As reported in the April issue of the journal "Environmental Health
Perspectives" (Vol. 111, No. 4), U.S. cities average 10 more hot
summer nights -- classified as above 70 degrees F in the East, South,
and Midwest, and above 80 degrees F in the Southwest -- than they did
40 years ago. Nationwide in the U.S., there has been a 300% greater
rate of warming in cities than in the rural countryside, according to
a study by Arthur DeGaetano, associate professor of Earth and
atmospheric sciences at Cornell University, and Robert J. Allen, then
a research support specialist at the university.

The study, which originally appeared in the November 2002 issue of the
"Journal of Climate", analyzed historical data on daily high and low
temperatures from 361 weather stations across the United States from
1910 to 1996, adjusting for omissions, differences in observation
times and other discontinuities, and using the hottest 10%, 5%, and
1% of all the daily high or low temperatures recorded by a station
over its period of operation.

For the period 1960-1996, the pair found that 75% of stations showed
an average increase in both hot summer days and hot summer nights.
The rate of warming was greatest in the East and least in the central
section. The results also showed that cities are warming at more than
triple the rate of rural locales.

http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf
http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/shp.html

"The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to
sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks
will not be heard."
- Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day founder

By using NCDC monthly global land temperature data I show an increase of
1.5 degrees F for the last century.
The rate of change per 10 year period is alarming.

Table 1
20 Century Global Land Temperatures (GLT) in degrees F
Avg.
GLT
48.39 - - 1990-1999
46.89 - - 1900-1909
01.50 - - Difference

Table 2
Rate of Change per 10 year period
Avg.
GLT - - - Change
47.40 - - - (msg.) - - - 1953-1962
47.23 - - - (-0.17) - - - 1963-1972
47.53 - - - ( 0.20) - - - 1973-1982
47.98 - - - ( 0.45) - - - 1982-1992
48.55 - - - ( 0.57) - - - 1993-2002

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo/message/157

Pat Neuman
Minnesota



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Air Temperatures Data at
Cooperative Climate Stations
=======================
TA_OH_Bellefontaine
TA_MI_Ironwood
TA_MI_Benton Harbor
TA_IL_Windsor
TA_MI_Adrian
TA_IL_Mount Carroll
TA_MN_Grand Rapids Forestry
TA_MN_Crookston NW EXP Station
TA_MN_Waseca Exp Station
TA_MN_New London
TA_PA_Ridgeway
TA_IN_Columbus
TA_IN_Marion 2N
TA_MI_Hastings
TA_WI_Portage
TA_WI_Oconto 4W
TA_WI_Sturgeon Bay
TA_WI_Brodhead 1SW
TA_WI_Watertown
TA_WI_Weyerhauser
TA_WI_Spooner Exp Sta
TA_WI_Marshfield Exp
TA_SC_Santuck 4SE
TA_SC_Winnsboro
TA_ID_Sandpoint
TA_ID_Kellogg
TA_UT_Blanding
TA_UT_Duchesne
TA_UT_Escalante
TA_AR_Newport
TA_NM_Tucumcari_4_NE
TA_NM_Dulce
TA_CO_Dillion 1E
TA_CO_Ft Collins
TA_CO_Wray
TA_AZ_Seligman
TA_AZ_Prescott
TA_AZ_Willcox
TA_AZ_Snowflake
TA_AZ_Tombstone
TA_AZ_Williams
TA_NH_Berlin
TA_ME_Eastport
TA_VT_St Johnsbury
TA_NY_Norwich
TA_NY_Coopertown
TA_NY_Bridgehampton
TA_NY_Canton 3SE
TA_WY_Cody
TA_MT_Culbertson
TA_ND_Bottineau
TA_SD_Forestburg 3_NE
TA_ND_Jamestown_St_H
TA_SD_Camp_Crook
TA_KY_Williamsburg 5 WSW
TA_IA_Atlantic 1 NE
TA_KY_Williamsburg 5 WSW
TA_TX_Crosbyton
TA_TX_Hallettsville 2N
TA_TX_Haskell
TA_KS_Hays 1 S
TA_KS_Horton
TA_OK_Stillwater 2 W
TA_OK_Pawhuska
TA_GA_Clayton 1 SSW
TA_GA_Tifton
TA_FL_Bartow
TA_FL_Moore_Haven_Lock_1
TA_FL_Titusville
TA_TN_Rogersville_
TA_TN_Newport_1NW
TA_TN_Bolivar_2
TA_MS_University
TA_LA_DeRidder
TA_LA_St_Joseph_3_N
TA_NV_Fallon Exp Station
TA_NV_Yearington
TA_CA_Hanford 1 S
TA_CA_Napa State Hospita
TA_CA_Redlands
TA_CA_Tustin_Irvine_Ranch
TA_WA_Northport
TA_OR_Hood_River_Exp_Sta
TA_OR_Madras
TA_OR_Milton
85

Dewpoint Data at
Airport Stations
================
DP_MI_Flint
DP_IN_Indianapolis
DP_MI_Detroit
DP_MI_Muskegon
DP_MI_Alpena
DP_IN_South Bend
DP_IL_Springfield
DP_IL_Chicago O'Hare
DP_IL_Peoria
DP_IL_Moline
DP_IN_Ft Wayne
DP_IN_Evansville
DP_MI_Traverse City
DP_MN_International Falls
DP_OH_Cleveland
DP_OH_Columbus
DP_OH_Dayton
DP_PA_Pittsburgh
DP_OH_Toledo
DP_MN_Duluth
DP_WI_La Crosse
DP_WI_Madison
DP_WI_Milwaukee
DP_WI_Eau Claire
DP_WI_Green Bay
DP_MN_Minneapolis
DP_IA_Sioux_City
DP_IA_Dubuque
DP_IA_Mason City
DP_IA_Des Moines
DP_WV_Charleston
DP_NE_Omaha
DP_ND_Fargo
DP_SD_Sioux_Falls
DP_KY_Covington
DP_MO_Columbia
DP_KY_Lexington
DP_KY_Louisville
DP_MO_Springield
DP_MO_St_Louis
DP AK Fairbanks
DP_MN_St Cloud
DP_MO_Kansas City AP
43
==
128

Pat Neuman
Twin Cities


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

NCDC's global average land temperature was the highest of record last
month (May averages, 1880 to current).

"Globally averaged land temperatures were warmest on record, 0.96°C
(1.73°F) above the long-term mean."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/may/global.html#Temp
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/may/glob_may_pg.gif

There are no urban heat island areas on or near Greenland.
" By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface
melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known
records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his
colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in
Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of
sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. “I
was really surprised by the change,” Serreze said. “By the
end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the
lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several
centuries.” ...  "
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/\
07 May 2003

Pat Neuman
Twin Cities


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Average annual temperatures climbed faster in Wisconsin and Minnesota in
the last 5 years than they did in any of the other Midwest states.
Temperature data were from the Midwest Regional Climate Center (MRCC), a
cooperative program of the Illinois State Water Survey and the National
Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S, Department of Commerce. The study used temperature
data from 113 rural and small town climate stations to avoid any
potential for land development and urbanization to influence temperature
records used for the study.

Wisconsin and Minnesota temperature levels increased over the past 5
years by 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above average long term temperatures
at stations in Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Illinois' temperatures rose
1.7°F above the Illinois stations' long term averages; Michigan's
temperatures rose 1.7°F above station long term averages; Indiana's
increase was 1.4°F increase, while Iowa and Ohio had increases of 1.3°F
and 1.2°F, respectively above long term averages for climate stations.

Air temperatures at all stations sampled in various regions of the
country all show measurable temperature increases in the last 5 years.
The latest five year average temperatures in the Midwest and Great Plains
are much more than just above a previous long term average, many are now
the highest five year average temperatures of record.

Average annual temperatures increased faster in the Upper Midwest (WI,
MN, MI) region in the last 5 years than in any other region of the U.S..

As the temperatures rose so too did dew points measured, reflecting an
overall rise in the moisture level of the atmosphere in the last 5 years,
which has been predicted in global warming models. The Great Plains
region had the highest increase in average dew point at 2.8°F, the
Midwest had the next highest at 2.4°F, the East had an increase of 2.0°F
and the South 1.0° F.

Fairbanks, Alaska had the highest reported dew point increase of 5.7°F in
the last 5 years...above its long term average. Dew point data was
obtained from airport sites located around the country, acquired from
MRCC as well (except Alaska data was obtained from the Western Regional
Climate Center).

Data used are publicly accessible at websites:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo

Table 1: Increase in Yearly Average Temperatures 1998 through 2002 in
Midwest States Above Long Term Temperature Average for Each State

Average Increase/State
2.3 Wisconsin
2.3 Minnesota
1.8 Illinois
1.7 Michigan
1.4 Indiana
1.3 Iowa
1.2 Ohio

Table 2: Increase in Yearly Average Temperatures at Wisconsin Stations
Above Long Term Average

Increase/City/Year Record-keeping Began
1.7 Portage 1896
1.4 Oconto 4W 1898
2.5 Sturgeon Bay 1901
1.7 Brodhead 1SW 1898
1.9 Watertown 1895
3.3 Weyerhauser 1906
3.6 Spooner Exp Sta 1896
2.3 Marshfield Exp 1913
avg. 2.3 Wisconsin

The latest five year average annual air temperatures (1998 through 2002)
were above the long term averages of record (100 year averages at many
stations) - for all regions within the United States. The amounts above
average are shown in Table 3. For dew points, the latest five year
averages were above long term averages (1948 through 1997), shown in
Table 4.

Table 3: Increase in Average Yearly Temperatures in U.S. Regions Over
Long Term Average

1.1 South
1.8 West
1.9 Midwest
1.9 East
1.9 Great Plains

Table 4: Increase in Average Yearly Dew Points in U.S. Regions Over Long
Term Average

1.0 South
2.4 Midwest
2.0 East
2.8 Great Plains
*No dew point data available for stations in the west region

Table 5: Increase in Average Yearly Dew Point Temperatures at Wisconsin
Stations Over Long Term Average

2.4 WI La Crosse 1948
2.5 WI Madison 1948
2.5 WI Milwaukee 1948
2.7 WI Eau Claire 1948
2.9 WI Green Bay 1948

Average global temperatures have also continued to rise over the last
decade and one-half. Temperature's in the last 5 years have been higher
than at any time in the history of temperature record keeping.

The National Climate Data Center's records of average land temperatures
throughout the world show that the global average temperature for May
2003 was the highest temperature of record for the month of May (record:
1880 to present). The average land temperature for May was 1.73°F above
the long-term mean for the period of record for May.

Globally averaged monthly surface temperatures (land and ocean) have now
been warmer than the 1971-2000 monthly global averages for the 85
straight months, closely reflecting the increasing accumulation of
greenhouse gas quantities and the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations
in the atmosphere over the last several years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/may/global.html#Temp
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/may/glob_may_pg.gif

At the same time that average global temperatures (and moisture levels)
of the land and oceans have risen, so too have the amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. The concentration of the most abundant of the
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased from about 290
parts per million (PPM) at the beginning of the last century, to a
present the concentration in the atmosphere of 370 PPM.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by weight is estimated to be
approximately 800 billion tons (see ClimateArchive Feb. 21, 2003).
Approximately 240 billion tons of that amount (30% of 800 billion tons)
has been added by humans in the last 150 years, as a direct result of
fossil fuel burning.

Scientists know that increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a
warming of the atmosphere. The reason is that, if it were not for the
background (non anthropogenic) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere,
temperatures on Earth would average 0°F, rather than the currently global
average of about 59°F.
Madison IMC: http://madison.indymedia.org/
http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/13165

Sunday, 28 June 2003
by Michael T. Neuman
Email: mtneuman@...
end
(minor editing by Pat Neuman 6/28/2003)

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Five year average dew points at Fairbanks, Alaska and at airport stations
in the Midwest were the highest of record from 1998 through 2002*.  The
greatest increase in dewpoints occurred during the non growing season
months. Stations located in counties with declining population and
minimal development (Dubuque, Iowa and International Falls, Minnesota)
had dew point increases as great or greater than other areas, thus
dewpoint measurements were likely not affected by urban heat influences.
The most likely explanation for the increases in dewpoints is global
warming, caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global
warming feedbacks.

* Period of record generally 1949-current,  monthly and annual dewpoint
summaries can at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo

Pat Neuman
Twin Cities



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs by
Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less Driving, Flying and Home
Energy Use
By
Michael T. Neuman
November 1, 2000

“For all practical purposes, there is today only one world suitable for
man.  Measured by nature’s standards rather than by those of historical
man, it is at present a delicately balanced, highly perishable world that
has evolved over long geologic epochs of environmental change.  And man,
acting as if he owned this world, or at least had come into leasehold
possession of it, has played his role as lessee very indifferently…”
(Lyton Caldwell, 1971)

Entire text of Conserve, NOW! (CN) on pdf  & below.

Best to view tables in Appendix A of CN on pdf, at:
http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf

Text of CN also given below, beginning with "Summary".

Summary

This paper provides the framework for offering temporary positive
voluntary financial incentives for reducing automobile driving, airplane
travel, and annual home energy use.  While the paper is mostly focused on
reducing energy use in the State of Wisconsin, the methodology could be
applied nationally, or even worldwide.

In general, the main source of funding for the financial incentives would
be the savings in user fee revenue generated by not having to build the
additional highway, airport and energy plant capacity expansion projects.
The federal transportation fund, the aviation trust fund and public and
private energy utility accounts would fund the program.

After significant reductions in public motorized travel and home energy
use occur, “transportation fees”, as defined in this paper, could be
charged on commercial and industrial goods shipped long distances (by
truck, air or plane - thus burning up considerable fossil fuels), and the
revenue generated from that source could also be used to fund the
program, if necessary.

Finally, and ideally, it would be good, and right, if all investments in
military preparedness, throughout the world, could be phased out, and
eventually eliminated.  This “phase out”, should begin no later than the
end of 2001. Complete abandonment of national militaries should be
scheduled for January 1, 2005.

The money generated by the phase out of military operations throughout
the world should be used to fund the Conserve, NOW! Program; thus
providing ample world financial resources to eliminate all world hunger,
world poverty, disease and ignorance (due to limited family funds for
education), for all the world’s citizens, and the world society as a
complete whole.

