2012 Climate Events: The start of the term
2012 Climate Events: The start of the term
Last week I gave my summary of what I thought were the most important climate change discoveries or news of 2011. Of course, my choices were a bit arcane, but that’s me. I did not talk about the remarkable extreme weather and climate events of the last year – really last 2 years. Others have the knowledge and do that better than I, and, staying close to home, I will refer you to Jeff Master’s Blogs and Chris Burt's Blogs.
There were a couple of temperature facts that struck me: 1) The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. There have been 321 consecutive months with the temperature above the 20th century average (link from NOAA), and 2) This graph from the World Meteorological Organization’s Provisional Statement of the Climate (link to statement):
Figure 1: From WMO Provisional Statement. Temperature difference (anomaly) calculated for 1961-1990 average. La Niña years are marked. La Niña years should be cooler that average based on natural variability. 2010 was the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 10th warmest year on record.
This graph shows a systematic trend of the years which should be cool, the La Niña years, getting warmer. This combination of a warming trend in the years which should be cool years and more than 25 years of global monthly means being above the long-term average are simple and compelling measurements of the warming earth. Plus remember during this time of persistent warm months, we had that period of the Sun being inactive, and hence, also being a cooling influence (an old blog to remind you of that).
This information coupled with measurements of increasing carbon dioxide emissions noted in the last entry, well I will not be teaching that we can avoid dangerous warming in the next century.
So what are the other things that have struck me as interesting going into the Winter 2012 semester at Michigan?
1) At the top of the list is a judicial ruling that the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard is, in fact, unconstitutional. It violates the interstate commerce clause that governs commerce between states. Frequently, environmental law evolves through commerce law and the assurance of open markets between the states. Ironically, at the center of the ruling is ethanol.
2) Next on the list is that in 2011 the leading U.S. export was gasoline and other refined petroleum products (from Wall Street Journal). This is a consequence of the recession, high gasoline prices, and more fuel efficient vehicles. This is significant enough that refineries in Philadelphia are likely to be closed. There are all sorts of interesting facets of this news – energy, economics, technology, and climate change.
3) Reindeer: The warming in the Arctic has been much higher than the average global warming. Here is the 2011 Arctic Report Card. This report documents large changes in the atmosphere, sea ice and ocean, and snow extent, glacier mass and permafrost. There are efforts to rescue reindeer. There is a threat because the warming temperatures means there are more ice storms, rather than the snow associated with colder temperatures. This encases their food. This combination of changes, persistent over many years, again, is indicative of cumulative changes and systematic warming.
4) That United Parcel Service has been able to reduce significantly their transportation carbon emissions, while increasing deliveries. This includes efforts on vehicle efficiency as well as attention to routing and traffic engineering. (Brown goes Green) This proves that we can make a difference on more than an individual scale, and that government investments at the margin are important for developing environmental policy. The government money mitigates risk.
5) And just to confuse us all: Manatees in Florida are threatened by cold temperatures. The deaths in 2011 were high with cold weather listed as the greatest threat. What does that say about weather, climate, climate variability and climate change? If I get the question, I will start here.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
Posted: 1/6/12 02:21 PM ET
At the end of this week, I'm scheduled to fly to the Persian Gulf. Most likely, I'll get to Abu Dhabi for the World Energy Future Summit. But the current saber rattling around the possibility that IF Europe proceeds with oil sanctions against Iran, and that IF Iran retaliates by shutting the Strait of Hormuz, that we might then find ourselves with a massive increase in the price of oil and war to boot makes the trip slightly less predictable than just a few weeks ago.
It's pathetic that we find ourselves here, almost fifty years after the first oil embargo and crisis in 1973, still utterly dependent on a single hydrocarbon molecule from a tiny, unstable, and largely hostile corner of the world, to conduct the very basics of our civilization. My working career had just begun with the first crisis, and its great gasoline lines, rationing, 50-mph speed limits, and gnashing of teeth. President Nixon promised we would "end our addiction." So have Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and the second Bush. (Reagan was elected by an oil crisis, but didn't face one -- in fact much of his political success was due to the fact that oil prices, in real terms, fell steadily during his term. President Obama has been more modest in his rhetoric, if more robust in his actions.)
Now 40 years later, nothing much has happened. The world is still dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and it is dependent in spite of the fact that we have readily available alternatives, and a host of reasons (other than energy security) to wish ourselves rid of the noxious substance and the industry that provides it to us.
