We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:19 PM GMT on March 25, 2012

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r



The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

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

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting Snowlover123:


Scafetta 2009 finds that 66% of the variance in the late 20th Century can be explained by the sun alone, using the ACRIM and other TSI datasets other than PMOD


Here is the link to Scafetta 2009:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4319
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

You mean like this one from NASA?



No, you can't mean that one. I looked at several others that all showed the same thing. Solar irradiance has been flat (perhaps down slightly) for the last thirty years.

So feel free to acquaint me with these datasets which are showing "serious disagreements."


Yes, that's the PMOD dataset that I'm talking about that shows a flat line over the last 30 years.

The ACRIM Gap is where the ACRIM I satellite switched to the ACRIM II satellite, and there was a period in time where the ACRIM satellites were not measuring TSI. The ERBE/ERBS and NIMBUS7/ERB measurements were used to bridge the ACRIM Gap between the period where ACRIM I stopped measuring to the beginning of where ACRIM II started measuring. These timeframe begins in the middle of 1989 and ends in the middle of 1991.

PMOD uses ERBE/ERBS satellite data to bridge the Gap between the ACRIM I and II satellites.

The problem with this is that the ERBE/ERBS TSI measurements show a negative slope during the ACRIM Gap.

This is in direct disagreement with the GSSN and the higher quality ERB/NIMBUS7 measurements, indicating that the quality of the ERBE/ERBS data is at best, questionable.

This is significant, because the ERBE/ERBS bridge across the two satellites is the reason for why PMOD has a flat slope in TSI.

Another dataset, called ACRIM, uses NIMBUS 7/ERB data to bridge the ACRIM Gap, which has a positive slope in TSI.

This results in a statistically significant increase in TSI from SC 21 to SC 22, making it a potentially significant climate driver over the last 30 years.

Mordvinov and Willson 2003 found that TSI had increased by 0.05% between the minimas of SC 21 and 22, making it a potential climate driver. They also found that this increase in TSI is statistically significant.

Quoting the Willson 2003 paper:

The 0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend
appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications
for both solar physics and climatology.


The Willson and Morvdinov 2003 study has gotten 160 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing.

Willson and Scafetta 2009 found that Lean and Frolich made inappropriate adjustments to the PMOD dataset, which caused the slope of the TSI to be flat, in conjunction with the selecton of ERBE/ERBS data to bridge the ACRIM Gap. They also found that the anthropogenic component of recent climate change has been significantly overestimated, and the natural solar component has been significantly understated.

This study has gotten 40 citations.

Scafetta and West 2008 found that nearly up to 70% of the recent warming can be attributed to the sun, if you use the ACRIM dataset.

This study has gotten 45 citations.

Scafetta 2009 finds that 66% of the variance in the late 20th Century can be explained by the sun alone, using the ACRIM and other TSI datasets other than PMOD.

Quoting Scafetta 2009...

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and or . Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.



The first curve uses the ACRIM and other datasets. The second curve uses the PMOD dataset.

Another TSI dataset, the IRMB dataset, found that TSI increased between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 by up to 0.5 w/m^2, with a median increase of 0.15 w/m^2.

This study has gotten 57 citations.

These values such as 0.05%, 0.15 w/m^2 and 0.5 w/m^2 may not sound like much, but tbe sensitivity of the Climate to solar variability determines how much of a climatic impact these variables have on the Climate system.

Clader et. al 2004 found that the climate is sensitive to solar variability, so these seemingly tiny values can have large implications for climate change.

The two versions of this paper, the original and the updated version in total have 68 citations.

So before we can come up with an imaginary consensus on Climate Change, let's actually find what TSI was doing over the last 30 years, first.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
Sorry, but you've been taken in by "The Daily Fail."

From Professor Lu: “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
Oh, c'mon, don't do that; let them have their fun. ;-)

It's funny that every time a credible scientist is joyfully misinterpreted by the denialist set, that scientist has to come out and set the record straight by correctly interpreting what he or she said. The only thing is, the same fervor with which those denialists embraced their misinterpretation is used to denigrate the scientist after the clarification.

Silly, silly denialists...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

But of course!


Source


I hope you're aware that flat blue line in that graph over the last thirty years, the PMOD dataset, is in serious disagreements with some of the other datasets that measure TSI over the last 30 years, right?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Have a good day everyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.


Since you are an accomplice in this self destructive possibly suicidal behavior, I say we start with you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

It should also be noted that a good deal of the warming in the earlier warming was due to solar activity.


