Dr. Julie Gerberding, who is the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) testified in front of a Senate hearing Tuesday that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans." A majority of her testimony supposedly was on the CDC's preparation, with very little on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease.

Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review in advance of her appearance, as the AP article reported.

A CDC official familiar with both versions said the draft was "eviscerated" after the review process. The CDC official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that the testimony went through an interagency review process and that the Office of Science and Technology Policy did not believe that science in the testimony matched the science that was in a report by the IPCC.

Tuesday night Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that the Bush Administration "should immediately release Dr. Gerberding's full, uncut statement because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming. But, CDC spokesman Tom Skinner played down the White House changes, saying Gerberding's appearance was "very productive" and she addressed the issues she wanted.

I would be curious to see what was said in the uncut version, and I agree with Boxer that it should be released. What do you think about all this? Do you think the unedited version may have been too "alarming" for the public to handle? Sort of like one of those movies you see on the Sci-Fi Channel.

UPDATE............

BrooklineTom has provided us with a link to the original version. Looks like the stuff that was edited out is highlighted. Thanks Tom.

In about two weeks, the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change will publish its final assessment of the impact of global warming, and according to an article from the Telegraph, the report will have some surprise conclusions.

According to the Telegraph article, the final IPCC assessment continues to say that the Arctic will be devastated by rising temperatures, but that the Antarctic will be spared the worst of global warming, as Antarctica's ice sheets will remain too cold for widespread melting before the end of the century and may even grow as more snow accumulates.

For the Arctic, the IPCC believes that the region will continue to see widespread loss of sea ice, similar to this year. Greenland's ice sheet is predicted to be almost gone by the end of the century and Arctic tundra will be replaced by forests, the final report will say.

Here is the latest sea ice anomaly chart (1979-current) from the Arctic region, courtesy of the Polar Research Group. Note, how far below normal the sea ice coverage area is now.

Here is the latest latest sea ice anomaly chart from around the Antarctic. Note, how the anomalies have been fairly consistent (up and down) since 1979, and if anything there has been a very slight shift toward a slightly higher than normal sea ice coverage anomaly since the mid-90's.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

While the price of oil continues to skyrocket, the price of coal continues to fall, making it increasingly attractive to consumers across the globe. In the article from Bloomberg, the coast of a ton of coal is now down to $47 and European utilities are now willing to pay 50 dollars to ship it across the Atlantic. About ten years ago the cost of coal and oil was about the same, but now, West Texas Intermediate crude is five times more expensive than coal.

Coal use worldwide has grown 27% since 2002, which is three times faster than crude, and the three biggest U.S. coal companies forecast the largest increase in exports in 20 years.

"Coal is by far the cheapest fuel because there's no price on how much damage it causes," said John Holdren, a Harvard University professor of environmental science and director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. "Unless you get policies to put a price on carbon dioxide and other emissions, no other plants can compete." Five months ago Al Gore said the U.S. should adopt a "complete moratorium" on new coal-fed power plants unless all of the CO2 from them can be buried underground. Based on what is going on now, it seems like Gore's proposal has little chance of getting enacted anytime soon.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 1,000 coal-fed power plants will be built in the next 5 years, mostly in China and India. "If those 1,000 plants get built without any controls on carbon emissions, we will careen into unmanageable changes in our climate," said Holdren.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Exxon Mobil Corporation predicted that energy demand worldwide will grow an average of 1.3% annually through the year 2030, and that hydrocarbons such as oil, natural gas and coal will still answer about 80% of the world's energy demand by 2030, according to an article from CNN Money. That 1.3% increase is down from a 1.6% annual growth estimate issued in December 2006 as the company now has expectations that automakers and airlines will introduce more efficient engines during the next 20 years.

Based on that forecast, the company sees carbon dioxide emissions rising at a rate of 2% a year, which is mostly based on the expectation of developing nations' heavy reliance on coal to fuel their expanding industrial economies. I really can't argue with that forecast, especially when you consider the very high and growing populations in these developing countries and the coal situation, which I just blogged about in the last post.

The company also predicts a 9% increase per year in the demand for renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar and biofuels. With that increase, renewable fuels will still hold a very small piece (only 2%) of the world's energy demand pie by 2030. Currently, alternative fuels account for about 0.5% of the world's energy demand.

I just filled up at my local Exxon......$3.09 a gallon. Doing a lot of coasting down these central Pennsylvania hills.

Here are some of the more major points from the fourth and final assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released over the weekend. Remember, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

--The report concludes that it is "unequivocal" that Earth's climate is warming.

--The report finds that it is "very likely" (that's >90% likelyhood based on the chart) that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century, which is a stronger statement than the prior assessments.

--Studies confirm that current carbon dioxide and methane (heat trapping gases) exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

--11 of the last 12 years rank among the 12 hottest years on record (since 1850).

--Tropical cyclone intensity has increased over the past 30 years and this correlates to increases in tropical sea surface temperatures.

--There have been longer and more intense droughts, especially in the tropics and subtropics.

--Since 1900 the northern hemisphere has lost 7% of the maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground.

--Sea levels continue to rise.

The future?

According to the story from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the IPCC assessment said that if we take no action to reduce emissions there will be twice as much warming over the next two decades than if we had stabilized heat-trapping gases and other climate revelent pollutants in the atmosphere at their year 2000 levels.

--The full range of the predicted global temperature increase by the end of the century has been expanded. The new predicted full range is (+2 to +11.5 F increase in temperature). Wow, they covered themselves pretty well there!

--The best estimate for the temperature increase by the end of the century is (+3.1 to +7.2 F)

--Most of the warming will be over land and at most high northern latitudes.

--Expect more frequent and severe tropical cyclones and heat waves.

--Increasing carbon dioxide concentration will lead to increasing acidification of the oceans.

You can read more about the IPCC fourth Assessment here.

We would love to hear your comments on this!

A group of wealthy nations have apparently broken a promise to pay more than a billion dollars to help developing countries cope with the effects of climate change.