Offering world citizens and families “financial incentives” for low
annual driving miles traveled on highways, whether they choose to drive
at all or not, and for low (or no) annual flying miles traveled, and for
using less than typical therms of energy in their households, as defined
in this paper, would greatly reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to
the atmosphere, by at least 25%, on a yearly basis.

Bringing into fruition a worldwide environmental mitigation strategy,
such as the strategy outlined in the text below, would help humankind
deal not just with one problem, but with many problems. The problems are
interrelated, to some degree, but not so much by the commonality of the
trouble they cause; but more importantly by the commonality of the
solution needed to abate them.  Rather, than deal with each particular
problem and issue by itself, the Conserve, NOW! proposal would bring
forth a multifaceted, but uniform, attack on the many interrelated
problems that have grown and grown over time in the world, and now
threaten to annihilate the world, in its entirety.

Rapid Global Heating

Global warming of the Earth is now a certainty. Earth’s temperatures are
rising, faster and faster each year.  The reason is too much fossil fuel
burning by a growing and ever more energy-dependent human population.

Burning fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, others) to the air, which contributes to
the growing stockpiling of those gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. The
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
ultimately increase the ability of the Earth’s atmosphere to capture and
hold the Sun’s heat.  And since many of the greenhouse gases remain in
the atmosphere for centuries, their concentrations continue to increase
as more and more fossil fuels are burned on Earth, resulting in a
stronger and stronger “greenhouse effect” in the Earth’s atmosphere, over
time.

Each gallon of gasoline (or diesel fuel) combusted either in cars,
trucks, boats, planes, recreational vehicles, equipment, etc., adds 22
additional pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere’s stockpile
of greenhouse gases, where it will remain upwards of 120 years (Worrest,
2000).

Each ton of coal combusted in power plants or other furnaces adds 7,320
pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s stockpile of atmospheric
greenhouse gases, where it also will remain upwards of 120 years.

Each therm of natural gas combusted in furnaces or appliances adds 11
pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s stockpile of greenhouse gases,
where it, too, will remain upwards of 120 years.

Scientists now say global warming has actually been in progress for
several decades already, but that various measurement complexities have
prevented them from actually proving it.  The rate of global warming has
accelerated since the mid-1950s when it was first predicted.  The
continuously growing stockpile of greenhouse gases being added to the
Earth’s atmosphere is making Earth’s atmosphere much more effective in
“trapping” the Sun’s energy.

And scientists now say the rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is heating up
is reason for worldwide concern; they are sounding the alarm for urgent,
major action to slow global warming down, because the ultimate effect of
continued global warming could conceivably be catastrophic to all Earth’s
life forms.

There is only one widely known and currently available method for slowing
global warming down, immediately.  That method is energy conservation.
Energy conservation methods might include driving less; flying less,
buying more energy efficient (and smaller) homes, automobiles and
appliances; buying locally produced goods whenever, and wherever,
possible; and greatly reducing (or eliminating) participation in
recreational sports or activities that burn fossil fuels for energy.

Many energy conservation methods were employed by the public, with
considerable success, in the-mid 1970’s and early 1980’s, in response to
the “energy crisis” and relatively high fuel prices.  Energy conservation
was also successful during time of World War II, when conservation of
fuel was necessary for the war effort.  Energy conservation was
successful then, and it can be successful now, to reduce the threat of
continued global warming.

Energy conservation is the only realistic and economically feasible
option for conserving energy in the next several years.  The risk of
humans failing to successfully slow global warming today far exceeds any
imaginable or real economic or convenience losses that might have to be
borne in the short term by today’s populous.

In time, alternative technologies are likely to be developed and
available that will allow humans to use energy, without emitting
dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere.  But that
time has not yet arrived.  Consequently, conservation of energy must
begin immediately.

The effects of continuing to release substantial quantities of greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels or consuming electricity
produced through fossil fuel burning, are cumulative and irreversible.
“Reducing emissions is the most important action we can take now to
minimize damage to people, ecosystems, and economies” (Bloomfield, 2000).


Increases in Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and U.S.

The population of the State of Wisconsin increased from 4.4 million in
1970 to 5.2 million in 1998, an 18% increase (Wisconsin Legislative
Reference Bureau, 1999). The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on
Wisconsin highways increased from 21.9 billion VMT in 1970 to 50.4
billion VMT 1998, a 132% increase. (Wisconsin Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1999) (Appendix A: Table 1).

The average family of 4 in Wisconsin traveled 19,880 miles in 1970.  In
1998, they traveled 39,000 total miles, a 96% increase.

The per capita vehicle mileage that Wisconsin residents traveled in 1980
(including children and adults choosing not to drive) was 6,358 miles per
capita.  By 1998, this had increased to 9,680 miles per capita (excluding
heavy trucks).  Result:  the average Wisconsin resident traveled 52
percent more miles in a vehicle in 1998 than the average Wisconsin
resident traveled by auto in 1980.

The total highway vehicle passenger miles traveled in the U.S., excluding
miles counted for heavy truck and bus travel, is estimated to be 3.8
trillion miles per year.  The total VMT in the U.S. is estimated to be
2.36 trillion miles per year. (U.S. Department of Transportation (1997).


Costs of Providing for Increased Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and the
U.S.

In 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposed a plan to
provide for the projected motor vehicle driving needs in Wisconsin
through 2020 called Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 (WisDOT, 1999).
The plan recommends $20 billion be spent on new state highway
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance through
2020. The plan proposes approximately one third of the $20 billion ($7.3
billion) be used for new highway capacity expansion projects, for the
purpose of accommodating increased driving by Wisconsin residents.

The cost of the plan is to be paid by users of the state and local
highway system through fuel taxes and annual vehicle license fees.

The $7.3 billion is the monetary cost of building the new highway
capacity expansion projects.  It does not cover the cost of maintaining
those new highways, nor does it cover the non-monetary “environmental
cost” of building the new highways.  The environmental cost of new
highway development can be substantial.

New highway building generally creates a direct environmental cost as
highway corridors often must be built through farmland, wildlife habitat,
wetlands and other valuable natural and productive landscape.  Indirect
costs from improving travel on the highway are many and diffuse.  They
include: more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (from increased
auto emissions); more vehicle travel noise, roadkills and possibly more
human injuries and fatalities (because of increasing traffic levels),
and, of course, more urban sprawl development.

Urban sprawl development is really nothing more than misplaced urban
development.  It is facilitated by improved highways because the added
auto accessibility the improved highways provide makes longer auto
commutes simpler, safer, and, of course, quicker.

Improved highways make it easier and safer for people to live outside of
cities, yet retain reasonable access to the amenities and the services
that cities traditionally provide (jobs, entertainment, shopping, etc.).
In essence, improved highways enable commuters to take advantage of the
city’s benefits, regardless of whether they reside or pay property taxes
in the city, and irrespective of the environmental costs their automobile
driving has on others in the afflicted communities along the way, or the
Earth’s environment in general.

The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by automobiles
traveling in Wisconsin was 17.6 million tons in 1970 (Table 2).   In
1998, it was 26.0 million tons, an increase of 47%.  For the foreseeable
future, it will continue to increase with increasing levels of traffic.


The increased use and expansion of Wisconsin’s highway system through
2020, as approved by the Wisconsin DOT, will increase the quantity of
greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere even more, since it removes
impediments to driving more miles on the highway system.  This method of
addressing travel “needs” (building in more highway capacity) has
traditionally been the most popular approach to dealing with increasing
traffic problems in the United States (and elsewhere).  But it clearly
has come at considerable economic, social and environmental cost.

In contrast, providing incentives to bring about reductions in automobile
travel would reduce traffic levels (estimated by up to 25%), negating the
need to build more highway infrastructure, and reducing the environmental
and social costs of continuously increasing automobile and SUV driving
throughout the state.

Financial Incentives for Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in Wisconsin

Rather than spend $7.3 billion on highway capacity expansion over the
next 20 years, the State of Wisconsin could establish a program that
provides financial incentives to Wisconsin households who voluntarily
limit their motor vehicle travel in a year.  The source of funding for
the financial incentives program would be the portion of the gas taxes
and annual vehicle license fees that would have otherwise been paid for
the $7.3 billion worth of new highways.  Since the projected number of
vehicles operating on the highway system will have been reduced by less
driving, the need for building more capacity into the highway system will
have been effectively eliminated, making it possible to return those
funds to the public.

Following is an example of how the VMT reduction plan would work:
A family of four with two drivers voluntarily enrolls in the program by
driving its car(s) into the local Department of Motor Vehicles office,
paying $30 in administrative fees, and getting the mileage on their
vehicle’s odometer(s) officially recorded.  Alternatively, DOT offices
could be staffed with employees or volunteers who would travel to
neighborhoods to officially record the participating households’
vehicle(s) odometer mileage. [Technology also is now available, patented
through the auto insurance industry, that enables vehicle mileage of many
vehicles to be monitored, and recorded, from a central location. This
would eliminate the need for manual checking of vehicle odometers.]

After a year goes by, (based on participant’s day of choice), the
participant(s) would receive a $400 check if the participant’s
odometer(s) showed less than 13,500 miles for the preceding year (Table
3).  If the family participant managed to lower the household vehicle
mileage traveled to 9,000 miles over the year, they would earn $1,200.

The fewer miles the family drives in a year, the more money it could earn
as a reward for “driving less” for that year.  Households not owning or
driving personally registered cars would be eligible to receive a maximum
of $2,800 for that year, as a payment, (or reward), for not contributing
to the financial, social, or environmental costs of automobile driving
borne by everybody.

Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total VMT

The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
annual VMT is as follows:

Total Household Mileage Threshold/Year

  = x + Dx + Px

	 Where x = 1,000 (1…6) household vehicle(s) miles;
  D = Number of Additional Drivers (.75)
  P = Number of Persons in Household (.25)
A 25% reduction in vehicular travel is postulated with full
implementation of the plan, at a cost of $810 million a year.  Using an
average reward of $400 for each Wisconsin household each year:  $400 X
2,026,000 HH (Wisconsin Bureau of Energy, 1999) = $810,400,000.

After 10 years of awarding the financial incentives, the program could be
ended, since the behavioral change resulting in reduced driving will have
become permanent, eliminating the need to continue offering the
incentives.  If their was a need to continue the program after 10 years,
to maintain the financial incentives program for reduced driving, a
supplemental tax on the price of gasoline could be levied to continue
with the funding on the program.

By offering financial incentives to households who record low annual
motor vehicle miles traveled in a year, this transportation alternative
would encourage people to make more informed choices about where to live
relative to where they need to travel.  When they do need to travel, the
financial incentives would encourage them to choose more environmentally
friendly means of travel (bicycling, walking, taking a bus, carpooling),
over driving environmentally harmful and greenhouse gas emitting
automobiles.  Table 4 lists other ways to reduce vehicular travel on
public highways. Table 5 provides the corresponding modal energy
efficiencies relative to automobile transportation.

Increases in Air Travel

At an international aviation conference held recently in Chicago, United
Airlines chief James Goodwin was reported (Associated Press, 1999) as
saying the projected increases in air traffic in the U.S. are
“frightening”, and that “the skies are crowded and getting more so every
day”.  According to the report, Goodwin warned, “the global skies are
teeming with so many planes that the entire airline industry is near
crisis”.

The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ data shows U.S.
enplanements on scheduled domestic flights increased from 297 million
emplanements, in 1980, to 634 million in 1999 (a 114 percent increase).
The U.S. Census Bureau reports the U.S. population increased 21 percent
from 1980-1999, from 226 million to 274 million; therefore, the effective
airline emplanement increase, exclusive of population increases from 1980
to 1999, was 93%. This means the average U.S. citizen today flies twice
as many times a year as the average U.S. citizen did in 1980.

The U.S. commercial airline industry burned 10.7 billion gallons of fuel
in domestic and international operations in 1979 (@ $.58/gal).  By 1999,
the industry burned 19.6 billion gallons (@$.53/gal), an increase of 83
percent over the amount of fuel burned in 1979.  The effective increase
in gallons of fuel burned in airlines from 1979 to 1999 was 62 percent.

In servicing the increasing number Americans who chose to travel by
airplane in 1999, American airplanes discharged 215.6 million tons of
carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere.

Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing AMT

The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
annual airplane miles traveled (AMT) is as follows:

Airplane Mileage Threshold/Year/Person = y

	  Where y = 100 (1…6) miles flown in an airplane

A schedule for providing financial incentives for encouraging U.S.
citizens to fly less is provided in Table 6.

The reward threshold is not increased for families having more than 5
persons.

No exclusions would be allowed for business trip mileage.  This would
provide added incentives for business to minimize employee air travel
requirements.

How the program would work:

Any person over 18 years of age who chooses to enroll in the AMT
reduction rewards program would need to file a one-time application with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with a nominal
administrative fee.  That person would then be registered for the program
for life, and therefore eligible for annual rewards each year that he or
she commercially flies less than the amount of threshold miles specified
in Table 6.

The FAA would require that each commercial airline document the annual
mileage flown by all registered AMT participants using its service.  Each
airline service would be required to prepare and forward individual
mileage summaries for each registered AMT participant to the FAA by the
end of the calendar year.  The FAA would summarize the total annual miles
flown for each AMT participant and issue the incentive payments based on
the amounts specified in Table 6.

Funding for AVT Reduction Incentives

Some of the money to fund the financial incentives would be available
from the money saved by not having to build additional airport runways,
taxiways, terminals, and to employ additional airport personal to service
the otherwise projected increases in the number of flights.
Environmental savings would result from reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
reduced air pollution, reduced noise, less air traffic congestion, and
less wildlife habitat and farmland loses from airport expansion projects.

The remainder of the funds would be provided from federal taxes levied on
the price of aviation fuel, as a fixed percentage of each gallon of
aviation fuel combusted, in commercial and non commercial aircraft
(excluding only military aircraft).  If one dollar in tax were charged
for each gallon of aviation fuel used by airlines in the U.S., this would
generate $20 billion to help fund the program.

