January 2010: extremes and monthly summary

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:33 PM GMT on February 19, 2010

Share this Blog
3
+

The globe recorded its fourth warmest January since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated January 2010 as the 2nd warmest January on record, behind January 2007. January 2010 global ocean temperatures were the 2nd warmest on record, next to 1998. Land temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record, but in the Northern Hemisphere, they were the 18th warmest. The relatively cool Northern Hemisphere land temperatures may have been due to the well-above average amount of snow on the ground--January 2010 snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere was the 6th highest in the past 44 years. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the warmest on record in January, according to both the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and RSS data sets. This was the second time in the past three months that the UAH data set has shown a record high global atmospheric temperature.


Figure 1. Departure of surface temperature from average for January 2010. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

A few notable global weather highlights from January 2010:

According to the United Kingdom's Met Office, the U.K. as a whole had its coolest January since 1987 and the eighth coolest January since records began in 1914. Scotland had its coolest January since 1979. During the first two weeks of January, the Irish Republic experienced a spell of extreme cold weather that began in mid-December, resulting in the most extreme cold spell over Ireland since early 1963, according to the Irish Meteorological Service. Most places of the Irish Republic had its coolest January since 1985 and the coolest January since 1963 in the Dublin area.

A rare summer snowfall occurred on January 18th in the town of Bombala, New South Wales, Australia. The town received a light dusting of accumulation, marking the first summer snow in the high terrain of southeast Australia since records began in 1965. The town has an elevation of around 3,000 feet (900 meters) above sea-level. Forecasters said that snow at such low elevations is unusual at any time of year, especially summer. Six days before the snow, temperatures had hit 37°C (99°F) in Bombala.

Eleven inches (28 cm) of snow fell in Seoul, South Korea on the 3rd, marking the greatest snowfall amount for that city since records began in 1937 (Source: BBC).

Central Beijing, China received 3 inches (8 cm) of snow on the 2nd, the most for a single day since January 1951, while suburbs of the city reported 13 inches (33 cm). Over 90 percent of flights at Beijing.s International Airport were affected. On January 6th, temperatures in Beijing dropped to -16.7°C (1.9°F), the lowest minimum temperature in the first ten days of January since 1971.


Figure 2. An unusual sight: Virtually all of Britain was covered by snow on January 7, 2010. Image credit: NASA.

January 2010: near-average temperatures in the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., the average January temperature was 0.3°F above average, making it the 55th coolest January in the 115-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The U.S. has been on quite a roller coaster of temperatures over the past four months--the nation recorded its third coldest October on record, followed by its third warmest November, followed by its 14th coolest December, followed by an average January. The coolest January temperature anomalies were in Florida, which had its 10th coldest such month. The Pacific Northwest was very warm, with Oregon and Washington recording their 4th warmest January on record. Seattle experienced its warmest January since records began in 1891.


Figure 3. Ranking of temperatures by state for January 2010. Florida had its 10th coldest January on record, while Washington and Oregon had their 4th warmest. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

U.S. drought
Precipitation across the U.S. was near average in January. Notably, Arizona had its 5th wettest January and New Mexico its 7th wettest. The only state much drier than average was Michigan, which had its 8th driest January. At the end of January, 3% of the contiguous United States was in severe-to-exceptional drought, a decrease of 4% from the previous month. This is the lowest drought footprint for the country since detailed drought statistics began in 1999.

U.S. records
A few notable records set in the U.S. during January 2010, courtesy of the National Climatic Data Center::

All-time low pressure records were set across most of California, Arizona, Nevada, and southern Oregon on January 20 - 21. This was approximately 10 - 15% of the area of the U.S.

Arizona set its all-time 24-hour state snowfall record: 48" at Sunrise Mountain Jan. 21 - 22.

The 50.7 inches (129 cm) that fell in Flagstaff, AZ Jan. 16 - 23 was the third highest five-day total ever recorded there.

Yuma, Arizona's total of 2.44 inches of rain (62 mm) was their 2nd greatest January total ever, narrowly missing the record of 2.49 (63 mm) set in 1949. Their daily total of 1.95 (50 mm) inches on the 21st was the greatest one-day January total ever.

Near Wikieup, AZ, the Big Sandy River crested at 17.9 feet, washing away numerous roads and setting a new all-time record crest, breaking the previous record of 16.4 feet set back in March 1978.

Burlington, VT had its largest single snowstorm on record, 33.1" on Jan. 1 - 3.

Sioux City, IA tied its all-time max snow depth record (28" on Jan. 7).

