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: 64 - 14

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

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
Quoting BeCoolOrBeCastOut:



You should be pleased then that the grandfather of fake environmentalism, Stewart Brand (who in reality is just a Big Energy/Big Agribusiness globalist shill that consults for Queen Beatrix's Royal Dutch Shell and Monsanto) says glibly that the rise of the West is over. According to this phony, filthy squatter cities, geoengineering, genetically modified food (that he would never touch himself or for his own family with a 20 ft. pole, it's nothing but the best organic food for him) all that is considered "green".





Like it or not he says, by 2050 , 80% of the plebs will be corralled into cities, with vast swaths of the planet off-limits to the masses with the evil, horrible private property rights that caused the "Tragedy of the Commons" will be but a relic of the old Second Wave individualist industrial age of Western Civilization, the Third Wave Agenda 21 collectivist era is nigh upon us, where the nanny-state technocratic Superclass constantly watches over the plebs, where they will be monitored and contained in the densely-populated cities, forced-fed GMO food in a hyper-surveillance police state , with the right to travel freely abolished, sound fun, where do I sign up?
We could also follow the uber- enviro policy which would bring the earth back to the primitive stone age as some here would prefer.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
The Winter of 2011-12 is Lost to Novelty as we approach the Great attractor ever faster now.




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
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

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

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
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:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Just thought i'd mention a conversation I had this morning with a contadino (roughly 'farmer') who lives down the road from me.

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.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


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.

You touch on a theme that is fundamental. We live in a consumption oriented society, more, bigger, fancier is better, hard wired into our culture which we export to the world. If you can eat two cheeseburgers when one would suffice, one is feels a push to do so. The analogy extends to the concept of 'economic growth' and what the 'consumer' is doing.

In times of extended economic hardship, ie the 1930's individuals made things last, handed down clothes to siblings, resoled shoes. We could not afford to consume.

Much of the worldwide consumption has been a product of growing population, influenced by visions of our own consumer culture. Our own and the worldwide consumption has largely been debt financed, not pay as you go, hence our own national debt and that of Europe and others.

Eventually this has to come to an end, fiscally. But we will have 8 billion people on this planet before long. A decent quality of life can be available. It does not necessitate multiple cars, mini mansions, food that goes uneaten in refrigerators, plastic toys that last weeks and are discarded. All signs of wasted resources.

We needn't live in log cabins, eat gruel and sit by campfires to sustain this planet. The 20th century and first dozen years of the 21st have just given us so many new 'toys' to play with, unprecedented in human history, that we have yet to understand that they are not goals in life.

We need to employ technology to reduce emissions for the things we consume. The desire to consume will not soon fade. But some movement towards a less consumptive, more balanced lifestyle would make the task of sustaining this planet an easier one.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:

No "science" in this post; lot of politics. Did you not say this is a science blog. You could lead by example. Oh wait...you are.
I really like the part where you posted a simple non-science comment to accuse me of posting a non-science comment. Nice!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Quoting JupiterKen:

No "science" in this post; lot of politics. Did you not say this is a science blog. You could lead by example. Oh wait...you are.


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


It Just Fits ! :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting rod2635:
World population was approximately 4.5 Billion at the time the distinct departure climb in the bar chart begins its upward trend, Around 1999 it was about 6 billion and is now around 7 billion.

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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
World population was approximately 4.5 Billion at the time the distinct departure climb in the bar chart begins its upward trend, Around 1999 it was about 6 billion and is now around 7 billion.

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?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Fool Me, I Don't Know, Six or Seven Times. Shall We Try for a Dozen?
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.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What bothers me the most is that time line is so narrow. I've farmed for the last 30 years, and remember reading in many farm publications in the 1970's and 1980's that using tree ring data, the time period of 1950-1980 at the time was one of the more stable on record for tree ring growth over the last 400 years. So now we have this blog that tries to compare what was probably a very abnormal time period to now, and make wild conclusions that are probably not accurate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

That's a pretty dystopian future you've painted. The biggest reason it'll never happen, of course, is that for decades things have been going in the exact opposite direction, and they show no sign of a reversal anytime soon. Yeah, I'd say that by 2050, 90% of the nation's citizens will be living in shacks outside the gated communities where the 10%, members of the energy oligarchy, live, with vast swaths of the planet off-limits to everybody because they're either underwater due to rising sea levels or they've been stripped, poked, fracked, and forever polluted to remove every last bit of recoverable oil or coal. Freedom will be but a relic of the old Pre-Oligarchy America, back when Western Civilization meant something. The new plutocracy is nigh upon us, where the energy-rich Superclass constantly watches over the wretches of the 90%, where they will be monitored and contained in the densely-populated, overheated, and carbon-choked ghettoes, fed table scraps (if they're fed anything at all) in a hyper-surveillance, ultra-conservative police state, with the right of the masses to freely travel abolished, and unaffordable even if it weren't.