Any evidence to back up that statement?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Here is what I said: "First, you chose one data station in Iceland."

That is a correct statement. Iceland Met has many data stations, yet you picked only one.

I went on to say, "Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort."

That is also a correct statement.

I don't think you have any cause for complaint about my response


No sir they are not correct statements. First of all I cherry picked nothing, I posted what is on their climate page in their own words. Second they picked the station and also said it represents their country as a whole.

If you think they are wrong or want to know about cycles, write them an e-mail and tell them why. I suspect you do not want an answer and would rather continue whining.

No one has e-mailed me back from NOAA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

By Ted Thornhill

PUBLISHED: 07:21 EST, 26 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:52 EST, 30 March 2012



Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times areas as far apart as Europe and Antarctica both warmed up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica

However, Professor Lu has shown that this the Medieval Warm Period had a much broader reach – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.

‘Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,’ said Lu. ‘The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.’

It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together - called the hydration water - traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.

This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.

The mineral proved that Antarctica did warm up.

Lu says that his research has no direct bearing on the current climate, and points out that his research is restricted to one area in Antarctica, and is not in itself proof that the whole Earth warmed up.

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.

The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.

Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

Lu’s team found that in fact, they did.

They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals.

During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there aren’t.

‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’ Lu says. ‘More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.’

The research was recently published online in the journal Earth And Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1

Link


Nothing to exciting here, I have posted evidence of fossil, plankton, mollusk, and pollen data which supports the above story, won't matter to those with
their science "blinders on".



Eemian and Early Weichselian temperature and precipitation variability in northern Germany

Norbert Kühla, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Thomas Litta,
Christian Schölzelb,
Andreas Henseb

a Institute for Palaeontology, University of Bonn, Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany
b Meteorological Institute, University of Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 20, 53121 Bonn, Germany

Received 13 November 2006. Revised 15 September 2007. Accepted 3 October 2007. Available online 26 November 2007.




Abstract

Dramatic changes in European vegetation occurred during the transition from the Eemian interglacial to Weichselian glacial climates, correlative with major changes in global ice core and marine records. Quantitative knowledge of climate change is important for understanding of the climate system and for climate modelling, for which reconstructions of this transitional period are of special interest. However, it has been difficult to quantify the climatic changes involved in the Eemian to Early Weichselian transition from terrestrial archives due to the lack of modern vegetation analogues. To circumvent this problem, we applied a suitable multivariate probabilistic approach to pollen and plant macrofossil assemblages to reconstruct temperature and precipitation for this transition in central Europe. Our reconstructions span the interval from the beginning of the Eemian (Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e) to the Odderade interstadial (MIS 5a). They indicate a relatively stable Eemian, with increasing precipitation reducing the continentality of the climate with time. During the transition from the Eemian to the Herning stadial, mean July and January temperatures decreased by ∼4 °C and by as much as ∼20 °C, respectively. Temperatures remained high enough to support forests during the stadials, and we infer that the reconstructed decrease of precipitation below 500 mm per year caused the extirpation of forests during these periods. Thus, we conclude that precipitation, although difficult to reconstruct, is of vital importance for explaining vegetation change during the Eemian and Eemian/Early Weichselian transition.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.

Sorry to bend your sensibility, but when confronted with statements such as above, we come to solutions as per the link below.


Link

I am not in the habit of judging, but prefer to use sarcasm to "showcase" the tireless efforts of many to quell dissent, primarily when in my opinion they
are seriously flawed. Have a nice free day.


Enthusiastic partisans of the idea of progress are in danger of failing to recognize... the immense riches accumulated by the human race. By underrating the achievements of the past, they devalue all those which still remain to be accomplished.
Claude Levi-Strauss
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
A Question for Dr. Rood and the blog,

Are you aware if anyone has calculated the ratio of the quantity of heat emitted into the atmosphere when a substance is burned versus the amount of heat added into the atmosphere due to the carbon dioxide over the life of the CO2?

I believe the first calculation is rather straightforward. If we burn a quantity of fossil fuel we can calculate the energy released as well as the mass of the CO2 produced from the reaction.

The second part seems much trickier. What happens to the CO2? Some portion remains in the atmosphere for a very long time. This portion will trap some amount of energy that otherwise would have escaped to space. What decay rate is assumed? How much total energy does the CO2 add to the atmosphere over defined time periods?

This quantity would only be the direct forcing due to the CO2. A second or multiple ratios could be developed for the direct forcing plus the estimated (modeled) feedbacks from various sources and estimates.

