2012 Climate Events: The start of the term

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:55 AM GMT on January 04, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

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

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: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

114. NeapolitanFan
2:59 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
What happens with the photosynthesis cycle at night?

CO2 as greenhouse gas? Depends on whom you ask. There are differing positions.

Does man produce CO2? Yes. What is your fixation with CO2?

You base all of your answers on theories have have been proven to be incorrect. The current atmospheric models can't predict past weather much less future.

Climate data can't even be agreed upon by scientists. How can we trust results where the data is suspect?

How is this "forcing" that you are so bent on holding out as the basis for your theories measured? More of your accurate climate models?

Do you really expect us to believe weather forecasters when they can't predict the weather on a daily basis? I live in the Front Range mountains of Colorado. I've lived here for two years now, and I've been keeping a record of winter weather predictions. Every weather site, including the NWS has and accuracy rate of about 25%. Just two days ago, the NWS predicted a snowfall probability of 90%. None of the area forecast to receive the snowfall received one flake. I would call that an inaccuracy rate of 100%. The long term climate models are similar in their inaccuracy. NOAA uses invented data to support their models. Just exactly why are you so brainwashed into believing this bogus AGW argument? Do you consider yourself a liberal? That might explain the lack of logic.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
113. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:18 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You are predicating all of your questions on the basic (and incorrect) assumption that C02 is somehow harmful to the earth. Don't trees give off CO2? CO2 levels have been increasing greatly every annum, yet global temps have been relatively stable for the past 15 yrs. Consequently, it was logically follow that temperature increases do not correlate with increasing CO2 levels. What caused the temperature increase in the Medieval period when CO2 levels were assumed to be much lower? Last, exactly what harm would come to the earth with a degree or so increase in temp? I think it would probably be beneficial. CO2 levels were much greater than presently for most of the Earth's life yet temperatures cooled.


You did not answer any of my questions. Why?

I have no problem with answering your questions.

"Don't trees give off CO2?" ---- No. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2. When you burn trees you release their stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. - Basic science

"CO2 levels have been increasing greatly every annum, yet global temps have been relatively stable for the past 15 yrs. Consequently, it was logically follow that temperature increases do not correlate with increasing CO2 levels." ---- This, also, is incorrect. The last time the atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as today was about 325,000 years ago when it peaked at about 300 ppm. During the past 450,000 years the average atmospheric CO2 levels have been about 250 ppm. During the mid to late 1800's the atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from about 250 ppm to about 310 ppm around 1950. Since around 1950 and have reached an atmospheric CO2 level of about 390 ppm. This is a shockingly fast rise in the atmospheric CO2 levels, over a very short period of time, without some significant forcing. Are you able to guess the source of this forcing?

The Pinatubo volcanic eruption, in 1991, ejected enough particulates and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to slow or mask the warming attributed to atmospheric CO2. This, by no means, reversed the warming trend and as the particulates and sulfur dioxide began to settle out of the atmosphere then the warming has continued at an increasing pace.

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over the Past 450,000 Years

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over the Past 50 Years

"... logically follow that temperature increases do not correlate with increasing CO2 levels..." ---- Your logic does not hold up under scrutiny. Any greenhouse gas that is emitted into the atmosphere, at sufficient levels will, and without fail, cause an increase in global temperatures. Unless, there is a forcing that would negate this process. There has not been any force strong enough to counteract the amount of CO2 WE have emitted into the atmosphere.

"What caused the temperature increase in the Medieval period when CO2 levels were assumed to be much lower?" ---- Irrelevant to the current warming trend. There is always a forcing involved in any cooling or warming of our global climate. We know the forcing today.

"CO2 levels were much greater than presently for most of the Earth's life yet temperatures cooled." ---- This is absolutely incorrect, over the past 450,000 years. See the above links.

Now, would you like to answer my questions to you?

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Please explain your answer.

2. Does mankind's activities release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis? Please explain your answer.

3. What happens when tons of a greenhouse gas enters our atmosphere every day? Please explain your answer.

That is it. Are you "in the know" enough to answer these very basic questions? Consider this to be an open book test, if needed to be.