Yes, that sounds more likely.

No "science" in this post; lot of politics. Did you not say this is a science blog. You could lead by example. Oh wait...you are.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Neapolitan:

That's a pretty dystopian future you've painted. The biggest reason it'll never happen, of course, is that for decades things have been going in the exact opposite direction, and they show no sign of a reversal anytime soon. Yeah, I'd say that by 2050, 90% of the nation's citizens will be living in shacks outside the gated communities where the 10%, members of the energy oligarchy, live, with vast swaths of the planet off-limits to everybody because they're either underwater due to rising sea levels or they've been stripped, poked, fracked, and forever polluted to remove every last bit of recoverable oil or coal. Freedom will be but a relic of the old Pre-Oligarchy America, back when Western Civilization meant something. The new plutocracy is nigh upon us, where the energy-rich Superclass constantly watches over the wretches of the 90%, where they will be monitored and contained in the densely-populated, overheated, and carbon-choked ghettoes, fed table scraps (if they're fed anything at all) in a hyper-surveillance, ultra-conservative police state, with the right of the masses to freely travel abolished, and unaffordable even if it weren't.

Yes, that sounds more likely.


Neapolitian,

This prevents all you say there.

Link

You with me?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BeCoolOrBeCastOut:



You should be pleased then that the grandfather of fake environmentalism, Stewart Brand (who in reality is just a Big Energy/Big Agribusiness globalist shill that consults for Queen Beatrix's Royal Dutch Shell and Monsanto) says glibly that the rise of the West is over. According to this phony, filthy squatter cities, geoengineering, genetically modified food (that he would never touch himself or for his own family with a 20 ft. pole, it's nothing but the best organic food for him) all that is considered "green".





Like it or not he says, by 2050 , 80% of the plebs will be corralled into cities, with vast swaths of the planet off-limits to the masses with the evil, horrible private property rights that caused the "Tragedy of the Commons" will be but a relic of the old Second Wave individualist industrial age of Western Civilization, the Third Wave Agenda 21 collectivist era is nigh upon us, where the nanny-state technocratic Superclass constantly watches over the plebs, where they will be monitored and contained in the densely-populated cities, forced-fed GMO food in a hyper-surveillance police state , with the right to travel freely abolished, sound fun, where do I sign up?

That's a pretty dystopian future you've painted. The biggest reason it'll never happen, of course, is that for decades things have been going in the exact opposite direction, and they show no sign of a reversal anytime soon. Yeah, I'd say that by 2050, 90% of the nation's citizens will be living in shacks outside the gated communities where the 10%, members of the energy oligarchy, live, with vast swaths of the planet off-limits to everybody because they're either underwater due to rising sea levels or they've been stripped, poked, fracked, and forever polluted to remove every last bit of recoverable oil or coal. Freedom will be but a relic of the old Pre-Oligarchy America, back when Western Civilization meant something. The new plutocracy is nigh upon us, where the energy-rich Superclass constantly watches over the wretches of the 90%, where they will be monitored and contained in the densely-populated, overheated, and carbon-choked ghettoes, fed table scraps (if they're fed anything at all) in a hyper-surveillance, ultra-conservative police state, with the right of the masses to freely travel abolished, and unaffordable even if it weren't.