Beckley, WV had its snowiest January on record (40.9"; old record 37.3" in 1996)

Bellingham, Washington tied its record highest January temperature of 65°F on January 11.

Hondo, Texas tied its record coldest January temperature of 12°F on January 9.

Cotulla la Salle, Texas tied its record coldest January temperature of 16°F on January 9.

Records were broken or tied at Daytona Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, and Vero Beach Florida for the greatest number of consecutive days in which the daily high temperature remained below 60 degrees F (15.5 C). Daytona Beach's string was twelve days.

Jackson, KY and London, KY tied their record for longest streak of consecutive days falling below 32°F (11 days). Pensacola, FL had its 2nd longest such streak (10 days), and Mobile, AL its 3rd longest (10 days).

Key West, FL had its 2nd coldest temperature ever measured, 42°F. The record is 41°F, set in 1981 and 1886.

Moderate El Niño conditions continue
Moderate El Niño conditions continue over the tropical Eastern Pacific. Ocean temperatures in the area 5°N - 5°S, 120°W - 170°W, also called the "Niña 3.4 region", were at 1.2°C above average on February 10, in the middle of the 1.0°C - 1.5°C range for a moderate El Niño, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The strength of El Niño has been roughly constant for the first two weeks of February. A burst of westerly winds that developed near the Date Line in January has pushed eastwards towards South America over the past month, and this should keep the current El Niño at moderate strength well into March. All of the El Niño models forecast that El Niño has peaked and will weaken by summer. Most of the models predict that El Niño conditions will last into early summer, but cross the threshold into neutral territory by the height of hurricane season.

January sea ice extent in the Arctic 4th lowest on record
January 2010 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was the 4th lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979. Ice extent was lower than in 2009 and 2008, but greater than in 2005, 2006, and 2007, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The weather pattern over the Arctic in the first half of January 2010 featured a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation (AO). This pattern tends to slow the winds that typically flush large amounts of sea ice out of the Arctic between Greenland and Iceland. In this way, a negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multi-year ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, the ice pack is the thinnest on record for this time of year, and much above average temperatures this summer would likely cause a new record summertime sea ice loss.

Next post
My next post will be Monday or Tuesday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 313 - 263

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Wow. I joined WU today to post a question in the Climate Change Blog...figured it might be rowdy in there...instead it was rather civil and fairly quiet. Now nobody's there. I come here and it's an AGW free-for-all. Jeez.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Huh? I have a lot more pertinent formal education in climatology than tropical.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
‘Grassroots’ Opposition To Clean Energy Reform Bankrolled By Foreign Oil, Petro-Governments (Updated)

Clean energy legislation passed by the House, now pending in the Senate, faces fierce opposition from the proprietors of fossil fuel companies, and much has been reported on how domestic oil and coal companies have flooded the debate with money, lobbying, and misinformation. These opponents of clean energy reform claim to be “standing up” for American jobs and security. However, according to an investigation by ThinkProgress, many of the lobbyists and right-wing operatives engineering the attacks on clean energy reform either work directly for petro-governments, or work for companies in the business of importing foreign oil:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/13/foreign-oil-tea/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


And the PDO. I wasn't going to bring it up because I am not versed enough in that science to feel confident.


The PDO plays a huge role in the global heat budget. Think of El Nino. Warming the equatorial ocean by 2 degrees is an unimaginable increase in energy output. If you warmed water at the poles by 2 degrees, that is a hair-thin change compared to warming an already hot ocean at the equator. It is much harder to warm the tropics than it is to warm the poles.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting centex:
Get lost on this topic, you've proved long ago you are not credible in this area. I respect your tropical comments but on this topic your lost.


Ummm... credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

And, an open mind helps enhance that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting centex:
Get lost on this topic, you've proved long ago you are not credible in this area. I respect your tropical comments but on this topic your lost.

Your grammar insults your credibility. Attacking people is generally a good way to have yourself ignored. I wouldn't recommend that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting centex:
Get lost on this topic, you've proved long ago you are not credible in this area. I respect your tropical comments but on this topic your lost.

Huh? I have a lot more pertinent formal education in climatology than tropical.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting centex:
I guess you don't see a trend. Hint, look at gray line.


Did you miss what I typed? Of course the gray line will go down during that entire time period when the oceans are all warm. If you don't have a graph that goes farther back then that, then all you're going to see is a declining line. That graph only shows data from the warm portion of the global ocean cycle, so go figure. It would show more variation if it also showed the cool cycle, when sea ice grows instead of receding.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting spathy:
Or at least give your own money and stop reaching your hand into my already depleted pocket.