Depending on the results of these calculations, this could be a new way to explain the effects of burning fossil fuels to people who are not very scientific.

I would like to be able to tell someone that if they burn a gallon of gasoline they have very rapidly released some quantity of energy in BTU’s or Calories and that over 5 years or 25 years the Earth will retain some multiple of that quantity due to the CO2 released.

Could be a project for a class…….
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.



The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by
Ayn Rand,
Peter Schwartz (Other),
Peter Schwartz (Introduction)





Overview

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd. In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left), Ayn Rand, bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress. Editor Peter Schwartz, in this new, expanded version of The New Left, has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
I think the current administration is onto something,
can't say I'm surprised, might even venture a "expected"


Aug 30, 2010 6:10pm
Sebelius: Time for ‘Reeducation’ on Obama Health Care Law


Link



Rounded up into torture camps: the 'undesirables' China doesn't want you to see

By Andrew Malone
UPDATED: 04:18 EST, 18 August 2008





The bleak concrete walls topped with razor wire and the sentries in towers at the gates are a chilling reminder of a different era.

On the nearby roads, heavily armed guards patrol relentlessly, checking both drivers and pedestrians, constantly alert.

Meanwhile, less than 30 miles away, the world's attention is focused on the world-famous 'Bird's Nest' Olympic stadium and the other venues where a global audience of two billion is watching the Games and enjoying the spectacle of the 'new' China.

The Beijing regime has deployed an army of 500,000 smiling volunteers to help foreigners find their way around the teeming capital city.

Blades of grass have been individually combed. Signs have been erected in English.

Spitting has been banned and taxi drivers have been told to wear ties.

But there's none of that here in the suburb of Daxing, where the only 'venues' are the five camps into which thousands of China's 'undesirables' have been swept from the streets of Beijing and locked up.

Here, down bumpy, unlit roads, is where old habits die hard for China's brutal totalitarian communist regime.

These camps are being used to imprison - without trial or legal representation - people that the regime wants the world to believe do not exist amid the miracle of modern China.

From street children, hawkers, the homeless and prostitutes, to the mentally ill, black migrants, drug dealers and gays caught in public bathhouses, the camps on the outskirts of the city started filling up with Beijing's 'undesirables' last year as part of the Chinese regime's determination to present what it sees as an acceptable face to the world.

It is all eerily reminiscent of the build-up to the 1936 Games in Berlin, when the government cleared similar 'undesirables' from the streets.

Under Hitler's regime many of the Nazi concentration camps bore the slogan Arbeit macht frei (Work makes you free) at their gates.

In China, the camps bear the slogan 'Re-education Through Labour'. (It's a peculiar irony that Beijing has been so determined to use the English language to welcome the world, that street signs even bear the chilling words.)

The camps themselves are festooned with banners in Mandarin Chinese stating that 'you must be punished according to the laws of the Olympics', and reveal the extraordinary lengths to which the Chinese are prepared to go to in order to convince the world of the country's success.

Working up to 16 hours a day and held in cramped, unsanitary cells with only one toilet bucket for dozens of inmates, the existence of the jailed 'undesirables' is something China has done its best to hide.

The policy of 'people clearances' began last year and those taken in were moved to the camps on the outskirts of Beijing, which were built in the 1960s for the purposes of 'cleansing' the minds of dissidents opposed to the state.

By using torture, brainwashing techniques and the use of heavy labour, Chairman Mao was determined to convince opponents of the error of their ways.

The camps have been used in more recent times to hold dissidents, lawyers and followers of religions banned by the government.

But sweeps of the city ahead of the influx of foreign visitors have meant these dissidents have been joined by a new list of victims, who have until now been allowed to work freely in the capital.

Those who complain or refuse to eat in protest at their detention are force-fed - with guards holding their mouths open and tipping food down their victims' gullets, making them choke and vomit. There are more than 1,000 of these camps located around this country of more than 1.3 billion people.

In 2005, the authorities opened one Re-education Through Labour Camp to United Nations investigators investigating claims that inmates were being killed and their organs 'harvested' and sold to wealthy Chinese desperate for transplants.

Nothing untoward was found. The camp had even been painted ahead of the UN visit.

Dissidents claimed later that victims are transferred from camp to camp whenever any brutality is discovered by outside bodies.
After 30 years of reform, China has developed greatly. People enjoy more freedom. People are living a good life. Everyone is happy. That's a fact.,' he said.

'Of course, there are exceptions. But they need to take the legal process and procedures to resolve any issues.'

Much the same could have been said in Germany in 1936 - and it would have had just as hollow a ring to it.

As Susan Bachrach, a historian and expert on the Berlin Games, says: 'Hosting the Olympics presented the Nazi leadership with an extraordinary opportunity to project the illusion of a peaceful, tolerant Germany under the guise of the Games' spirit of international co-operation.

'That effort was largely successful, and the regime scored a major propaganda victory.'
Beijing must hope that its propaganda effort will be every bit as effective.

The Chinese believe that at the end of the Games, the world will be left with happy memories of a spectacular event.

But for those who were deemed 'undesirable' and dumped into prison camps without trial, the memories of the 2008 Olympics will be very different indeed.




Link






Chinese Woman Sentenced To Re-Education Over Tweet
James Cullimore
Written by
James Cullimore
view bio follow

Blessed with a curmudgeonliness beyond his tender years, James Cullimore can still be heard yelping like a young boy at the prospect of a game...
18 November, 2010
china twitter

A Chinese woman has been sentenced to a year in a labour camp after re-tweeting a joke on Twitter.

Human rights activist Cheng Jiangping was arrested on 27 October and has since been convicted of "disturbing social order" and sentenced to one year of "re-education through labour", Amnesty International reported on Wednesday.

Her fiance, Hua Chunhui, originally posted a message mocking the demonstrators who smashed Japanese products in protest over an incident with Japan concerning the ownership of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.

Cheng later retweeted the message, adding the phrase: “Angry youth, charge!"

Amnesty International said that Cheng may be the first Chinese citizen to be a prisoner of conscience on the basis of a single tweet.

“Sentencing someone to a year in a labour camp, without trial, for simply repeating another person's clearly satirical observation on Twitter demonstrates the level of China's repression of online expression," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Director for the Asia-Pacific.

The BBC reports that Cheng has been sent to the Shibali River women's labour camp in Zhengzhou city, Henan Province to see out her sentence.

Twitter is banned in China, but many users still find work-arounds to avoid government internet controls to access the micro-blogging platform.

Read more: Link

Clockwork Orange
1984
THX1138
Logan's Run
etc..... Government's run amok.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place

"A new report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development paints a grim picture of the world in 2050 based on current global trends."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Wait for it, wait for it, "regional"


The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning ... For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at truth.
— Peter Abelard
Sic et Non (c. 1120). In Frederick Denison Maurice, Mediaeval Philosophy, Or, A Treatise of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (1870), 138
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company.


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.
Well, at least Bastardi is a weather guy, not a washed up crackpot physicist who has neither worked in nor published in his field for decades. I have to give him that, even if he is wrong almost every time he opens his mouth...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Here's a short, randomly-selected list of some of this week's climate change articles/editorials (note: don't look for these on the Fox News website, because you won't find them there). In no particular order:

--By the year 2100, conservative estimates are that dealing just with sea level rise and its effects will cost around $2 trillion a year (in 2012 dollars). (And that's assuming no catastrophic events such as ice-sheet collapse or massive methane release.)

--a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21636- has-global-warming-brought-an-early-summer-to-the- us.html%22%22"














onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Has global warming brought an early summer to the US?

--West Antarctic ice shelves are coming apart at the seams

--Satellites Show Sea Level Rise is Here to Stay

--Canadian scientists are being muzzled by a government beholden to fossil fuel interests. (Sound familiar?)

--How to Fight Food Insecurity, Even in a Changing Climate

--Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place

--How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of 'Outlandish' Heat Waves

--Climate change is already harshing the weather

--Special Report: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)

ignorance







BOSTON (CBS) – 83 degrees. That was the temperature in Boston just over a week ago. Beaches were packed and the forsythia and fruit trees were starting to burst.

Only problem was the calendar said mid-March and all this was happening several weeks too soon.

Check: Current Conditions | Weather Map Center | Interactive Radar

But after the mild, snowless winter we had it didn’t seem all that strange that spring and summer would come early.

In New England however, it seems Mother Nature doesn’t ever let us get too comfortable or relaxed. Just think back to 1997. It was a relatively easy winter by our standards. Just over 20 inches of snow had fallen for the season and temperatures were starting to top 60 degrees in late March.

In fact on March 30, 1997, the high was 63 degrees and we actually had a thunderstorm the prior evening.

What followed was one of nature’s cruelest attempts at an April Fool’s Day joke. Boston received 25.4 inches of snow on March 31 and April 1 in 1997, our biggest snowfall of the year just when everyone was thinking spring.

Don’t worry, this weekend will NOT be a repeat of 1997, but snow is in the forecast for the final day of March and the first day of April once again.

A small but potent storm system will emerge out of the Great Lakes this evening and arrive in southern New England early Saturday morning.

It will start as snow for most areas just before dawn.


Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, but, see, you're missing two key points:

1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling;

2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole.

I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote:

"By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report"

...which linked to this chart:

jb the fool

The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned.


I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company.


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
General Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support From Heartland Institute


After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change.

The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won't be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.

"We applaud GM's decision and the message it sends -- that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM's values," said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change.

Internal documents leaked in February showed that the General Motors Foundation -- which the automaker runs separately from its business -- donated to the institute $15,000 in 2010 and again in 2011, with another $15,00 expected to be gifted this year.

Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the ideas on global warming through its newsletters, web site and associated scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?"

Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said GM had been a Heartland supporter for 20 years.

"We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick," he said in a statement. "We once again respectfully ask liberal advocacy groups such as Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress, 350.org and Greenpeace to stop attacking scientists who question the theory of man-made global warming and corporations and foundations that are willing to fund open debate on this important public policy issue."

The Heartland Institute said the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a climate research group, has confessed to the stunt, adding that he regrets his actions.

The bulk of Heartland's funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007.

Nonprofit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. Previously Heartland was transparent about its funding, even posting a list of contributors on its website, but removed it in 2004.

"Critics who couldn't or wouldn't engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us," institute representatives wrote after taking down the list. "After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."

GM was not the only automaker to fund the Heartland Institute: Ford and Chrysler also contributed to it in the past. Ford and Chrysler told The Huffington Post that they had stopped funding the organization over the past decade, but neither automaker had records detailing reasons for pulling that support.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
Cities Expand To Area Equal to France, Germany
a n d Spain Combined in less than 20 years ..................of the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme said, “A truly sustainable planet will require cities to think beyond city limits.”
“Everything being brought into the city from outside: food, water, products and energy need to be sourced sustainably. We need to rethink the resource flow to cities.”


Sounds like "The Caves of Steel".
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


How have you been doing, nymore? Good to see you back.

I read your post #72.

"I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland."

What is said, in post #72, does not even mention an adjustment for the temps in Iceland by anyone. I also did not read anything in your posts prior to this that makes any such claim that a temp adjustment had been made.

One of the things that was said, in post #72, is that there was a degree of uncertainty about the temp records during different time periods and that some of the temp readings were interpolated from nearby stations. Perhaps any temp adjustments that may have been made would come from a better way of determining the temps during these times. This is only me speculating since I have not seen any evidence that any adjustments had been made at all. Even if temp adjustments had been made you would need to see the justification of those that adjusted the temp data to answer your question.

What I see, from your post #72, is a trend line that shows an overall warming. There have been times when there was a warming or cooling period, but the trend line still shows an overall warming. Also the article claims that since 1986 there has been a warming and with the last cold year of the cycle being in 1995. 1995 was still below the overall trend line, but there has been a sharper increase in the warming since 1986 than at any other time frame shown in the graph.

We have heard it many times, nymore, "Well, that is just regional.". Iceland is regional as well. You need to look at the data from all regions and see what the overall trends are before you can assess any global changes. Is it wetter, colder, drier, hotter for regions across the globe. Should this be the case, then how far from the norm for these regions is being observed? Now you can get a global picture of what is happening with the climate. Then you need to ask yourself other questions. Will the anomalies we are witnessing now become the norms of the future? Will the frequency of these anomalies become closer together or further apart and will they become more severe or less severe? In which direction is it changing? What do the regional trends across the planet show? The answers to these questions would be an indication of what direction the global climate is changing, even if it is towards a stability. What do the global trends show you, nymore?


Hi Rookie nice to be back been busier than a cat with two behinds.

I think you misunderstood my point read post 91.

Temps lately for the globe seem to be flat or cooling from it highs according to every data set with a long enough history. Look at the trend lines from say the early 1900's to around 1940 then it cools now look at the trend lines from around the mid 70's to around the early 2000's they almost mirror each other in scale and length of time. Which makes a person like me question why.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Nah, no ruffled feathers. You have posted nested cherry picks...and failed to provide any context.

First, you chose one data station in Iceland.

Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort.

Third, how any of this ties into Global Warming isn't addressed. So your entire post becomes a non-sequitur.


I did not cherry pick anything Iceland Met did according to you.

If any dates were picked it was by them.

I questioned a couple weeks ago why NASA and NOAA would adjust temps that had already been adjusted. I never said anything about AGWT, you did. No bias websites were used only info from Iceland Met unless you feel they have an agenda now too.

Go read the article for yourself even though I already posted it and Xandra found it quite easily. Need help finding it here is a hint ICELAND MET.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Uploaded by JeffId1 on Jan 17, 2012

Satellite sea ice for Arctic and Antarctic. The pixel resolution is 25km and the satellite ice data comes from the NSIDC Sea Ice Concentrations as collected from the Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave systems. The compilation represents almost 3 GB of gridded data.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I see I have ruffled a few feathers with the info from Iceland. I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland. When asked to back it up, some on here jumped in with info from a denialist site. I went to Iceland Met and got the info, since I don't use bias sites from either side like some here. Some on here have tried to slam the info. If you have a problem with it, bring it up with Iceland Met. If the info given from them doesn't agree with your point of view, you cherry pick at it or basically deny it. Funny how the denialist shoe fits on the other foot isn't it.

BTW the warming back then was clearly caused by CO2, remember the only trend lines that matter are the ones that start with a year that is colder than the year you want to stop at. They also say the temp info represents their country as a whole.

Have a good day everyone.


How have you been doing, nymore? Good to see you back.

I read your post #72.

"I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland."

What is said, in post #72, does not even mention an adjustment for the temps in Iceland by anyone. I also did not read anything in your posts prior to this that makes any such claim that a temp adjustment had been made.

One of the things that was said, in post #72, is that there was a degree of uncertainty about the temp records during different time periods and that some of the temp readings were interpolated from nearby stations. Perhaps any temp adjustments that may have been made would come from a better way of determining the temps during these times. This is only me speculating since I have not seen any evidence that any adjustments had been made at all. Even if temp adjustments had been made you would need to see the justification of those that adjusted the temp data to answer your question.

What I see, from your post #72, is a trend line that shows an overall warming. There have been times when there was a warming or cooling period, but the trend line still shows an overall warming. Also the article claims that since 1986 there has been a warming and with the last cold year of the cycle being in 1995. 1995 was still below the overall trend line, but there has been a sharper increase in the warming since 1986 than at any other time frame shown in the graph.

We have heard it many times, nymore, "Well, that is just regional.". Iceland is regional as well. You need to look at the data from all regions and see what the overall trends are before you can assess any global changes. Is it wetter, colder, drier, hotter for regions across the globe. Should this be the case, then how far from the norm for these regions is being observed? Now you can get a global picture of what is happening with the climate. Then you need to ask yourself other questions. Will the anomalies we are witnessing now become the norms of the future? Will the frequency of these anomalies become closer together or further apart and will they become more severe or less severe? In which direction is it changing? What do the regional trends across the planet show? The answers to these questions would be an indication of what direction the global climate is changing, even if it is towards a stability. What do the global trends show you, nymore?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover. The perennial ice is the portion of the sea ice floating on the surface of the ocean that survives the summer. This ice that spans multiple years represents the thickest component of the sea ice cover.
This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1980 to 2012. The grey disk at the North Pole indicates the region where no satellite data is collected.



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
I see I have ruffled a few feathers with the info from Iceland. I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland. When asked to back it up, some on here jumped in with info from a denialist site. I went to Iceland Met and got the info, since I don't use bias sites from either side like some here. Some on here have tried to slam the info. If you have a problem with it, bring it up with Iceland Met. If the info given from them doesn't agree with your point of view, you cherry pick at it or basically deny it. Funny how the denialist shoe fits on the other foot isn't it.

BTW the warming back then was clearly caused by CO2, remember the only trend lines that matter are the ones that start with a year that is colder than the year you want to stop at. They also say the temp info represents their country as a whole.

Have a good day everyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Fail.
Oh, but, see, you're missing two key points:

1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling;

2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole.

I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote:

"By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report"

...which linked to this chart:

jb the fool

The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra: Look at the red trend line. Does it look like "no significant warming since 1925"? What I can see, the trend is upward. And there is no information about the years 2008-2011.

The trend line starts in 1798 and goes till 2008, in which case it should go upward. Now if the trend line starts in 1925 and goes till 2008 you would see no significant change.

If you think Iceland Met is lying or you do not understand something e-mail them and ask, this is what I did for some NOAA info for which I am still waiting for an answer after over 2 weeks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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.

Recent Posts

Local Weather

Light Rain
50 °F
Light Rain Mist

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.