Just look at this week's "Ten Reasons to Stop Relying on Oil."
10) We wouldn't be seriously considering turning much of Alberta into a moonscape to extract its tar sands oil because the Persian Gulf oil producers have carefully notched the price up to just the level where someone could make a profit doing so.
9 ) We wouldn't have to put up with the spectacle of the American Petroleum Institute trying to bully President Obama into approving this pipeline -- whose actual impact would be to raise America's oil prices AND oil imports bill -- with the threat of "huge political consequences" if he doesn't simply ignore the facts and rush an approval forward.
8) The House Republicans would not have held up approval of basic extensions of Social Security Tax moratoria and unemployment benefits unless the president went along with their crazy plan to -- um, get the pipeline approved by forcing him to reject it? There is already enough insanity in Congress without adding this.
7) We would long ago have established the principle that when enormous oil companies like BP and Chevron despoil communities, they must clean up the mess they made -- rather than getting into a blame game in which Chevron says that the toxic disaster it left behind in Ecuador is the fault of the Ecuadorian oil company. That these shenanigans are outrageous was confirmed again yesterday when an Ecuadorean appeals court told Chevron that, yes, it really does have to pay the $9.5 billion in damages awarded against it there. But Chevron will appeal.
6) We wouldn't be wondering when BP will provide fair compensation to the victims of its Macondo gusher-in-the-Gulf. BP says that the oil catastrophe at the Macondo platform is the fault of its drilling partner, Halliburton. Meanwhile, it keeps dribbling out payments to those whose lives and livelihoods it destroyed. This week the payments stopped again -- for the umpteenth time -- before resuming.
5) Everyone would know that if the 20th Century belonged to the internal combustion engine powered by oil, the 21st Century will belong to something better -- some combination of electrification and biofuels. As a result, the U.S. auto industry, still recovering from its near-death addiction to cheap gas, would be able to get ready for further competition with foreign manufacturers with a clear game plan and a much better prospect for success.
4) As a result, we would be moving forward aggressively to build the green transportation economy of the future. Congress would not have gone home having left the nation's long-term transportation infrastructure unfunded, and the House Republican leadership would not have held up the debt-ceiling bill in an effort to deprive the U.S. of its chance for leadership in advanced vehicle manufacturing.
3) Oil industry behemoths like the Koch brothers wouldn't be able to hijack our democracy by investing millions in rigging elections, with their latest ploy being the effort to ensure that any Republican nominee is completely subservient to the interests of Big Oil, and proves it by pretending, regardless of what he really believes, that there is inadequate scientific basis to worry about global warming.
2) We wouldn't be shipping hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of jobs to the Persian Gulf, while the New York Times plaintively editorialized "This country needs a comparably broad strategy that will create a pathway from the fossil fuels of today to the greener fuels of tomorrow. We are under no illusions that such an appeal by Mr. Obama would win support among Republicans on Capitol Hill. House Republicans voted 191 times last year to undermine existing environmental protections or reject Democratic efforts to strengthen them." Instead, we would have a real economic recovery with real wages and livelihoods for the American people.
1) Oh, and did I mention that we wouldn't be looking at the prospect of another war over the Strait of Hormuz?
The way you know you have an addiction is if you keep doing something even though it hurts you. Our reliance on oil has been hurting us, phenomenally, at least since 1973. No one seriously denies it. But in spite of the fact that we could move our cars with electricity, and our goods on rail, our planes on biofuels; and in spite of our knowledge that at least half of the fuel we use each year is simply wasted, delivering no valuable transportation services; we keep on doing it. We keep on doing it even though the president -- without an act of Congress -- could simply establish a binding national policy that every year we will import less oil, until we stop completely.
If this were a Bond movie, there would be an evil character somewhere cackling, as once again we prepare to send our young men and women to die in the Persian Gulf. ("Those fools," he would mutter.) But there is no evil character. The oil exporters and the oil companies that feed our petroleum fix believe they are saving civilization.
And we listen to them. As my friend and Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows has educated me, frogs don't sit still in a pot as it is brought to a boil -- however slowly. When it hurts, they jump. Frogs, fortunately for them, cannot be lied to.
But addicts can. And apparently this country qualifies.
People directly or indirectly generate atmospheric emissions thru vehicle use or emissions from production of goods and services they use. More people, more emissions.