According to The Guardian, the EU, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and New Zealand in particular said that they would jointly pay developing countries 410 million dollars each year from 2005-2008 under the terms of the Climate Adaptation Agreement made at a UN meeting in 2001 at Bonn, Germany. So far, only 177 million of the 1.2 billion due by the end of 2007 has been paid into the funds. Another 106 million has been pledged by specific countries, but has not yet been paid. I say we send out Tony Soprano and his boys to collect!

Monday meeting...........

Also, I just read that Al Gore was invited to the White House by President Bush for the first time since 2001. Bush had a 40-minute meeting with Gore discussing climate change and celebrated Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. Do you think Bush is having a change of heart in regards to global warming?

After a 16-month investigation, a new report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee came to the "inescapable" conclusion that "the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science, mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming." The committee is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Republicans on the committee called the report a "political attack" and their findings question the democrat's conclusion and investigative methods. The White House called the allegations untrue, according to the ABC News article.

According to the report, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) controlled which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, thereby suppressing dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with administration policies. Scientists who denied a link between stronger hurricanes and global warming were given approval by CEQ over scientists who suggested a link. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, White House approval for interviews with journalists became more prevalent. The committee obtained 27,000 documents from the CEQ during the investigation.

The report also stated that the White House minimized the signs of climate change by editing government climate change reports and editing scientific testimony to Congress.

"Claims that the administration interfered with scientists and with science are false." said CEQ chairman James Connaughton.

"A thorough investigation would have sought further evidence to complete the record before drawing conclusions based on the uncorroborated statements of one individual," the Republican report said.

Here is the link to the entire report (pdf file).

Update (12/12/07)........

In a follow up to this story, ABC News has a report in which Max Mayfield, the former director of the National Hurricane Center denies the committee's report that he was politically pressured to downplay the link between global warming and hurricanes during congressional testimony. Here is the link to the story.

A few days ago I blogged about a letter signed by over 100 experts of various fields to the United Nations, which said that attempting to stop global warming was futile and that the IPCC process was flawed (see below). There was also another letter to the United Nations, that was signed by nearly 200 scientists which strongly urged immediate action by leading goverments to combat global warming. To be fair, I should have linked to both letters in the initial blog, which would have provided a more balanced post in which you could compare the letters. To make up for my mistake, here is a summary of what was written in that letter......

The letter starts out by addressing the 2007 IPCC report which states that we are now at least 90% certain that human activities are contributing to a warming planet and that many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events if the trend is not halted soon.

--The letter states that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 50% below their 1990 levels by 2050.

--Greenhouse gas emissions in the long run need to be stabilized at a level well below 450 ppm.

--Global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10-15 years in order to stay below the expected 2 degrees celsius increase.

TalkClimateChange.com did a nice post a couple days ago in comparing the two letters. Here is the link.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the earlier post from Saturday which I titled "Attempting to stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN

Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages and it is not possible to stop climate change. The Bali and the IPCC process is a mistake, and will ultimately be futile. These are the conclusions from an open letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, which was signed by more than 100 specialists from around the world with expertise ranging from climate science to economics and biology.

The letter, which was assembled by Robert M. Carter, professor at the Marime Geophysical Laboratory of James Cook University in Australia, argues against the existence of consensus and rejects claims of abnormal climate change. The letter also disputes the IPCC process and claims new research has emerged making the IPCC reports "materially oudated".

The IPCC's Summaries for Policy Makers are the most commonly read IPCC reports among politicians and non-scientists, yet, according to the letter, these summaries are prepared by a small core writing team with final drafts approved by government representatives. A great majority of IPCC contributers, reviewers and other qualified scientists are not involved in the preparation of the documents.

The letter, which was posted on the National Post from Canada, also states that the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. Also, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.

By the way, one of the signers to this letter was Dr. Fred Singer, who is featured today in a video question and answer with our own Katie Fehlinger just below. Here is the link to all of the signatories of this open letter.

The 2007 Energy bill was signed into law by President Bush yesterday. Here are some of the highlights of the bill taken from the Environment News Service article......

--35 mpg standard mandated by 2020, which is the first increase in vehicle fuel economy standards in 32 years.

--100-watt incandescent light bulbs will be gone by 2012 and 40-watt ones will be history by 2014. I have already replaced about 80% of my household lighting with the compact fluorescent ones and not one has burned out yet in 3 years.

--The law creates a 15 billion gallon renewable fuels standard fro grain based fuels, which will be met primarily by corn based ethanol.

"The bill I sign today takes a significant step because it will require fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels," President Bush said. "It will help us diversify our energy supplies and reduce our dependence on oil."

Not everyone was happy with the passage of the bill...........

Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) said the measure would increase the cost of fuel, triggering a recession. "The cost of building our homes is going to go up because of all the new building code restrictions for so-called ‘green buildings' in this bill. The cost of electricity is going to go up. The cost of manufacturing our automobiles and our trucks is going to go up."

"The cost of appliances is going to go up because of all the new efficiency standards we're putting in for appliances. And even the cost of light bulbs is going to go up. The light bulbs that light this chamber right now will be illegal when this bill becomes totally implemented. The incandescent light bulb that you can get for 90 cents or 50 cents at Wal-Mart is going to be outlawed," said Barton. "That's a cause for recession."

On the other side.......

"The lighting section of the energy bill is a bright light in an otherwise underachieving piece of legislation," said Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers. "Along with the requirement that automobile fleets average 35 miles per gallon and building efficiency improvements, Congress took a very modest step in the right direction, but sold out to the oil and gas industries by approving huge subsidies to companies that are experiencing record profits."

What is your opinion of the new Energy Law? Too much? Not enough? Or a good compromise.

Forecasters from the UK's Met Office and experts from the University of East Anglia predict that 2008 will be another top-ten warmest year globally since records began in 1850, but it will be cooler than recent years.

These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

Here are some of the details from their 2008 forecast..............

-- Global average temperatures for 2008 would be 0.37 celsius (0.66 F) above the 30-year average of 14 celsius (57.2 F) from 1961-1990.

--2008 will be the coolest year globally since 2000.

--The forecast took into account the strengthening La Nina, which, according to the forecasters would limit the warming trend. Rising atmospheric greenhouse gases, solar variations and changes in ocean currents were also considered when making the forecast.