Bonus question -

Which part, if any, of the AGWT have you been able to disprove using scientific methods?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
112. Neapolitan
1:22 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
You are predicating all of your questions on the basic (and incorrect) assumption that C02 is somehow harmful to the earth.
Wrong. CO2 is not harmful to the earth. The rapid heating it's causing is, howvere, extremely detrimental to civilization.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Don't trees give off CO2?
No. But even if they did, what of it?
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
CO2 levels have been increasing greatly every annum, yet global temps have been relatively stable for the past 15 yrs.
You should read some actual science; there's some great stuff being published outside the cloistered denialosphere.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Consequently, it would logically follow that temperature increases do not correlate with increasing CO2 levels.
Wrong.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
What caused the temperature increase in the Medieval period when CO2 levels were assumed to be much lower?
You are aware, I assume, that there are mechanisms aside from CO2 that can causing warming, are you not?
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Last, exactly what harm would come to the earth with a degree or so increase in temp? I think it would probably be beneficial.
Well, we're already past "a degree" and climbing quickly. Again, read som science; there's a reason the term "catastrophic" is being used with increasing frequency.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
CO2 levels were much greater than presently for most of the Earth's life yet temperatures cooled.
For the final time, avail yourself of some books on climate; you may find it fascinating.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
111. Neapolitan
1:14 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
280-394 parts per 1,000,000 makes a big difference eh?

At best, 4% of the 1.4 degrees over 160 years? Oh, but wait, the temp stopped rising recently for over a decade too with all that CO2 being added ?

Mann made for certain? LOL

That is why there is still a "T" in AGWT?

Burrrr................


Where did you get that insipid "At best, 4% of the 1.4 degrees"? Please, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh; he'll rot your brain...

Anyway, this may not look like "a big difference" to listeners of Rush, but, yeah, it's a big deal:

Uh-oh

Now, unless you can explain to us--and the entire scientific community--how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, you're going to have a difficult time hanging onto your "skepticism".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
110. NeapolitanFan
12:42 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Since you seem to be "in the know", I have some very basic questions for you. Do you mind answering these questions?

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Please explain your answer.

2. Does mankind's activities release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis? Please explain your answer.

3. What happens when tons of a greenhouse gas enters our atmosphere every day? Please explain your answer.

That is it. Are you "in the know" enough to answer these very basic questions? Consider this to be an open book test, if needed to be.

Bonus question -

Which part, if any, of the AGWT have you been able to disprove using scientific methods?


You are predicating all of your questions on the basic (and incorrect) assumption that C02 is somehow harmful to the earth. Don't trees give off CO2? CO2 levels have been increasing greatly every annum, yet global temps have been relatively stable for the past 15 yrs. Consequently, it would logically follow that temperature increases do not correlate with increasing CO2 levels. What caused the temperature increase in the Medieval period when CO2 levels were assumed to be much lower? Last, exactly what harm would come to the earth with a degree or so increase in temp? I think it would probably be beneficial. CO2 levels were much greater than presently for most of the Earth's life yet temperatures cooled.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
109. iceagecoming
12:16 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Snow burries Valdez and Cordova; Nome is cold
Records are being broken or challenged by blizzards in Prince William Sound and cold temperatures in Nome.

By CASEY GROVE and MIKE DUNHAM Anchorage Daily News
Published: 01/07/12 2:11 am | Updated: 01/07/12 2:11 am