One wonders if 4.5 billion is the limit as far as remaining on the zero line of 20th century departures. The departure reaches a 0.5C annual plateau around 1998 thru present, when population grew from 6 billion to 7 billion.
Does this suggest that 6 billion puts us at a different equilibrium point? The 0.5C 'plateau' is still sustained at 7 billion. Just how strong is this equilibrium, ie will it be sustained at 8 billion?
What I take from it is that we have not yet fully realized to use our natural resources more carefully and wisely with the growth of population. There is a limit as to how many people this planet will support but, we have reached an artificially low limit simply by the way we do things in order to posses things. We seem to value our self worth by what we hold as possessions. This is self defeating. Should we continue this pursuit, our greatest wealth will be in what we know in order to continue to survive as a species.
It Just Fits ! :)
There is a lot of science to suggest Nea's post has valid content. Almost every social model that allows inheritance splits the rich and the poor eventually. One of the interesting factors is the growth rate: in a nutshell, if the rich can invest (the 'job creators') at a return greater than a certain value, the poor actually lose money, relative to the average, and the divide grows. I think it was T. Roosevelt who established the inheritance tax just to avoid this specific result.
I disagree with Nea only because of the singularity and the coming technology. Either the rich have to become technocrats (which hopefully eliminates the curse of spoiled rich clueless, i.e. Bush) or else the poor develop their own economy and the rich act as parasites but not really central.
The big doubt however is the climate. The rich are in the situation of being able to prepare and hence survive. The rest of us will probably die. In this sense he is right.
We were talking about the new year and my new diet (two weeks of nothing cooked, don't ask why, could have picked any diet, never tried that one though so why not?) and the conversation turned to excercise and my discovering a new path on the mountain that is a short cut to a town nearby which lead to a discussion of biking and electric biking and the new project I'm a part of about development of electric bikes versus cars in the area.
His phrase: "It is also good to work on reducing CO2, that is the most important problem facing mankind."
Gotta love it. Someone with no axe to grind, who doesn't have the internet or a computer, who is a common sense, down to earth, real person knows what the score is. Maybe the message is getting through.
Link
Or option #3: denialist potatoheads like Anthony Watts can continue to cherry-pick one out of context passage after another from one stolen email after another, and it still won't change the actual science. Here, let me show you how it's done, using your comment. You wrote:
"Just take a look at some of these emails. Either these warmists in the forefront have absolutely no idea what's happening with global climate or they are participating in the biggest "scientific" fraud in the history of mankind. I believe it's the latter:"
My Watts-i-tized, cherry-picked version: "Just take a look at some of these emails. [T]hese warmists in the forefront...with global climate...are participating in...the history of mankind...I believe..."
Gee! The compliments are appreciated!!!
Look, denialists lost the pretend "climategate" game the first time around, as multiple independent investigations proved. Realizing they were hoodwinked, the public has let out a loud and overwhelming yawn over this newest "release". The next time it makes headlines will be in the next month or two when detectives actually do their job and arrest the person(s) behind the theft. Until that happens, no one cares. And for good reason.
I think what's happening is that physical data is making the lies moot. People can debate statistical stuff all they want but a dry spell in Texes, lowest ever ice at the North pole, now a drought in Cal.... etc and pretty soon people realize who is lying.
Of course there will always be politicians like Next Gingrich who have the integrity of a celophane flag in a hot wind that know the truth but will say whatever it takes to get another vote.
Expect more "Novelty" as this time compresses more and more interconnected events in a Given time and space.
Chaos is what we've lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control.
Terence McKenna
You often state this is a science blog. I simply pointed out that there was zero science in that post and none in this one either. Your political opinions and personal convictions may be better suited to another blog.
The folks who always banter that AGW is a farce never bring any substantiated facts to support it, Why?
Because they are ideology nutz, dats why.
All the collective evidence shows what is occurring.
Just because one has a "personal belief",..that makes no case for denying the actual science of the subject at hand.
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Who says that? The only ones who put forth a 'return to stone age' thesis are the same idiots who are scared to come out from under the dress of big oil and play with the big kids.
Boo hoo hoo, it can't be done, big oil says it can't be done, I wanna go home now... boo hoo hoo. sounds like the new GOP election debates.
How thick is it?
Like heads, the thickness varies.