By the way, the Met Office forecast for 2007 from last January predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. It was not. Here is the link to their forecast for 2007.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences says that Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells, which according to him, is a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. According to Sorokhtin's article from the Russian News and Information Agency, data obtained from Habibullah Abdusamatov, who is the head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, shows that a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012, but real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or longer.

Sorokhtin also notes.....

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster.

The principal is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

You can read the full article here.

I tried to find out more specific information about Dr. Sorokhtin and Abdusamatov, but all I found was similar links to this particular story, and let me say, there were a large number of links to this story on the web.

Graphic courtesy of CICERO

Road traffic is the number one contributor of atmospheric greenhouse gases in the transportation sector and has led to two-thirds of the warming caused by all transportation emissions, while aviation placed second, according to a report from the Environmental News Network.

Researchers from CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo) calculated each sub-sectors contribution to global warming by looking at the radiative forcing (RF) caused by transportation emissions. RF is the warming effect in the unit watt per square meter (w/m2). 15% of RF caused by man-made emissions come from the transportation sector, while transportation can be blamed for a 30% contribution of tropospheric ozone (O3).

According to the report, shipping (which placed fourth) has a short-term cooling effect on the climate since it emits large portions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which have cooling effects, but in the long run shipping will have a slight warming effect since sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide do not live as long in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide.

By the way, rail transportation placed third with a very small warming effect.

A pair of senior Church of England bishops have called on Christians to give up carbon for the 40 days of Lent, which began today, instead of the usual chocolate or soda.

This year Christians will be asked to think about their own carbon footprint and follow a few simple steps designed to help cut CO2 emissions. From the Telegraph article, they include:

-- avoiding plastic bags
-- giving the dishwasher a day off
-- insulating the hot water tank
-- checking the house for drafts
-- removing one lightbulb from a prominent place in the house and live without it for 40 days, then replace it with a long lasting, low-energy bulb.

In the UK alone, each person is responsible for 9.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

What do you think of this idea?

The abnormally cold weather that has occurred over parts of the world recently is now being blamed on global warming by some scientists, according to an article in the Hong Kong Standard.

"We are seeing extremely unusual weather across the world," said polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze. "This is due to human activities and our style of living. Carbon dioxide emissions are heavy, which is changing the weather rapidly. We could see colder winters and hotter summers in the future in Hong Kong."

Greenpeace officials concur saying mainland scientists concluded that the extreme cold weather in China was triggered by climate change. "This does not only cause an increase in global warming but also causes extreme weather patterns," said campaigner Edward Chan.

My question is....... Who are the specific scientists making this claim? The only one I see quoted is a polar researcher.

Other experts blame La Nina...... "La Nina is causing warm moist air to move to the south of China," said Professor Yan Yuk- yee, who specializes in climatology at Hong Kong Baptist University. "When this meets the cold air of the monsoon, it causes freezing conditions."

The La Nina idea makes more sense to me personally, and the article does indeed quote a specific climatologist. But, I will keep an open mind on the issue since there is just not enough information out there yet in order to prove either link.

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists is a myth, according to a survey of scientific literature of the era. I found this story in Wednesday's online edition of USAToday by Doyle Rice. This subject has been previously brought up on numerous occasions within the comment section of this blog.

Indeed, major publications such as Newsweek, Time, the New York Times and National Geographic published articles in the 1970's about the possibility of a new ice age, but Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965-1979 and found the following.......

7 supported global cooling.
44 predicted warming.
20 were neutral in regards to future climate trends.

Excerpts from the USAtoday article...........

The study concludes, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Radar image of Hurricane Andrew making landfall south of Miami, Florida in 1992.

From a NOAA press release..........

A scientific team has determined that economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the United States over time due to greater population, infrastructure and wealth on the U.S. coastlines and not because of any spike in the number and intensity of hurricanes.

My first thought when I read this yesterday was "no sh..!" but, it is still nice to see this type of report being released through NOAA. There is just way too much building going on along exposed, low-lying coastal areas in this country. You are just asking for trouble in my opinion.

According to Chris Landsea, operations officer at NOAA's National Hurricane Center, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time, but there is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damge record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts. The report states that the economic damage from hurricanes is doubling every 10-15 years!

Here is the link to the study pdf.

2008 International Conference on Climate Change

The first, major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming will take place in New York City from March 2 - March 4, 2008, according to conference coordinator James Taylor from the Heartland Institute, which is the primary sponser of the event.

The conference will bring together leading scientists, economists and policy experts to explain the "other side" of the climate change debate, according to the conference website.

Approximately 100 scientists, economists, and policy experts will participate as speakers and panelists. Here is a list of confirmed speakers. I am sure you will recognize several of the speakers, some of which have been interviewed by Katie Fehlinger on Headline Earth, while others have personally interacted in the blog's comment section.

Admission is open to the general public, but attendance is limited to 500 people. I wonder if Dr. Hansen will be attending, especially since this conference is being held right in his own back yard.

Researchers from Texas A & M University compiled results from a survey of over 1000 Americans on how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it. Specifically, the research team looked at public informedness of the risks of global warming and the public confidence in climate scientists.

The goal of the study, posted in the Risk Analysis Journal, was to test the general assumption that the scientific assessment of the risks is both correct and objective, and that, by implication, the publics perceptions of the risks are both inaccurate and subjective.

According to the survey, more informed respondents and those with high confidence in scientists both feel less personally responsible for global warming and also show less concern for global warming.

From the New York Times article "Global Warming Paradox" by John Tierney............

But why would people who trust scientists not be as concerned when they hear so many scientists warning of the perils of global warming? “Though this effect differs from our expectations,” the researcher write, “it is consistent with the notion that people trust that scientists will be able, somehow, to devise technical solutions to any problems that arise because of global warming and climate change.” Dr. Kellstedt elaborated on this point by telling me:

More broadly, and again quite speculatively, I think that Americans have a great deal of faith in technology and technological solutions to problems. We have seen science do things (like send people into outer space, and to miraculously save them, Apollo-13 style, when things go badly) unimaginable for 99.9% of human history.

You can read about the study in depth right here.