Records are being broken or challenged by blizzards in Prince William Sound and cold temperatures in Nome.
A glut of snow during the first week of 2012 choked roads in Valdez and Cordova and collapsed warehouse roofs in both of the Prince William Sound cities, which were still digging out Friday as the snowfall threatened to continue into the weekend.
According to the National Weather Service, Valdez received 42 inches in the most recent storm, for a total of more than 18 feet this winter and a snow depth of an even 6 feet. Cordova saw about the same, the weather service says, and forecasts for the weekend indicate more is on the way.
The Richardson Highway, which connects Valdez to the state highway system, was shut down indefinitely at Thompson Pass, the Department of Transportation said. Cordova isn't on the state highway system, but the only major roadway out of town, the Copper River Highway, was cut off by avalanches between the town and the airport, according to the city.
VALDEZ
As of 2 p.m. Friday, the National Weather Service office reported a season total of 272.1 inches of snow. An accumulation of 19.2 inches was recorded for Thursday.
The record snowfall for Valdez, 560.7 inches, was recorded in the winter of 1989-1990. The current snowfall is on track to eclipse that.
In Valdez, school opened on time and students were ready to go, residents say.
An old warehouse roof also collapsed in Valdez and snowplows were running around the clock, said A.J. Keeton, a lifelong Valdez resident who works at the harbor plowing the docks.
"It's just been relentless," Keeton said. "We're mainly just trying to keep everything dug out. Everything else kind of comes to a halt. If there's any maintenance going on, it's just all snow removal."
"It's kind of like damage control," he said. "You're working hard just to make sure nothing bad happens to your personal stuff. Vehicles get stuck more often, so you're trying to find rides if you don't have a four-wheel-drive vehicle. There's definitely not as much traffic on the road."
The Richardson Highway, the only road into town, was closed by multiple avalanches in Thompson Pass. The Department of Transportation said it was "shooting" avalanches, using explosives to purposely set off snow slides that could be cleared before they became an unpredictable hazard and hoped to have the road open by 8 p.m. on Friday. Travelers were advised to check conditions online at 511.alaska.gov.
Kate Herring lives at milepost 19 on the highway, between Keystone Canyon and Thompson Pass. She couldn't drive to work at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. marine terminal on Friday.
The sound of road crews working to clear the road and explosions floated on the bright, sunlit air during Friday's noontime lull.
"I can hear them bombing the canyon from my house," Herring said.
She had not experienced any power issues, she said, and was using Facebook and email to keep tabs on work. There is no television in her neighborhood, but she had access to Netflix and was doing a lot of baking while snowbound.
Dawson Moore, an instructor at Prince William Sound Community College, was among the writers scheduled to take part in "Alaska Overnighters" theater presentation in Anchorage tonight and Sunday. The event hands playwrights a theme and gives them 12 hours to write a one act play which will then be rehearsed and performed 12 hours after that. He planned to drive to Anchorage on Friday.
"Instead, when I woke up this morning, my windows were sort of covered in snow," he said. "There was 2 1/2 feet on my porch and more like 4 feet in my driveway. My car high-centered before it could get to the street.
"I've been here a decade and this is the worst day of snow I've seen here."
According to the National Weather Service, Valdez was looking at snow picking up again Friday night, with an accumulation of 6 to 10 inches during the day Saturday and another 3 to 6 inches in the evening.
Carlos Godfrey of the Valdez weather service office said they expect still more snow to come in on Sunday.
CORDOVA
Cordova Mayor Jim Kallander issued a disaster declaration and asked the state to provide more heavy equipment operators and National Guard personnel to help clear snow. Local snowplow drivers have been working around the clock for about two weeks and are simply exhausted, Kallander said.
"It's more snow than anybody's ever seen," Kallander said. "Cordova's a very resourceful community, and it takes an awful lot for us to have to go ask for help."
School had been set to reopen Monday after the Christmas break, but Kallander said snow would have to be removed from the roof before that could happen. Large roofs on the Orca Lodge and Copper River Seafoods buildings had collapsed, as well as a residential outbuilding, he said.
Nobody had been hurt as a direct result of the snow, and emergency services were still operating, Kallander said. The grocery store was open, but food and other items still sat at the dock Friday because more plowing needed to be done, he said.
"It's just a hell of a lot to do. It's getting pretty extreme," Kallander said.
Though there was a slight break in the weather Friday, forecasts for Cordova called for mixed precipitation Saturday, with 4 to 7 inches of snow during the day and another 2 to 4 inches to follow.
NOME
Yet more extreme weather is hitting Nome where, for the first time in 13 years, the temperature hit 40 below zero just after 10 a.m. Thursday morning. The last time it was this cold in Nome was Feb. 1, 1999. The last time a minus 40 reading was taken on Jan. 5 was in 1917.
Temperatures remained "firmly in the 30s below zero" on Friday, according to the weather service, making it the 10th consecutive day with temperatures below minus 30. Temperatures of minus 38 on Jan. 3 and minus 38 on Jan. 4 broke the previous low temperature records for those days.
This is the longest severe cold wave since a record-breaking 16-day stretch from Jan. 15 to 30, 1989. That epic spell saw two days tie Nome's all-time record low, 54 degrees below zero.
Nome has not seen temperatures above zero since Dec. 23, 2011.
"There is a good chance that the cold wave will continue two or three more days," said the weather service report.