Wow! It hasn't done that since way back at the end of 2010! This is clearly evidence that the Great Fantasy Global Cooldown of
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072009201020112012 has gotten underway! ;-)Speaking of: Spencer's UAH satellite-based global lower atmosphere temperature stubbornly refuses to drop in line with Bastardi's persistent predictions that 2012 will be the coolest year in over a decade; the global temp for December was slightly warmer than it was for November, as November was slightly warmer than it was for October. Nevertheless, Bastardi still predicts a rather precipitous drop over the next three months. It may very well happen--but given the rise of the past two months, it better start falling soon, or the bodybuilder's head may explode.
IMO, it's on the way now because it seems like he has began to hallucinate. Now, he treat his wishful thinking "the global cooling" like a pet :-)
Quote Joe Bastardi/Twitter, Januari 07, 2012:
”12z run of GFS now has 8 day global temp forecast of -.09..Coming to Joeys forecast...nice global cooling.. nice global cooling”
Coming to Joey… nice dog… nice dog LOL
LOL, and cranial capacity*, as proven on this blog, has nothing to do with intelligence.............
Just remember, clouds don't count :)
Green Movement Dead In The Water
"But there's yet another reason, one that activists are loathe to acknowledge, and it's this: Their scare tactics have backfired. Environmental groups have done nothing but create enemies by labeling as "global warming deniers" anyone who dares to ask questions about man-made climate change."
*note: big heads
Early Eemian interglacial warm 'optimum' (from sometime around 130,000 y.a. to about 125,000-120,000 y.a.) (Isotope Stage 5e).
The timing of the Eemian warm 'optimum' in Europe, if indeed there was a coherant warmer-than-present phase, is somewhat elusive. The warmest stage of the early Eemian falls at about 125,000-120,000 y.a. according to van Andel & Tzedakis (1996). Velichko et al (1992) present a climate map for the 'optimum' which they suggest occurred or was still occurring at 120,000 y.a., a relatively late date compared to many west European authors, and also those who regard the peak Eemian warm period (in terms of both summer and mean annual temperature) as synchronous with global events recorded in Antarctic ice cores. These other sources would put the peak year-round average warm period in Europe at around 130,000-125,000 y.a.
The general ice core chronology from Antarctica suggests that peak global early Eemian warmth may have been around 130,000-125,000 years ago, with a gradual cooling to more similar-to-present conditions afterwards (the dating of the peak interglacial deposits is subject to considerable error this far back in time). Whatever its detailed timing, during the warmest phase of the Eemian in Europe, temperate forest extended much further north than at present, with temperate hazel (Corylus) and alder (Alnus) populations growing near a site in Swedish Lapland (67 deg.N) (van Andel & Tzedakis 1996). During the earliest Eemian, Scandinavea may have been an island cut off by an extended Baltic seaway, judging from the distribution of ancient marine deposits, and this is shown in the map of van Andel & Tzedakis (1996). Note that the depression of the land at this stage might have been due to exceptionally rapid deglaciation which left insufficient time for upwards 'rebound' to occur after the ice had been removed.
Across most of Europe, it seems that there was a broad succession in forest composition during the early-to-mid Eemian, with an initial pine (Pinus) phase during deglaciation followed by such species as deciduous oaks (Quercus), hazel (Corylus) and hornbeam (Carpinus). A yew (Taxus) phase north of the Alps sometime between 130,000 and 120,000 y.a. suggests relatively dry, warm summers and mild winters and is generally marked off as the warm 'optimum' of highest year-round temperatures (though other indicators suggest moister than present conditions during all or part of the warmest phase; see below). Other plants suggesting greater-than-present warmth from their Eemian distributions in northern and central Europe include the shrubby Montpellier maple (Acer monospessalanum) and the water chestnut (Trapa natans). Mean temperatures some 2-2.5 deg.C above present values are suggested for this 'optimum' phase (van Adel & Tzedakis 1996).
After about 115,000 y.a. there was a strong replacement by spruce (Picea) and then pine once again, followed eventually by an opening up of the vegetation due to aridity and cold.
In the Mediterranean region, an early deciduous forest phase was followed by a phase around 125,000 y.a. with more 'typical' species such as Olive (Olea) and evergreen oaks (perhaps suggesting greater summer aridity?).