Congress recently authorized nearly $10 billion for airport
infrastructure development over the next 3 years (GAO, 2000).  This
amount, coupled with the $20 billion in fuel tax revenues over the next 3
years would be enough money to provide financial incentives of an average
of $1,000 per year for 23,000,000 adults in the U.S., or more than 11% of
the country’s total adult population.

Currently, aviation fuel is purchased and combusted by the airline
industry to power its planes, tax-free.

Financial Incentives for Encouraging Household Energy Conservation

Just as positive incentives can be used to encourage reduced fossil fuel
burning dependent automobile and airplane travel, so too can positive
financial incentives encourage reduced energy use in homes. Utilities
could offer financial incentives to encourage people to use less energy
in heating, cooling and lighting their homes, and for minimizing uses of
other forms of electricity in their daily lives.  This would reduce
cumulative power demands, reducing the need to build more power plants,
transmission lines, fuel lines and other expenditures and environmental
costs associated with increased capacity demands.

Depending on the amount of the reductions, significant cutbacks in global
greenhouse gas emissions might be possible from power plants that burn
fossil fuel for electricity, or from other utilities that distribute fuel
and natural gas for direct burning in household furnaces.

Wisconsin’s per capita (per individual) resource energy consumption in
homes in 1998 was 404 therms (Table 7).  A 4-person household in
Wisconsin uses, on average, 1,600 therms of energy in the home for
heating and electrical conveniences (4 X 400 therms).

Financial incentives for encouraging energy conservation in homes would
work similar to the systems used for encouraging people to reduce their
driving and flying.  That is, households using low per family size annual
energy amounts could be eligible to receive monetary returns at the end
of the year for conserving energy (Table 8).

Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
Energy Use

The methodology used for computing the incentives for low energy use is
as follows:

Total Household Energy Use Threshold/Year

= z + Rz

Where z =  100 (1…6) therms

R = Number of Additional Residents X .25

No additional credit is provided for more than 5 person residing in the
household, and the enrolled persons must occupy the home at least 90
percent of the total number of days in the proposed year of enrollment.

There are many things homeowners and renters could do to improve energy
efficiencies in their homes and reduce overall fuel and electricity
consumption.

Appendix B identifies some ways to reduce energy use in the home and
recreation activities that burn fossil fuels that should be avoided.

The state could also subsidize consumer’s purchase of energy efficient
compact flourescents.  At least one consumer still uses some of the less
energy efficient condescends simply because the initial purchase price of
compact flourescents is several times as costly as the less energy
efficient alternatives.

Funding for Low Home Energy Use Incentives

Assuming 25% of reductions in energy use could be achieved without cost
to the economy (DeCanio, 1997), the amount of money that would be needed
on an annual basis for this household energy conservation measure would
be the same as that required for the VMT reduction incentives ($810
million, annually).

The money to fund the financial incentives would be available from the
money saved by not having to build additional power plants, transmission
lines and power stations in the future, money that therefore becomes
available because of the reduced energy demands.

For example, Wisconsin Energy Corporation has proposed to spend $6
billion to build three new power plants in Wisconsin and upgrade other
WEC power generation facilities to accommodate projected public demands
for more power.  The plans call for a new power plants in Port Washington
(gas-fired); Oak Creek (coal-fired) and another coal-fired plant in an
undetermined location in Wisconsin.
As to the nation as a whole, USA TODAY (article by Fred Bayles, 9/11/00),
following their review of utility industry projections, suggests the cost
of building new power facilities to meet growing demands will approach
$80 billion during the next two decades.  That amount would fund an
annual average financial incentive of $155 per year for 25% per cent of
U.S. households, who might be expected to apply for the low energy use
financial incentives (by such measures listed in Appendix B.)

Additional non-monetary environmental savings would result from reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, less wildlife habitat
and farmland loss from building more power plants and transmission lines
in those areas, and reduced discharges of excess cooling water, since
less cooling water would be needed for reduced energy generation.

An additional method of funding financial incentives for environmental
conservation, which would itself help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
would be the adoption of a “transportation tax” on raw materials and
products requiring transportation over a certain distance.  This would
lead to reductions in the amount of energy used in transporting products.


The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) should be given the
authority to collect a "transportation tax" on all raw materials and
products sold in the United States, that are transported over 50 miles,
whether the transportation is via land, water or air.  The tax would be
applicable to all raw materials, intermediary and final goods
commercially transported over 50 miles, at a cost of 10 cents per item,
10 cents per pound weight, or 10 cents per cubic foot, whichever unit
amount is higher.  The total transportation tax for a shipment would thus
be the sum of the applicable per unit tax of the products that are
shipped, multiplied by the number of miles the products are shipped (from
origin to destination).

The USDOT would collect the money in this program and place it into a
"transportation tax fund" (TTF).  The money that accumulates into the TTF
would be used to provide financial incentives to the public to reduce
driving, flying and energy consumed in homes.

Other sources federal surpluses available should be used for this purpose
as well, since the beneficiary of conserving energy and reducing
greenhouse gas and other emissions will spread to all U. S. citizens, and
the U.S. economic system should provide higher rewards for
environmentally conscientious decisions than is now provided.

Conclusion

Major new highway, airport and power plant investments require billions
of public dollars to build, their construction causes major and
significant environmental disruption, and their end uses create
significant air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and other adverse
environmental consequences.  Government has the responsibility to protect
and uphold the general welfare of its citizenry.  Ensuring positive
financial incentives are provided to the public, to discourage overuse of
highways, air space and energy resources, and thereby to reduce the need
to build new highways, airports and power generating infrastructure, is
an appropriate and worthwhile function of government.

Continuing to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gasoline)
on Earth for energy is increasing average global temperatures due to the
greenhouse effect.  Studies show Earth’s air, land and water temperatures
are rising, at rates some scientists say are alarming, greatly exceeding
the more conservative predictions made only a few years ago.

Many scientists throughout the world are saying it is urgent that
worldwide actions be undertaken, immediately, to curb, and reduce (some
say by 80%!), the increasing quantities of greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, many scientists concede the potential for worldwide cataclysmic
calamity related to global warming is possible, not just in eons, but in
centuries and perhaps even decades!

To this call for urgency, the global warming “skeptics” continue to
demand proof.  Before the skeptics (who’s numbers are dwindling rapidly)
agree fossil fuel burning should be cut, they want to see proof global
warming is occurring, that fossil fuel burning is the main cause of it,
and that the costs of increasing global warming exceed the costs of
slowing it down.

Scientists claim the buffering characteristics of Earth’s natural
resources (cool oceans and permafrost store carbon), which have
historically kept Earth’s atmospheric gases in check, could ultimately
become unbalanced by global warming, increasing the potential for a
“runaway greenhouse effect” to occur on Earth.
If a runaway greenhouse effect got started on Earth, Earth’s surface
temperatures could increase dramatically.  Grinspoon (1997) speculates
this could have been what happened to Earth’s twin planet, Venus, which
now has an average surface temperature of 864 degrees, Fahrenheit (water
boils at 212 degrees F.; steak broils at 550 degrees F.).

Grinspoon claims the temperature on Venus is much higher than it should
be, relative to the planet’s mass and distance from the Sun, and that the
reason for the hotness is that Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse
effect early in its existence:

“That brings us to the question of water.  Evolutionary models suggest
that if Venus started out with an ocean of water, it could have been lost
early in the planet’s history by a “runaway greenhouse effect”.  Water
vapor is a powerful infrared absorber.  A little water in the air can
heat things up a lot.  But in the presence of liquid water, if the air
gets hotter, more water will evaporate.  This creates the possibility of
a powerful positive feedback loop: evaporating water increases the
greenhouse effect, making the atmosphere so hot that more water
evaporates, and so on.  Any physical system like that, dominated by
positive feedback, is inherently unstable.  Once it gets going, there is
no stopping it.  Venus may have had oceans that simply boiled away,
leaving large amounts of water vapor high in the atmosphere where solar
ultraviolet radiation split up the molecules, allowing the hydrogen to
escape into space” (pg. 149).

A Call for Action

When it comes to the long-term sustainability of our planet, it’s much
better to be conservatively safe, than deeply sorry.  Being “deeply
sorry”, when Earth’s populous might have done something to change a final
negative outcome is not only being insincere, but even worse: unconcerned
and callous.

Necessity now demands everyone accept responsibility for making energy
conserving sacrifices, right away.  Greenhouse gases accumulate in the
Earth’s atmosphere, over time.  Therefore, they remain in the Earth’s
atmosphere long after the time of their release, warming the planet for
those who had nothing to do with their release.

Due to recent (since mid 19th century) and an ever increasing reliance on
fossil fuel burning by humans, the Earth’s atmosphere has become more
saturated with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.   The
concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has gone from a
preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to a present day level
of 365 ppm+  (and increase of 30%+ over preindustrial levels). The
current concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already outside
the bounds of natural variability seen in the climate record of the last
160,000 years.  “If the world proceeds on a “business as usual” path,
atmospheric CO2 concentrations will likely become more than 700 PPM (an
increase of 150% over preindustrial levels) by 2100, and they will still
be rising.” (Executive Office of the President, 1997).

The balance between the Earth’s greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas
concentrations has clearly been thrown out of kilter in the last 150
years.  This imbalance is likely to grow significantly larger over time.
Even in the very unlikely event that increases in greenhouse gas
emissions from human activity cease, the concentration levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to increase, since there
remains no other place for them to go.

And, now, with the world’s population having doubled since 1960, and
expected to increase to 9 billion (by 2054 - Table 14), the potential for
reducing - let alone slowing - annual global greenhouse gas emissions,
and therefore global warming, has become exceedingly difficult.

Scientists the world over are now claiming, with increasingly serious
overtones, that major and significant worldwide action must be initiated,
now, to reduce the volumes of greenhouse gases being injected into the
Earth’s atmosphere. To do so will require a dramatic and abrupt change in
humankind reliance on fossil fuel burning.

To be unresponsive to the now almost unanimous scientific community call
for immediate (not 15 years from now), and drastic (not just slowing the
rate of increase) is not prudent.  For the world’s population to
dramatically increase fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas emissions,
with minimal attempts being made to conserve energy in travel,
recreational and home energy use, is tantamount to global genocide.

In conclusion, the time is now already overripe to drastically cut energy
use in homes, cars, planes, trains and trucks.  This paper offers an
approach to accomplishing that, devoid of instituting regulatory controls
over people’s everyday lives.

Governmental officials should, without delay, create programs that offer
financial incentives to the public to encourage environmental
conservation and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.  Nonessential and all
recreational uses of energy derived from the combustion of fossil fuels
should be greatly reduced, starting immediately, so that the Earth’s
environment continues to remain habitable, indefinitely, by all forms of
life.

Acknowledgments
I wish to credit my brother, Patrick J. Neuman, for his careful review of
this paper throughout its many iterations of development, and to thank
him for his personal support as well, without of which this paper would
not have been completed.

References

Ackerman, A.S.; Toon, O.B.; Stevens, A.J.; Heymsfield, V.; Ramanathan,
E.; Welton, J., May 12, 2000, “Reduction of Tropical Cloudiness by Soot”,
Science, Vol. 288.

Associated Press, December 7, 1999, “Airline Head Warns of Crowded
Skies”.

Bayles, Fred, September 11, 2000, “Can Expansion Cure Airport Gridlock?”,
in USA TODAY.

Bloomfield, Janine, 2000, “Wake Up to Global Warming Threat, U.S.
Warned”, Environmental News Service,
http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-12-08.html.

Boulding, Kenneth E., 1968, Beyond Economics: Essays on Society, Religion
and Ethics, The University of Michigan Press.

Boulding, Kenneth E., 1971, “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
Earth”, an essay in Problems of the Modern Economy: Pollution, Resources,
and the Environment, edited by Alain C. Enthoven and A. Myrick Freeman
III, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc..

Caldwell, Lyton, Keith, 1971, Environment: A Challenge to Modern Society,
Chapter 4, Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York.

DeCanio, Stephen J., 1997, “Prudent CO2 Emissions Cuts Make Economic
Sense”, Excerpted from the testimony of Stephen J. DeCanio before the
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the U.S. House Committee on
Science, October 9, 1997, in The World Environment & the Global Economy,
Gary E. McCuen Publications Inc., Hudson, Wisconsin.

Executive Office of the President, 1997, Climate Change: State of
Knowledge, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Foley, Jonathan, June 3, 2000, personal communication.
Gumbu, Phinjo, March 18, 2000, “Smog Kills 1,000 Annually in Toronto,
Study Shows, Toronto Star newspaper.

Government Accounting Office (GAO), August 2000, Aviation and the
Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental
Challenges.

Grinspoon, David Harry, 1997, Venus Revealed: A New Look Below the Clouds
of our Mysterious Twin Planet, Helix Books, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc..

Intergovernmental Panel of Climate on Climate Change, 1996c, Climate
Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,
contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. James P. Bruce, Hoesung
Lee, and Erik F. Haites, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iltis, Hugh, Wisconsin Public Radio Interview with Tom Clark, April 22,
2000.
King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1998, The Autobiography of Martin Luther King,
Jr., edited by Clayborne Carsen, Intellectual Properties Management,
Inc., in association with Warner Books.

McCullough, Jennifer, December, 1999, YES! A Journal of Positive Futures,
“Are You Kyoto Cool?.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000, finding of NOAA
scientists reported by H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press, in Wisconsin
State Journal,
March 24, 2000, pg. 6A.

Neuman, Michael T., June 6, 2000, E-mail Memo to globalwarming@....

Neuman, Patrick J., June 8, 2000, Calls for Global Warming Awareness,
Chanhassen Villager.

New Dream, June 2000, “Cold Wash and Line Dry”, Step by Step No. 9,
http://www.newdream.org.

Newman, Judy, May 18, 2000, “Alliant Reflects on a Positive Year with
Eyes to a Global Goal”, Wisconsin State Journal.

Population Reference Bureau, June 16, 2000, e-mail memo from Zuali
Malsawmal, to author.

Ruckelshaus, William, D., September 1989, “Toward a Sustainable World”,
in Scientific American, pages 166-174.

Schipper, Lee; Steiner, Ruth; Meyers, Stephen, 1993, “Transportation and
Global Climate Change”, American Council for An Energy-Efficient Economy,
Washington D.C..

