Climate Change to Hit Home
Long Drought Ahead From Global Warming, Study Says
Warmer temperatures will hurt forests and fuel wildfires, Nobel winner Steven Running finds.By Amy Linn, 1-06-10
 |
|
 | |
| Flickr photo by Vsmoothe | |
|
A University of Montana study led by acclaimed scientist Steven Running shows that climate change will significantly extend drought periods in the Northern Rockies, stressing forests and inviting more frequent and virulent wildfires.
Running, the author of the study, is a Regents professor of ecology in UM’s College of Forestry and Conservation and a co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his leading role with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The peer-reviewed study, conducted with the help of other UM forestry researchers, predicts that global warming will have a dramatic impact on regional forests. Rising temperatures could spark an epidemic of insect infestations and cause catastrophic fires in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, “potentially affecting more than 360,000 people who live in homes in the forest-urban interface that are valued at $21 billion,” according to a UM announcement about the study.
Here are highlights of the research, straight from the UM statement:
-- By about the 2080s, hotter temperatures could cause about two months of additional drought.
-- Regional forests will see fewer days with snow on the ground, an earlier peak snowmelt, a longer growing season, and increasing drought stress, which in turn will increase insect infestations and wildfires.
-- Carbon uptake could be reduced and so disrupted that “most forests in the region would switch from absorbing carbon to releasing it by late this century.”
-- Even if future climate change is less severe than projected, serious impacts are expected. Forests are already being transformed by global warming, Running said, particularly since northern Rocky Mountains forests “live in a perpetually water-limited state.”
-- Over this century, the region could see an annual average warming trend of 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures expected to increase more than temps in other seasons.
The study was funded by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan nonprofit organization.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
In the past these credentials would be beyond dispute.
Given Gore's Nobel and Michael Mann's emails on hiding the decline and his ignoring both the little ice age and medieval warming periods in his wacky "hockey stick, Running could be just one of those kooks making money off Global Warming. The author should have noted if Running was part of the group that had emails released in the climategate event.
I don't care if it is peer-reviewed science, I read something on the intertubes that says it's all hooey.
But seriously, is there a link to the study, or more about it? I'd like to actually see some of it before jumping to conclusions.
http://www.iceagenow.com
The calendar cycle of the Great Year of the Constellations ends in December of 2012. It is not so different from the monthly calendar used daily now by all people that it should appear so impossible to understand for so many.
Yes there will be deserts where there are none now like the state of Florida in the USA, but there will also be lush forests where there are now deserts like the southwestern area of the USA.
Perhaps it is because of fear and denial that this cycle cannot be controlled or stopped that the average people are refusing to see what is right in front of their eyes as the clearly marked astronomical event used as the end and beginning point for the Great Year approaches.
This calendar was meant to be used so that people could prepare for the Great Winter, ice age, of the Great Year just as they use the monthly calendar to prepare in advance for the yearly season of winter.
It is a travesty that in this age of world wide technological communication the simple, silent calendar of the Great Year is either totally being ignored or totally being dismissed as something that was created out of no real importance.
NCEP is being funded as part of a 600-million a year program, and a billion dollar foundation called Climateworks, which in turn is funded by a consortium of mega-foundations acting in concert.
The "strategy" is contained in a position paper from California Environmental Associates called "Design to Win, Philanthropy's Role in the Fight Against Global Warming."
The report was sponsored by Packard, DUke, Joyce, Oak, Hewlett, and Energy, which in turn is a funding passthrough for at least three of the above.
It's an amazing paper. The sponsor foundations have subsequently restructured their funding programs along its lines. You can then follow the money to groups popping up to fight coal plant constructions, why NCEP even HAS money to give Running money for "research," why China has an "environmental movement" with resources and money....
I'd sure like a "journalist" to ask Stephen Chu what he thinks of all this, after all he was on Hewlett's board when the plan was hatched. And how about Ritter's climate "advisor" Alice Madden, who is paid to "advise" Ritter by none other than Hewlett and Energy. No ethical quandaries there, no sirreeeeee.
Gonna be a cold day in heck before I believe anything Running posits...and right now it's a darn cold day in Montana.
Read the position statements of other institutions such as NASA, AIP, NCAR, AMS, EPA, SOCC, AGU, NAS, NOAA, and many others. Ignore the hype and sensationalism. Join the fight for the sake of our future generations.
I'll continue to rely on the unbiased experts, unless of course there's a global conspiracy that's been going for over 30 years. Not likely.
One of the first studies by the NAS came out in 1979. Since it was followed by many, many studies that basically concurred, I CHOOSE to believe it.
Google... The Charney Report 1979
Was Gore scheduled to show up for a book signing in the hemisphere or something?
But does it follow that anthropogenic warming is therefore debunked? No. It would be a nasty logic error: generalizing from the specific.
And then the snide comment about Gore. A lot of uninformed folks like to banter him around but he isn't the source of the science. He has been doing wonderful work informing hundreds of millions. So THANK YOU Al Gore for all the work you continue to do!
It wasn't his hockey stick but dispite the hype the graph is still very accurate.
The profits from his movie and books go to fighting the crisis.
Still some will never accept the overwhelming concensus. I suggest they do some reading or come up with more reliable sources.
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
No hype, just the most reliable scientific institutions there are. If anyone has anything better I'd love to see it. Why don't naysayers have credible studies that say otherwise? That's easy.
But then Mickey goes and repeats the same old mistake. Sort of like... "Since the ground feels firm and not moving then the theories about Plate Tectonics must be a scam."
I'm sure that as we've seen record heat in many, many regions over the last 10 years the naysayers were quick to dismiss it with some sorry excuse like it's the Sun or the temp guages were misplaced, or, who knows.
Yes, using the Sun as an excuse betrays the fact that solar acivity has not increased. It would seem like the most likely cause because it is the main driver of climate, the earth's orbital variations and "wobbles" play a big roll too. But the studies show that the increases in temps can only be explained if you include the human influence.
There's always that other excuse that governments are to blame for scamming the public. Some may remember the w/cheney White House editing OUT warnings about climate change in a report from the EPA. Sorry but We The People (governments) don't want to have to deal with this crisis. I personally would welcome new studies that disprove anthropogenic warming and reassure us that our future generations are not at risk. I'll keep hoping but until then it is only rational to rely on the best evidence available. HUMANS are deteriorating our only habitat. Global warming is one of many symptoms.