An Eemian 'optimum' climate map has been published by Velichko et al, based on their review of diverse sources of evidence (but mainly plants). They suggest that winter (January) mean temperatures were less than 2 degrees above present values in western Europe, but 2-6 deg.C higher over much of Scandinavea. In the north of Scandinavea, January temperatures are suggested as having been 8 deg.C higher. The same authors also suggest that Mediterranean winter temperatures were slightly lower than at present. In another map in the same volume, Frenzel (1992) takes a slightly different view, suggesting winter temperatures 2-3 degrees higher in NW Europe, and 4-5 deg.C higher across most of Scandinavea. For summer (July/August) temperatures, a 2-3 deg.C warming across most of western and central Europe and Scandinavea is suggested by Velichko et al. (1992), and by Frenzel (1992), but only Velichko et al. suggest a slight cooling in the Mediterranean region.
van Andel & Tzedakis (1996) suggest that the evidence for warmer early Eemian conditions in southern and central Europe is less strong than for northern Europe. However, they note that plankton indicators in the western Mediterranean tentatively suggest a 3 deg.C higher mean temperature.
On the basis of palaeobotanical indicators, both Velichko et al. and Frenzel suggest substantially higher annual precipitation across most of Europe during the peak Eemian warm phase; 100-300mm more than present across central and western regions, and 200-300mm more in the south. It is not clear how this relates to other interpretations suggesting drier conditions for at least part of the year in northern Europe (e.g. the yew phase) and in southern Europe (e.g. the olive phase).
Mid-Eemian cooling event?
A possible 'cold' phase within the Eemian has been suggested as occurring towards the end of 5e, at about 122,000 y.a., on the basis of pollen records of tree distributions from central and western Europe (Field et al. 1994, Thouvenay et al. 1994). Open forest-steppe vegetation seems to have appeared for several hundred years in areas that were fairly closed forest both before and afterwards. The issue remains controversial, as this review article explains. Plankton indicators of north Atlantic surface temperatures and deep Atlantic circulation patterns appear to corroborate this event, suggesting that the north Atlantic climate experienced a sudden cool phase resulting from a weakening of the Gulf Stream (lasting perhaps several centuries) at about 121,000 or 122,000 y.a. (Maslin 1996). After this the climate never returned to its previous warmth, although the pollen records seem to suggest that conditions more similar to those of today, lasting for perhaps 5,000 years up until around 115,000 y.a.
The later Eemian cooling...
After about 115,000 years ago, there were several thousand years of summers cooler and moister than today, but with milder winters (possibly the mildest of any stage of the Eemian), with relatively frost-senstitive species such as Ilex (holly) and Hedera (ivy) being more widespread than present across northern Europe. Conifers also became abundant during this phase. This view of climate conditions during this phase is corroborated by plankton indicators of North Atlantic surface temperatures (Kukla et al. 1997). This may also have been a time of ice buildup in far northern latitudes, as indicated by the ocean oxygen isotope record (Kukla et al. 1997).
Europe during the year-round warmest stage of the early Eemian Interglacial, around 125,000 y.a.
Europe during the glacial maximum preceding the Eemian Interglacial, around 150,000 y.a.
Sudden cooling. 110,000 y.a.-105,000 y.a. (Isotope Stage 5d), followed by instability (Isotope Stage 5e). A rapid cooling event and fall in sea level occurred at around 110,000 y.a. (though the chronology is uncertain enough that this event could have been nearer 113,000 y.a.), and it lasted for several thousand years. At Grand Pile in central France, boreal conifer forest was present at this time (de Beaulieu & Reille 1992), and similar vegetation may have extended across much of central Europe, perhaps with tundra in Northern Europe. The sea level fall probably represents a significant increase in global ice volume, with a Scandinavean ice sheet starting to build up. However, the ice sheet had not yet reached the Norweigan coast, and was probably confined to mountainous regions in the north (van Andel & Tzedakis 1996).
The cool phase was followed by a part-way return to somewhat higher sea levels and warmth, after around 105,000 y.a. However, the next several tens of thousands of years featured a generally unstable and cooler-than-present climate with various other similar sharp cooling events (van Andel & Tzedakis 1996).
A long. intense cold and dry stage. 65,000 y.a., during an intense cold stage between 75,000 & 58,000 years ago (Oxygen Isotope Stage 4). This map is from van Andel & Tzedakis (1996). Sea level was about 75m below present level, but the extended coastlines are not shown here. A large ice mass existed over most of Fenno-Scandinavea, and forest was confined to localised pockets in the mountains of southern Europe and Turkey. Steppe and tundra-steppe were the main vegetation types.