Andrew Revkin, a science writer for the New York Times posted an interesting article titled "Skeptics of Human Climate Seize on Cold Spell". There is no doubt we have been hearing a lot of this discussion recently from people who challenge human-induced global warming thanks to the notable drop in the global monthly temperature anomaly over the past year, and especially this past January. Revkin also posts a few temperature charts here.

A recent NOAA press release states that this winter has been the coolest since 2001 across the entire globe (NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe). The numbers are for the climatological winter, not the calendar winter.

It's worth nothing that the word "coolest" is a relative term, so even though it was the coolest since 2001, temperatures across the United States averaged 0.2F warmer than the 20th century average. It's the same globally. While the combined land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record, it was the coolest since 2000-2001.

There is a lot of information in the release, so I encourage you to read it yourself and make your own analysis.

If a guest blogger replaces a guest blogger, does that make the new person a guest guest blogger?

With that in mind, here's a post from guest guest blogger Kate from our marketing department--she had seen the post I'd done about the green initiatives related to the Pirates (Finally, First at Something) and found a related topic.

Paul

While it seems the Pirates may be implementing green initiatives, The French news agency AFP reports Japanese professional baseball players have pledged to cut playing time by six percent, or 12 minutes, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Japanese baseball joins fight against global warming).

The Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) commissioners' office said that by reducing game time, it will reduce the amount of energy that must be produced to stage the game. This in turn will contribute to reducing carbon emissions.

For me, this is a great move. While I like to follow my Phils, games tend to drag.... How long should it take to walk up to the plate and swing the bat?

The NPB players agree it should take under 15 seconds. An AP article (Japan baseball looking to fight global warming with shorter games) explains that pitchers must throw within 15 seconds of receiving the ball when no runners are on base. Also, teams will be limited to 2 minutes and 15 seconds to take the field when switching from batting to fielding.

The measures to fight global warming coincide with Japan's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The nation has been behind in reaching its mark to reduce gasses by six percent between 2008 and 2010.

In a 60 minutes interview set to air this Sunday, Al Gore says that the tiny, tiny minority of man-made global warming skeptics are acting like fringe groups who once believed the world was flat or that the 1969 moon landings never happened.

You can watch a snippit of the interview, right here, courtesy of 60 Minutes.

Gore has donated significant profits from hisbook and Oscar winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" to the Alliance for Climate Protection, which will begin a new 300 million dollar ad campaign on global warming next week, according to the 60 Minutes article.

By the way, Gore's Nashville home, which has been a target of criticism in the past, is now refitted with roof solar panels.

Our own long-range weather expert Joe Bastardi posted a strong response to Al Gore in his blog on AccuWeather.com Professional. I will post his response over the weekend.

Large cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf, Antarctica. Photo courtesy of the BAS.

I realize most of you are already aware (mainstream media) about the collapsing Wilkins Ice Shelf down in Antarctica, but I thought the link to the video was pretty cool. According to the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), a large part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic peninsula is now supported only by a thin strip of ice hanging between two islands. According to the BAS press release, it appears that the ice shelf is ready to to break out from the Antarctic Peninsula.

Over the past week, satellite images of the ice shelf spotted a huge 25 x 1.5 mile berg (close to the size of Manhattan) that had recently broken away and was still moving. The BAS sent a Twin Otter aircraft out on recon to check the breakout....Here is a link to a portion of that video taken by Jim Elliot of the BAS.

"I've never seen anything like this before, it was awesome, said Elliot. We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble, it's like an explosion."

Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado says, "We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years. But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."

Several U.S. economists have concluded that high gasoline prices could lead to a dramatic reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a New Scientist release. How so?

--High gas prices are turning consumers away from gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and toward more fuel-efficient vehicles that burn less fuel and produce fewer emissions.

--Drivers are also cutting back on driving to save money. (count me as one of those!)

According to Chris Knittel, an economist at the University of California Davis, the impact will be dramatic, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by tens of millions of tons per year.

Knittel estimates that over about a decade, these changes in buying habits could cut the amount of gasoline used by U.S. drivers by around 7% for every $1 dollar increase in it's price. Something to consider, especially since some Wall Street analysts recently suggested that the cost of a barrel of crude oil could reach the $150 to $200 in the very near future!

I like the last part of the release.........

It is also possible that politics will intervene before any of these effects has a chance to kick in. Presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton have reacted to consumer protests over soaring fuel prices by declaring that they would suspend federal gasoline taxes. "It's a fantastically stupid idea," says Roberton Williams, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin.

"But people don't like high gas taxes, so it's popular."

Update: crude oil up to $126 a barrel as of Friday evening. Ouch!

I couldn't pass this one up........

NASA's own Inspector General has concluded that NASA studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006 were deliberately "marginalized; or mischaracterized" by political appointees in NASA's Office of Public Affairs (press office).

From the report via the USA Today article........

While we could not substantiate that Administration officials employed outside NASA approved or disapproved or edited specific news releases, we do, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career Public Affairs Officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior Public Affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases.

Climate change scientists and a majority of career public affairs officers strongly believe the alleged actions taken by senior NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs officials (those political appointees) intended to portray NASA in a light most favorable to administration policies at the expence of reporting unfiltered research results. Those same political appointees deny those actions.

The IG report also found no evidence that senior NASA officials directed the Office of Public Affairs to minimize information regarding climate change.

Here is the link to the full IG investigative report.

Maybe Dr. Hansen will have something to say about this in the near future.

The North Pole web cam from earlier today, courtesy of NOAA. Notice the standing pools of water (snow melt) with an outside temp of 5.5 celsius (42 F).

The same North Pole web cam 5 years ago to this day. The view is a little more zoomed in toward that upside-down L shaped pole in the distance.

As many of you already know, there has been a lot of talk in the media lately about the possibility of an ice-free North Pole this summer. Andrea Thompson, a senior writer from LiveScience dug a little deeper and phone interviewed Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Serreze was earlier quoted by a London paper that that in his opinion it was even-odds whether the North Pole melts out at the end of the melt season.

In the interview with Thompson, Serreze cleared up some of the confusion caused by some media outlets......