Yes, that sounds more likely.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
I'll make this easy for you:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

Anyone you don't agree with is discredited.
Facts are facts; the cited scientist has been discredited, and more than once (and it's not about me).
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

Almost every "scientist" involved with UEA or the IPCC was involved in withholding facts...
You'll need to share evidence to backup this accusation (and, no a blog post by Watts or Bastardi or Spencer doesn't count as "evidence").
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

Almost every "scientist" involved with UEA or the IPCC was involved in ...manipulating data...
You'll also need to share evidence to backup this accusation.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

Almost every "scientist" involved with UEA or the IPCC was involved in...sometimes knowingly distributing false or skewed information....
As well as this one, too.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

...in your mind...
Again, it's not about me.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

...they are still credible...
Thanks for acknowledging that.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:

...they support your religion.
Science isn't religion. Please try to keep the two straight.

Thanks for the helpful comment. Anything else I can help you with?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Quoting Neapolitan:

A question: if a discredited scientist "discredits" something, is it really discredited? It's long been known that Scafetta is a climate change denialist. It's also long been known that he is a bit secretive about the methods and programs on which he bases his conclusions. It's also long been known that Scafetta may not be entirely familiar with how the scientific method works.

The IPCC report discredited by a discredited scientist? Hardly....


Anyone you don't agree with is discredited. Almost every "scientist" involved with UEA or the IPCC was involved in withholding facts, manipulating data, and sometimes knowingly distributing false or skewed information, yet, in your mind, they are still credible, because they support your religion.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Post-glacial redistribution and shifts in productivity of giant kelp forests

Michael H. Graham1,*,
Brian P. Kinlan2,† and
Richard K. Grosberg3

+ Author Affiliations

1
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039
, USA
2
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology
, University of California,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9610
, USA
3
Center for Population Biology
, University of California,
Davis, CA 95616
, USA

* Author for correspondence (mgraham@mlml.calstate.edu).

Link

A wonderful example of nature providing unexpected
results over long time spans and no possibility of
human intervention. There are many guns pointed at
our home planet, and as the past has recorded, the
biggest changes have absolutely nothing to do us and will continue to occur regardless of any effort we can muster. Hang on for the ride!


Link





Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
“Western civilization is a loaded gun pointed at the head of this planet.”

― Terence McKenna
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
from Weather Underground

Dr. Jeff Masters will be on World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer this evening at 6:30PM EST to look into this winter's record warmth and dryness. Make sure to tune in!



I hope he tells her this


Link



prevents that.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
New IPCC paper discredited even before its release:

Link

A question: if a discredited scientist "discredits" something, is it really discredited? It's long been known that Scafetta is a climate change denialist. It's also long been known that he is a bit secretive about the methods and programs on which he bases his conclusions. It's also long been known that Scafetta may not be entirely familiar with how the scientific method works.

The IPCC report discredited by a discredited scientist? Hardly....
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
from Weather Underground

Dr. Jeff Masters will be on World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer this evening at 6:30PM EST to look into this winter's record warmth and dryness. Make sure to tune in!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New IPCC paper discredited even before its release:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting iceagecoming:
Looks like the Reindeer will be safe for another year.
My gut feeling,for many years to come...!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
Looks like the Reindeer will be safe for another year.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Quoting iceagecoming:
Cold Air a Week Away
January 5th, 2012 at 3:22 am by Bill Steffen under Bill's Blog, Weather
It was a frosty Weds. morning in Florida. Low temperatures included 19 in Cross City, 20 in Gainesville, 31 in Daytona Beach, 35 in Orlando and 36 on Marco Is. It was 14 in New York City and -4 in DuBois PA. McGrath, Alaska reached -55, Bettles was -49 and Nome continues to have record breaking cold. Nome had a high of -30 on Wednesday, 12 degrees colder than their previous all-time record low maximum for the date.

That's cold, alright. There were 29 record daily lows set or tied in the United States yesterday, with 17 of those in Florida. Such a topsy-turvy month, as there were 201 record daily highs set or tied yesterday. For the month, highs of all types have outnumbered lows of all types by 657 to 76, or 8.64-to-1.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Cold Air a Week Away
January 5th, 2012 at 3:22 am by Bill Steffen under Bill's Blog, Weather
It was a frosty Weds. morning in Florida. Low temperatures included 19 in Cross City, 20 in Gainesville, 31 in Daytona Beach, 35 in Orlando and 36 on Marco Is. It was 14 in New York City and -4 in DuBois PA. McGrath, Alaska reached -55, Bettles was -49 and Nome continues to have record breaking cold. Nome had a high of -30 on Wednesday, 12 degrees colder than their previous all-time record low maximum for the date.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
No need for me to apologize BullShoals. That was an error on Wunderground's part which repeated my comment. Admin and Dr. Masters both sent me emails saying so.