Link
+ During the Lower Pleniglacial (around 65,000 years ago)
Oh, nobody said "clouds don't count". What knowledgeable scientists have said is that they are not a forcing. I realize that truth hurts Spencer and his sycophants (I know a few), but it is what it is.
So a well-known, Big Energy-funded denialist group populated by well-known, Big Energy-funded denilaists proclaims the Green movement dead. Oh, my, what a surprise! Do you have any other shocking news to share with us?
As far as your latest ad hominems go, they're pretty lame even by your standards, so I'll ignore them.
Main articles: Ecotage, Monkeywrenching, and Ecodefense
ELF "monkeywrenching" is carried out against facilities and companies involved in logging, genetic engineering, GMO crops, deforestation, sport utility vehicle (SUV) sales, urban sprawl, rural cluster and developments with larger homes, energy production and distribution, and a wide variety of other activities, all charged by the ELF with exploiting the Earth, its environment and inhabitants.[13][14]
The Earth Liberation Front has no formal leadership, hierarchy, membership or official spokesperson and is entirely decentralized; instead consisting of individuals or cells who choose the term as a banner to use. Individuals are commonly known to work in affinity groups, known as cells, and are usually self-funded.[13][14]
Techniques involve destruction of property, by either using tools to disable or the use of arson to destroy what activists believe is being used to injure animals, people or the environment. These actions are sometimes called ecotage and there are marked differences between their actions in the United States and the United Kingdom.
With many different reasons why ELF activists carry out economic sabotage, a communique to the press claiming the responsibility for an arson against urban sprawl in December 2000, described the reason a cell the took an action. As Elves usually do, they claimed that burning down the house was non-violent, because it was searched for any living creatures; an issue which is much debated within the environmental movement.[15]
Some of the most common and notable attacks are against the development of multi-million dollar houses, a frequent target in the ELF campaign. In a communique to the ELF Press Officer in North America, that was later published in The Environmental Magazine, the group declared in 2001:[16][clarification needed]
[edit] Press office
Main article: Earth Liberation Front Press Office
The North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office (NAELFPO or ELFPO) was relaunched in October 2008, receiving anonymous communiques from activists, for distributing to the press and public, to discuss the motives, ideologies and history behind such actions.[17]
Craig Rosebraugh served as an unofficial spokesperson for the ELF Press Office in North America from 1997 to early September 2001.[18] Doubts have been raised about whether Rosebraugh or other unofficial spokespeople actually have ties to the cells involved,[19] although the press office claim they do not know the identities of ELF members.[17]
[edit] Support networks
Main article: Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network
Prisoner support networks support ELF prisoners, such as Spirit of Freedom (ELPSN), an English website listing all Earth Liberation prisoners, as well as a variety of other prisoners of conscience. There are also ELF support networks in Belgium, Italy, North America, and Poland, which collectively coordinate the support of prisoners, as well as websites for specific prisoners, such as for; Rod Coronado, Jeff "Free" Luers, Daniel McGowan, Briana Waters and Tre Arrow.[20] The networks distribute literature written by those in prison, to their supporters and other support groups, and sometimes raise funds for those who require financial aid in their cases.[21]
[edit] Philosophy
Main articles: Earth liberation and Leaderless resistance
Earth liberationists, are a diverse group of individuals with a variety of different ideologies and theories. These include; animal liberationists, anti-capitalists, green anarchists, deep ecologists, eco-feminists, and anti-globalisationists.[22]
Elves argue that illegal direct action is required in order to aid the earth liberation movement, also referred to as eco-resistance movement, and a part of the radical environmental movement. The ELF claim that it would be similar to how the ALF has projected forward the animal liberation movement. There was also the intention that in the same way animal liberationists "help out" with legal campaigns, earth liberationists would aid above-ground environmental organisations, notably Earth First!, by acts of ecotage.[23]
Amongst others and definitely the occupy nuts.
Is there a point to this? I ask because you posted it as a response to the post about how the environmental chamberlains are groveling before big oil in direct opposition to everything a true conserv ative would do.
Link
And with that so does the volume and mass. Talk to Dr. Willoughby yet or are you content with being stupid!
December 24th: The temperature of -13.3°C/8.1°F broke the previous maximum temperature record of -15.7°C/3.7°F set in 1984.
December 25th: The temperature of -12.3°C/9.9°F broke the previous maximum temperature record of -17.2°C/1.0°F set in 1978.