Please I beg you to stop!
Yeah stop buying expensisive foreign oil! The biggest item on the list - in case you not noticed yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
So....here's the graph of sea ice since 1979...take a gander....



Hmmm.....1979....how long ago was that? 30 years? What was happening 30 years ago? The PDO was entering its warm cycle. In the 1990s the AMO joined it and they have both been warm since then. Most of the world's oceans were in warm cycles during the entire course of the above graph.....and the ice declined in coverage....well of course it did!

That graph only shows one leg of a global ocean temperature cycle that we already know goes down after it goes up.



And the PDO. I wasn't going to bring it up because I am not versed enough in that science to feel confident.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Levi, I am going to warn you. Sometimes lately, being here takes as much patience as if you were dealing with a child.


Lol believe me I know...I've been here a long time, but I enjoy debating until everyone turns blue. I guess I must be bored right now :)
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Let me interject. C02 is a greenhouse gas. Adding it to the atmosphere should increase temps ... Now, the real question I think is by how much do we affect the global balance? We don't know. To say you do makes you the fool, to quote a poster. Has it occured to anyone that perchance a slight raise in global temps could be .. good? Why do we have to attack people? C02 is a selective absorber. Fine. The argument is not AGW versus global cooling ... it's more AGW vs natural climate variation. When two opposing camps war I find the answer seems to lie in the middle ... Id wager that we do increase our temps, but on a scale so small it borders on insignificant. I also believe we should race to green our productions but to use AGW to forward this agenda is as wrong as any other propaganda techniques. I could go on, suffice it to say that I think anyone who can straight up say they are right is foolish and that there is simply not enough data to verify any theories. (If past climate forecast skill is any indicator, then I think the global cooling enthusiasts are actually probably right LOL)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
So....here's the graph of sea ice since 1979...take a gander....



Hmmm.....1979....how long ago was that? 30 years? What was happening 30 years ago? The PDO was entering its warm cycle. In the 1990s the AMO joined it and they have both been warm since then. Most of the world's oceans were in warm cycles during the entire course of the above graph.....and the ice declined in coverage....well of course it did!

That graph only shows one leg of a global ocean temperature cycle that we already know goes down after it goes up.

I guess you don't see a trend. Hint, look at gray line.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Levi, post 282.
I am not a Scientist. And quite frankly, recently I have lost faith in many Scientists.
I am a Realist. Real stuff is currently happening that is not good for our future.
To maintain the status-quo while we await more 'information' seems a pretty defensless attitude.
I think that right now, there is enough smoke. There must be a fire somewhere. The signs are pretty easily read.
It's time to stop procrastinating about the fine print and the personalities.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24903
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
quoted from Levi32

And yet we want to predict unstoppable warming based on observing .000000000000.....1% of all history?

Well think of a soldier. One with a life of a billion seconds (32 years old) Would it be fair to forecast catastrophic bleeding based on a bullet tearing through his chest during the one billionth second of his life?

We do emit 30,000 cubic km of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That's a radical change for our atmosphere.


I do agree that that is very bad, but I don't agree with the people that say that our emissions can overpower the effect of the world's oceans. Not yet anyway. Over a huge amount of time I think it may make a significant difference, but we're not going to be stuck with these forms of energy for long. We all know that 100 years from now we'll have left dirty energy far behind. Just look at how fast technology is already advancing in the last 100 years.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting centex:
I don't get the sceptics. The data goes one way, the only question is exactly how it's going to play out. We are warming and anyone who disagrees is a fool.


Yes, overall. What does that have to do with CO2.

The obsession with CO2 as the driver and no other explanation is even remotely possible is EXACTLY the problem.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Levi, I am going to warn you. Sometimes lately, being here takes as much patience as if you were dealing with a child.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting centex:
I don't get the sceptics. The data goes one way, the only question is exactly how it's going to play out. We are warming and anyone who disagrees is a fool.


Of course we're warming...have been for the last 30 years...mostly due to a natural ocean cycle. In all likelyhood the earth will level off and then cool a few tenths of a degree in the next 30 because the PDO is going cold now and the AMO will follow in 10-15 years. And of course the variation will never center around the same value because there are likely cycles that span centuries to millennia that we have no clue exist yet.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
So....here's the graph of sea ice since 1979...take a gander....