Shindell, 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000, Section 11A
Wampler, Allen, J., 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000,
Section 11A.

U.S. Department of Energy, May 31, 2000, “Energy Efficiency Tips”,
Internet, www.doe.gov/tipsheet.htm.

U. S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
1999 and 1997 Washington D.C..

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Internet,
www.epa.gov/globalwarming.

Worrest, Robert C., 2000, U.S. Global Change Research Information Office,
E-mail to Michael Neuman, 27 March 2000.

Wills, Diane, 2000, E-mail to Michael Neuman, 6 June 2000.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1999, Wisconsin State Highway
Plan 2020.

Wisconsin Energy Bureau, 1999, Wisconsin Energy Statistics.

Wisconsin Energy Bureau, no date, bookmarks, “10 Energy Saving Tips”.

Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, 1999, “1999-2000 Blue Book”.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
Program, Oceanic Properties, http://www.arm.gov..

Appendix A: Tables

Table 1.  Wisconsin Population and VMT in 1998 in Comparison to
Population and VMT in 1970.

YearPopulation (Millions)VMT (Billions)VMT per PersonVMT per Family of
419704.421.874,97019,88019985.250.49,69238,976Difference.828.54,72219,096
Increase18%130%95%95%
Population Source: Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, State of
Wisconsin 1999-2000 Blue Book, 1999.

VMT = Vehicle Mileage Traveled.  Source: Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, personnel communication, 1999.

Table 2.  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions from Personal Automobiles in
1998 in Wisconsin Compared to CO2 Emissions from Personal Automobiles in
Wisconsin in 1970.

YearVMT (Billions) (Exc. Heavy Trucks)Average  Miles Per Gallon of
Gasoline1Gallons of Gasoline (Billions)CO2 Emissions (Millions of
Tons)2197021.8713.61.6117.7199850.421.52.3425.7Difference  28.8 7.9
.738.0Increase132%46%45%45%

Table 3.  Financial Incentives for Typical Wisconsin Households Based on
Recorded Vehicle Miles Traveled Over a 1-year Period

Financial Incentives (Annual Rewards)
				 $400 	 $1,200 	 $2,000
Household SizeTotal Annual MilesTotal Annual MilesTotal Annual Miles1
person6,0004,0002,0002 people, one drives7,5005,0002,5003 people, one
drives9,0006,0003,0002 people, both drive10,5008,7503,5003 people, 2
drive12,0008,0004,0004 people, 2 drive13,5009,0004,5005 people, 2
drive15,00010,0005,000
Payment awarded based on a maximum of 5 persons per household.
Person must be 18 years old to receive payment and identified “head of
household”.
No extra mileage credit allocated for vacations, out of state travel, or
business use of personal vehicles.
Ownership of a vehicle or possession of a driver’s license is not
required for receiving non-driver reward, but person must be a Wisconsin
resident.

Table 4.  Ways to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled1

	 At Home 	 At Work 	 By Others
Seek Out Rides with Others Going to Same LocationsUse Teleconferencing
Whenever PossibleOffer Rides to Others, or to Pick Up Goods at Stores for
Others in NeighborhoodWork at Home or at a Nearby “Satellite” Office
Whenever Possible (if Driving is Otherwise Required)Choose Meeting
Locations to Minimize Overall Travel by Meeting ParticipantsBuy Locally
Produced ProductsUse Non-Motorized Transportation or Walk Whenever
Possible, Otherwise Take TransitReserve the Smallest Number of  Transport
Vehicles Possible Choose Products Having Less PackagingMove Residency
Location if Work Location is Unlikely to Change Frequently and Driving or
Carpooling is Always RequiredAlways Select Conference Sites and Building
Locations (& Designs) Having Pedestrian, Transit Access and Bicycling
(Plus Parking & Shower) Facilities Avoid Buying Unneeded Products, and
Encourage Others to Avoid Buying Unneeded Products, Too.Minimize VMT by
Choosing Places to Shop, Recreate, and Work that are Closer to
HomeEncourage Employees to Work at Home, or to Use Satellite Offices,
Whenever PossibleProactively Encourage Coordinated Transportation to Any
Events You Participate In

Table 5. Relative Transportation Mode Fossil Fuel Efficiencies1

Auto                    1.00 (Ref.)Rail                     .48
Inter-city Bus                   2.20  Airline
.92Bicycling Walking                    0.00

Table 6. Payment Schedule for Low Airplane Miles Traveled Per Person

PaymentYearly Threshold (Miles Traveled)$2,800
0$2,400100$2,000200$1,600300$1,200400$800500$400600

Table 7.  Wisconsin Residential Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, 1998

PetroleumNatural GasCoalElectricity1Total End Use2Total Resource
Use3Trillions of Btu Used33.9117.7.459.4211.4343.1Percent of Total Energy
End Use16%56%<.128%100%162%Per Capita Use (In
Therms)64.8224.8.7113.5403.9655.5
Therm = 100,000 Btu
Source: Wisconsin Energy Bureau, Wisconsin Energy Statistics, p.14, 1999.
Wisconsin Population: 5,234,350 (Wis. Legislative Reference Bureau
(1999))

Table 8.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual Energy Use

PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly Energy Use Threshold
(therms)$2,80010$2,80020$2,80030$2,80040$2,80050$2,4001100$2,4002125$2,40
03150$2,4004175$2,4005200$2,0001200$2,0002250$2,0003300$2,0004350$2,00054
00$1,6001300$1,6002375$1,6003450$1,6004525$1,6005600$1,2001400$1,2002500$
1,2003600$1,2004700$1,2005800$8001500$8002625$8003750$8004875$80051,000$4
001600$4002750$4003900$40041,050$40051,200

Table 9.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual VMT - One Driver

  PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly VMT Threshold
(Miles)$2,8001 0$2,8002 0$2,80030$2,8004 0$2,80050$2,4001 Less than
1,000$2,4002 Less than  1,250$2,4003 Less than  1,500$2,4004 Less than
1,750$2,4005Less than   2,000$2,0001  Less than  2,000$2,0002  Less than
2,500$2,0003 Less than  3,000$2,0004Less than  3,500$2,0005Less than
4,000$1,6001 Less than  3,000$1,6002 Less than  3,700$1,6003 Less than
4,500$1,6004 Less than  5,250$1,6005Less than   6,000$1,2001 Less than
4,000$1,2002 Less than  5,000$1,2003 Less than  6,000$1,2004 Less than
7,000$1,2005Less than  8,000$8001 Less than   5,000$8002 Less than
6,200 $8003 Less than   7,250$8004 Less than   8,750$8005Less than
10,000$4001 Less than   6,000$400 $4002 3 Less than   7,500 Less than
9,000$4004 Less than  10,500$4005 Less than  12,000

Table 10.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual VMT - 2 Drivers

  PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly VMT Threshold
(Miles)   $2,8002 0$2,8003 0$2,8004 0$2,8005 0$2,4002 Less than
1,750$2,4003 Less than  2,000$2,4004 Less than  2,250$2,4005 Less than
2,500$2,0002  Less than  3,500$2,0003  Less than  4,000$2,0004 Less than
4,500$2,0005 Less than  5,000$1,6002 Less than  5,250$1,6003 Less than
6,000$1,6004 Less than  6,750$1,6005 Less than  7,500$1,2002 Less than
7,000$1,2003 Less than  8,000$1,2004 Less than  9,000$1,2005 Less than
10,000$8002 Less than   8,750$8003 Less than 10,000 $8004 Less than
11,250$8005 Less than 12,500$4002 Less than 10,500$4003 Less than
12,000$4004 Less than  13,500$4005 Less than 15,000

Table 11.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual VMT - 3 Drivers

PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly VMT Threshold
(Miles)$2,8003 0$2,8004 0$2,8005 0$2,4003 Less than   2,500$2,4004 Less
than   2,750$2,4005 Less than   3,000$2,0003Less than   5,000$2,0004 Less
than   5,500$2,0005 Less than   6,000$1,6003 Less than   7,500$1,6004
Less than   8,250$1,6005 Less than   9,000$1,2003 Less than 10,000
$1,2004 Less than  11,000$1,2005 Less than  12,000$8003 Less than  12,500
$8004 Less than  13,750$8005 Less than  15,000$4003 Less than
15,000$4004 Less than   16,000$4005 Less than   18,000

Table 12.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual VMT  - 4 Drivers

  PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly VMT Threshold
(Miles)$2,8004 0$2,8005 0$2,4004 Less than  3,250$2,4005 Less than
3,500$2,0004 Less than  6,500$2,0005 Less than  6,700$1,6004 Less than
9,750$1,6005 Less than 10,000$1,2004 Less than 13,000$1,2005 Less than
13,250$8004 Less than 16,250$8005 Less than 16,500$4004 Less than
19,500$4005 Less than  19,750

Table 13.  Payment Schedule for Low Household Annual VMT - 5 Drivers

  PaymentNumber of Persons in HouseholdYearly VMT Threshold
(Miles)$2,8005 0$2,4005 Less than  4,000$2,0005 Less than  8,000$1,6005
Less than 12,000$1,2005 Less than 16,000$8005 Less than 20,000$4005 Less
than  24,000

Table 14. World and United States Population for 19th, 20th and 21st
Century

    	 Year 		         World Population  U.S. Population
18041 Billion          -
19001,650,000,00076,094,00019272 Billion
-19502,521,000,000152,271,41719603 Billion          -19744 Billion
   - 19875 Billion          -19996 Billion
-20006,067,000,000274,114,00020137 Billion          -20288 Billion
   -20508,909,000,000403,687,00020549 Billion
-21009,459,000,000570,954,000

Appendix B: Transportation, Home and Recreation Energy Conservation
Measures

Energy Using Transportation Reduction Measures

1. Take vacations near home.

2.  When you must drive to get necessities, plan errands to minimize
driving.  Plan shopping so you can get all your groceries in one week.

3.  Buy a fuel-efficient car.  Better yet, buy a bike - and use it
regularly, or wake or take a bus when it is important that you travel
longer distances.

4.  Move closer in to where you normally must travel to, so you can
either bike safely or walk more places more often.

5.  Don't move far away from your family if you are close to them, so you
don't have to fly in during holidays to see them every year.  Or if you
are far away from them, consider moving back to where they are.

Buy liquids in condensed forms when possible.  It saves room in the
refrigerator, and
limits the amount of trips necessary to the grocery store.

7.  Avoid purchasing products such as bottled water, beer, pop, liquor
and other commodities in non-recyclable plastic containers.  Not only is
excess energy burned in transporting the water in those products to the
grocery store, but there is also energy burned in producing the plastic
containers for these products, and in transporting and disposing of the
containers.

Conserving Energy in the Home: Lighting and Windows

Install screw-in fluorescent bulbs (compact fluorescent), where
practical.
Replace two 60-watt incandescent bulbs with one 100-watt bulb (same
amount of light).
Clean light fixtures (dirt reduces light output).
Turn off lights in parts of the house not in use.
Limit number, number of days used, and duration of operation of
holiday/festival lights.
Long-life incandescence is less efficient than standard incandescence.
Use “task lights” to provide light where you need it; reduce background
light levels.
Chose light colored rooms and ceilings over dark colored ones; white
ceilings reflect light back into room.
Use natural daylighting; one 3’ by 5 ‘ window can let in more light than
100 standard 60-what bulbs.
Organize rooms for maximum use of daylighting to reduce need for
artificial lighting.
Ways to improve the energy saving potential of older windows include
caulking, weather-stripping, replacing sashes and re-glazing.
Increasing the number of “glazings” (layers of glass) increases the
energy saving potential.
Adding plastic film to the outside of windows, or insulated window
coverings to the inside of windows, increase the energy saving potential.
New windows should have at least an R-3 insulating value.
Awnings, overhangs and sunscreens reduce summer heat gain through windows
by up to 90 percent, while still letting in light.  Drapes left open
around windows where the sun shines into homes (south and west-facing
side of house) can make air conditioners work 2 to 3 times harder.
Shut air conditioning vents and close doors in areas not in use, or used
infrequently.
Change air conditioner and furnace filters when dirty.
Turn off lights when not needed for considerable length of time (longer
period okay for florescent lights, but turn off overnight).

Conserving Energy in the Home: Remodeling and Building Decisions

Make sure there is sufficient levels of insulation:  at least R-44 in
roof or attic; R-23 in outside facing walls; R-19 in box sill; and R-10
around foundation.
Install a continuous air infiltration barrier.
Design rooms to take advantage of daylighting.
Install energy efficient fluorescent light fixtures, where possible.
Build vestibules for outside doors.
Install high efficiency condensing furnace with outside combustion air
and exhaust.
Select an insulated outside door of R-5 or greater.
Choose low-E glass for the windows.
When landscaping, consider planting trees to shade house in summer, and
to serve as
windbreaks (especially north side of house) in winter. [Trees also
sequester carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse gas”, from of the Earth’s
atmosphere.]
10. Choose an appropriately sized home for the number of persons who will
live in the
home 12 months out of the year.  Avoid building and buying a home much
larger than needed for the residents to live comfortably.
Avoid building and buying a home on a much larger sized lot than is
needed by the persons who plan to live in the home.  More energy will be
required to maintain the property (cut lawn, bushes, etc.); and the
placement of numerous homes on large lots ultimately contributes to
unnecessary and energy inefficient “sprawling out” of neighborhoods,
cities and villages.

Conserving Energy in the Home: Appliances and Heating/Air Conditioning

When (or before) hot water heater needs replacing, install a natural gas
water heater with an energy factor of greater than 0.58.
When (or before) furnace needs replacing, install high efficiency
condensing furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.
When (or before) appliances need replacing, purchase (or ask landlord to
purchase) high efficiency appliances.
When (or before) air conditioner needs replacing, install a high
efficiency air conditioner (if air conditioning considered necessary).
When washing clothes, wash dark and colored clothes in cold water (to
avoid using energy for heating the water).
When drying clothes, line dry them to avoid using the energy in drying
them in the dryer.
When conditioning the air, use portable, ceiling and/or whole house attic
fans for cooling over air conditioning, whenever possible.  Less
electricity is used in operating fans.
Insulate water heater, insulate pipes, install low-flow shower head, set
water heater temperature at 120 degrees F.
In summer, do not run the air conditioner when no one is at home, and
when someone is home, run the air conditioner only when necessary and
turn it off completely on cooler nights.
In winter: keep the thermostat below 60 degrees F. when you are no one is
home, and turn it down for nighttime hours.  Make sure all the windows
and doors are sealed, and cover the air conditioner with plastic or
remove it from the window completely.  Wear sweaters to allow for lower
comfortable temperature settings during the daytime hours.