BullShoalsAR owes me an apology for that false accusation too.

I think handles who make false accusations about others should be banned forever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

Yes, sir. However, only if you apologize for freezing this blog back in August with one of those Foxtrot scripts you wrote and executed.
Traitor!LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
Icy maneuvers for Nome-bound fuel tanker
Jill Burke | Jan 04, 2012
Enlarge This Image
Related

Begich legislation would bolster ice-breakers, Coast Guard
Russian fuel tanker under way for ice-encrusted Nome
In Southwest Alaska, ice-cutting fuel ship readies for historic winter voyage

The Bering Sea is welcoming a foreign fuel tanker bound for Nome with a cold, harsh hello. Throughout the day, Wednesday, the Renda faced big seas off Alaska featuring snow, frozen spray and gale-force winds. Yet it wasn't the extreme environment that proved most menacing. Late Wednesday, a malfunctioning engine part forced the tanker back into Dutch Harbor for what's expected to be a quick repair.

It's nearly unheard of for a cargo ship to brave Alaska's ice-choked winter waters, an impossible feat for any lesser vessel. Yet with a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker at its side, the Renda is attempting to do just that, ferrying some 1.3 million gallons of fuel to a community on Alaska's western coastline.

The general route is simple: sail straight out of Dutch Harbor to the ice edge, from there turn slightly to the east and continue through the ice northward to Nome. But there is virtually no chance of the Renda and its government escort, the Coast Guard cutter Healy, staying on a straight path.

"Bering Sea ice is not solid. It moves, and it moves a lot," said Kathleen Cole, Sea Ice Program leader for the National Weather Service in Anchorage. Cole is consulting daily with the voyage. Ice thickness, size of the floes and how the ice moves is her specialty.

Hers is a unique job. It's the only one like it in the nation, in fact, and she's expected to come in handy for the tandem voyage to Nome. Relying on information from Cole and other "ice experts," the ships will "plot the path of least resistance," said Chief Petty Officer Kip Wadlow, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard. Weather patterns and ice conditions will factor into day-to-day decision making during the voyage, he said. For example, crews may divert to avoid conditions that would cause heavy ice build up.

Or, as Cole points out, they may choose to drive around instead of through one of the larger ice floes, which can be 2-3 feet thick and stretch as wide as Anchorage's city limits. "It is substantial ice out there," she said. "They can actually go through anything that's out there. It just slows them down."

Rather than one large floating mass, Bering Sea ice is a jumble of chunks -- some big, some small, in varied thickness and strength.

The ice pack has also expanded since the Renda was first commissioned to ferry fuel to Nome. Weeks ago the ice edge extended about 300 miles from Nome. By Wednesday, amid an ongoing stretch of unseasonably cold temperatures, the edge had widened to more than 390 miles at the entry point selected by the Renda, Cole said.

On Wednesday, before it did a U-turn to deal with the malfunctioning engine part, the Renda was plowing through 10-15 foot seas in bad weather. The upside to getting away from open water and into sea ice is that conditions improve because the waves diminish greatly.

"These boats of this size can handle this weather," Cole said. "Once they get to the ice they will be through the worst weather they are going to face."

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Quoting Neapolitan:

Boy, what a silly pile of horse droppings that is, huh? Of course, the giveaway was referring to "Climategate 2.0", which automatically belies the fact that the write is on an ideological expedition, and isn't interested in real science. But, more importantly, Jensen goes on to cheery-pick 240 or so stations, then talks of "step increases" in temperature at those different stations. The thing is, though, such "step increases" are of variable height, start date, and duration. That is, they only appear if one cherry picks certain sequences of years where the temp may have appeared to plateau. Some "step increases" happen just about every year--which is to say, it's more or less continually warming.

Anyway, I wish the denialist community would pick a tack and stick with it. First they claim the world's not warming, then they say that it is, but it's all natural. Which is it, guys?