Hmmm.....1979....how long ago was that? 30 years? What was happening 30 years ago? The PDO was entering its warm cycle. In the 1990s the AMO joined it and they have both been warm since then. Most of the world's oceans were in warm cycles during the entire course of the above graph.....and the ice declined in coverage....well of course it did!

That graph only shows one leg of a global ocean temperature cycle that we already know goes down after it goes up.

Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting pottery:
I am not sure anymore, what this debate is about any way!
Are we disagreeing on principle?
Seems so, to me.
I gather that EVERYONE here is saying that we are (over the past few years) witnessing/experiencing weather that is very abnormal (globally), but SOME say that this is normal? As in what? Pre-Ordained??

Are we truly denying that the climate is changing, the loss of Species, Habitat, Water supplies, Clean Air etc etc, or are we just saying "it aint me"?


I think it's more of that "it has to be me" mentality.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't get the sceptics. The data goes one way, the only question is exactly how it's going to play out. We are warming and anyone who disagrees is a fool.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
286. xcool
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Hej Levi checkout this movie.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8066462153626602821&ei=82R_S6abFJ3k2gLqkqXfBw&q=ou t of bal ance&hl=en#


That's an hour long I'm not gonna watch that lol.

Quit posting stuff about an oil company that has nothing to do with what's actually going on. They have an agenda.....all big companies do.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting Levi32:


I think it's

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
I am not sure anymore, what this debate is about any way!
Are we disagreeing on principle?
Seems so, to me.
I gather that EVERYONE here is saying that we are (over the past few years) witnessing/experiencing weather that is very abnormal (globally), but SOME say that this is normal? As in what? Pre-Ordained??

Are we truly denying that the climate is changing, the loss of Species, Habitat, Water supplies, Clean Air etc etc, or are we just saying "it aint me"?


I think it's unscientific to say any trend is normal or abnormal on any scale. We haven't had modern technology long enough to observe the earth long enough to get a good picture of the global cycles that we surely don't fully understand. There are probably tons of things we don't even know about yet.

And yet we want to predict unstoppable warming based on observing .000000000000.....1% of all history?
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Check the bugs and flora an fauna that existed in Greenland years ago. As verified by DNA in 2,000 meter ice cores. Then think about what you have been taught prior to folks paying attention to the science. Think about it. Out>>>>

This is a few years old, but considering the Sun provides 99.9% of our energy, how can you dispute it/?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


And that's worse


As the world's largest private oil company, ExxonMobil has the power to direct the energy industry and policy makers toward a cleaner, more secure energy future. Instead, it is using its wealth and power to take America backwards. WHY EXXONMOBIL?
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am not sure anymore, what this debate is about any way!
Are we disagreeing on principle?
Seems so, to me.
I gather that EVERYONE here is saying that we are (over the past few years) witnessing/experiencing weather that is very abnormal (globally), but SOME say that this is normal? As in what? Pre-Ordained??

Are we truly denying that the climate is changing, the loss of Species, Habitat, Water supplies, Clean Air etc etc, or are we just saying "it aint me"?
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24903
Quoting Levi32:
267. drg0dOwnCountry 4:19 AM GMT on February 20, 2010

Calling them deniers is so unfair when the evidence


The Climate Killers
Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:


Revealed: Exxon Secret Funding of Global Warming Junk Scientists
Finally. After years of denying its role in the campaign of climate denial, Exxon has revealed a dirty secret, that it has and likely still is DIRECTLY funding junk scientists.
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/exxon_admits_2008_funding_of_global_warm


And that's worse than the scandals in Europe over falsifying temperature readings? Pulling up news articles does us nothing here. I don't have the time to find out how accurate the information from each media source is. Most of it is biased towards GW anyway.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting Levi32:


as if people


Revealed: Exxon Secret Funding of Global Warming Junk Scientists
Finally. After years of denying its role in the campaign of climate denial, Exxon has revealed a dirty secret, that it has and likely still is DIRECTLY funding junk scientists.
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/exxon_admits_2008_funding_of_global_warm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
267. drg0dOwnCountry 4:19 AM GMT on February 20, 2010

Calling them deniers is so unfair when the evidence for GW is so sketchy and yet scientists treat it like it's a scientific fact. Having 50 years of hard data doesn't give you a picture of the entire global weather cycle over the course of history and what it will do in the future. Give me a break!
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting centex:
Are you blind?



Lol as if people even had thermometers before a couple hundred years ago. We have reliable weather records after 1950 at BEST. Even now some areas of the world don't have widespread weather observation networks yet.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

No you don't!
You didn't even bother reading or watching the stuff i post.