Participate Only in Low-Energy Consuming Recreational Activities

1. Choose recreational activities that do not rely heavily on burning of
fossil fuels or electricity consumption. If one want to be truly energy
wise and slow global warming for everyone, the following heavily energy
depended recreational activities should be avoided completely:
snowmobiling (for recreation purposes); all terrain vehicle riding; motor
boating; jet skiing; motorcycle riding; recreational flying; going on
heavily energy using carnival rides.

2. Avoid participation in activities or sports that require lots of
travel.  If travel is required, it is usually more efficient to travel by
bus or train, then to fly or take personal transportation.  If personal
transportation is required, coordinate rides to insure the minimum number
of vehicles are taken to any recreational event.

Do not cater to events or festivities that burn large amount of energy
for primarily
enjoyment viewing.  Examples of these activities include auto racing,
motorcycle racing, boat racing, airplane shows, tractor pulls and
fireworks displays.

>
Appendix B: Transportation, Home and Recreation Energy Conservation
Measures

Energy Using Transportation Reduction Measures

1. Take vacations near home.

2.  When you must drive to get necessities, plan errands to minimize
driving.  Plan shopping so you can get all your groceries in one week.

3.  Buy a fuel-efficient car.  Better yet, buy a bike - and use it
regularly, or wake or take a bus when it is important that you travel
longer distances.

4.  Move closer in to where you normally must travel to, so you can
either bike safely or walk more places more often.

5.  Don't move far away from your family if you are close to them, so you
don't have to fly in during holidays to see them every year.  Or if you
are far away from them, consider moving back to where they are.

Buy liquids in condensed forms when possible.  It saves room in the
refrigerator, and
limits the amount of trips necessary to the grocery store.

7.  Avoid purchasing products such as bottled water, beer, pop, liquor
and other commodities in non-recyclable plastic containers.  Not only is
excess energy burned in transporting the water in those products to the
grocery store, but there is also energy burned in producing the plastic
containers for these products, and in transporting and disposing of the
containers.

Conserving Energy in the Home: Lighting and Windows

Install screw-in fluorescent bulbs (compact fluorescent), where
practical.
Replace two 60-watt incandescent bulbs with one 100-watt bulb (same
amount of light).
Clean light fixtures (dirt reduces light output).
Turn off lights in parts of the house not in use.
Limit number, number of days used, and duration of operation of
holiday/festival lights.
Long-life incandescence is less efficient than standard incandescence.
Use “task lights” to provide light where you need it; reduce background
light levels.
Chose light colored rooms and ceilings over dark colored ones; white
ceilings reflect light back into room.
Use natural daylighting; one 3’ by 5 ‘ window can let in more light than
100 standard 60-what bulbs.
Organize rooms for maximum use of daylighting to reduce need for
artificial lighting.
Ways to improve the energy saving potential of older windows include
caulking, weather-stripping, replacing sashes and re-glazing.
Increasing the number of “glazings” (layers of glass) increases the
energy saving potential.
Adding plastic film to the outside of windows, or insulated window
coverings to the inside of windows, increase the energy saving potential.
New windows should have at least an R-3 insulating value.
Awnings, overhangs and sunscreens reduce summer heat gain through windows
by up to 90 percent, while still letting in light.  Drapes left open
around windows where the sun shines into homes (south and west-facing
side of house) can make air conditioners work 2 to 3 times harder.
Shut air conditioning vents and close doors in areas not in use, or used
infrequently.
Change air conditioner and furnace filters when dirty.
Turn off lights when not needed for considerable length of time (longer
period okay for florescent lights, but turn off overnight).

Conserving Energy in the Home: Remodeling and Building Decisions

Make sure there is sufficient levels of insulation:  at least R-44 in
roof or attic; R-23 in outside facing walls; R-19 in box sill; and R-10
around foundation.
Install a continuous air infiltration barrier.
Design rooms to take advantage of daylighting.
Install energy efficient fluorescent light fixtures, where possible.
Build vestibules for outside doors.
Install high efficiency condensing furnace with outside combustion air
and exhaust.
Select an insulated outside door of R-5 or greater.
Choose low-E glass for the windows.
When landscaping, consider planting trees to shade house in summer, and
to serve as
windbreaks (especially north side of house) in winter. [Trees also
sequester carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse gas”, from of the Earth’s
atmosphere.]
10. Choose an appropriately sized home for the number of persons who will
live in the
home 12 months out of the year.  Avoid building and buying a home much
larger than needed for the residents to live comfortably.
Avoid building and buying a home on a much larger sized lot than is
needed by the persons who plan to live in the home.  More energy will be
required to maintain the property (cut lawn, bushes, etc.); and the
placement of numerous homes on large lots ultimately contributes to
unnecessary and energy inefficient “sprawling out” of neighborhoods,
cities and villages.

Conserving Energy in the Home: Appliances and Heating/Air Conditioning

When (or before) hot water heater needs replacing, install a natural gas
water heater with an energy factor of greater than 0.58.
When (or before) furnace needs replacing, install high efficiency
condensing furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.
When (or before) appliances need replacing, purchase (or ask landlord to
purchase) high efficiency appliances.
When (or before) air conditioner needs replacing, install a high
efficiency air conditioner (if air conditioning considered necessary).
When washing clothes, wash dark and colored clothes in cold water (to
avoid using energy for heating the water).
When drying clothes, line dry them to avoid using the energy in drying
them in the dryer.
When conditioning the air, use portable, ceiling and/or whole house attic
fans for cooling over air conditioning, whenever possible.  Less
electricity is used in operating fans.
Insulate water heater,insulate pipes,install low-flow shower head,set
water heater temperature at 120 degrees F.
In summer, do not run the air conditioner when no one is at home, and
when someone is home, run the air conditioner only when necessary and
turn it off completely on cooler nights.
In winter: keep the thermostat below 60 degrees F. when you are no one is
home, and turn it down for nighttime hours.  Make sure all the windows
and doors are sealed, and cover the air conditioner with plastic or
remove it from the window completely.  Wear sweaters to allow for lower
comfortable temperature settings during the daytime hours.

Participate Only in Low-Energy Consuming Recreational Activities

1. Choose recreational activities that do not rely heavily on burning of
fossil fuels or electricity consumption. If one want to be truly energy
wise and slow global warming for everyone, the following heavily energy
depended recreational activities should be avoided completely:
snowmobiling (for recreation purposes); all terrain vehicle riding; motor
boating; jet skiing; motorcycle riding; recreational flying; going on
heavily energy using carnival rides.

2. Avoid participation in activities or sports that require lots of
travel.  If travel is required, it is usually more efficient to travel by
bus or train, then to fly or take personal transportation.  If personal
transportation is required, coordinate rides to insure the minimum number
of vehicles are taken to any recreational event.

Do not cater to events or festivities that burn large amount of energy
for primarily
enjoyment viewing.  Examples of these activities include auto racing,
motorcycle racing, boat racing, airplane shows, tractor pulls and
fireworks displays.

end

fwd by:
Pat Neuman
npat1@...
Twin Cities


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Calculations:

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 295 PPM in 1900.  It is
now about 275 PPM.

CO2 has an average lifetime of 100 - 120 years in the atmosphere.

1 PPM of CO2 in atmosphere  = 2.13 Gt (billions of tons) of carbon.

375 PPM - 295 PPM = 80 PPM.  80 X 2.13 billion tons = 170.4 billion tons.


Conclusion:  There are 170.4 billion more tons of CO2 in the atmosphere
now than in 1900.

MTN


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Temperatures -30°F & below at Leech Lake Dam Minnesota

Odds of having no -30°F & below minimum daily temperatures at Leech Lake
Dam Minnesota for 1998-2002 was less than 5 percent.

But that's what happened.  Other stations in the Upper Midwest also had
few or no very cold minimums (-30 °F & below for 1998 to 2002).
----------------------------------------------

Table 1: Temperatures -30°F & below at Leech Lake Dam Minnesota

Frequency (Freq) = Number of days that daily minimum was -30°F
or below (period of record = 1893 to 2002).

5 yr sets : Freq
1893-1897 : 50
1898-1902 : 34
1903-1907 : 40
1908-1912 : 24
1913-1917 : 31
1918-1922 : 19
1923-1927 : 15
1928-1932 : 19
1933-1937 : 47
1938-1942 : 11
1943-1947 : 6
1948-1952 : 21
1953-1957 : 8
1958-1962 : 7
1963-1967 : 22
1968-1972 : 18
1973-1977 : 14
1978-1982 : 22
1983-1987 : 12
1988-1992 : 17
1993-1997 : 32
1998-2002 : 0
2003 Jn-Jl: 0

Average number of  -30 °F & below for five year period based on
period of record = 22.

Odds less than 5 percent (1/21) for -30 °F & below for 1998 to 2002.

Data obtained from Midwest Regional Climate Center.
--------------------------------------
Pat Neuman
npat1@...

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

There were 11.7 percent fewer heating degree days in 2001 than the
normal and 6.3 percent fewer than in 2000.  Sixteen of the last
eighteen winters have been warmer than the 1961 to 1990 30-year
weather normals.  Since 1992, the ten year average has been 7,283
heating degree days, 6.7 percent fewer than the 30-year average.

Using cooling degree days as an index, the summer of 2001 was hot,
with 39 percent more cooling degree days than the 1961 to 1990 30-
year normal.  Seventeen of the last nineteen summer have been warmer
than normal.  Only the summers of 1992 and 1997 were cooler than
normal.  Since 1992, the ten-year average has been 560 cooling degree
days, 24 percent above the 30-year normal.

Source contains two graphs: (1) Heating Degree Days 1970 - 2000; (2)
Cooling Degree Days 1980 - 2000.

Source:  Wisconsin Divisions of Administration, Division of
Energy, "Wisconsin Energy Statistics - Highlights 2002", pg. 25.
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/pagesubtext_detail.asp?
linksubcatid=601&linkcatid=109&lin

THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE: JULY 2003 -- A LETTER FROM U.S. SCIENTISTS
  July 29, 2003
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators First and Daschle:
... letter below ...

Signatures of approval:  725 scientists (high level degrees, Ph.D. or
M.S.) from 45 states & D.C.
Scientists with signatures of approval on the letter were from 45 states
(all but MS WY ID ND SD).

Pat Neuman

http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/13606

------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change Letter Delivered to Senate
------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, 31 July 2003
by Michael Neuman

Summary: Over 700 U.S. climate scientists from all regions of the U.S.
stated in a letter delivered to the U.S. Senate Tuesday that greenhouse
gas emissions will have to be reduced even faster now that two years of
no-action on reducing them have elapsed since publication of the most
recent reports by the IPCC and NRC.

The scientists claim that "the longer emissions increase, the faster they
will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous
interference with the climate system".

The letter was delivered in time for the Senate to debate amendments to
"The Energy Policy Act of 2003" (S-14), expected to address the issue of
climate change/global warming. A copy of the letter follows.

THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE: JULY 2003 -- A LETTER FROM U.S. SCIENTISTS

July 29, 2003
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators First and Daschle:

Two years have elapsed since the publication of the most recent reports
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National
Research Council (NRC) on the state of the science of climate change and
its impacts on the United States and the rest of the world. As scientists
engaged in research on these subjects, we are writing to confirm that the
main findings of these documents continue to represent the consensus
opinion of the scientific community. Indeed, these findings have been
reinforced rather than weakened by research reported since the documents
were released.

In brief, the findings are that:

1) Anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of greenhouse gases,
is already underway and likely responsible for most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years—the largest warming that has
occurred in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 1000 years;

2) Over the course of this century the Earth is expected to warm an
additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on
the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding
any in the last 10,000 years;

3) Temperature increases in most areas of the United States are expected
to be considerably higher than these global means because of our nation's
northerly location and large average distance from the oceans;

4) Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming
could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the U.S.,
including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation
events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;

5) Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected
temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this
century; and,

6) Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the
longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to be
decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate
system.
Evidence that climate change is already underway includes the
instrumental record, which shows a surface temperature rise of
approximately 1°F over the 20th century, the accelerated sea level rise
during that century relative to the last few thousand years, global
retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow cover extent, earlier
thawing of lake and river ice, the increase in upper air water vapor over
most regions in the past several decades, and the 0.09°F warming of the
world's deep oceans since the 1950's.

Evidence that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere during the second
half of the last century was unprecedented in the last 1000 years comes
from three major reconstructions of past surface temperatures, which used
indicators such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments for
years prior to 1860, and instrumental records for the interval between
1865 and the present.

On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC report stated
that, "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the
last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue." Indeed, computer simulations do not
reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include only natural
climate forcings such as emissions from volcanoes and solar activity. The
warmth is only captured when the simulations include forcings from
human-emitted greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere.

In summary, the main conclusions of the IPCC and NRC reports remain
robust consensus positions supported by the vast majority of researchers
in the fields of climate change and its impacts. The body of research
carried out since the reports were issued tends to strengthen their
conclusions.

Sincerely,

[names of 725 scientists, from 45 states] {corrected from 43}
Madison IMC: http://madison.indymedia.org/



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

It is CRITICAL that people understand that:

Dangerous atmospheric humidity needs immediate attention.

The increase in humidity can NOT be explained by increases in water
use for irrigation ... the greatest increase in dew points
occurred during the month of February.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Important of increasing humidity:

- severe increases in ill effects to health (including death)
- unquestionably strong trends with minimal or no UHI *
- acceleration effects in thaw of snow & ice (regional & global)

* Urban Heat Island can affect air temperatures, NOT dew points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is CRITICAL that people understand that heavy worldwide aviation is
greatly increasing the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The heavy accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases
global warming, which increases evaporation & transpiration, which
increases the volume of water vapor (also a greenhouse gas).