December 25th: The temperature of -12.3°C/9.9°F broke the record for the all-time maximum temperature at South Pole. The previous record of -13.6°C/7.5°F was set on December 27, 1978.
Question: who wants to go back to the stone age.
Answer: Greenies who will stop at nothing to advance the religion of AGW.
Obama was going to approve Keystone until the election polls went the wrong way.
Chaos is what we've lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control.
Terence McKenna
The ice cores have been keeping records for 1,000's of years. Our personal records go back only a few decades when started setting up stations there.
Wow.
This is a good one.
“You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding.”
― Terence McKenna
Ah, yes but, it is all relative. The degree of deviation from normal is what is notable and not the actual temperature.
"knowledgeable scientist" link please
I've posted the links to this particular bit of info many times. You should be able to find the thread by doing a simple search.
January 5, 2011 – The second annual Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards were announced today on the Huffington Post and Forbes blogs by Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, and simultaneously on a number of environment and climate blogs. These “Bad Science” awards go to particularly egregious, notorious, or well-publicized examples of bad climate science that were produced, cited, or used over the past 12 months to try to influence or confuse the public and policymakers. Nominations for the 2011 “bad climate science” awards came in from around the world and were reviewed, analyzed, and voted on by a panel of climate scientists and climate communicators. For this year, nearly 20 nominations were received and judged.
THE WINNER OF THE 2011 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARDS IS:
All of the Republican candidates for President
Second Place: Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch’s News Corporation
Third Place: Spencer, Braswell, and Christy
Fourth Place: The Koch Brothers for funding the promotion of bad climate science
Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST hypocrisy
Runners-Up in 2011 included:
Harrison Schmitt and the Heartland Institute for “Arcticgate” (documented errors in denying disappearance of Arctic sea ice); Rush Limbaugh for his consistent falsehoods about climate science; and Steve McIntyre for his smear of climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University.
Read the full Climate B.S. of the Year Awards details.
Yes, Obama finally pulled Big Energy's you-know-what out of his you-know-what long enough to actually listen to the American people, and he realized that Keystone won't provide but a few dozen long-term jobs, won't make the U.S. less reliant on exported oil, and won't do a thing but scar and pollute the landscape while hurrying us toward a certain climate catastrophe so a handful of ultra-wealthy oil barons can see their compensation packages inflate even farther.
Whether the baseline data set against which a record is compared is long or short, does the fact that the wide majority of new temperature records worldwide continue to be record highs, and not record lows, mean anything to "skeptics"?
Global warming likely to delay next ice age by tens of thousands of years
Researchers have warned that unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are disrupting normal patterns of glaciation.
The Earth's current warm period that began about 11,000 years ago should give way to another ice age within about 1,500 years, according to accepted astronomical models.
However, current levels of carbon dioxide are trapping too much heat in the atmosphere to allow the Earth to cool as it has in its prehistoric past in response to changes in Earth's orbital pattern.
The research team of researchers from University College London, University of Cambridge and University of Florida, said their data indicate that the next ice age will likely be delayed by tens of thousands of years.
That may sound like good news, but it probably isn't, said Jim Channell, distinguished professor of geology at UF and co-author.
"Ice sheets like those in western Antarctica are already destabilized by global warming. When they eventually slough off and become a part of the ocean's volume, it will have a dramatic effect on sea level," said Channell.
Ice sheets will continue to melt until the next phase of cooling begins in earnest.
read the entire article here.
Oh, dear...
P.S. -- To more accurately represent the truth, WU member "iceagecoming" may want to change his handle to "iceagecomingbutnotuntilmanymillenniafromnow". ;-)
Nope. Not even close. You will find that most 'greenies' are more intelligent and technolgically savy than their denialist cousins. 'Greenies' are trying to save the earth from a return to the stone age via ecological disaster.
The new conservatives are the ones forcing ecological disaster which is much much more likely to force a 'return to the stone age'.
Seriously, do you really think that advocating green technology somehow equals returning to live in a cave? If you do, you are really not listening to what anyone other than the voices in your head are saying. Try listening to what the green movement is trying to do, rather than making up absurd charges.
You're kidding, right?
So are you of the opinion that a town north of the Arctic Circle (one with an average January 9 high of -8) reaching a non-record -44 (per Wunderground) in the second week of January somehow invalidates all the science behind AGW?
Really?
Say, here's a nice little graph of Arctic temps for 2011 to-date (in red) vs. climatology from 1958-present (green). You'll note a slight difference:
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index