In the past week I have seen several projected answers to the question posed above. From Icecap, there's this: "Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years."
The IPCC estimates the lifespan of CO2 somewhere above a century and below a millenium. Bart Verheggen, Dutch climate scientist, sends this: "Concerning CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere, see eg this figure: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/fig_tab/climate.2008.122_F1.html and David Archer’s explanation: geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf The most important processes governing CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere are: (geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf) (1) Anthropogenic CO2 will equilibrate with seawater in the global ocean, on a timescale less than a millennium. (2) Acidifying the ocean by adding CO2 perturbs the CaCO3 cycle by decreasing the global burial rate of CaCO3. This perturbation acts to restore the pH of the ocean back toward its initial pre-anthropogenic value, on a timescale of _10 kyr. (3) A silicate weathering feedback acts to restore pCO2 to some equilibrium value on timescales of _100 kyr, setting the ultimate maximum duration of an anthropogenic carbon cycle perturbation. "
Point being, we are apparently still disputing a key metric for estimating the future effects of anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases. Point being, we are debating this in the peer-reviewed literature and the science isn't settled.
We are apparently still debating other basic issues: Whether clouds are a net positive or negative forcing on temperatures, whether urban heat bias has affected our measurements of land temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius, as Phil Jones wrote in 1990, or much more, as is asserted by a number of sources, including some peer-reviewed scientists. There are other basic questions that don't have a firm answer.
So what should we do while waiting for these issues to be resolved? Nothing? No. And no again.
There are a number of actions we should take that are in our own best interests no matter what end is reached in scientific debates regarding global warming. We should raise mileage standards. We should weatherise our homes and offices. We should increase the intelligence of our distribution grid. We should invest in research and development of cleaner energy sources and consumption.
We should also invest in better science, and by this I don't mean fancy instruments. I think the sloppy data handling procedures and lack of responsibility shown by leadership at climate research institutes indicates a lack of adequate supervision and proper protocols. I honestly think that the scientist that went after global warming as a scientific issue felt they knew what the answer was and gundecked a lot of the work and felt they didn't have to answer to anyone.
I think a new structure for addressing the information needs regarding climate change is warranted, with divisions for research, public communications and data storage and analysis. And I definitely think new blood should be introduced to such a structure.
Until we have better confidence in some basic tenets of climate science and more confidence in the people that are doing the work, I think that more ambitious efforts should be put on hold. And, like a beauty pageant contestant who is required to pray for world peace, I cannot end without saying that our primary duty regarding this planet (which does include us, after all), is to better the lot of the poor. For those who wonder why this has anything to do with global warming, remember it is the poor that must tear down the forests for firewood and farmland, and that they are the ones forced to have six children. Help them, help the environment.
“massively funded industry “think tanks”? – right? From big oil and others about $20 million; $50 billion and counting from Shell, BP and your governments. Follow the money!
conspiracy theorists” – right? The more you keep information confined and defined by a small group, it’s easier to control the message. Basic political science stuff. Just look at your national elections – Obama can show you how!
“Among the experts that currently study climate change, there is no credible debate” “Still some will never accept the overwhelming concensus” – right? That’s laughable. Funny, I don’t remember there ever was a debate. We were told right away that the science is settled. Really? Hopefully, you guys might remember your science classes. Science has never been about consensus. Skepticism is encouraged. It makes for healthy debate and discovery (ask Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and others)! Also, one of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. Since the “experts” refused to release their data and methods for scrutiny by others (now they have lost the original raw data too), there was and is no way to prove or disprove their results! – not exactly the scientific method is it? So, by all rights, the results and the theories are questionable at best, fraudulent at worse! Try that stunt with any company and you’ll have a lawsuit!
“One of the first studies by the NAS came out in 1979” – right? Try a bit earlier - Roger Revelle (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego), Gore’s teacher at Harvard in the ‘60s, was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air. Under his leadership, the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem. You wonder where Gore’s ideas were born? Revelle (his words) was the “grandfather of the greenhouse effect”!
“I'll continue to rely on the unbiased experts” – right? Since these “experts” had their work peer-reviewed by the same “experts” (Wagman Report, CRU emails were confirmed as genuine, collaboration between “experts” and publications, etc...), I’d call that biased. The IPCC is not about science, it’s about politics! You see, the problem was the “experts” first pushed a theory, then tried to get the data to fit the results - they did that with the statements for policy makers. Those statements always came out several months before the assessment reports. That’s why many scientists who worked on the assessments disagreed with the final reports and quit because the science was being manipulated to fit the earlier statements.
“Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia” – right? You’re serious about that? Connelly and crew (part of that “expert” group) are having a field day with any section that deals with global warming/climate change. That’s right! They keep reversing or altering any entry or change to those sections to maintain current AGW/climate change theory being pushed. That Mann-made "hockey stick"? Get real! MWP and LIA don’t exist? They’ve both been proven as fact and have been for years! You’re serious about Wikipedia as a source?
“just the most reliable scientific institutions there are” – right? You know those data sets often talked about that form the basis for the IPCC’s global warming/climate change reports? Let’s ask Phil Jones (from Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, published: Saturday, December 05, 2009):
- But what of Phil Jones's argument, that the Hadley and CRU datasets are nothing special. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others," he says. "Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves."
The answer to Phil Jones comes from the Hadley Centre itself, through another fact that speaks for itself. "The datasets are largely based on the same raw data," the FAQ page at the Hadley Centre web-site states, in explaining that NASA, the National Climate Data Center and Hadley-CRU all use the same data. The different results these organizations sometimes obtain, it elaborates, stems not from the data but from its absence -- where the data is poor or non-existent, the different agencies employ different types of guesswork. –
I believe that covers those “most reliable scientific institutions” you mentioned. Every document or study that's backed by these "revised" data or numbers (that, I believe, is the "consensus" I keep hearing about) for the last dozen years is bogus and needs to be re-examined! Also, check the science again on CO2 and water vapor (the most influential greenhouse gas (95%) there is).
And yes guys, you can check all this on the Internet that Al Gore invented!