1. The potential melt-out at the North Pole would not mean that all Arctic Ice would melt, but that the thin, new ice around 90 degrees north could melt away for a few days.

2. This thin, first-year ice is more susceptible to melting this summer, compared to the thicker, older ice. A substantial amount of older ice melted last year.

3. Wind patterns and ocean currents over the last few months moved the newly formed ice over the North Pole, setting up this potential situation late this summer, but the North Pole is cooler than the lower Arctic latitudes, so it could resist melting.

4. Serreze is pretty certain that the region will lose a bunch of ice this summer, but the question of just exactly where that melt will occur is "a roll of the dice". One factor in determining these factors is the somewhat higher ice extent that re-froze this winter.

5. Serreze notes that a warm spring season has put melting about on par with where it was at this point last year.

Check out this link to the current status of the sea-ice area in the Arctic Basin from the University of Illinois Polar Research group. So far it does appear that the current sea-ice area status is very close to what it was last year at this time. Also note, that the ice area in the Arctic Basin last year saw its greatest drop between the second week of July and third week of August. We may get some clues starting in the next few weeks.

By the way, there are other scientists in this field that feel that this summer's melt will be less spectacular than last year's.

No doubt, we will all find out the real answer in September!

I saw this recent press release from the Space and Science Research Center, which states that global warming has ended and a new cold era has begun. Mr. John Casey, who is the director of the Space and Science Research center made this declaration at a press conference in Florida a week ago. The press release is basically an update of what was released about the theory back in January of 2008.

I have never heard of the Space and Science Research Center until now, but according to their press release, the world's climate warming of the past decades has come to an end based on the 'Relational Cycle Theory' or RC theory.

According to their website, Mr. Casey's original research on his RC theory was peer reviewed. There is a link to a more detailed research doc. report of this theory at the bottom of the research link. It is the first link and has graphs.

In developing this theory, Mr. Casey studied sunspot cycles from 1610 to present. He determined that there exists a family of solar activity cycles that has a direct influence on the earth's climate and found that the cycles correlated strongly to all past major temperature lows. There was a 90-100 year cycle and a 206 year cycle. He estimates that the peak of the current 206-year cycle was between 1986-1987 with a peak range from 1962-2010.

According to this theory.............

--The earth will experience a significant temperature decline beginning between 3-14 years and lasting 2 or 3 solar cycles.

--Global temperature reductions of at least 1 to 1.5 celsius.

--The new climate will produce dangerously cold weather that will result in worldwide, agricultural, social and economic disruption.

What do you make of this?

New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin posted an excellent article yesterday about the journalistic whiplash the public is suffering due to the "scientifically normal" amount of conflicting findings in the study of global warming.

The persistent disputes about global warming and many other scientific subjects is a normal process, according to scientists as they try to understand how the world works. But many fear that this back and forth stuff is distracting the public. I wonder if this blog is partially guilty of this?

Exerpts from the NYT article.............

"One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on," said W. Tad Pfeffer, an expert on Greenland’s ice sheets at the University of Colorado.

"Each new paper negates or repudiates something emphatically asserted in a previous paper," Dr. Pfeffer said. "The public is obviously picking up on this not as an evolution of objective scientific understanding but as a proliferation of contradictory opinions."

The flow of scientific findings from laboratory (or glacier) to journal to news report is fraught with "reinforcing loops" that can amplify small distortions, said Dr. Kimberly Thompson, an associate professor of risk analysis and decision science at Harvard.

Dr. Thompson said climate science presented particularly tough challenges, given the long time lag before the worst effects kick in and the persistent uncertainty about the likelihood of worst-case outcomes. She said the news media sometimes overplayed the uncertainty by balancing opposing views in a story without characterizing the overall level of confidence in either side. And sometimes they do the opposite, sacrificing accuracy for impact, she said.

What do you think?

An older power station at Kingsnorth. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

He's back!

Dr. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently joined a protest against the construction of a new coal plants (The first one being Kingsnorth) in the UK.

In an interview with stop Kingsnorth, which you can watch right here, courtesy of YouTube, Hansen says that there really is no such thing right now as "clean" coal technology since only a small fraction of carbon dioxide is captured.

Hansen favors renewable and alternative energy and that trying to actually make coal technology "clean" would be too expensive anyway.

In the interview, Hansen talks about how some of the poorest nations would be impacted by global warming due to sea level rise and a reduction of fresh water due to glacier melt.

Speaking of sea level rise, Icecap posted a graph of sea level rise going back to 1993.

In a letter from July of 2007, Hansen wrote the following from NewScientist.........

As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095.

Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate of the ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise than a linear response. In my opinion, if the world warms by 2 °C to 3 °C, such massive sea level rise is inevitable, and a substantial fraction of the rise would occur within a century. Business-as-usual global warming would almost surely send the planet beyond a tipping point, guaranteeing a disastrous degree of sea level rise.

---------------------

From what I can tell, based on the graph, I do not see any indication of his 10-year doubling time showing up yet. It is is still early in the century though.

Overlooking the village of Ilulissat, Greenland.

The Toledo Blade's Tom Henry is writing a three-part series about global warming impacts on the residents of Greenland. In part one of this series, Henry discusses the positive and negative impacts of the warming from direct conversations with the locals. Henry visited the fishing community of Ilulissat, which has a population of 4,500 people and is located at 69 degrees north latitude.

Positives

--Summer fishing season is longer.
--Crops are being grown in areas that were never thought possible. It did not specify what types of crops.
--Increasing hydropower potential (glacier meltwater) is attracting many new projects, which could lead to more jobs.
--Beer! Supposedly, Greenland beer tastes great with that pristine water from melted inland ice.

Negatives

--Lack of sea ice is making winter passage between settlements much more difficult, especially since sled dogs are primary transportation.
--Ice fishing is more treacherous (fishing is the #1 industry).
--Famous Greenland halibut are becoming more elusive and swimming deeper.
--More whales are coming in toward the coast and acting as vacuum cleaners, sucking up large numbers of small fish.

Ove Rosbach, who has fished the Arctic for decades, blamed the decline on warmer ocean currents flowing to the north. He said a similar phenomenon occurred in the 1950s.