Abstract for paper for NOAA's 28th Climate Diagnostics & Prediction
Workshop Oct.20-24 2003

Title:  Humidity effects on snowmelt in the Midwest & Great Plains
Author: Patrick J. Neuman
Submitted 7/9/2003

The rate of snowmelt increases as humidity increases (when
temperatures are above freezing). Higher humidity contributes to
increased snowmelt rates due to latent heat effects from condensation.

Monthly and annual dew point data based on hourly measurements at
first order climate stations in the Midwest and Great Plains were
evaluated for a 55 year period of record (1948 through 2002). The
average dewpoints from 1998 through 2002 at 40 of the 43 stations were
found to be the highest of record (for five year averages). The
average dew point from 1998 through 2002 at Minneapolis, Minnesota was
found to be the highest in 85 years of record. The 43 station average
dew point from 1998 through 2002 was 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit higher
than the 43 station average of record used for comparison in this
study (50 year average from 1948 through 1997).

The need to account for increases in melt rates due to higher humidity
levels in the prediction of runoff from snowmelt is explored in the
paper.

Table 1: Highest five year average dewpoints & historical averages

Highest-5yr: 2nd highest: historical: station (record begins)
41.5 98-02 : 41.1 97-01 : 39.1 Chicago O'H IL (1959)
42.5 98-02 : 42.3 97-01 : 39.5 Moline IL (1948)
43.7 98-02 : 43.1 97-01 : 40.9 Peoria IL (1948)
41.0 98-02 : 40.6 97-01 : 38.6 Rockford IL (1951)
44.5 90-94 : 44.4 98-02 : 42.6 Springfield IL (1948)
47.4 98-02 : 47.1 90-94 : 45.5 Evansville IN (1948)
42.8 98-02 : 42.5 97-01 : 40.6 Fort Wayne IN (1948)
44.7 98-02 : 44.1 90-94 : 42.7 Indianapolis IN (1948)
41.9 98-02 : 41.6 71-75 : 40.4 South Bend IN (1948)
41.5 98-02 : 41.4 97-01 : 39.0 Des Moines IA (1945)
40.1 98-02 : 39.8 97-01 : 37.3 Dubuque IA (1951)
38.9 98-02 : 38.6 97-01 : 36.4 Mason City IA (1948)
40.1 98-02 : 40.0 97-01 : 37.6 Sioux City IA (1948)
44.9 98-02 : 44.7 90-94 : 42.9 Covington KY (1948)
46.4 90-94 : 46.2 98-02 : 43.9 Lexington KY (1948)
47.6 98-02 : 47.0 97-01 : 45.3 Louisville KY (1948)
37.0 98-02 : 36.5 97-01 : 34.5 Alpena MI (1959)
40.5 98-02 : 40.5 97-01 : 38.9 Detroit MI (1948)
41.0 98-02 : 40.5 97-01 : 38.2 Flint MI (1948)
41.1 98-02 : 40.5 97-01 : 38.5 Muskegon MI (1948)
38.5 98-02 : 38.4 97-01 : 36.2 Traverse City MI (1948)
33.1 98-02 : 32.8 97-01 : 29.4 Duluth MN (1948)
31.6 98-02 : 31.4 97-01 : 27.8 International F MN (1948)
37.3 98-02 : 37.0 97-01 : 34.2 Minneapolis MN (1945)
35.4 98-02 : 35.0 97-01 : 32.7 St Cloud MN (1948)
45.7 98-02 : 45.3 97-01 : 43.2 Columbia MO (1945)
45.7 98-02 : 45.4 97-01 : 42.7 Kansas City MO (1948)
46.7 98-02 : 46.7 97-01 : 44.7 Springfield MO (1948)
46.7 98-02 : 46.5 71-75 : 44.3 St Louis MO (1945)
42.6 97-01 : 42.4 98-02 : 39.6 Omaha NE (1948)
34.2 98-02 : 33.9 97-01 : 31.6 Fargo ND (1948)
41.8 98-02 : 41.1 45-49 : 39.7 Pittsburgh PA (1945)
43.1 98-02 : 42.6 97-01 : 40.5 Cleveland OH (1948)
43.1 53-57 : 43.0 98-02 : 41.8 Columbus OH (1948)
43.0 98-02 : 42.6 97-01 : 41.5 Dayton OH (1948)
41.8 98-02 : 41.4 53-57 : 39.9 Toledo OH (1946)
37.7 98-02 : 37.5 97-01 : 34.8 Sioux Falls SD (1948)
45.9 98-02 : 45.7 90-94 : 43.9 Charleston WV (1949)
36.7 98-02 : 36.4 97-01 : 34.0 Eau Claire WI (1949)
38.3 98-02 : 37.9 97-01 : 35.4 Green Bay WI (1949)
38.9 98-02 : 38.7 97-01 : 36.5 La Crosse WI (1948)
39.2 98-02 : 39.0 97-01 : 36.7 Madison WI (1948)
40.1 98-02 : 39.2 97-01 : 37.6 Milwaukee WI (1948)

All stations averages (F)
Highest 5yr: - - - - - - - - : historical
41.3 98-02 : - - - - - - - - : 38.9
Difference: 41.3 - 38.9 = 2.4 F

End of table & abstract by Pat Neuman

The tentative agenda for the 28th Climate Diagnostics and Prediction
Workshop is at:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDW28.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/28thcdpw.agenda.pdf

The paper by Pat Neuman called "Humidity effects on snowmelt in the
Midwest & Great Plains will be presented as a poster paper at:
Wednesday October 22, 2003 1:00-2:30 POSTER SESSION 3.

Additional information regarding the workshop:

NOAA's 28th Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop will be held
20-24 October at John Ascuaga's Nugget in Reno, Nevada. The workshop
is cohosted by the Climate Prediction Center of the National Centers
for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/NOAA, Washington DC, and the
Desert Research Institute (DRI), Reno, Nevada. The American
Meteorological Society is a cooperating sponsor. This year's workshop
will provide an opportunity for participants to
exchange information,  ideas, and opinions on the following topics:
1.) Review and assessment of recent climate anomalies, their
impacts and the skill of their predictions
2.) Drought
3.) weather, water and climate in the western United States
Physical analysis and interpretation are particularly encouraged,
regardless of whether the approach of the study is
observational, modeling, or theoretical.  ...

Pat Neuman
Minnesota

Methodology for the studies is shown in the special report by
Neuman(16 Apr 2003)*. The studies were done with temperature averages
(monthly, annual and five year) for stations in rural, forested and
small town areas in the U.S., with 75-105 years of record.  Rural site
locations are shown by the distance in miles to the nearest post
office. High quality data is maintained by public observers for the
National Weather Service (NWS), with assistance from NWS staff.
Dewpoint studies used data from airport stations with 50 - 85 years of
record. Data was obtained from the Midwest Regional Climate Center.

* Special Report - Air Temperatures & Dew Points - Great Lakes States
at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/194

The study reports and station data summaries are at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive
..(includes great photo of Lake Superior)..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo
..(includes photo of ravine with fog)..

... also, see these public archive sites...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Birds-and-Landscapes
..(includes photo of ravine landscape)..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Great_Lakes
..(includes photo overlook of Lake Superior North Shore)

Pat Neuman, hydrologist
Minnesota

Presently, there are 170 billion* more tons of CO2 present in the
atmosphere
today that was not there in 1900.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
was
628 billion tons in 1900; the amount now stands at 800 billion tons, 27
percent higher than it was in 1900 -- not a trace amount by anyone's
definition. present in the atmosphere.  That's an increase of 27% in just
100 years,  be 798 billion tons amounts to a 27 percent jump in the
weight
of the greenhouse gas in 628 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in
1900.

* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/231

Mike Neuman
mtneuman@...

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

"The Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by
gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect
and nearly put an end to life on Earth."

Source:  Copyright 2003 Sydney Morning Herald
Date:  June 20, 2003

Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6
degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent
of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian
period, 250 million years ago.

United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change predict up to 6 degrees of warming for the next 100
years if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases,
principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming.

The Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by
gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a runaway greenhouse
effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth.

Conditions in what geologists have termed this "post apocalyptic
greenhouse" were so severe that only one large land animal was
left alive and it took 100 million years for species diversity to
return to former levels.

This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol
University's head of earth sciences, Michael Benton, which
chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and
its potential implications.

Professor Benton said: "The Permian crisis nearly marked the end
of life. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10 species
survived.

"Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this
global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species
died out so quickly."

Other climate experts say they are appalled that a disaster of
such magnitude could be repeated within this century because of
human activities.

Global warming author Mark Lynas, who recently travelled around
the world witnessing the impact of climate change, said the
findings must be a wake up call for politicians and citizens
alike.He said: "This is a global emergency.

"We are heading for disaster and yet the world is on fossil fuel
lot." There needs to be an immediate phase-out of coal, oil and
gas and a phase in of clean energy sources. People can no longer
ignore this looming catastrophe."

(degrees in C)

http://www.climateark.org/
http://forests.org

Major extinctions:  Permian (250 mya) and PETM (55 mya)
> carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming<

Pat Neuman
Twin Cities


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Tuesday, 09 September 2003 by Michael T. Neuman, Madison, WI at:
http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/13986

Summary: The science is clear: global warming is underway, it poses a
grave threat to the environment, public health, the U.S. economy and the
world. As the threat of accelerating global warming continues to grow
more probable, Congress, the mass media and President Bush have still not
seen fit to place the issue of global warming where it belongs: on the
front burner.

The death toll from record setting temperatures and high humidity over
much of Europe this year surpassed 15,000, which is more than 5 times the
number of people who died as a result of the terrorist bombing of the
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The potential for even greater
losses of life in the future as a result of rising global temperatures
continues to grow, as rising greenhouse gases from the U.S. and the rest
of the world continue to accumulate in the atmosphere to higher and
higher levels.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media overwhelmingly continues to treat climate
change and its causes as a "science" story, detached from any political
or social context -- not worthy enough for front page or prime time
coverage.
http://www.terradaily.com/2003/030827165837.vbless3o.html

Scientists say the number of heat waves can be expected to increase
dramatically in the coming years of this century, they are expected to be
longer lasting and the heat intensity (highest temperature and humidity)
is likely to be more deadly.
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/

They are likely to be right. There is nothing normal about the fact that
the 10 warmest years of last two millenniums have occurred in just the
last 13 years.
http://underreported.com/modules.phpop=modload&name=News&file=article&sid
=1123

There is nothing normal about there having been 87 consecutive months (in
a row) where the global average temperature have been warmer than the
1971-2000 average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/jul/global.html#Temp

Finally, there is nothing normal about the humidity levels of the five
year period (from 1998 through 2002) in the Great Lakes region being the
highest on record at all weather station locations recording daily dew
point temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/jul/global.html#Temp
http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/13165/index.php

Scientists attribute the higher temperatures to humans burning massive
amounts of oil, coal and natural gas (fossil fuels) for energy over the
past 100 - 150 years, which has caused the accumulation of billions of
tons of additional greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, other
gases), well exceeding the "natural" levels necessary for keeping the
earth's surface warm and hospitable to life.
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

As a result, the vast majority of the world's climate scientists now
predict the world's average temperatures will continue to rise, faster as
the century progresses, until the average global temperatures reaches a
reading in the range of 2.5 to 10.5 (Fahrenheit - F) above the present
average global temperatures by the end of the century.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

Temperatures in the Midwest are predicted to rise even faster, reaching
temperatures 7.2 to 12.6 F in higher in winter and 3.6 to 14.4 F higher
in summer by the end of century.
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/

These temperatures are also by no means normal -- neither is the rapid
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (an increase of 33% in
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere) that has occurred over the past
150 years due to increased fossil fuel burning by humans for energy
purposes. In fact, it took nature hundreds of millions of years to
produce the oil, coal and natural gas we burn to run our cars, fly our
airplanes and power our electric generating plants; yet our governmental
officials continue to avoid taking any actions of consequence that might
conceivably reduce the chance of more deadly heat waves occurring in the
future, such as the deadly heat wave of 2003, and the similar heat wave
that struck Illinois and Wisconsin in July 1995, taking 830 lives.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/heatwave.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042616.htm
http://wwwdas.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap03/chicago.html

President Theodore Roosevelt once said: "It is incumbent on us here today
to so act throughout our lives as to leave our children a heritage for
which we will receive their blessings
and not their curses." A safe and stable climate is an essential
component of that heritage.

As President Bush is launching his initiative to continue to study the
causes and effects of climate change -- rather than (and more
importantly) taking concrete actions to bring about reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions from the United States -- the prospects for
leaving today's children a safe and stable climate grow increasingly
dimmer.

Already now, the world is beginning to have to face serious economic and
social effects that result from an increasingly erratic and changing
climate. Agriculture and forestry are currently suffering huge losses
from drought and fire.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994072
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hazards/index.html

Without major reductions in the quantities of fossil fuel burned today,
there is likely to be increasingly more widespread devastation from
global warming. Adding to the mounting amounts of greenhouse gases being
absorbed by the atmosphere is predicted to bring on global warming's
devastation all the sooner.
http://www.ucsusa.org

Yet there are still many things citizens, organizations, companies and
governments can do to slow the advance of increasingly more serious
global warming. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would save most people
money anyway, in addition to preserving the U.S. economy and keeping the
air cleaner from needless burning of oil and coal.

Citizens might also consider purchasing fewer consumer goods and
purchasing primarily locally produced products to reduce energy required
for transport of goods. Reducing the amount of motorized travel a person
does and using vehicles for travel that emit the least amount of
greenhouse gases per mile traveled is probably the area where people can
reduce their load on the environment the most. Using less energy in the
home is way an individual or family can reduce their annual load of
greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

Organizations and companies can be advocates for energy conservation in
everything they do; companies can: operate using the most efficient
technologies and practices possible, and government can adopt regulations
that prohibiting frivolous burning of fossil fuels (car racing, jet
skiing, recreational flying), and establish programs that provide
standards for doing business and that provide positive incentives for
individuals, organizations and companies to minimizing their reliance on
energy derived from the burning of fossil fuel.
http://www.enn.com/indepth/warming/overview.asp
http://www.earthisland.org/news/new_news.cfm?newsID=65
http://www.solcomhouse.com/Airtraffic.htm
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/planet.htm
http://www.solcomhouse.com/Pollution.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mtneuman/tribute_flag.html
http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf

On the federal level, the current Bush administration appears to be doing
all it can to stall any concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gases
emitted by the United States, despite the fact that the U.S. continues to
emits more tons of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than any other
country.