Source:http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/ClimateChangeandTheEconomy-ExpectedImpactsandTheirImplications.pdf , pages 26-29.
As I read it, nothing in the pages written by Steve Running makes any mention of anthropological carbon emissions, just on how carbon relates to the activities of the forest in Montana.
I jumped to the conclusion that it was another Global Warming Alarmist paper, but really it is just long-range weather/environment forecasting, and there's nothing wrong with that. Our weather forecasters were wrong with todays weather. Do I think they will be able to predict what will happen in 2080?
I guess the only thing I need to be careful of is the assumption of the words "climate change" meaning caused by human-based carbon emissions. Of course "climate change" by itself just means the weather is changing.
When people like Al Gore (Nobel Peace Prize winner....of course....he fits the bill) profit by the millions it would seem that somebody on the left might take notice. This doesn't seem to be the case as this huge lie serves its' true purpose which is the far left agenda; re-distribution of wealth, government controlling everything in our lives, etc. etc.
Does the planet go through periods of temperature fluxuations? Of course...ever hear of the ice age?
Notions such as carbon foot print off-sets' would on the surface be silly if it weren't so dangerous.
Scientists?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
And yes, there is an overwhelming consensus. Try finding ONE credible scientific institution that says humans are NOT warming the planet. I don't think there is one.
Are there natural fluctions in climate? Yes, of course there have been, are, and will continue to be. Does anyone honestly think that the natural variations were not taken into consideration?
It mostly comes down to a lack of information. As I've noticed in my years of discussing climate change, very few naysayers, unless they are veste interests, have ever read a book about how humans are affecting the biosphere.
Here's an interesting topic that covers the foundation. There are many others.
Google... Grappling with the Anthropocene: Scientists Identify Safe Limits for Human Impacts on Planet
Or, as many will unfortunately do, choose to remain uninformed.
As for the 30k "scientists", you refer to the Oregon Petition also known as The Petition Project. It was corporate propaganda and has been debunked as such. This is old news.
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
There are others sites as well where you can learn about this campaign of disinformation. Source credibility is important.
No, Spencer is not credible and he has no studies to back up his opinions. He has ties to vested interests. Why gravitate to this guy where there are very reliable sources available?
Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. Spencer is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank (corporate interests).
Two things to chew on: Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but has a serious problem with contentious issues. That's an interesting story all by itself. (You could look it up.)
Secondly, the dismissal of the IPCC ("it’s about politics!") is easy enough to type from an armchair, but adds nothing to the discussion. Cheap shot accusations of scientific misconduct are meaningless. The best evidence there is for such an accusation (the so-called ClimateGate emails) don't rise to substance. Which leaves us your opinion, worth considerably less than the IPCC's cautious attempt at consensus.
The science isn't all settled and beyond debate, but the only thing that can move it forward is more, and better science. The people who complain the loudest don't seem to have the capacity to actually make a contribution in that realm.
What is indefensible is the FACT that you (Mickey) haven't provided and can't provide ONE historically reliable scientific to support your opinion, not one. That would bother the reasonable person seeking the truth. As I said before, it won't matter to others.
If you think the truth of this lies in the public's opinion you are again mistaken. Is "the public" trained and do they conduct research? Is "the public" qualified as a whole to judge? No, of course not. I doubt you would want public opinion to engineer a Mars landing would you?
Reliance on credible insititutions like NASA, AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NAS, and many other is a far more reasonable option as opposed to the vested interests and underinformed public consensus.
When heat waves occur what do deniers think? They dismiss it as typical. When cold waves come, they clutch it as proof that humans aren't warming the planet.
Yes, we are in a natural cooling cycle but it has been overridden by human activity. There will be cooler and warmer periods but the trends are for warming temps and a higher accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere.
Another interesting topic that deniers choose to avoid is Ocean Acidification. The oceans are not only warming up they are getting more acidic as they absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Much of humanity depends on fish for sustinance so to have the ocean's food chain break down or be damaged would put many millions at risk.
The last ice ages were the result of the earth's orbital variations and "wobbles". I'm well aware of these events and yes the locking up if ice in the polar regions lowered sea levels and on....
The fact that we have natural climate change doesn't dismiss the
FACT that we now have unnatural climate change.
Now that's typical. Ignore the facts. It doesn't matter that many studies have been conducted.
If I were to say that ocean temps were up I'm sure I'd hear that it's all BS.
Remember why we inacted the Clean Air and Water Acts? No, just deny that they were needed.
Remember that the earth is much older than 6,000 years? No, all those layers were created in a flood weren't they?
Good luck with your denials. I hope that other decisions you make in life have a rational foundation.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/RockyClimate-pages-Proof150.pdf
Nobody ever considers what impact they have.
And again, ya think those emissions were just overlooked? Come on.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
http://fortboise.org/blog/200912.html#p12231
England and parts of Europe are getting slammed with some of the coldest, snowiest weather in recent memory. Ditto the Midwest, East, and Southern U.S. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming! Additionally parts of the U.S. recorded the coldest wettest October in over 100 years. Must be Anthropogenic Global Warming!
Mickey you dummy thats exactly the kind of weather changes predicted by climate change scientists. More extremes on both ends hot and cold, wet and dry.
Oh wait you dont believe in science or an earth that revolves around the sun.
How do you suppose the benefit of increased CO2 will balance out with drought, heat stress and bark beetles?
There will be more than the four horsemen afoot very soon...
Furthermore, this whole discussion fails to take into account the time factor involved with REAL climate change - it is the stuff of centuries, even millenia.
There was the Little Ice Age in the mid-2nd-millenium. People thought the world was freezing - later generations found out that the climate reversed - but the people who lived in the Little Ice Age were all dead and gone.
Nothing will ever take the place of gasoline: it's portable, relatively cheap compared to other fuel technologies - and the potential energy contained within is the result of millions of microorganisms working tirelessly over millions of years.
There are alternatives but they are all prohibitively expensive.
Think of it: all the economics of consumerism will change. Shipping costs will soar, affecting the price of construction materials, food, clothing etc. Home heating costs will rise.
Yes cars may run on electricity - but ignoring the CO2 factor there - how many electric cars can go on cross-country trips at the drop of a hat - or how fast can an electric car go? You go on a 3-5 hour drive now and your car needs gas, you simply refill. With an electric car, you're going to have to wait for it to recharge.