Halibut returned when the ocean current cooled in the 1970s, but Mr. Rosbach said things feel different now. Even when the sun is not shining, it's still very warm,' he said. "The sun is warmer than normal now."

The article by Henry is fairly long, but there are also some videos about the scientific work being done at the Byrd Polar Research Center. Henry also took some nice photos of the visit.

I have been getting a number of comments lately directing me to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) October temperature controversy that originated with bad data from Russia.

Basically, it appears that September temperature data from several observing stations in Russia was wrongly put in place of what should have been October data. This resulted in a tremendous "hot" spot showing up on the GISS October temperature anomaly map.

John Goetz from Anthony Watt's 'Watts Up with That?' website initially broke this story a few days ago.

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has also been closely following this and here is his initial story. Steve provides statistical analysis of climate data on his blog.

It appears that GISS has now had a couple of corrections to the data and you can see the results of that in the images below........

Here is the original October GISS temperature anomaly with the bad data. Image courtesy of Climate Audit.

Here is the correction from GISS as of November 12th. Image courtesy of Climate Audit.

Here is the latest correction from GISS.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller from GISS posted a response to the glitch on Real Climate.

An image from MODIS was taken back in 2002 and shows the Amazon rainforest region (dark green). You can see the results of clear cutting down in the bottom right and center. Also, the smoke from the numerous fires (red dots) that are set to clear the the land.

The loss of forest land across parts of the globe, but specifically the Amazon region of Brazil is one of the keys to the steady increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide as stored carbon from these old jungles is released into the atmoshere as it is destroyed. Around 20% of global CO2 emissions due to human activities are from tropical deforestation and land use change. According to the Physorg.com article, Brazil's Amazon jungles have lost 4,800 sq. miles during a 12-month period from 2007 to 2008, which is about the size of Connecticut. This loss is about a 4% increase over the previous 12-month period.

The primary reason for this loss is the continuous encroachment of farms which tend to produce soya beans.

Amazon forest burning.

There is some good news, Brazil has been able to sharply reduce the loss of Amazon rainforests over the past 3 years, according to the article, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done to prevent loss.

Here is a link to an article from CSIRO last year which explains how deforestation plays a critical climate change role.

Kevin Grandia from Desmogblog.com has compiled internet blog statistics on specific global warming denier terms during 2007 and 2008 using Google search. Grandia compared the results from 2007 to 2008 and found that there has been a significant upswing in the number of page results using denier terms such as lie, hoax and alarmists when combined with the words "global warming".

The results of this non-scientific study certainly do not surprise me at all. I have been doing this for three years now and I have been telling some of my co-workers basically the same thing over the past year from my own observations.

Here is the link to the article, which is loaded with interesting graphs and charts. Check it out.

The 2009 National Teach-In on Global Warming will take place on February 5th this year. This event will take place at thousands of colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, faith groups, civic organizations and businesses across the country.

The teach-In will consist of four main components.......

1. A webcast.
2. The actual teach-in.
3. Climate dialogue
4. 100 days of action.

There is a ton of information on this event from their site. Here is a link to
the FAQ page if you are interested.

------------------------------------------------------

The second annual International Conference on Climate Change will take place in New York City from March 8th to March 10th this year. This event is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

According to the event's web site, there will be more than 70 scientists specializing in climate issues in attendance. The conference will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth's warming during the 20th century was man-made and has already reached a crisis.

Here is the link to the full updated list of speakers at the conference.

----------

Update......

Dan Miller, the publisher of the Heartland Institute responds to some of the comments that were posted on this blog.....

It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to rebut skeptics' assessment of the causes and severity of climate change by implying the that the elite scientists who advance the skeptic's view are bought through corporate donations. The Heartland Institute relies on 2,700 donors for our operations, which along with registration fees will finance the second International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Foundations account for about 70 cents of our funding, individuals about 10 cents, and corporations for the rest. No single corporation gives more than 4 percent of our annual budget, and Exxon hasn't given us a dime since 2006.

Debate the science, please, but forget the ad hominem attacks.

Dan Miller
Publisher
The Heartland Institute

We all know who this is. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Dana Milbank, a noted columnist from the Washington Post offered his own somewhat humorous version of the Wednesday meeting between Al Gore and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A remember seeing Milbank many times on the cable news channels during the pre-election.

One metaphor from Gore (via Milbank) that caught my eye........"Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

The article is short, so check it out right here. Along with the article, there is also a video showing some of Gore's actual testimony to the committee.

On a more serious note, here is the initial statement by Gore to the committee on Wednesday, courtesy of Al Gore's blog.

NPR just recently conducted an audio interview with Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider to discuss the state of climate change research today.

Dr. Schneider.

Schneider was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and worked alongside former Vice President Al Gore.

Schneider was asked about the progress of climate change research and he stated that the recent change in the White House Administration will make a the most significant, positive impact on the research. The new administration will lead us closer to a full, world climate policy.

NPR asked Schneider what types of action does the Obama Administration need to inact and he listed the following.......

--An adaptation strategy.
--Find more ways to use energy more efficiently.
--Help U.S. industry invent our way out of the problem. Green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Schneider admits that no one truly knows whether the globe will warm 3 or as much as 10 degrees this century or how much the sea levels will rise due to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The fact is that we should not get hung up on the numbers and be realistic in what we can actually do to reduce this problem.

I posted the link to the interview at the top. It's about 7 minutes long.

Here is a link to Schneider's website.

------------------------------------------
On on different note, I see MODIS recently released a full composite high res. image of Antarctica. Here it is.....

Blog posted by AccuWeather.com meteorologist Mark Paquette.....

I came across this article while browsing the web, and I found it to be a little amusing, curious, and to be completely honest, scary.

I was amused by this article simply from the scientific view, or its complete lack thereof. We don't know if global warming is happening, and even if it is occurring, what is it doing to Bangladesh? This country automatically says global warming is happening, you are more responsible for it than we are, you are rich, we are poor, pay me. The story doesn't mention anything about the subject, but I'll assume the damage from "global warming" is that ocean levels are rising, causing floods and salt water intruding inland. So, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh Hasan Mahmud wants developed countries to pay for flooding and salt "poisoning" that may or may not be caused by global warming which, of course, may or may not be occurring also. That makes me laugh. Maybe I should come up with some story like this to make some money.