Horse,Bull,Camel,Blue Whale and Coyote droppings.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BullShoalsAR, are you going to apologize to me for lying on here and saying my handle is a Neapolitan sockpuppet?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Another study demonstrating that "global warming" is most likely associated with natural climate events:

Link

Boy, what a silly pile of horse droppings that is, huh? Of course, the giveaway was referring to "Climategate 2.0", which automatically belies the fact that the write is on an ideological expedition, and isn't interested in real science. But, more importantly, Jensen goes on to cheery-pick 240 or so stations, then talks of "step increases" in temperature at those different stations. The thing is, though, such "step increases" are of variable height, start date, and duration. That is, they only appear if one cherry picks certain sequences of years where the temp may have appeared to plateau. Some "step increases" happen just about every year--which is to say, it's more or less continually warming.

Anyway, I wish the denialist community would pick a tack and stick with it. First they claim the world's not warming, then they say that it is, but it's all natural. Which is it, guys?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Do Climate Models Underestimate Extinctions?
JANUARY 5, 2012


BY JOSHUA S. HILL

We have really sophisticated meteorological models for predicting climate change, says ecologist Mark Urban, the lead author of a study that looks at whether the current climate models properly understand species competition and movement and therefore the impact the future climate will have on animals.
But in real life, animals move around, they compete, they parasitize each other, and they eat each other. The majority of our predictions don't include these important interactions.

read more:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


Sorry to hear you don't agree with scientists.




I do agree with scientist. I don't agree with the QUACKS out there!


Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased




Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Solar Panels Compete With Cheap Natural Gas
by Jeff Brady
January 5, 2012
Renewable energy is growing rapidly in the U.S., with wind and solar industries enjoying double-digit growth each year. Part of that growth comes from more homeowners choosing to install solar panels.
With government subsidies, some people can even make a financial argument for installing the panels. But in recent years, the price of one fossil fuel — natural gas — has declined so much that solar panels are having difficulty competing.
The reason natural gas prices have fallen is because production is way up, thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, as it's called, is a controversial drilling technology that some say harms the environment. But the process has also made it possible to extract oil and gas once thought to be trapped in rock too deep underground for drillers to reach.
Due in large part to a combination of fracking and horizontal drilling, there's been a nearly 30 percent increase in the amount of natural gas produced in the U.S. since 2005.
"We've got a classic situation of supply and demand," says Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group based outside Pittsburgh.
Natural gas demand has not gone up as quickly as supply, and Klaber says the price has dropped.
"A handful of years ago, natural gas could have been in the order of 12, 13, 14 dollars per million BTU," she says. "We're now down to three to four [dollars]."
This has allowed utilities that burn natural gas to produce electricity to hold the line on rates. For most of us, that's a good thing, but for those who've installed solar panels, it makes that investment less of a bargain.
Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott's family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, "We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar," she said. But that was before the economics changed.
With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.
A lot of other people had the same idea at the same time, which sent the price of solar energy credits down sharply in Pennsylvania. Scott says that added another seven years to the payback period.
On top of that, Scott says, electricity rates aren't going up as quickly as she thought they would, thanks in part to low natural gas prices.
"So that, again, adds another two years to our payback period," she says. "We're up to 17 years, which is, essentially, the life of the system. And we haven't even considered what happens if the system breaks or what it's going to cost to take the system off the roof and dispose of it. "





Despite this, Scott says she's still happy to have the panels on her house.
"But now, knowing it's — at best — a break-even proposition, we're not so comfortable telling other people to do it," she says.





Her experience raises questions about the viability of much larger, utility-scale solar projects built in recent years. But for them, the balance sheet looks different.
"They get a fixed price contract with a utility or somebody else who will buy that power from them," says Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the Center for American Progress. Or with utilities, "they get to roll that into a rate base and recover that cost from electric power consumers."
Caperton says what's more interesting is to think about the wind, solar and even nuclear plants that are not being built now because producing with cheaper natural gas is more attractive to investors.
But natural gas prices could rise again quickly. If that happens, solar panels may seem like a good investment once again.





Link









Bill O'Leary/WASHINGTON POST - Since the failure of Solyndra, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.

By Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig, Published: December 25
Linda Sterio remembers the excitement when President Obama arrived at Solyndra last year and described how his administration’s financial support for the plant was helping create hundreds of jobs. The company’s prospects appeared unlimited as Solyndra executives described the backlog of orders for its solar panels.
Then came the August morning when Sterio heard a newscaster announce that more than a thousand Solyndra employees were out of work. Only recently did she learn that, within the Obama administration, the company’s potential collapse had long been discussed.
“It’s not about the people; it’s politics,” said Sterio, who remains jobless and at risk of losing her home. “We all feel betrayed.”
Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-
technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.
Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ¬e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.
The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra.
The documents reviewed by The Post, which began examining the clean-technology program a year ago, provide a detailed look inside the day-to-day workings of the upper levels of the Obama administration. They also give an unprecedented glimpse into high-level maneuvering by politically connected clean-technology investors.
They show that as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the “optics” in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on the president’s prospects for a second term. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-
energy technology.
“What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’ ”
The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policymaking positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-
energy program.
Documents show that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision on the loan so Vice President Biden could announce it during a trip to California. The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors, but they suggest that there was an unwavering focus on promoting Solyndra and clean energy. Officials with the company and the administration have said that nothing untoward occurred and that the loan was granted on its merits.
Link


IEA calls for goverments to embrace nuclear power.

Written by John Daly
Friday, 11 November 2011 00:43

The good news is that on 8 November the International Energy Agency released its 2011 “World Energy Outlook.”

While it will cheer nuclear advocates, overall the report makes for grim reading.

Pulling no punches, the report states at the outset, “There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway.”

Stripped of its cautious language, the IEA report essentially noted that should present trends continue, the world’s governments through a lack of progressive initiative embracing alternative energy sources would continue to rely on ‘tried and true” fossil fuels, resulting in increased pollution, more fossil-fuel dependency and increasingly upward energy prices.

For environmentalists, this is all good news, but the report contained a caveat virtually anathema to all green movements, that accordingly, governments should reconsider their reluctance to embrace nuclear power, as it does not generate greenhouse gases.
Like many discussions in Western economies since 2008, when the global recession first began to draw blood, the issue of reliable energy production ultimately devolves down to dollars and cents issues.

The grim reality for environmentalists is that no single renewable energy resource, from wind power to solar energy through biofuels, has remotely become competitive with kilowatt hours of electrical energy generated by coal or oil-fired power plants. The debate pits those opposed to a transition to greener technologies to those considering the bottom line, despite greenhouse gas emissions.

Even worse for the environmentalists, the IEA report advocates that as a short-term solution, governments ought to reconsider nuclear power, as it produces zero CO2 emissions. Projecting into the future the report notes, “A low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change. The consequences would be particularly severe for those countries with limited indigenous energy resources which have been planning to rely relatively heavily on nuclear power”

But while sketching out a bleak scenario should governments remain largely disengaged to the larger issues involved in energy production, the IEA report nevertheless ends on a cautiously optimistic note, with its authors concluding, “International concern about the issue of energy access is growing. The United Nations has declared 2012 to be the ‘International Year of Sustainable Energy for All’ and the Rio+20 Summit represents an important opportunity for action. More finance, from many sources and in many forms, is needed to provide modern energy for all, with solutions matched to the particular challenges, risks and returns of each category of project. Private sector investment needs to grow the most, but this will not happen unless national governments adopt strong governance and regulatory frameworks and invest in capacity building. The public sector, including donors, needs to use its tools to leverage greater private sector investment where the commercial case would otherwise be marginal. Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO2 emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare.”

Accordingly, what is most notable about the IEA report is two things.

First, energy options beyond dependence on traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil not only exist, but are available in significant amounts to make a serious contribution.

Secondly, as Germany’s experience in weaning itself off nuclear energy is showing, the alternatives are more expensive than current power production modes.

According to the IEA’s scenarios then, the issue of global power production over the next two-three decades devolves upon two major issues.

The first is cost, which will undoubtedly be an uphill struggle for many governments seeking to meet the population’s rising energy demands, who will be loathe to endure increasing energy bills.

The second consideration is the contentious issue of global warming, and the impact of traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants belching vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

While even the most diehard proponents of traditional power plant electrical generation to not deny that their facilities emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, they denigrate the concerns of environmentalists as ‘fuzzy science.”

So, at the end of the day, the two fundamental issues facing the world’s nations seeking to satiate their population’s demand for reliable and inexpensive power devolve down to cost and scientific projections. We’ll leave the final word to the IEA, which laid out three scenarios, ranging from best- to worst-case - "The wide difference in outcomes between these three scenarios underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future." Accordingly, the major question is whether global governments will have both the cash and political will “to shape our energy future” to the best possible ends

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Another study demonstrating that "global warming" is most likely associated with natural climate events:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I have one word to explain this.