The internal combustion engines took care of that problem and something did take the the place of old dobbins...
village idiot of ketchum sit down...please sit down.
I had no idea who was on top until I saw the personal attacks come out.
Is it at all possible for a liberal whacko to say "maybe you have a valid point" instead of resorting to personal attacks? I've never seen it fail. Back a liberal into a corner and he turns to personal attacks. Careful Mickey, they'll be trying to supeona your computer next.
ummm tommy boy did you know your defending the king of personal attacks.
Mickey Garcia, 1-03-10
A lot of these environmental extremist wackos are actually CAVE BANANA NIMBY's (Citizens Against Virtually Everything, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody, Never In My Back Yard) masquerading as protectors of the Earth. They nail themselves to the cross of "Wilderness" and fancy that they are martyrs for the Earth, but most normal folks see them as Bossy, Goofy, Hypocritical and sometimes dangerous nuisances, kinda of like Al Qaeda.
Calling people you disagree with terrorists is a lot worse than exposing the village idiot for what he is.
we all know who you are adressing.
Your not gonna weasel your way out of being an utter as*hole by claimimng you did'nt say any names.
Village idiot of Ketchum.....Village idiot hahahahhaa
anyone who uses the word "retard" is exactly that.
How cruel and hateful can you really be.
Your a overweight, wrinkled, angry right wing crazy
just fuc* off will ya.
LMFAO!
The list of scientists below directly refute the concept of AGW.
I have more if these aren't enough. If you go down the list you will see plenty of names directly linked to climate studies.
Please quit trying to get people to drink you Kool-Aid.
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia
William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.
Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.
Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada
John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia
Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University
Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.
I was also really struck by the Siskiyous red area. That's already a given, because the area is a transition between the Med zone of California and the Gulf systems. Doesn't get the Calfornia fog, but gets the California blast oven. Gets the Oregon winter wets, but not the summer moisture inflows. So it's already a strange forest ecotype and that won't change.
Never mind that Tom Power is a contributor here. He's got NO cred for balance given his past authorship for the general readership for Island Press, which in turn is a press house for subsidy publishing of advocacy "nonfiction."
I'm sure that jtom's list extends to 32,000 scientists who refute human-caused global warming. But there was a time when that number was much higher, including every scientist in the world.
Fourier broke the ice, so to speak, in the 1820s, when he realized that Earth should be too cold to support life. Solar energy streaming down through the atmosphere, he reasoned, should just strike Earth's surface and be reflected right back through the atmosphere into the deep cold of space. Fourier couldn't be sure, but he was willing to speculate that some of the gases known to exist in the atmosphere might inhibit the escape back to space. Few noticed Fourier's hunch.
It wasn't until 1859 that Tyndall ran experiments whose results confirmed that at least two atmospheric gases -- water vapor and carbon dioxide -- did have capacity to slow the escape of heat. Again, hardly anyone paid attention.
And it wasn't until 1896 that Arhennius realized that combustion of fossil fuels could add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Using the crude model of his day, he estimated that continued combustion of fossil fuel could one day raise global temperatures enough to reduce the world's snow and ice. He thought that might not be such a bad thing.
It wasn't until the 1930s that an American engineer, Guy Callendar, started warning that rising temperatures could become too much of a good thing. His own simple model, generally adapted from Arhennius, convinced Callendar that the heating could even reach dangerous levels.
All through the century from the 1820s to the 1930s, the vast majority of scientists ignored, doubted, pooh-poohed and rejected the thinking of what was then a tiny minority in the scientific ranks. Even by the 1950s, very few scientists gave a moment's thought to human combustion of fossil fuels as a driving force behind rising temperatures.
As recently as the 1970s, meteorologists were all but unanimous in ignoring the issue, if not openly scoffing at it. But the numbers of doubtful scientists have been whittled down since then. Many scientists, reviewing the lines of evidence from a broad base of specialties, have whittled themselves from the list of doubters in the past couple decades.
How far has this whittling gone? All the way down to a relative handful of only 32,000 today.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
sure mickey you just know soo much better than everyone.
it's all just a hoax now you get rest your head.
First, my response was to some yo-yo who was claiming that not one legitimate climatologist didn't believe in AGW.
Second, you are behind the times. The number of scientists who do not believe in AGW has been increasing. Every passing year has made the AGW ground shakier. The best the believers can do is say it has been warm; they can not explain the failure of the climate to get warmER despite increasing CO2 levels.
The two small groups which have supplied the world's climatologists with global temperature data have been caught in numerous....errors....all in favor of warming temperatures. There is now some suspicion that analysis done by many climatologists may suffer from GIGO.
Regardless, science is not determined by a popularity contest.
It is not unusual for a theory to slowly gain a following, become the generally accepted model, then fall out of favor for a better theory. That is the way it is and always will be for science.
Newtonian physics did not have a lot of followers at the beginning. It then became accepted by virtually all physicists for over two hundred years before Einstein showed that it was incomplete and could not be used to accurately predict the motions of fast particles. Unlike Newton's equations, Einstein's equations can be used to explain the motion of objects regardless of speed.
There was no generally accepted value for a Mercury 'day' prior to the mid 20th century. Then theorists showed that, because of the gravitational effect of the sun, Mercury's day must equal the same as its year, presenting the same side to the sun all the time as the moon does with Earth. This became the accepted theory of a 'consensus' of scientists - that is until improved radar technology proved beyond question that the planet rotated every 88 days.
This proves a point: theories must be changed to conform to real, observed data. Unfortunately, the situation with AGW is that real data has been 'massaged' to conform to the theory - but the foundation of the theory has begun to crumble.
Very true. And there are many other things that people don't want to hear. Examples are legion. Here's just one: Back in 2001, The Economist cited concerns that the US was inflating a housing bubble, and that Americans could end up bailing out their big mortgage lending institutions. That wasn't very popular, either. After all, the boom of lending, building and logging was touted as economic growth, and it propped up jobs all the way from Wall Street to the woods. Nobody wanted that party to end.
It wasn't until 2007 that we had to face what we hadn't wanted to even hear.