Curiosity worked its way into my mind when I wondered how many other countries may try this? Is this a new way for third-world countries to get financial assistance from the "developed nations"? What kind of science does the government of Bangladesh use for evidence? Or are they just using public opinion to get some money for themselves?

I think it is a little scary because if the government of Bangladesh can get financial assistance for this, the question of how many other countries may try this comes up, but other ponderings as well. What else can they use to try to get money? Can they use water pollution? Air pollution? Ozone depletion? Almost anything? Can they come up with make believe environmental crises to cash in?

What say you?

Mouths of the Ganges River in Bangladesh

A report just released by the Audubon Society shows that a significant number of bird species seen in North America during the first weeks of winter have moved dramatically northward over the span of 40 years.

Also, a number of grassland species are not following this northward trend and for these species disappearing habitat from warming is taking an enormous toll, and leaving them with nowhere to go.

One of our biggest movers, the Purple Finch.

How did they determine this?

Tens of thousands of citizen scientists take part in the Audubon's annual Christmas bird count and report their findings to the society. Based on an analysis of 305 bird species across North America, the results indicate an average northward movement of 35 miles. Sixty bird species out of the 305 actually moved in excess of 100 miles during the four decades!

Here are some of the more common birds with the greatest northward movement over the forty- year period.....

--Purple Finch (433 miles)
--Wild Turkey (408 miles). I can usually hear the turkeys over on the hill early in the mornings, but they are tough to spot.
--Ring-Billed Gull (356 miles)
--Pine Siskin (288 miles). There was a front-page report in our local central Pennsylvania paper a couple weeks ago about the appearance of this bird in our region.
--Boreal Chickadee (279 miles)
--House Finch (270 miles). I can say we have plenty of these around my neighborhood!

According to the Audubon Society, the results of this study is evidence that global warming is having serious impact on natural systems.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) just concluded their annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois. The meeting also featured a number of presentations about the impacts global climate change, including one from former Vice President Al Gore this past Saturday.

I found a video of Gore's slide presentation on YouTube. The video quality is not that great, but you easily can follow what he is saying. Each segment is anywhere between 3 and 8 minutes in length.

Introduction
video link

Part I
video link

Part II
video link

Part III
video link

Part IV
video link

Here is the written summary via the AAAS news release of Gore's 50 minute presentation.

------------------------

Tomorrow, I will feature one of the AAAS presentations by a pair of Penn State geoscience professors, who discuss the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer told a congressional committee hearing on Wednesday that global warming fears are "mistaken" and that the earth is currently in a "CO2 famine now" when you look at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through geological time.

"I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind," Happer told the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Full Committee.

The hearing was titled "Update on the latest Global Warming Science."

----------------------

Here are some other quotes from Happer to the Committee, courtesy of the senator Inhofe (R) EPW press blog, which is posted by Marc Morano......

"Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that. Earth was just fine in those times,"Happer added. "The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine."

"What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated."

"At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player."

"The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2."

"The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide."

"We now know that the hockey stick (Mann) has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis."

"The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?"

"I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis."

"Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe."

Here is a link to Happer's actual testimony to the committee.

------------------

Dr. Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993.

Happer has published over 200 peer-revieved scientific papers. Happer has also been previously funded by Exxon-Mobil.

-----------------------

Dr. Happer wasn't the only scientist to speak to the committee. Dr. Christopher Field, who is the co-chair of working group II of the IPCC presented his viewpoint, which is very different from Dr. Happer. I will have an upcoming blog on that as well.

Dr. Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Co-chair of working group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) briefed the Environment and Public Works Congressional Committee earlier this week on the latest global warming science.

----------------------------------

Here are some of the highlights from Field's testimony. Much of it includes the earlier consensus findings of from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC.

--Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

--Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

--Very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

--Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.

--Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.

--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 an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

--For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

--Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.

--Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk.

--Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s.

--Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit.

--In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels.

-----------------------

You can read the full testimony from Dr. Field right here.

----------

Major funding to Dr. Field and the Carnegie Institution for Science provided by the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Vannevar Bush Society, Edwin Hubble Society and the Carnegie Founders Society.

A supposedly, leaked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document indicated that the agency plans to issue a mid-April finding that global warming threatens both public health and welfare.

Coal-fired power plants like this may soon be targets of the EPA.

According to AlterNet (a progressive/liberal news and opinion website), the action by the EPA will set the stage for the first ever national regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in U.S. history.

The expected announcement will spell trouble for the coal-fired power plants, and will allow several states to set global warming limits for vehicles, according to the article.

What is your opinion on this?

Blog posted by Mark Paquette

As you have probably figured out from previous blogs, I love animals. My favorite species are snakes, but all animals are A OK in my book, well, maybe not ticks or mosquitoes....

Well, speaking about animals, I ran across this article about the American Pika, a mountain rodent found in the Rockies. This petite mammal may become the 1st species in the continental United States to get federal endangered species protections because of the effects of climate change.

Is this just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended)? Will there be more species that will be offered protection because of the changing climate? Will some species actually fare better? Will some animals expand the range northward (ie. alligators)? Will an expanding frost-free period allow for more mosquitoes and ticks (gross)!!

Well, sorry about the briefness of the article (is briefness a word?), and I also apologize for all of the parenthesis. Have a good week and thanks for reading!

Blog posted by AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Mark Paquette

Hello, and welcome to my weekend blog. As I usually do, I search the web for an article that sticks out to me, and this subject has been in the news quite a bit recently, so I figured I would pass it on to you.

This article asks the question "Does global warming pose a threat to the airline industry?" At first glance, I said, oh my, another loose cannon of an idea. How in the world are these two subjects even remotely related? After reading the article, maybe these two ideas are related a little more closely than I had first thought.

What if global ocean temperatures did rise? A big if, I know that. Would this lead to stronger updrafts from more frequent and stronger thunderstorms? Should pilots just try to avoid thunderstorms all together when they fly? This may not always be possible and almost always will be inconvenient to the pilots and everyone on board as this will often cause delays. This question then needs to be asked, are delays worth it when you are talking about the risk of human lives? I think everyone knows the answer to that question.