Read more here: Link
Heavy Snow Hits Austria, Shuts Down Key Rail Line
Saturday, January 7, 2012 8:06 AM

Article Font Size javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('default');

VIENNA — A major east-west railway route in Austria has been shut down following heavy snow in Tyrol, a popular Alpine skiing region.
Railway operator OeBB said the line between Oetztal and Bludenz — part of a route that connects Vienna and Innsbruck with Austria's western tip and Switzerland — was expected to remain closed until Sunday afternoon.
Two other rail lines connecting Tyrol province with southern Germany also were shut down. Overhead wires have been damaged by falling trees.
Heavy snow has blanketed Tyrol over recent days, leading to several road closures and an elevated risk of avalanches.
Link

Heavy snow > Record-breaking snow
Those in Iceland who say they cannot remember such a snowy December have been proven right by the Icelandic Met Office, which has released details of two records which have been broken in Reykjavík this month.

Yesterday morning (29th. dec) the depth of snow was 33 centimetres (13 inches) in Reykjavík and neighbouring municipalities; which is a record. Since records began being kept in 1921 there has never been a 24 hour period in December with more snowfall over the Icelandic capital.

Intermittent snow showers continued throughout yesterday, but the Met Office predicts a change in the weather today; with initial snow, followed by sleet and eventually rain.

The forecast is for a warming trend and temperatures above zero in all lowland areas of Iceland on New Year’s Day.

Another record has also been set in the capital region, where snow has laid on the ground uninterrupted since the 26th November — the longest period of early winter snow cover since records began. It is by no means certain yet that the rise in temperatures will last long enough to stop the uninterrupted snow cover record carrying on into January.



Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
108. iceagecoming
12:13 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


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.
Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears . . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.




Our current renewable energy subsidy path (including tax credits, grants, mandated purchases and government loan guarantees) has proved to be unsustainable for a variety of reasons. For example, it has diverted private investments from viable to uncompetitive enterprises; created a welfare program for politically favored industries; distorted and disrupted proven free market structures; continuously rewarded repetitive failures; imposed unwarranted and involuntary cost burdens upon all energy consumers and taxpayers; and extended unprecedented government regulatory intrusions into our businesses and private lives.

According to Steve Hargreaves, a senior writer for CNNMoneyline.com, renewable energy subsidies including industry tax credits and direct grants cost the U.S. government (U.S. taxpayers) about $11 billion last year. That included approximately $5 billion for electrical solar and wind power and $6 billion for ethanol. Yet while originally intended to jump-start those industries, these handouts and other charities have yielded only entitlement-dependency.

Ethanol, for example, began to receive preferential support in 1978 on the premise that it would become a viable fuel contributor within a few years. And while this never happened, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) consumption quotas imposed by the federal and several state governments require more to be used every year, regardless of high price, negative food cost or environmental impacts and lousy efficiency. Ethanol also receives a $0.45/gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (aka “blender’s tax credit”), which was extended another year through a last hour Democrat stealth pork insertion into the lame duck session Senate tax bill. This has amounted to a an estimated $41 billion cumulative taxpayer cost since 1980. The industry has been asking for a five-year extension at an added cost of about $30 billion.

Insufficiently profitable to receive tax credits, the wind industry has depended on an annual $3 billion federal grant program for renewable energy projects (also extended for another year in the new tax bill). In addition, wind and solar industries have received more than $30 billion in 2009 stimulus funds which require taxpayers to cover 30% of all renewable energy costs. Wind and solar operators also benefit greatly from Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandated purchase quotas set by many state governments. Home and business electrical power consumers are penalized by resulting price inflation.

Without all that help wind and solar wouldn’t have survived, and very likely won’t in the future either. The Wall Street Journal has reported American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) CEO Dennis Bode warning that without the extension of the Federal 1603 [grant program] investment credit, the wind industry would “flat line” or slope downward.

Yet even with all of that support, the number of new wind installations dropped during the first half of 2010 by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels respectively–and were down 72% in 2009 over the period from 2006. And while the EPA has done everything in its power to kill coal, that industry added nearly three times more electrical capacity than wind during the first nine months of 2010 (39% vs. 14%).

This despite the fact that according to a 2007 EIA study (the last year they provided statistics) wind received 53 times more government subsidy support than conventional coal ($23.37 per megawatt-hour vs. $0.44 per MWh). This amounts to more than 20 times more for subsidies in terms of average electricity generated by coal and natural gas, while coal produces 50 times more U.S. electrical power than wind. Solar received even slightly more ($24.34 per MWh).