Will global warming be cat friendly? That is the important question. How will cats fare? We see the reptiles of Florida are doing well, and now there are pure strains and cross bred strains of boas now constricting their way through the Everglades. The new one is the rock boa from Africa, which is a goat, crocodile, and human eater in Africa. Boy, is that fodder for CSI Miami or what!!!! So will global warming bring them north? Will they eat the last polar bear? Or at the least, some of the feral cats?
This is an el Nino year on the Left Coast. A known weather event. We know we get more rain, less snow, because the ocean low pressures are stronger due to heating, and the Arctic highs are higher due to the Siberian Express extreme cold air (as opposed to the Pineapple Express from el Nino), and the pressure differences due to more extreme cold north and heating south, give the Left Coast some hurricane winds on headlands almost weekly. Trees down and lights out. The freezing levels are higher and so are snow levels. I looked at Mary's Peak in the Oregon Coast Ranger yesterday (I could see it!!! no low clouds!!), and here it is the 18th of January and no snow on the Peak. None. Two years ago, there was snow until June there and on lower north slopes along the Coast Range. Our weather varies from year to year, but it will rain in winter a lot. Nevertheless, the el Nino shoves the Arctic high pressure east where it flows to equilibrium towards the Gulf and that has been fun to watch.
The MidWest, New England and the East Coast have had some doozy snow and freeze events. And they are all inter-related with the warmer Left Coast el Nino event. Next year will be different. There is now sun spot activity once again. Hang on to your hat in hurricane country. Buy the flood insurance. Your time will come. Meanwhile, academia is awash in loot to produce positive results that can blame weather on anthropomorphic activity, and that is just a hoot to watch. So who is pissing in the Pacific and warming it up along the Equator? China? India? All of SE Asia in concert with making heavy metal laden children's toys? Is it a by product of Nike sneakers? Or is it just the way it works, in some sort of cosmic game of chance, sun spots, rogue radiation from somewhere a billion light years away?
In one of those earthly deals that involves physics that people like me have no idea of how and why it works, we have ocean currents, and water has density according to temperature, and the moon creates tides, and there is all this flow and mixing and it appears that hot water wants to run to cold or vice versa, not unlike atmospheric gases. High to low, hot to cold, all the time these huge elemental physical entities, so huge and so complicated, are engaged in some sort of elegantly choreographed dance of physics yet to be fully understood, and now we want a piece of the action? Man wants to be included? Pick me!! Pick me!!! I did it!!! I did it!!! Sure, just like an aboriginal rain dance. The shaman as weatherman. Live long enough, observe long enough, and you sort of know what the weather will be in a few hours or even a day. I have to imagine there were a lot of successful "fires for beneficial use" set by Native Americans based on the instincts and observations of some old men and women. And they were not very concerned if they were "green" enough, or if they were going to cause global warming. After all, their most feared time of the year was winter. Around here, the Calapooyia name for February was "burnt chest hairs month." Getting REAL close to the fire. Real close. Worried to death about global warming. Worrying that the fire they set in October that ended up consuming a couple of hundred thousand acres of vegetation might bring about a vast change in the weather. Or were they just tickled pink about all the easy to gather firewood that fire would produce over the years as limbs fell off and trees blew over? All the easy firewood for cold winters.
As a race of thinking individuals, we think too much about stuff that we can't change or don't need to worry about. We will die. How about with a lot of people working, and with a modicum of security about their future? And ten cords of firewood curing for next winter.
Nice rambling swim in the ocean, did you catch anything while you were out there?
6 or 7 billion humans pack a punch. You want to check out some watershed realignment, go visit the Appalachians where they do that wholesale.
The earth (and extra-terrestrials) can indeed cook up some catastrophic excitement. (Just wait until the sun expands to the orbit of Venus.) It's not hubris to imagine that yes, humans can influence climate. It's a modicum of caution, which suggests a certain species maturity that's rather a new thing.
Yep. But just remember, 2,500,000 acre feet of Klamath Watershed water is taken from the cold, clear North Fork of the Trinity, and moved through powerhouses, penstocks, more powerhouses, and into the Sacramento River to run down that river to giant pumphouses that are the single greatest users of electrical power in California, to be run and pumped uphill a couple of hundred miles south to water federally subsidized crops in the desert, and for it to work, they need 5 acres feet of water a year. Two just to suppress salts from prior irrigation. That, friend, is wiping your ass on a small hoop.
Just think of taking 2,500,000 acre feet out of the Bitterroot and using Thompson Falls electricity and Columbia Falls electricity to move it by canals and tunnels to put into the Madison to irrigate for a sugar beet co-op in Glendive.
I cannot fathom how we can read and read about taking out 4 hydro dams (I have a dog in the fight---the power supplier for my town is PPL, now owned by Buffett, who says they will charge ratepayers to remove the dams and to construct new power sources-that power never ran one light bulb at my house which is 300 miles from the dams) all the while 2,500,000 acre feet of water is TAKEN OUT OF THE KLAMATH RIVER WATERSHED AND USED TO WATER DESERT AND LEACH SELENIUM INTO PONDS TO KILL MIGRATORY BIRDS, ALL THE WHILE USING VAST HYDROPOWER RESOURCES AS THEY ASK ME TO CONSERVE!!!! How taking out those dams will do any good to a river that is losing that much water to diversion to another watershed is beyond me. Every 435,600 cubic feet of every acre of water removed does not raise a fingerling salmon, does not keep the stream level high enough to allow spawning, the list is long, is a travesty and is patently wrong. Especially if "saving" salmon is the issue. You cannot get there from here if you are without a significant amount of the total stream flow. You can't raise as many fish. Impossible. Therefore, "recovery" is impossible. The dam removal deal is a victory dance for NGOs, and a source of money for them. But the fish will still suffer. The Trinity water is COLD. Klamath water is warm. And, to add insult to injury, two of the three major tribs below the dams are still not going to have biologically significant water in them all during irrigation season as both the Shasta and Scott Rivers are way, way over subscribed. Cannot get there from here. And the remaining water in the Klamath, if only due to whatever inertia there is to water temps by volume, cannot be mitigated on the last 40 odd miles of the Klamath by the missing Trinity water. In one of those odd deals, the Klamath begins in desert, and wends its way on the lower third through forest land, and the Trinity starts above timberline in snowfields, and is in forestland its whole route to it junction with the Klamath River. The Trinity is the cool tributary, and the summer and late summer refuge for returning adults, who need to wait for cooling water as the days fade, get shorter, and frosts come to the highlands and desert.