However, this article and any theories about global warming causing catastrophic events like this need to be taken with a grain of salt. As is so often pointed out to me and heard in the courthouse of public opinion, who even knows if global warming caused by man is occurring? Until we prove that it is or it is not happening, maybe we should use our time on more important subjects rather than trying to guess if helped cause a devastating plane crash.

Blog posted by AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Mark Paquette

Hello again. As I usually do, I search the web for an article that sticks out to me, and this has gotten quite a bit of press recently, so I figured I would pass it on to you.

This article brings up an interesting philosophy on global warming and how it is viewed in today's society. There is very little or no science behind this article, so those who like to keep up with the latest scientific thinking behind global warming or climate change may be a little disappointed.

- What I thought was interesting is why this fast food chain decided to put these signs up. To make a long story short, they put up very visible signs saying "Global Warming is Baloney" up to distract, to take some of the heat off of a TV commercial that they got a lot of complaints from.

- What this tells me is that global warming is in the general public's thoughts and this business chain knew that by putting up these signs they would hit a nerve, either positively or negatively, and "change the subject" from the damaging (or so they thought was damaging) commercial.

This link will bring you to the commercial that is being talked about in which complaints were issued (thanks to Youtube).

Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is a non-partisan arm of Congress says that the climate change Cap-and-Trade Bill, which is sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) would end up costing the average household $175 a year by 2020 (based on 2010 dollars). This is equivalent to the cost of buying one candy bar or can of soda every day of the year, or as Henry Waxman says......"about the same as a postage stamp a day for the average household."

The richest 20% of households would end up spending about $245 by 2020, while the poorest 20% of U.S> households would actually receive a $40 benefit, according to the CBO.

This is just the latest of estimates for the potential cost of this bill to the average family if it becomes law. Here are some other estimates, courtesy of the Washington Post article......

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): $98-140 between 2010 and 2050.

GOP leaders: $3,128 in 2015 and will end up driving jobs out of the country.

Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank): $4,300.

John Reilly (MIT professor): $75 by 2015, $510 by 2025 and $205 by 2050 for a family of four. Cost decreases as new technology works its way into power plants, building efficiency and automobiles.

---------

Here is a link to the actual CBO report.

Dr. James Hansen, who is the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was arrested, along with 30 others on Tuesday on charges of obstructing officers and impeding traffic during a protest at a large mountaintop mining company in the Coal River Valley of West Virginia, according to the New York Times article by Andrew Revkin.

Hansen has also been active in other protests over the past year, including being a strong voice against the Kingsnorth coal power station in the UK.

Hansen states that mountaintop coal mining should be abolished, since this type of mining only provides a small fraction of our energy. According to Hansen, coal is the biggest threat to the global climate.

Back in February of 2009, Hansen sent President Obama a letter about Coal River Mountain. Here is the link.

My question to you. Is Hansen overstepping his duties as a leading government paid scientist by being active in protests against the coal industry and risking arrest?

As many of our regular readers to this blog are aware, there has been a lot of talk over the past week in regards to the validity of the famous Mann 'hockey stick' global temperature curve, which was partially based on a set of tree ring data from Keith Briffa (2002).

Basically, in short, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, was finally able to look at the full set of Yamal (peninsula in Russia) tree ring data from Keith Briffa after years of attempted requests.

Briffa's limited data was processed using a different algorithm than used by Hamtemirov and Shiyatov (H&S) for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability, according to Real Climate.

Ross McKitrick, who used to work with Steve McIntyre, recently wrote an essay about this story in the Financial Post. In his essay, McKitrick notes that when 34 up to date core samples of this this "missing" core data where added by McIntyre the temperature plot ended up flattening out for the 20th century and thus showed no more hockey stick. McKitrick also notes that the hockey stick shape depended on the least reliable portion of the data set.

I encourage you to read both sides of the story and come to your own conclusion on this. . Links are provided below.

You can find the initial post by Steve McIntyre here at Climate Audit. It is quite technical with several posts.

Anthony Watts of 'Watts Up With That?' has his more simplified version right right here.

Here is the Financial Post article by Ross McKitrick.

Here is the response from Keith Briffa.

Steve McIntyre discusses Briffa's response right here.

From Real Climate......McIntyre has based his 'critique' on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

Here is the rest of Real Climate's response to this story.

A new study from George Mason University suggests that reading newspapers and the internet clearly contribute more to a person's knowledge about climate change than what they get from watching television.

That makes sense. Weren't most of us taught by our parents to read more and watch less TV when we were growing up? Unfortunately for me and my older brother, we did not follow that advice very well. My sister on the other hand always had a book in hand. I will say that I have always been big into the newspaper, and now of course the internet is taking over that category.

According to the George Mason study, people who read newspapers and use the Internet more often are more likely to be concerned about global warming and believe they are better educated about the subject. Watching more television, however, did not increase their knowledge of the subject.

Unfortunately, it took a very unrealistic movie like 'The Day after Tomorrow' to advance the public's interest in this domain, according to Communication Professor Xiaoquan Zhao. Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' also played in role, and as we all know, there are many mixed opinions on that movie.

Also, to no surprise, Republicans are more likely to believe that scientists are still debating the existence and human causes of global warming, whereas Democrats are more likely to believe that a scientific consensus has already been achieved on these matters.

Overall, Zhao says that the media influence on the people's knowledge about climate change has been mostly positive.

There have been many recent claims by some scientists and the general public that the Earth is actually cooling. Not so, according to some statisticians.

Global land/sea temperature anomaly trend since 1880. Courtesy NCDC.

30-year satellite measured global temperature anomaly trend. Courtesy of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

An analysis of global temperature data by four independent statisticians found no true temperature declines over recent time, according to the Associated Press (AP) story, which provided the data to the statisticians without telling them what the numbers represented.

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The statisticians found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set, according to the AP.

NOAA also re-examined their temperature data and found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

John Grego, a statistician from the University of South Carolina produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said to the AP.

To find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, said Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic. According to Easterbrook, it's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers for the AP.