Upon first taking office in January 2001, President Bush abrogated the
previous administration's agreement with the rest of the developed world
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by saying he wouldn't support the
Kyoto Protocol agreement. The agreement would have established annual
limits on the total amount of greenhouse gases the United States and
other developed countries would be legally allowed to emit.

More recently, the Bush administration has reversed a decision made by
the Clinton administration to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide from
motorized sources, primarily motorized transportation.

Passenger cars, pickup trucks and SUVs account for 20 percent of U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions; jet airplanes account for another 10 percent to
the U.S.'s total emissions from transportation. Motorized transportation
is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S.
economy, followed by industrial contributors, residential consumers and
commercial users of electricity and petroleum.
http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/11971/index.php
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPubli
cationsGHGEmissions.html

After almost three years of taking no action to control the emissions of
carbon dioxide from motorized sources and power plants, the Bush
administration is now claiming its doesn't have the authority to regulate
these sources under the broad authorities of the Clean Air Act.

As a result, the U.S. government is continuing with its "business as
usual", policies that increase greenhouse gas emissions, thus placing
every country, community, family and person in the world today at an
increasing level of risk from more killer waves and other catastrophic
"unintended" consequences resulting from too much burning of fossil fuels
for energy use in business, recreation, transportation and residential
energy use.

It is a fact that experts in global warming science the world over are
now waving red flags and sounding alarm bells, in an almost unanimous
attempt to raise the public consciousness, media cooperation and
political will, particularly in the United States, so that major action
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. begins to be taken
before the problem of global warming gets too far out of control. The
greenhouse gases that are emitted to the atmosphere today remain in the
atmosphere for decades and centuries; they don't cease to be a problem
once their emissions rates are lowered.
http://www.sierraclubri.org/globalwarm/
http://www.webofcreation.org/ncc/Regional/Wisconsin/WhoWeAre.html

In conclusion, the science is clear: global warming is underway, it poses
a grave threat to the environment, public health and the economy;
meanwhile, some of those threats are already being realized throughout
the world.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including many of
the world's leading scientists, issued the most comprehensive report ever
on the issue of global warming in January 2001, just as President Bush
was taking office. Its finding are grim -- that the recent warming, most
of which has occurred within the last 25 years, is largely due to human
activity, and things will heat up much more rapidly as the new century
unfolds.

The IPCC forecasts are made assuming the absence of timely greenhouse gas
emission reductions. Without such reductions, predictions are becoming
more and more dire: devastating physical, biological, economic and human
impacts will occur throughout the planet, as soon as 2030, according to
Robert Hunter, Co founder of Greenpeace.
http://www.bookhills.com/thermageddon_countdown_to_2030_1559706678.shtml

The time for action is now, and the responsibility falls upon every
person, community, state and country who cares about the future longevity
of the planet and its capabilities to sustain life. You can start by
telling your Senators to support Senators McCain and Lieberman and pass
the historic "Climate Stewardship Act" to address the problems of climate
change and air pollution and promote clean energy. We must begin to do
everything within our power to help solve this potential grave problem
for the entire human race. Scientists have already sounded the alarm
bells about global warming; we have a responsibility to not just listen,
but to make sure others are listening, and ultimately to reduce our
collective amount of fossil fuel burning to the minimal amount possible,
immediately.

The alternative outcome will be what President Theodore Roosevelt
instructed us all to avoid: of having the children of the next generation
curse us, rather than bless us, because of the abhorrent shape we leave
the earth in for them.

OTHER REFERENCES:

http://www.beyondearthday.com
http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html
http://www.solcomhouse.com/climatechange.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatetrends.jsp
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/index.html
http://www.solcomhouse.com/fossilfuels.htm
http://www.solcomhouse.com/atmosphere.htm
http://www.solcomhouse.com/solar.html
Madison IMC: http://madison.indymedia.org/
by Michael T. Neuman
Email: mtneuman@...

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

This report by Mike Neuman focuses on the latest global products from
NOAA NCDC on: August, 2003, June-August 2003... surface and Stratosphere
temperatures.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/aug/serial_monthly_pg.
gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/aug/global.html#Temp
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/aug/st_gl_2003aug_pg.g
if

This report at:
http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/14095

------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Worsening as Greenhouse Gases Climb
------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, 17 September 2003
by Michael T. Neuman

Summary: As Earth's atmosphere continues to become more concentrated with
carbon dioxide gas and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) from
humans burning fossil fuels for energy -- in automobiles, trucks,
airplanes, locomotives, ships, boats, race cars, ATVs, residential and
industrial furnaces, electricity-generating fossil fuel fired power
plants, military transport vehicles and other fuel burning sources --
temperature readings of the oceans, land surface and lower troposphere
continue to climb, without interruption.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s National
Climate Data Center(NCDC) reported Monday that August 2003 temperatures
across the Northern Hemisphere were the highest in recorded history.

Temperatures in June, July and August (the boreal summer) were the second
warmest across the Northern Hemisphere, while average temperatures across
the Southern Hemisphere for the same period were the third warmest since
NOAA began keeping temperature record in 1880.

August's average land and ocean temperature for both the North and South
Hemisphere's (the entire planet) was the second warmest on record for
August. Only the unusually warm year 1998 had August temperatures above
this year's globally averaged temperatures.

The warm global temperatures in August this year means that there have
now been 88 consecutive months -- beginning with April 1997 -- when the
monthly global average temperature has been "above normal" (i.e., above
the average temperature for the month that occurred during the period
1971 to the present).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/aug/serial_monthly_pg.
gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/aug/global.html#Temp

Meanwhile, temperatures in the lower stratosphere obtained via NOAA's
TIROS-N polar-orbiting satellites show falling stratospheric
temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/aug/st_gl_2003aug_pg.g
if

The fact that the temperature levels in the lower stratosphere are
falling is consistent with the fact that greenhouse gas levels in the
lower troposphere have been rising, because as more heat is trapped below
the stratosphere, less becomes available to warm the stratosphere.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/atmosphere.htm

According to a recent study published in the "Journal of Geophysical
Research Letters" (August 31, 2003), the Northern Hemisphere is warmer
now than it's been in at least the last 2,000 years. The study examined
the trunks of ancient trees, ice cores, vegetation patterns and
historical records before concluding that the late 20th century warmth is
"unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the
Northern Hemisphere".

Furthermore, the study reports that the earth as a whole has warmed
faster in the last 20 years than its temperature fluctuates over the
period of one hundred years.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html

Recently, it has been reported that the hole in the stratosphere's ozone
layer has grown larger this year than ever before.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/05/tech/main571856.shtml

Global warming from excessive fossil fuel burning by humans could be the
cause for the ozone hole's enlargement this year, say some scientists.

A team of German, Swiss and British scientists had predicted in the March
26 1999 issue of the journal "Science" that the cooler air in the
stratosphere would lead to further depletion of ozone, because trace
gases which normally protect the ozone in the stratosphere get reduced
when stratospheric temperatures decline.

Finally, there continue to people who, for whatever reason, question the
facts regarding the Earth's temperatures actually increasing, many of
whom also question any role increased accumulations of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere might be playing in causing global average temperatures
to increase.

The amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere over the past
150 years of fuel burning by humans, in inventions such as the
automobile, coal and natural gas fired electricity generating plants,
industrial furnaces, incandescent and florescent lights, air
conditioning, airplanes, trucks, locomotives, ships, and other machines
that rely on internal combustion for energy, is by no means a small
amount, as many global warming skeptics commonly claim.

In fact, the last 150 years of humans increasingly burning fossil fuels
over much of the surface of the planet have led to unprecedented
concentration levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (40%
increases over background levels). According to laboratory analysis of
ice cores take from deep within Greenland's glaciers, today's
concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than they've
been in at least the last 400,000 years, perhaps even millions of years
before then, as well.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#iceage
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

In terms of the total weight, the weight of the CO2 added to the
atmosphere in the last 100 years as a result of humans burning vast
quantities of gasoline, coal and natural gas is estimated to have
amounted to 170 billion tons of CO2 than had been present in the
atmosphere in 1900! Since carbon dioxide has an average life in the
atmosphere of 120 years, even if emissions of CO2 gas to the atmosphere
from humans burning fossil fuels ceased today, the warming would
continue.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/245

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.geocities.com/mtneuman/tribute_flag.html
Madison IMC: http://madison.indymedia.org/

This report at:
http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/14095



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

THE LETTER TO THE U.S. SENATE DATED 29 JULY 2003

THE STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE: JULY 2003
Signatories from 704 scientists M.S. degree or higher.
http://www.climatesolutions.org/pages/MTClimate.html

GREAT PLAINS:  53 Scientists
MIDWEST: 170 Scientists

A. GREAT PLAINS - Number of Scientists
CO 23
KS 2
MT 1
NE 1
NM 9
ND 0
OK 2
SD 0
TX 15
WY 0

List of Names & Affiliation (identification purposes only)
--------
Colorado
--------
1
Robert S. Anderson, M.A.
Associate Professor
University of Colorado, Boulder
Department of Geological Sciences
Boulder, CO
2
John T. Andrews, Sc. D.
Professor
University ofr Colorado, Boulder
Geological Sciences
Boulder, CO
3
Jill S. Baron, Ph. D.
Ecologist
U.S. Geological Survey
Fort Collins, CO
4
Albert A. Bartlett, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Colorado, Boulder
Department of Physics
Boulder, CO
5
Susan L. Bassow, Ph. D.
Independent Consultant
BiologicalImpacts of Climate Change
Littleton, CO
6
John C. Behrendt, Ph. D.
Senior Research Scientist
University of Colorado, Boulder
INSTAAR
Boulder, CO
7
Parker E. Calkin, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
University of Colorado, Boulder
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
Boulder, CO
8
Frank Evans, Ph. D.
Senior Research Associate
University of Colorado, Boulder
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Boulder, CO
9
Raymond L. George, M.S.
Staff Scientist - Atmospheric
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO
10
Detlev Heine, Ph. D.
Associate Research Professor
University of Colorado, Boulder
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Institute of Alpine and Arctic Research
Boulder, CO
11
Larry Kinney, Ph. D.
Senior Researcher
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project
Boulder, CO
12
Barry Lefer, Ph. D.
Project Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Chemistry Division
Boulder, CO
13
Scott Lehman, Ph. D.
Research Professor
University of Colorado, Boulder
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
Boulder, CO
14
James Maslanik, Ph. D.
Research Associate Professor
University of Colorado, Boulder
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Boulder, CO
15
Wouter Peters, Ph.D.
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
Carbon Monitoring and Diagnostics Lab
Boulder, CO
16
Nan Rosenbloom, Ph.D.
Assistant Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics
Boulder,CO
17
Robert L. Sanford, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Denver
Department of Biological Sciences
Denver,CO
18
Lesley K. Smith, Ph.D.
Research Associate
University of Colorado, Boulder
Cooperative Institute for Research
in Environmental Science
Boulder, CO
19
Pieter Tans, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist
Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Lab
Boulder, CO
20
Henry Throop, Ph.D.
Southwest Research Institute
Department of Space Science
Boulder, CO
21
Kevin Trenberth, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Climate Analysis
Boulder, CO
22
Jerry Unruh, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate (retired)
Celanese, Ltd.
Manitou Springs, CO
23
Ruth M. Van Dyke, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Colorado College
Department of Anthropology
Colorado Springs, CO

------
Kansas
------
1
Robert W. Buddenmeier, Ph. D.
Senior Scientist
Kansas Geological Survey
Lawrence, KS
2
Val H. Smith, Ph D.
Professor
University of Kansas
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Lawrence, KS

-------
Montana
-------
Larry N. Smith, Ph. D.
Associate Research Geologist
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Butte, MT

--------
Nebraska
--------
1
John A. Pollack, M.S.
Lead forecaster
Omaha National Weather Service Forecast Office
Omaha, NE

----------
New Mexico
----------
1
Willard H. Beattie, Ph. D.
Staff Scientist Emeritus
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM
2
Donald F. Caccamise, Ph. D.
Professor and Head
New Mexico State University
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences
Las Cruces, NM
3
James R. Connolly, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
University of New Mexico
Earth and Planetary Sciences
Albuquerque, NM
4
Vincent P. Gutschick, Ph. D.
Professor
New Mexico State University
Department of Biology
Las Cruces, NM
5
Grant A. Meyer, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University of New Mexico
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Albuquerque, NM
6
Christy Ruggiero, Ph.D.
Technical Staff Member
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Chemsitry Division (C-SIC)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM
7
Bob Vocke, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Risk Reduction and Environmental Stewardship Division
Los Alamos, NM
8
Blair O. Wolf, Ph.D.
Assitant Professor
University of New Mexico
Department of Biology
Albuquerque, NM
9
Judith Wright, Ph.D.
President
UFA Ventures, Inc. PIMS NW,Inc.
Carlsbad, NM

Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only
End of list for Great Plains

--------
Oklahoma
--------
1
Robert P. Houser, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University of Oklahoma
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Norman, OK
2
David Karoly, Ph. D.
Williams Chair and Professor
University of Oklahoma
School of Meteorology
Norman, OK