Until that and the issue of NO water getting into SF Bay from the Sac/SJ rivers, and the wholesale disruption of that ecosystem and fish nursery, there will never be salmon fishing for chinook on the ocean. No herring in SF Bay. The sea lions left, starving. They are now on the Oregon coast, looking for returning Columbia River salmon and sturgeon. When you don't have a huge fresh water plume out of SF Bay, you kill the whole attendant ecosystem. The Columbia River is putting 210 Million acre feet of water in the ocean annually. That plume is working. All the albacore caught last summer on the US Coast were at the margins of that plume. That plume raises the fall chinook for the Northwest coast. The SF Bay plume, and the Colorado River plume in the Sea of Cortez are a thing of the past, and of far greater impact than Appalachian strip mining. The farther south you travel on the East coast, the more wet and semi tropical the countryside gets. On the West coast, it just gets drier the farther south you go. It is a lee shore deal, and a mountains deal. Works the same way in South America on the West Coast. California exists due to water theft institutionalized by State and Federal government. Without water theft, SoCal is Dubai now that the oil is gone. No water, no rain, but nice weather, and the sea close by, albeit now getting pretty sterile. Global warming has nothing to do with changing the salmon runs of the West Coast. Running all the water out onto the desert does. And over fishing has. And now we have this insanity with having excess fish show up at hatcheries, and the State giving them to food banks. The best, absolute best, use for a spawned out, ragged old salmon is to be put in the creek to feed it and the riparian zone and the uplands, and all the critters thereof. If you don't fertilize the creek with dead salmon, you can't have a robust environment for fingerling salmon to grow. But still the State sends excess fish to a processing plant in Washington state, which takes the eggs, and keeps the heads and tails for cat food, and fillets and flash freezes the rest for distribution to the not working, won't work, and institutionally state dependent. All at a cost, borne entirely by the damned fishing license I and thousands of others bought. Charity in our name, but without recognition. Just another subsidy for the poor, while the salmon streams suffer from nutrient deficiencies. Go figure.
Climate change deniers......right wing crazies....the same."
Typical Kool-Aid drinker (actually, it was Flavor Aid). Knows no science so can only make ad hominem attacks.
Humans are part of nature, too. If we change things up a bit, well, so do a lot of other organisms. I'm not for fouling things up for humans, but I'm not overly concerned about polar bears (whose population has been increasing for the last ten years) either.
If the world grows warmer, for whatever reason, good. Beats the h*** out of the alternative, which is a colder world (it's going to do one or the other. Climate is not static.)
Don't care what you think. Cap and trade is dead in the US now that Brown has won in MA. Life is good once more.
John Steinbeck wrote about the best laid plans of mice and men often going astray. That was in a time before Women's Lib. And there is no great verse about the "best laid plans of mice and women oft go astray."
A Brown senator. Brooke was the last one. So ya have to wonder if BaBa WaWa is a little long of tooth to bed this Boston boy, like she did Senator Brooke. Or so she claimed.
No matter. It all gets more interestinger and interestinger. Them's real right winger Red Neckerson words.
your an idiot and you proved that with your comments.
Sure its all a hoax borwn is an idiot also.
Warm good...cold bad
and u claim I know nothing about science
drinking that palin polar bear kool aid again?
idiot.
Did you know that cold weather kills more people - and crops - than hot weather does? No? Of course you didn't. No surprise, there. The Medieval Warm Period is also called the Medieval Climate Optimum and Holocene Climate Optimum because it was a GOOD climate for Man. Look it up if your parents let you use a search engine.
jtom your insulting my Asian heritage.
Your simplistic view of history and the issues are astounding.
Idiot.
cold bad..warm good
idiot right wing crazy
Look, try using your head: do plants grow in the hottest area of the world (excluding areas of drought - its the lack of water not heat that prevents growth, provide water and you get an oasis)? Sure. Rainforests and jungles at the equator. Do plants grow well in the frozen tundra? No. Too cold.
Hope that didn't hurt.
LMFAO!
jtom your insulting my Asian heritage."
And you're just insulting. Do some research, fool.
1. "Al Gore is in it for money" Nonsense. He could make money investing in oil, too. He didn't have to spend 20 years trying to change the world's energy supply to clean renewable energy first. Doesn't that seem like a convoluted way to make a buck? Would YOU go to all that trouble? Think.
2. Conversely, the fossil industries definitely WILL lose money if we transition our energy to clean renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal power. The motive IS there.
They have funded disinformation campaigns through organizations like CATO, The Heritage Foundation, Fox, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/13/foreign-oil-tea/
(Beck lost most of advertising sponsors, yet stays on the air. Some other financial interest is keeping him there).
Please understand there are virtually no climate scientists who disagree with the last half century of evidence of climate change.
The science has included predicted much heavier precipitation (both as snow and as flooding), in some areas - and more drought, wildfires, bark beetle infestations due to lack of frost days in others.
Remember what a global average means. It is the sum of some regions getting hotter and some regions getting colder, trending warmer overall.
And this decade was the warmest global average on record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You can see which areas of the US will be safer future places to live here: http:www.climatewiz.org - under various scenarios. (depending: we could get co2 emissions down quickly if we all understand the problem and make the switch to clean energy - or we could continue to be fooled and do nothing)
But please. Don't be fooled. Our future as a civilization depends on us moving to renewable energy.
Yes, think, PLEASE think. Al Gore is a fool who will not hesitate to pervert science. Who cares what his motives are (although the $100 Million he's made off AGW seems like a good one)? Gore: "'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees," and “Some of the models suggest to Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
The highest temp est. of the interior of the earth is 5k degrees C. Maslowski, who works at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in California, “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”
If you want a big-bad-business conspiracy story, look at who CRU was getting in bed with. Energy companies don't care how they make their money - oil, wind, solar, whatever.
"Please understand there are virtually no climate scientists who disagree with the last half century of evidence of climate change. " I realize you clearly have NO idea how to think for yourself, but could you at least look at the l-o-n-g list of names posted above that gives lie to this ignorant statement?