POPPYCOCK!


Sorry to hear you don't agree with scientists.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
This

Link


Reverses this.



Russian Runoff Freshening Canadian Arctic, NASA Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2012) — A new NASA and University of Washington study allays concerns that melting Arctic sea ice could be increasing the amount of freshwater in the Arctic enough to have an impact on the global "ocean conveyor belt" that redistributes heat around our planet.Lead author and oceanographer Jamie Morison of the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle, and his team, detected a previously unknown redistribution of freshwater during the past decade from the Eurasian half of the Arctic Ocean to the Canadian half. Yet despite the redistribution, they found no change in the net amount of freshwater in the Arctic that might signal a change in the conveyor belt.

The team attributes the redistribution to an eastward shift in the path of Russian runoff through the Arctic Ocean, which is tied to an increase in the strength of the Northern Hemisphere's west-to-east atmospheric circulation, known as the Arctic Oscillation. The resulting counterclockwise winds changed the direction of ocean circulation, diverting upper-ocean freshwater from Russian rivers away from the Arctic's Eurasian Basin, between Russia and Greenland, to the Beaufort Sea in the Canada Basin bordered by the United States and Canada. The stronger Arctic Oscillation is associated with two decades of reduced atmospheric pressure over the Russian side of the Arctic. Results of the NASA- and National Science Foundation-funded study are published Jan. 5 in the journal Nature.

Between 2003 and 2008, the resulting redistribution of freshwater was equivalent to adding 10 feet (3 meters) of freshwater over the central Beaufort Sea.

The freshwater changes were seen between 2005 and 2008 by combining ocean bottom pressure, or mass, data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites with ocean height data from NASA's ICESat satellite. By calculating the difference between the two sets of measurements, the team was able to map changes in freshwater content over the entire Arctic Ocean, including regions where direct water sample measurements are not available.

"Knowing the pathways of freshwater is important to understanding global climate because freshwater protects sea ice by helping create a strongly stratified cold layer between the ice and warmer, saltier water below that comes into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean," said Morison. "The reduction in freshwater entering the Eurasian Basin resulting from the Arctic Oscillation change could contribute to sea ice declines in that part of the Arctic."

"Changes in the volume and extent of Arctic sea ice in recent years have focused attention on melting ice," said co-author and senior research scientist Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., which manages Grace for NASA. "The Grace and ICESat data allow us to now examine the impacts of widespread changes in ocean circulation."

Kwok said on whole, Arctic Ocean salinity is similar to what it was in the past, but the Eurasian Basin has become more saline, and the Canada Basin has freshened. In the Beaufort Sea, the water is the freshest it's been in 50 years of record keeping, with only a tiny fraction of that freshwater originating from melting ice and the vast majority coming from Russian river water.

The Beaufort Sea stores more freshwater when an atmospheric pressure system called the Beaufort High strengthens, driving a counterclockwise wind pattern. Consequently, it has been argued that the primary cause of freshening is a strengthening of the Beaufort High, but salinity began to decline early in the 1990s, when the Beaufort High relaxed and the counterclockwise Arctic Oscillation pattern increased.

"We discovered a pathway that allows Russian river runoff to feed the Beaufort gyre," Kwok said. "The Beaufort High is important, but so are the hemispheric-scale effects of the Arctic Oscillation."

"To better understand climate-related changes in sea ice and the Arctic overall, climate models need to more accurately represent the Arctic Oscillation's low pressure and counterclockwise circulation on the Russian side of the Arctic Ocean," Morison added.

Link



.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Perhaps that degree of improbability could power a fleet of infinite improbability drive spaceships sufficient to allow ALL of us to emigrate to another planet and start over! A benefit of global warming!

Probably not though.


The infinite improb drive could only use this source of improbability if there were no global warming. Thus there wouldn't be a need to start over.

Unfortunatly, the data seems to indicate that most of us will die.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Perhaps that degree of improbability could power a fleet of infinite improbability drive spaceships sufficient to allow ALL of us to emigrate to another planet and start over! A benefit of global warming!

Probably not though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 64 - 14

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.