Apparently, that still isn’t enough help. AWEA lobbied hard for a federal renewable electricity standard mandate legislation proposal approved by the Democrat-controlled House in 2009. Although it stalled in the Senate, the industry continues to promote passage in the next Congress. The industry is also pushing the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.

More federal help for Big Wind may now be on the way through a regulatory end-run around Congress and consumer interests. On Dec. 16, 2010, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellington announced plans to impose a $300 million to $500 million surtax on utility bills to cover the costs of creating renewable power transmission lines across 13 Midwest states. Those rules, which are expected to be finalized in mid-2012, constitute another preferential subsidy for wind energy that will raise electricity prices for everyone, whether they rely upon that source or not.

This new development is unprecedented. Traditionally, and by law, FERC has been bound to set electricity prices according to the production source that customers use and the amount they consume. For at least 65 years, courts have ruled that payment by beneficiaries is the “touchstone in any legal analysis of FERC-approved rate schemes” (as the D.C. Court of Appeals describes it). Here, FERC intends to establish by fiat, a national energy policy that Congress has pointedly refused to endorse. That rejection was clear when Congress voted against the Obama administration’s proposed renewable energy standard law because it would inflate power costs.

Where the Obama White House is concerned, it doesn’t end there. Stephen Power reported in a Wall Street Journal article that the newspaper had obtained an internal Oct. 25 memorandum circulated among top advisors which recognized that while funding for a renewable energy federal loan guarantee program could find better uses, pulling the money out would antagonize powerful allies in Congress and “signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the administration”. The advisors, including outgoing National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, energy policy czar Carol Browner, and V.P. Joe Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain, specifically questioned the logic behind subsidizing a big wind farm in Oregon that Energy Secretary Steven Chu had praised as “part of the administration’s commitment to doubling our renewable energy generation by 2012″. They believed that the project, sponsored by Caithness Energy LLC and General Electric, “would likely move without the loan guarantee”, adding that the corporate backers “would have little skin in the game (equity about 10%)”, while the government would provide “a significant subsidy (65+%)”.

The loan guarantee program discussed in the memo allows the Energy Department to help finance projects such as electric transmission systems and bio-fuel initiatives that begin construction no later than September 30, 2011. Congress originally allocated $6 billion for it in early 2009, later slashing that budget to pay for other priorities such as the “Cash for Clunkers” program, with $2.5 billion remaining.

The senior advisor’s memo suggested that the president “consider working with Congress to reprogram” the remaining funds into a separate federal program that allows renewable energy developers to convert tax credits they are eligible for into cash grants. Yet they caution that “failing to make progress on renewables” could upset Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who are strong federal loan guarantee champions. They observed that Senator Bingaman “views [the program] as ‘his program’ [and] would “strongly oppose” taking money from it. White House officials later stated that the administration has no intention of cutting off program funding.

Let’s finally be very clear about this. The money we taxpayers and consumers provide to support any and all energy industries does not belong to Senator Bingham, to Nancy Pelosi, or to anyone in the White House or Congress-on either side of the aisle. When we pay for those handouts, we, the sponsors, own those programs, and have every right to determine their usefulness and fates.

During a September 2009 G-20 speech, President Obama called for elimination of government subsidies for greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels, stating “I will work with my colleagues at the G-20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address climate change.” Let’s go him one better. Why not terminate energy subsidies altogether? Isn’t it time to realize that when we allow government to pick energy industry winners we all lose?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/03/01/ too-green-to-fail-energy-policies-flunk-achievemen t-tests/

Whatever you think my friend!
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
107. Ossqss
12:07 AM GMT on January 10, 2012
280-394 parts per 1,000,000 makes a big difference eh?

At best, 4% of the 1.4 degrees over 160 years? Oh, but wait, the temp stopped rising recently for over a decade too with all that CO2 being added ?

Mann made for certain? LOL

That is why there is still a "T" in AGWT?

Burrrr................

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
106. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:46 PM GMT on January 09, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


You warmists should be praying for global warming then. According to those "in the know," it is the only thing that might save the planet.


Since you seem to be "in the know", I have some very basic questions for you. Do you mind answering these questions?

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Please explain your answer.

2. Does mankind's activities release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis? Please explain your answer.

3. What happens when tons of a greenhouse gas enters our atmosphere every day? Please explain your answer.

That is it. Are you "in the know" enough to answer these very basic questions? Consider this to be an open book test, if needed to be.