We've been warming up? YES! For the last several hundred years! Earth is still rebounding from the last ice age. Do you not understand that in Earth's 4.54 billion years it has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder than it has been in the last ten thousand, without any input from mankind? Do you not know that at less than 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels are at an IMPOVERISHED level historically over those billions of years? Do you not realize that during the Late Ordovician Period was 8 to 20 times higher than today, and it was an ice age? Climate is MUCH more complex than CO2 = Warmer Climate. That's shallow, ignorant thinking.
Finally, how would you like CO2 levels to fall in half? Sound good? That would bring the level below 200 ppm. Congratulations. Since plants can't photosynthesize at levels under 200 ppm you will have just killed-off all virtually all life on Earth more complicated than bacteria.
Please get an education before spouting this nonsense!
the fact that you beleive that it's good that Scott Brown was elected becuase he will stop cap and trade as well as health care demonstrates how much of an idiot you are.
That's not insulting...that's the truth
"Al Gore is a fool"
"Don't care what you think. Cap and trade is dead in the US now that Brown has won in MA. Life is good once more."
those quotes speak volumes about your stupidity, also stop insulting my asian heritage you racist right wing crazy.
However, there is the distinct possibility that he was able to take in vast scientific knowledge by osmosis, living 8 years on the grounds of the US Naval Observatory in Washington DC, as the Vice President and ceremonial toady. Maybe some of the Wilkes curiosity and political acumen seeped through in the night, and he was infused with vast scientific knowledge. Or maybe there is a secret spring on the grounds that has mystical powers to imbue the takers of the waters to become world class weather and climate experts. That has to be the answer, because Gore's educational experience and background left him with few opportunities outside of being the legacy Senator from Tennessee, drug to the top by his father's coattails. He fell upstairs, as it were.
The big, huge, vacuous deficit in the premise that the world is coming to an end due to anthropomorphic heating is having a dunderhead and dolt like Gore for the major spokesperson. Just his being the mouthpiece is an instant turnoff to tens of millions of otherwise understanding and interested people. But the minute, now, you have to listen to an Al Gore, Jr., or a Michael Moore preaching their populist gospel on stuff of hard, deep science, that public is lost. And lost right now. Pompous windbags with a lot of money and notoriety are not reliable spokespersons for changing the whole of our lives, and for many, in ways that will detract from what they have now. That is what the Wall Street investment bankers have yet to understand. That is what the ObamaNation Cabinet has yet to understand. Empty suits don't cut it. And no empathy for those who are out of work, have no prospects of work, but still vote, just expressed in Massachusetts. They voted for Brown over "green." They voted their now empty pocketbooks a chance to fill, not empty more.
Cap and trade, and selling "farts in a jar" carbon credits looks like a multi Trillion dollar swindle, smells like a swindle, and is most likely just another Wall Street financial instrument creation with not one thing tangible or real about it. You can't be Warren Buffett and put it in a bottle and sell it, or haul carbon credits on a train, or exchange them for lumber or gold or wheat. The appearance of carbon credits as a marketable security is the great possibility of there is no there, there. Nothing behind door one, two, or three. No pea under any walnut shell. Carbon credits are GoldmanSachs ballyhooed Beanie Babies, or mortage bundles consisting of an undivided 1/1000th interest in each of 1000 mortgages from 500 legal jurisdictions. There is no there, there. Your mortgage bundle is farts in a jar. And the only thing tangible is the jars, which bring $2 a dozen at a tag sale.
In the commodities market, you can at the least take possession of a car load of lumber, 1000 bushels of wheat. You have a tangible asset to show for your put or play or whatever you did. With carbon credits you have it from reliable sources that you have some trees growing in Zaire? Can you cut them? Sell them? And this is to be the grand new financial market of the future? Gullible America has been taken to the cleaners by the stock market, the investment bankers, and the whole of the US is worth 60% of what it was three years ago. In my State, Oregon, the Democrat Governors for the last twenty years have implored people to buy State education bonds to save for their children's higher ed bills. The State paid Oppenheimer, a Wall Street Investment Banking manager company, to manage the money. The people who invested might be lucky to get 20% of what they invested back at college time. Banks should not be selling stocks, and neither should States. Now is NOT the time to place any or all your bets on global climate change and Al Gore, Jr. Ms. Coakley found that out yesterday. The question will be if Reid, Pelosi, and ObamaNation learned anything from the election. The folks who invested with the State of Oregon to "ensure" their child's educational future did learn something: the State is a piss poor money manager, and there was little, if any, oversight of the program. And we should have known: the State is about redistribution of wealth from the top down, not an agency of thrift and conservation of money.
yes
we're fucking screwed
If he has conclusive evidence of climate change occuring he's done more than the wealthy repugs offspring. He's done more good than bush jr. and he was never even president.
Dont hate the messenger
Oh he's not like me, he does'nt drive a truck like Scott borwn.
Institutionalizing national spokespeople by family legacy is no different than calling the now Brown Seat, the Kennedy Seat, with expectations that Senate Seat should always be held by a very liberal son of bootlegger and movie producer.
I am not making policy. I just expressed my views on it. I am not a scientist. No PhD. I have vast empirical knowledge of certain forested areas of the West, and some of the near shore fisheries. I can see in a forest its visible history, and what may have been before. I can also see things about the near shore Pacific that are not readily apparent to most. Other than that, I am just an old guy who reads too much. And I seek out the contrarian point of view. All too often, the contrarian viewpoint has more truth to it than proponents of a cause or claim want to admit to.
I will state this again: Al Gore, Jr., is a bad messenger for climate issues. He is an admitted, born to, practicing, liberal Democrat. Instantly his presence politicizes the issue. He cannot separate his lifetime of left wing politics from the cause he advocates for, including the solutions. The solutions are political. The lefty Democrat face he presents is their solution to a problem that they think they ought to be regulating and enforcing from a purely political point of view. That, Mr. Chow, is a problem. And for you to demean all who don't agree with you shows just how much of a problem it really is. You are a foot soldier marching to the drummer employed by the guy on the white horse. A huge part of America does not want to be led down the path to salvation by a guy on a white horse, or even a black horse. We don't do well as a country when our rule of law is created in cloak rooms and seclusion, out of sight of the press and the media, by zealots who yearn for a white horse. We saw what happened to the Bush back roomers, and their political fortunes. And the ObamaNation told us they would be different, and promised sunshine and the light of day, and when the going got tough, right into the locked rooms, secluded sanctuaries of one party politics they dove, and word has leaked out that Health Care Reform will be a suppository, like it or not. The old "We know what is good for you" attitude is prevailing. That only causes the train to go off the rails, and the undertaking to put it back on track is not easy.