If I didn't read it then how did I know that article was talking about 251 million years ago?
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
Quoting centex:
Are you blind?



Do you know what really made that graph? Probably not...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:

amazing uncertainty in the GW predictions.



Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers

ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming

7 Feb. 2010

Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org, part of a network of climate change sceptics

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.

The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Many of these critics have broadcast material from the leaked UEA emails to undermine climate change predictions and to highlight errors in claims that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Professor Phil Jones, who has temporarily stood down as director of UEA's climactic research unit, is reported in today's Sunday Times to have "several times" considered suicide. He also drew parallels between his case and that of Dr David Kelly, found dead in the wake of the row over the alleged "sexing up" of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Professor Jones said he was taking sleeping pills and beta-blockers and had received two death threats in the past week alone.

Climate sceptic bloggers broadcast stories last week casting doubts on scientific data predicting dramatic loss of the Amazon rainforest. All three stories, picked up by mainstream media, questioned the credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the way it does its work. A new attack on climate science, already dubbed "Seagate" by sceptics, relating to claims that more than half the Netherlands is in danger of being submerged under rising sea levels, is likely to be at the centre of the newest skirmish in coming weeks.

The controversies have shaken the IPCC, whose chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was subjected to a series of personal attacks on his reputation and lifestyle last week. A poll this weekend confirmed that public confidence in the climate change consensus has been shaken: one in four Britons – 25 per cent – now say they do not believe in global warming; previously this figure stood at 15 per cent.

Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and former chairman of the IPCC, said yesterday that the backlash is the result of a campaign: "It does appear that there's a concerted effort by a number of sceptics to undermine the credibility of the evidence behind human-induced climate change." He added: "I am sure there are some sceptics who may well be funded by the private sector to try to cast uncertainty."

A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.

Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute – a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics". The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years.

A large British contingent was present at the event, with speakers including Dr Benny Peiser, from Lord Lawson's climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); the botanist David Bellamy; Julian Morris and Kendra Okonski from the London-based International Policy Network; the weather forecaster Piers Corbyn; Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher; and Professor David Henderson, a member of GWPF's advisory council. Speakers at the event also included two prominent climate bloggers who associate with Paul Dennis, a 54-year-old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia who has been questioned by police investigating the theft of climate data.

In a posting on the blog of the climate sceptic Andrew Montford on Friday, Mr Dennis insisted: "I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it."

But he confirmed that he had been in email contact with Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org – a site that was one of the first to receive an anonymous link to the original leaked data from UEA.

Mr Dennis said he emailed Mr McIntyre to alert him to a "departmental email saying that emails and files were hacked" and that "police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id [a pseudonym for the climate sceptic Patrick Condon]. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me."

The UEA researcher also has connections with another prominent sceptic, Anthony Watts, with whom he has posted and who spoke beside Mr McIntyre. Mr Dennis was not available for comment.

Bob Ward, the policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "A lot of the climate sceptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."

But Dr Richard North, a climate change sceptic and blogger, rejected claims of a conspiracy as "laughable" and denied having any links to vested interests. "Anybody who knows me knows I'm a loner. Nobody tells me what to do or dictates my agenda."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fun d-climate-deniers-1891747.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
So the question is, why do so many global heating deniers, or skeptics, believe that the scientific community believed in global cooling in the 1970s when the exact opposite is true?


So let's say the media was the main source of the global ice age commotion....what's the main source of global warming scare now? The media....they are so heavily biased that they don't even mention the scientific research on the other side of the ball, or the amazing uncertainty in the GW predictions.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26700
levi:"You can't possibly expect people not to take scientists' opinions on what happened THAT long ago without a grain of salt. Come on...people aren't that dumb. It's all speculation."

Top 10 climate change deniers
Sammy Wilson
Northern Ireland environment minister
Václav Klaus
President of Czech Republic
Steve Milloy
Fox News columnist
Prof Pat Michaels
Cato Institute
Christopher Monckton
Former adviser to Margaret Thatcher
Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska
James Inhofe
Senator for Oklahoma
Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail columnist
Christopher Booker
Sunday Telegraph columnist
David Bellamy
TV presenter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Ocean acidification occurring 10 times as fast as during the Eocene marine mass extinction and thermal spike of 55 million years ago--which brought average annual polar temperatures above 70 F Link


Just want to be sure. You actually believe that it will be 70F at the poles? Soon?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 313 - 263

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
37 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron