to those good guys, at the same time the hacked emails became available on the net. mmmm Something to chew on now.

Wow! I am still stunned with the lecture I attended at the Cary Institute in Milbrook NY by Dr. James Hansen. Relating to this thread, he opened with remarks about Dr. Pachauri's backpeddling about the Himalayan glaciers melting away...Dr. Hansen said it was not a good thing for such statements to get out (himalayan melt in 30 years)for the AGW truth and science and future of policy for fossil fuels. Dr. Hansen said he did not know how such statements made it out without peer review. Then he litterally mumbled something about the scandle at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit mumble mumble climategate, mumble I am not going to talk about that. On went the lecture.
In short, He defended the data sets and charts and graph's which made the earth look like it was on fire. He contended that CO2 was on a steady rise and that geological processes kept CO2 in balance, that human use of fossil fuels have driven the CO2 threshold well beyond the natural cycles that has allowed our species to florish. He stated that to avoid planetary disastre's of unprecedented scale human burning of fossil fuels must be reduced drastically and the way to do that is....TAX the first sale of oil or coal at ports of entry to any country! Make fossil fuels progressively expensive so other technologies get investment and implementation! Like NUCLEAR fuels and technologies. The tax on fossil fuels would translate to a dividend to all working people. The tax is calculated by ...CO2 emmissions measured in tonns. He said Cap and Trade doesn't work.
The science he presented was very convincing if you were not me. He had a believing and friendly audiance that was uniformed of "other" factors in the AGW debate. Of course I spoke up after they would not accept my raised hand during Q and A. So I shouted out,"What about Weather Weapons? What about Weather Modification programs? What about Chemtrailing and the poisoning of our air and surface waters with elevated levels of Aluminum Oxide and Barium Oxide and other compounds? What about Geo-engineering?" He responded by saying "Good question" and went on about CO2 anyway, I pursued the topic of geo engineering and he said we may have to use these measure if fossil fuels are not delt with. So in short he did not deny the existance of these programs I am argueing against,He sidestepped the issues.
Lastly, he was seemingly dissapointed with the occurance of cold and snowy winters of late. He said Ice skating was good in his back yard this year. He went on to say that we should not expect another real winter next year! I am still processing in my mind the event and I am sorry I did not tape it! No mention of Medeval Warm Period and he skirted arround the ARGO data stating that there is more warming in the pipeline. We must Tax and Dividend SOOON...dire warning.....

Looks like we have a new Scold in Chief -- Mark B.! You tell those "denialists" what for, yo! I, for one, am convinced.

Regarding Pauchris {sic}, see Tom Lantos at 3:25...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h64ZhXX0vkE

Headlining at Timesonline:
"I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

We all hope it does not come to this, of course.

There is no global warming science simply because this winter or this year for that matter has been warmer than normal compared to this year or that year. The simple facts are that climate "change" from decade to decade or century to century is a "normal" occurance and not something for individual scientist, groups or organizations to use for personal grandstanding and/or recognition..... and most importantly, it should not be used for those "special government research dollars" that are so generously handed out to those that claim new theories.

GettingWarm, are you for real???

"Just remember that the DC area has now had three storms of the century in less than a year -- March 2009, Dec. 19 2009 and yesterday.

Thats why they call it climate change."

Um, wow what can I say? Gosh, the climate has never changed before the SUV came into existence? Oh, and forgive me if this change in terminology doesn't convince me of the evil of humans. IF CO2 is the driver for increasing temps AND if CO2 is increasing why is the planet not steadily getting warm? Why have such a brutal winter? Why a recent downturn in temps? Seems "climate change" is how you convince yourselves that there is still a fight to fight. Now if you want to say that the climate is changing and it is disconnected from CO2 as a driver then OK. THEN let's drop this charade of "cap and trade" and "carbon targets" and call it what it really is "wealth redistribution".

"Wintertime temperatures have been increasing across the northern United States. Since the 1970s, December-February temperature increases have ranged from 1 to 2 degrees in the Pacific Northwest to about 4 degrees in the Northeast to more than 6 degrees in Alaska.

� Winters are getting shorter, too. Spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.

� Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events.

In other news, this past month of January was the warmest on record for the planet according to UAH."

Hey fella, show the result of this. Are we getting longer growing seasons? Are we growing new crops in new areas? Nope and nope. I am an avid gardener in Florida and originally from MN, so I think I have a pretty good picture of what grows from north to south in this country and I can tell you there have been no big changes. Nope, none. Try to use the Audubon Society's growing zone chart released a couple years back to determine what plants to grow in your area. You WILL FAIL! The chart adjusted up most of the growing zones in the country by one or two zones. Yes, it was a politically motivated chart because there was no true evidence that the new zones were correct. No new species surviving in new areas. At least not long term.

Finally, why the big push to get devoted followers in this global warming/climate change issue. Why can't there be debate? Why do we all have to be sheep just following the blind shepard? This whole "debate" reminds me of trying to buy a used car. The warmers sound like high pressure salesmen. Buy now or the deal will be gone! Or conversely surrender your wealth and prosperity NOW or the world will end in a ball of fire.

GW: They can call it "climate change" all they like, but they shouldn't be acting as if "climate change" were anything new, or that it is caused by human activities, as if the natural forces that (excuse me) REALLY cause the climate to change have suddenly gone on holiday.

As for the head of the Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control, his "investments" and other ventures speak loudly (as in megaphone) of the need for conflict of interest rules for the IPCC. But then, the IPCC was never established to be honest about the causes of "climate change" anyway, they were set up to sell the propaganda.

This interview in interesting. Pachauri's reputation has improved by it in my view. Nonetheless, I don't agree with him that there is not a need for a clear conflict of interest policy and for a standard mechanism for reporting corrections (journals have long had this, but task force reports don't because the task force disbands).

There are two important cultural issues at play. One is between Indian and Western culture. Skeptic
ism toward authority is more common in the West and it is also common for poorly informed people to act as though they are experts. In the U.S. such people often get jobs on T.V. People in third world countries I have talked with don't get this and hence Pachauri may not see the need for as many public cross checks. There is also the culture of politics vs science. Pachauri is just not very media savvy. Scientists, like it or not, need to learn this.

It is worth pointing out that the errors in the IPCC report have no bearing on the evidence for climate change. The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than projected. Glaciers in most parts of the world are receding. New modeling on plant growth restrictions, atmospheric CO2 distribution, ocean acidification, and stratospheric water vapor do not bode well.
--

Someone asked about the Netherlands sea level error. About half of the Netherlands land area is below one meter above sea level and hence very vulnerable to sea level rise should it occur. Maybe the IPCC authors meant to say this but there was an editing error. Unfortunate, but not catastrophic. Let's not loss sight of the fact that sea level rise is a likely consequence of human CO2 emissions.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm

Palm Grower:

"Hey fella, show the result of this. Are we getting longer growing seasons? Are we growing new crops in new areas? Nope and nope."

They are now making wine from active vinyards in Britain where it was not historically possible possible before.

Also:

Arbor Day Foundation recently released a new zone map. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has indicated that it, too, is updating its map, which is the standard and is likely to make even bigger waves when it is unveiled.

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

Note the huge changes in the Rocky Mountains and the plains.

The hardiness map for the US Dept of Agriculture has had some significant changes as well. The biggest changes being that they have increased the number of zones. There has also been some movement within the original zones.

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/nativegardening/hardinesszones.shtml

There is indication that this is beginning to happen. Although the changes have been subtle (with a few exceptions), the trend is taking shape as expected for the most part. Your answer to your own question, nope and nope, is therefore incorrect.

Functionality is what matters and these changes indicate a functional change in the growing season and distribution of many plants.

The argument that many crops will grow better in a warmer climate is used often by deniers. That being said, you may not find this argument as welcome here (by your peers) as you would think.

Oh! Oiznop! My son just sent me a photo of the snow in Pittsburgh. Beautiful!

REPLY: Oh, G-Warm! I have a response in Italian to your snarky, wise cracking, rub my face in it comment, but out of respect for Brett (now that I have simmered down, somewhat), I can't and won't put it on the blog By the by, when are you going to come and help me shovel the MOUNDS OF GL0-BULL WARMING that will continue to fall on us here???? That you and your tree hugging pals love so much?

Again, Brett, I apologize, but as I said before, my tolerance for these people and their politcally motivate, agenda driven lies, fraud perpetration, and apologizing/covering up for the criminals at the IPCC is running out. Unless they put their money where their mouth is (since they love the cold and snow so much) this is the type of (more controled) response they are going to get.

Oh, and one last thing the cold weather/climate, fraud perpetrating phonies. A guy who lived on my street dropped over dead on Saturday of a heart attack. Shoveling the mounds of "man made warmth" that you are always running to the government about. You better be careful what you wish for. You may be next.

Ryan,

"They are now making wine from active vinyards in Britain where it was not historically possible possible before."

Hadn't heard this was happening. If it is due to an improvement of the climate and not due to hardier grape varieties that is awesome! Maybe we will get back to the good old days of the Medieval Warm Period. However, they are having a miserable winter there I hope these vineyards make it through.

"Functionality is what matters and these changes indicate a functional change in the growing season and distribution of many plants."

Hmm... not sure there is great evidence to support that above statement. Granted I have lived in FL for a while now and am most versed in conditions here, but I do have several friends who farm in MN and ND so I can speak with limited knowledge of conditions there.

In the upper Midwest there does not appear to be any change in growing seasons or variety crops now able to be grown there as far as I can tell from speaking to farmers there anyways. As for FL, wow, let me tell you there is overwhelming evidence that temperatures and growing seasons have either been stable or decreased. Citrus growing has moved further south throughout the last century in response to colder temps. Jacksonville and St. Augustine used to be huge citrus growing areas. Now they are restricted to only the most cold hardy varieties there. Commercial production is now concentrated from Central FL to SW FL. Cold sensitive palms have continued to be pushed south. Roystonea elata, the Florida Royal Palm used to found naturally growing as far north and far inland as Deland, FL in the 1700's. Now, that is far from the case! Its naturally occurring range has been pushed much further south and towards the coastal areas. Cocos nucifera, the coconut palm could be found growing in Tampa in the 1950's. That is not possible today. Currently, on the east coast of FL, Indian River county tends to be the furthest north that it can be reliably grown and this has been the case at least since the turn of the century when the area was still being settled.

Oh, oh let me also comment on the revised growing zone map. It is bunk in regards to much of FL! I dare you to find a gardener, landscaper or farmer that will say they believe zone ten pushes as far north as Tampa on the west coast and as far north as New Smyrna on the east coast. Just to clarify, that means the average lowest temp is not below 30 degrees. IF that were true you'd see coconut palms all over those places. Oh by the way, you don't. I live on the east coast of FL and I am supposedly in zone ten now. I can tell you every year I have seen temps in mid twenties and cannot reliably grow zone ten plants.

"The argument that many crops will grow better in a warmer climate is used often by deniers. That being said, you may not find this argument as welcome here (by your peers) as you would think."

So Ryan, just how are you my peer? Please detail your plant, gardening or farming knowledge with me. I am always interested in hearing about other people's experiences. AND I ALWAYS WELCOME OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS. I am not one to try to shut down debate.

An addition to what Ryan said.

Where i live, winter is shorter from what it was. Ski season is not starting before mid-december and ends very early in april. It used to be (before the 70s) mid november to mid april and sometimes early may.

Want another one. If you read historical paper for the St-Lawrence river, you will find that until the early 1900s an ice bridge would form just east of Quebec City. On many years that bridge last from mid december to mid may - worst year were early january to mid april. The bridge never form after 1910 (not one single time). Situation this year (and most of the recent 40 years) almost no ice before January, and all is gone early april to mid april.

That's the kind of change we're seeing at other places.

By the way it rain again today in Labrador, and Greenland.

A quick word to Ryan about British wine-making, from a Brit who knows a thing or two about wine...

"They are now making wine from active vinyards in Britain where it was not historically possible before"

No sir. Sorry. Incorrect. There is an increase in interest in wine growing in the UK, more specifically in the southern parts of England where it has always been an activity, but it's been going on far longer than all the talk of global warming, and is all to do with the increase in the UK wine market over time, and not with any changes in climate. There is speculation that if the climate does warm up, it may be possible to grow vines as far north as Lincolnshire - roughly the limit of wine-growing in warmer Mediaeval times. But let's not mention the Mediaeval Warm Period again!
And please avoid the temptation to link unlinkable evidence to support your case, thank you very much.
It may interest the carbon footprinters to know that England's biggest vineyard, in Surrey, has to deploy dozens of gas-burning heaters out among the vines in cold winter weather, just to keep the frost from destroying the crop.
Good blog btw Brett - keep it up!

It's called the GREEN movement for a reason-- many people have invested huge sums of money and without the "questionable, non-peer reviewed" sky is falling reports of global demise, their investmments will not be as profitable. Slowly, but surely, these reports of corruption are chipping away the so-called "case is closed" claims of Gore and his fellow investors (I mean supporters).

Palm Grower:

"So Ryan, just how are you my peer? Please detail your plant, gardening or farming knowledge with me. I am always interested in hearing about other people's experiences. AND I ALWAYS WELCOME OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS. I am not one to try to shut down debate."

You mistake my comment. By "peers" I meant other people who are not proponents. They are the ones who may not find that particulary argument welcome. I think that you are concentrating a little too hard on Florida but I admit I am guilty of that sometimes.

I would be happy to detail my experience as long as we don't consider that an argument in and of itself.

I am not a farmer. I was a landscape designer for a number of years. I worked for several companies and did freelance work. I have spent a great deal of time working with indoor hydroponics. I also have several aquariums with real growing plants and CO2 injection (yes thats right!). I conducted some drainage pattern and permaculture experiments in back backyard for some time (much to the dismay of my neighbors). Most a pity I don't have a yard at the moment :(

So, in summary I would say that I am by no means a plant expert, but I have some pretty general and diverse experience with plants. I have had many failures as well as much success.

What kind of Palms do you grow? I am familiar to some degree with date palms. There is some limited farming of those out here. The Medjool variety seems to be pretty common.

KeithM:

"A quick word to Ryan about British wine-making, from a Brit who knows a thing or two about wine...

"They are now making wine from active vinyards in Britain where it was not historically possible before"

No sir. Sorry. Incorrect."

Fair enough. I think that could be argued both ways. As Palm Grower stated there have been new varieties introduced. From what I see its been a combination of the revival that started in the 50's, new varieties that are more hardy in that climate, and yes, some warming.

I don't think the argument holds much weight that they need to use heaters. When you are growing something on the fringe of its normal range it is more likely you will have to take such actions. Really no suprise there. In the end I am willing to let that one go.

However, that same argument could be used to say that increasing human intervention is the only way some plants are still growing where they previously required less attention.

And it should be noted to both of you that increased frosts are not necessarily out of line with AGW. Increasingly powerful storms bring tropical air farther north, and cold air farther south. The Satellite records are showing this pretty consistently. Food for thought.

As far as the revised maps. Only time will tell my friends.