I have personal experience of unilateral government decisions that were wrong the day they were enacted, and have had to live with them, and still do today. But they had one party political support, and that made them right. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Having the political equivalent of Pee Wee Herman tout solutions to climate change will not work.
"Al Gore is a fool"
"Don't care what you think. Cap and trade is dead in the US now that Brown has won in MA. Life is good once more."
those quotes speak volumes about your stupidity, also stop insulting my asian heritage you racist right wing crazy.""
Well, Chowderhead, I thought MAYBE you were smart enough to understand: if you don't like being insulted THEN DON'T INSULT OTHERS. Got it? As long a you call people names, YOU WILL BE INSULTED. You have earned the insult. If you want respect, GIVE RESPECT.
You have added NOTHING factual to support any position. You have only called others names. That makes you nothing but a lowly troll, deserving of all the dissing you get.
Say what you want. Once I have determined a troll, I waste no more time on it. Go ahead, blather away into cyberspace.
"I have personal experience of unilateral government decisions that were wrong the day they were enacted, and have had to live with them, and still do today."
Unfortunately, many have died because of "government decisions that were wrong the day they were enacted." I'm thinking specifically of the ban of DDT. Millions have died from malaria, even though the greatest experiment one could have - the indiscriminate use of tens of tons DDT in the US - resulted in the virtual elimination of malaria, and no species harm, whatsoever (well, except to the mosquito, of course). Few people ever ready the follow-up studies which showed that thinning egg shells were caused by the researcher substituting DDT for calcium in the birds' diet - it was from lack of calcium, not the DDT.
People grab hold of a cause, become passionate about it, then call anyone who disagrees 'idiot'. And don't bother them with facts or reality. Such is life.
So I read earlier this month about all the "surplus" hatchery fish that went from Oregon to a Bellingham, WA, packer, who takes the eggs and by products for the cost of flash freezing and vacuum packing the fillets for the food banks.
I did not buy a fishing license, a salmon tag, a boat license, to fund food banks. Sorry. I thought I was paying to address fish environmental solutions, which evidently is a lesser goal than feeding the non-working, the unemployed, the institutionally and generationally non working poor. Now that it is established that the paying licensed fishing public works to finance, not by choice, NGOs and other distributing food to charities, I feel that the licenses, fees, and excise taxes should be tax deductible, at the least.
The ODFW income dollar has been highjacked by the left, once again. First it was for cradle to grave care for employees and their offspring (in office day care), and pay and benefit rates 130% of the private side for same education and experience in similar or same jobs. Fish and Game management is first an exercise in human resource management, and if a fish or game is of benefit, what a deal!!! And now, hatcheries are "bad" because of lack of genetic diversity and the hatchery fish competing with the "wild" fish for food and security in the streams. If you use the hatchery surplus for further social engineering, to the detriment of the stream biological process, you are correct. The very act of taking a fish from a stream and not expelling your wastes anywhere near the stream is a degradation of the biology of the stream. Those dead adult salmon of meant to be, by natural selection over millions of years, eaten or dead in the stream where they spawned. The eagles, bear, 'coons, mink, otters, ravens, gulls, all leave a deposit in or near the stream, so that most of the fish still is where it died. The hatchery, by taking those fish out of state for processing, and then distribution far from the stream, with the waste ending up concentrated in a pipe to a sewerage and then spread on non-food bearing fields as fertilizer is the real reason salmon recovery has been a long, tedious, slow, and mostly unsuccessful endeavor. We took too many out of the circle of their lives, for too long, and there is a huge nutrient deficit in the streams, the riparian zones, and the adjacent uplands.
If you wonder where global warming comes into the deal, it is pretty simple. You put food in a frig to keep it cool and in the dark, in order to retard microbiology. Well, clear, cold, canopied streams protected by aspect and geography do not provide enough food to feed young salmonids. They need the security of the dark, the oxygen of the cold water, to grow on while they eat (metabolic oxidation I suppose) the remains of their immediate ancestors. And then they begin to work their way to where there is more food, and that is in areas with light to make plants grow, and in stream temps that allow for life to flourish. Hopefully, there is structure to provide hiding areas, as they dart in and out of cover to pick off terrestrial bugs and detritus in the stream. One of the problems with dams is that the discharge water is too cold for most salmonids, and they have to drop downstream to live and feed as young fish.
The water budget of many Western streams is about rain events and turbid runoff, and snow melt in spring, with a freshet from the melt timing accessibility to upper reaches of streams for spawning. The fish need adequate water volume and depth to ascend obstacles. So they can only run upsteam during the spring freshet. That water is too cold to allow for spawning, so they then wait in pools for fall, and then spawn with the approach of winter high water events and the warmer waters of late fall to hatch the eggs. The size and timing of the spring snow melt is a factor, but only on streams without dams, streams with upstream access to the fish. There is now indication on the Columbia River, with all those dams and fish ladders, that salmon and steelhead are adapting to the dam pools, and now using them as rearing areas, and refuge from cold winter water as they await spring spawning, as is the case with steelhead. Some fall chinook instead of going directly on their way to sea shortly after hatching, are now hanging out in pools behind Snake River dams and growing to impressive size and then smolting to the sea, with ten times the survivability of freshly hatched fingerlings. Genetic diversity is expressing itself in salmon adapting to dams by using the tail waters below the dam for spawning areas, and by using the pools are rearing areas. And in a perhaps less than 20 generations for it to show up as a significant fact.
All in all, a pretty simple concept, this deal of dead salmon in the stream. But the left wing social engineers have worked it for their idea of Eden, and the fish runs are and will be imperiled until the time that runs are of size and importance that they might build that nutrient level to what is once was. You can't destroy the runs to fill a food bank using someone else's money. But it is being done in 2010. Besides, if they did recover salmon, how would the NGOs of Green be able to sue to protect the salmon and tap into the largesse of the EAJA gold mine in perpetuity?