Bonus question -

Which part, if any, of the AGWT have you been able to disprove using scientific methods?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
105. NeapolitanFan
9:09 PM GMT on January 09, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
In news that will make the heads of the fantasy coolists--including our old pal JB--explode:

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". ;-)


You warmists should be praying for global warming then. According to those "in the know," it is the only thing that might save the planet.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
104. Neapolitan
5:28 PM GMT on January 09, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


I think you misunderstood my request. I did not want a list of the many, many posts you made regarding cloud forcing. I wanted a link to a list of "knowledgeable scientists" so I know who is and who is not knowledgeable. I guess it depends if you agree with them or not?

Oh, okay. I'll start with the name of a scientist who has repeatedly demonstrated he's not knowledgeable on this subject: Dr. Roy Spencer. If you avoid pretty much anything he has to say on the matter, you'll be well on your way to a better understanding.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
103. JupiterKen
4:42 PM GMT on January 09, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:

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.


I think you misunderstood my request. I did not want a list of the many, many posts you made regarding cloud forcing. I wanted a link to a list of "knowledgeable scientists" so I know who is and who is not knowledgeable. I guess it depends if you agree with them or not?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
102. Neapolitan
3:33 PM GMT on January 09, 2012
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

Yes


Oh, okay. That's what I thought. Here, I've got a helpful video for you.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting BullShoalsAR:
-51 in Bettles, AK at the moment. And yes, that's Fahrenheit. Virtually impossible for temperatures to attain that with AGW.

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:

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting Neapolitan:

You're kidding, right? Right?
Not at all! See post #97. That's my line of thinking,how is this possible?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting overwash12:
How can we still have any record lows? That is mind boggling,does that mean anything to you?

You're kidding, right?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting Neapolitan:

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"?
How can we still have any record lows? That is mind boggling,does that mean anything to you?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting iceagecoming:


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.


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.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
In news that will make the heads of the fantasy coolists--including our old pal JB--explode:

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". ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
JB should have got a "Honorable mention."
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127701
Quoting overwash12:
How long have we been keeping records at the south pole?

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"?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting iceagecoming:
Obama was going to approve Keystone until the election polls went the wrong way.

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:


"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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting Neapolitan:

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.


"knowledgeable scientist" link please
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting overwash12:
Exactly! That was my point,I'm sure it has been that warm before,nothing to get alarmed about. If you want to call 10 degrees F. warm! LOL


Ah, yes but, it is all relative. The degree of deviation from normal is what is notable and not the actual temperature.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Patrap:



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


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
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
Quoting RevElvis:
Get Paid $500 To Say Dumb Stuff About Global Warming on Video!

Link


Wow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.
Exactly! That was my point,I'm sure it has been that warm before,nothing to get alarmed about. If you want to call 10 degrees F. warm! LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting overwash12:
How long have we been keeping records at the south pole?


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Xandra:
South Pole’s Record Breaking Week

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.
How long have we been keeping records at the south pole?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460



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
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127701
Quoting greentortuloni:


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 conservative would do.



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.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
South Pole’s Record Breaking Week

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:

Like heads, the thickness varies.


And with that so does the volume and mass. Talk to Dr. Willoughby yet or are you content with being stupid!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Get Paid $500 To Say Dumb Stuff About Global Warming on Video!

Link
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting iceagecoming:


Main articles: Ecotage, Monkeywrenching, and Ecodefense

ELF "m.........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.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:


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.


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.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
Quoting Ossqss:


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


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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Here's that AGW at work, even back then!


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)



Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1057
Quoting JupiterKen:

Like heads, the thickness varies.


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

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting Neapolitan:

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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Cyclone, Ouch! Total sea ice area crosses above the mean of the last 30 years.


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 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
Quoting cyclonebuster:


How thick is it?

Like heads, the thickness varies.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting martinitony:
Cyclone, Ouch! Total sea ice area crosses above the mean of the last 30 years.



How thick is it?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20396
Cyclone, Ouch! Total sea ice area crosses above the mean of the last 30 years.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
We could also follow the uber- enviro policy which would bring the earth back to the primitive stone age as some here would prefer.


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.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
What a crock,

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













Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127701
Quoting Neapolitan:
I really like the part where you posted a simple non-science comment to accuse me of posting a non-science comment. Nice!


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.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306

Viewing: 114 - 64

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.