-----
Texas
-----
1
Paul S. Braterman, D. Sc.
Professor
University of North Texas
Department of Chemistry
Denton, TX
2
Fran Gelwick, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University, College Station
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
College Station, TX
3
Laura Gough, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Texas, Arlington
Department of Biology
Arlington, TX
4
Gerald E. Hite, Ph. D.
Professor
Texas A&M University, Galveston
Department of Marine Science
Galvaston, TX
5
Andre W. Landry, Ph.D.
Professor
Texas A&M University, Galveston
Department of Marine Biology
Galveston, TX
6
Fred Loxsom, Ph. D.
Professor
Trinity University
Department of Physics
San Antonio, TX
7
Thomas J. Minello, Ph.D.
Research Fisheries Biologist
Galveston, TX
8
Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor and Head
Texas A&M University, College Station
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
College Station, TX
9
Jim R. Norwine, Ph. D.
Regents Professor
Texas A&M University,Kingsville
Department of Physics and Geosciences
Kingsville,TX
10
Ron Sass, Ph.D.
Harry C. and Olga Keith Wiese Professor
Rice University
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Houston, TX
11
Martha R. Scott, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University, College Station
Department of Oceanography
College Station, TX
12
Brian Shmaefsky,Ph.D.
Professor
Kingwood College
Department Of Biology
Kingwood,TX
13
Barry S. Spurlock,M.S.
University of Texas, Arlington
Physics Department
Bedford, TX
14
Niescja Turner, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Texas, El Paso
Department of Physics
El Paso, TX
15
Renyi Zhang, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University, College Station
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
College Station, TX

---------------------------------

B.  MIDWEST: 170 Scientists
IL 33
IN 11
IA 15
KY 2
MI 35
MN 31
MO 1
OH 27
WI 14
WV 1

List of Names & Affiliation (identification purposes only)
--------
Illinois
--------
1
David Archer, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Chicago
Department of Geophysical Sciences
Chicago, IL
2
Timothy M. Barzyk,M.S.
Doctoral Candidate
University of Chicago
Department of Geophysical Sciences
Chicago, IL
3
William R. Boggess, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Forestry
Urbana, IL
4
Eric K. Bollinger, Ph.D.
Professor
Eastern Illinois University
Department of Biological Sciences
Charleston, IL
5
Victoria A. Borowicz, Ph.D.
Adjunct (Research) Assistant Professor
Illinois State University
Department of Biological Sciences
Normal, IL
6
James Dalling, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Plant Biology
Urbana, IL
7
Orla Dermody, Ph.D.
Doctoral Candidate
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Urbana, IL
8
Salim M. Diab, Ph.D.
Professor
University of St. Francis
Department of Natural Resources
Joliet, IL
9
Christian Dieterich,Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Fellow
University of Chicago
Department of the Geophysical Sciences
Chicago, IL
10
Gidon Eshel, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Chicago
Department of Geophyical Sciences
Chicago, IL
11
Julia George, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology
Urbana, IL
12
Karen Glennemeier, Ph.D.
Conseration Biologist
Audubon-Chicago Region
Skokie, IL
13
Caroline Herzenberg, Ph.D.
Physicist
Argonne National Laboratory, retired
Argonne, IL
14
Alan Hutchcroft, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Rockford College
Department of Chemistry
Rockford, IL
15
Renu Joseph, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Fellow
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Urbana, IL
16
Steven A. Juliano, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Illinois State University
Department of Biological Sciences
Normal, IL
17
Richard B. King, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Northern Illinois University
Department of Biological Sciences
Dekalb, IL
18
Eve Kovacs, Ph.D.
Argonne National Laboratory
High Energy Physics
Argonne, IL
19
Fred A. Kummerow, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Urbana, IL
20
Robert J. Malhiot, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Illinois Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
Chicago, IL
21
Peter L. Meserve, Ph.D.
Presidential Research Professor of Biology
Northern Illinois University
Department of Biological Sciences
De Kalb, IL
22
Axel Meyer, Ph.D.
Physicist Emeritus
Northern Illinois University
Department of Physics
De Kalb, IL
23
Stephen J. Mullin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Eastern Illinois University
Department of Biological Sciences
Charleston, IL
24
Vaishali Naik,M.S.
Graduate Research Assistant
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Atmospheric Science
Urbana, IL
25
Joseph J. O'Gallagher, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
University of Chicago
The Enrico Fermi Institute
Chicago, IL
26
Walter A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Urbana, IL
27
John A. Taylor, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
University of Chicago
Environment Institute
Chicago, IL
28
Michelle Wander, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Natural Resources and Envirnomental Sciences
Urbana, IL
29
Roy Wehrle, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Illinois, Springfield
Department of Economics
Springfield,IL
30
Dan Wenny, Ph.D.
Associate Research Scientist
Illinois Natural History Survey
Lost Mound Field Station
Savanna, IL
31
Frank M. Wilhelm, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Southern Illinois University
Department of Zoology
Carbondale, IL
32
John Timothy Wootton, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Chicago
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Chicago, IL
33
Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
Head and Professor
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Urbana, IL


-------
Indiana
-------
1
Abhijit Basu, Ph.D.
Herman B Wells Professor
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Geological Scineces
Bloomington, IN
2.
James D. Bever, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Biology
Bloomington, IN
3
Michael W. Hamburger, Ph.D.
Professor
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Geological Sciences
Bloomington, IN
4
Bruce Kingsbury, Ph,D.
Associate Professor
Indiana-Purdue University
Department of Biology
Fort Wayne, IN
5
Don Lichter, Ph.D.
Professor
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Physics
Bloomington, IN
6
Samuel H. Neff, Ph.D.
Professor
Earlham College
Department of Physics
Richmond, IN
7
Peter Sauer, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Scientist
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Geological Sciences
Bloomington, IN
8
Arndt Schimmelmann, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Indiana University, Bloomington
Department of Geological Sciences
Bloomington, IN
9
James H. Speer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Indiana State University
Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology
Terre Haute, IN
10
Philip S. Stevens, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Indiana University, Bloomington
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Environmental Science Research Center
Bloomington, IN
11
Leonare P. Tedesco, Ph.D.
Director
Purdue University
Center for Earth and Environmental Science
Indianapolis, IN

----
Iowa
----
1
Art Bettis, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences
Iowa City, IA
2
David Courard-Hauri,Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Drake University
Environmental Science and Policy Program
Des Moines, IA
3
John Deisz,Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Northern Iowa
Department of Physics
Cedar Falls, IA
4
James W.Demastes,Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Northern Iowa
Department of Biology
Cedar Falls, IA
5
David J. Forkenbrock,Ph.D.
Director and Professor
University of Iowa
Public Policy Center
Iowa City, IA
6
Thomas C. Gibbons, Ph.D.
Instructor
Clinton Community College
Math-Science Department
Clinton, IA
7
Brian F. Glenister, Ph.D.
A.K.Miller Professor, Emeritus
University of Iowa
Department of Geosciences
Iowa City, IA
8
Philip H. Heckel, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Iowa
Department of Geosciences
Iowa City, IA
9
Keri Cook Hornbuckle, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Iowa
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Iowa City, IA
10
Stephan Main, Ph.D.
Professor
Wartburg College
Department of Biology
Waverly, IA
11
Dave May, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Northern Iowa
Department of Geography
Cedar Falls, IA
12
Kirk A. Moloney Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Iowa State University
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology
Ames, IA
13
James W. Raich, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Iowa State University
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology
Ames, IA
14
Mark Reagan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University Of Iowa
Department of Geosciences
Iowa City, IA
15
Eugene S. Takle,Ph.D.
Professor
Iowa State University
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences
Ames, IA

--------
Kentucky
--------

1
Charles W. Fox, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Director
University of Kentucky
Department of Entomology
Center for Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior
Lexington, KY
2
Jay Gulledge, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Louisville
Department of Biology
Louisville, KY
--------
Michigan
--------
1
Vincent J. Abreau, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
University of Michigan
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,
and Space Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
2
J. David Allan, Ph. D.
Professor
University or Michigan
School of Natural Resources and Environment
Ann Arbor, MI
3
Norman Andersen, Ph. D.
University of Michigan
Center for Great Lakes and Acquatic Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
4
Catherine Badgley, Ph. D.
Associate Research Scientist
University of Michigan
Museum of Paleontology
Ann Arbor, MI
5
John R. Barker, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,
and Space Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
6
Steven Bertman, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Western Michigan University
Department of Chemistry
Kalamazoo, MI
7
Dagmar Cronn, Ph. D.
Professor
Oakland University
Department of Chemistry
Rochester, MI
8
Kevin Eckerle, Ph. D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Hope College
Department of Biology
Holland, MI
9
Gerald T. Gardner, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Department of Behavioral Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
10
Robert H. Gray, Ph. D.
Professor and Senior Associate Dean
University of Michigan
School of Public Health
Ann Harbor, MI
11
Johnson R. Haas, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Western Michigan University
Departments of Chemistry and
Environmental Studies
Kalamazoo, MI
12
Clinton N. Jenkins, Ph. D.
Post-Doctoral Associate
Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
East Lansing, MI
13
Lawrence W. Jones, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Department of Physics
Ann Arbor, MI
14
Michael I. Jones, Ph. D.
Professor
Michigan State University
Department of Physics
East Lansing, MI
15
Rachael Kaplan, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources
Ann Arbor, MI
16
Gregory A. Keoleian, Ph. D.
Co-Director, Associate Research Scientist
University of Michigan
Center for Sustainable Systems
School of Natural Resources and Environment
Ann Arbor, MI
17
George Kling, Ph. D.
University of Michigan
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Ann Arbor, MI
18
Carl M. Koretsky, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Western Michigan University
Department of Geosciences
Kalamazoo, MI
19
Xiaohong Liu, Ph. D.
University of Michigan
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic
and Space Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
20
Brent Lofgren, Ph. D.
Physical Scientist
Ann Arbor, MI
21
K. Greg Murray, Ph. D.
Professor
Hope College
Department of Biology
Holland, MI
22
Franco Nori, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University or Michigan
Physics Department
Ann Arbor, MI
23
Melvin L. Northrup, Ph. D.
Professor
Grand Valley State University
Department of Biology
Allendale, MI
24
Anton A. Reznicek, Ph. D.
Curator of Vascular Plants
University of Michigan
University Herbarium
Ann Arbor, MI
25
G. Philip Robertson, Ph. D.
Professor
Michigan State University
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
W.K. Kellogg Biological Station
East Lansing, MI
26
Karel L. Rogers, Ph. D.
Professor
Grand Valley State University
Department of Biology
Allendale, MI
27
Marc Ross, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Department of Physics
Ann Arbor, MI
28
Peter Schroeder, Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor
Michigan State University
Department of Physics
East Lansing, MI
29
Jason E. Smerdon, M.S.
Doctoral Candidate
University of Michigan
Department of Applied Physics
Department of Geological Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
30
Gerald R. Smith, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Geological Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
31
R. Jan Stevenson, Ph. D.
Professor
Michigan State University
Department of Zoology
East Lansing, MI
32
Ben A. van der Pluijm, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
Program in the Environment
Ann Arbor, MI
33
Mark Waldrop, Ph. D.
Post-Doctoral Researcher
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources and Environment
Ann Arbor, MI
34
P. Douglas Williams, Ph. D.
Analytical Chemistry
Kalamazoo, MI
35
Donald R. Zak, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources and Environment
Ann Arbor, MI

---------
Minnesota
---------
1
William Arnlod, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Department of Civil Engineering
Minneapolis, MN
2
John Brazner, Ph. D.
Research Fishery Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, MN
3
Paul D. Capel, Ph.D.
Adjunct Associate Professor
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Civil Engineering Department
Minneapolis, MN
4
Nancy Costa, M.S.
Water Projects Coordinator
Fond du Lac Reservation
Environmental Program
Cloquet, MN
5
Jim Cotner, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Department of Biology
St. Paul, MN
6
Jason M. Dahl, M.S.
Assistant Professor
Bemidji State University
Department of Geology
Bemidji, MN
7
Margaret B. Davis Ph. D.
Regents Professor Emeritus
University or Minnesota, St. Paul
Department of Ecology
St. Paul, MN
8
Sheryl Filby, M.S.
Hydrogeologist
Private Environmental Consulting
Minneapolis, MN
9
Lee E. Frelich, Ph. D.
Director
University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Center for Hardwood Ecology
St. Paul, MN
10
Neal A. Hines, M.S.
Doctoral Candidate
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Environmental Analytical Chemistry
Minneapolis, MN
11
George E. Host, Ph. D.
Senior Research Associate
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Forest Ecology and Biostatistics
Natural Resources Research Institute
Duluth, MN
12
Lucinda B. Johnson, Ph. D.
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Natural Resources Research Institute
Duluth, MN
13
Jennifer King, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Department of Soil, Water and Climate
St. Paul, MN
14
Steven M. Miller, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Mayo Clinic
Physiology and Biophysics
Rochester, MN
15
Barbara Scott Murdock, M.H.A.
Biomonitoring Project Manager
Public Health Laboratories
Minnesota Department of Health
Minneapolis, MN
16
Edward A. Nater, Ph. D.
Professor and Head
University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate
St. Paul, MN
17
Patrick J. Neuman, M.S.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Water Resources Management Program
Place of employment now in Chanhassen, MN
Name of employer not shown (personal)
Chanhassen, MN
18
Raymond M. Newman, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Conservation Biology
St. Paul, MN
19
John Olson, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Metropolitan State University
Physics, Science Education
St. Paul, MN
20
John Pastor, Ph. D.
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Department of Biology
Duluth, MN
21
Eli Sagor, M.A.
Regional Extension Educator
University of Minnesota, Cloquet
Cloquet Forestry Center
Forestland Ecology and Management
Cloquet, MN
22
Stephen G. Saupe, Ph. D.
Professor and Herbarium Curator
St. John's University
Biology Department
Collegeville, MN
23
Patrick K. Schoff, Ph. D.
Research Associate
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Natural Resources Research Institute
Duluth, MN
24
Jesse Schomberg, M.S.
Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Minnesota Sea Grant College Program
Duluth, MN
25
Kathleen L. Shea, Ph. D.
Professor
St. Olaf College
Department of Biology
Northfield, MN
26
Matt F. Simcik, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Division of Environmental and
Occupational Health
School of Public Health
Minneapolis, MN
27
Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Division of Environmental and
Occupational Health
Minneapolis, MN
28
Don A. Tarr, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
St. Olaf College
Department of Chemistry
Northfield, MN
29
Sandra J. Turner, Ph. D.
Professor
St. Cloud State University
Department of Biological Sciences
St. Cloud, MN
30
Gerald L. Van Amburg, Ph. D.
Professor and Chairperson
Concordia College
Department of Biology
Moorhead, MN
31
Joy Wiecks, M.S.
Air Quality Technician
Cloquet, MN


--------
Missouri
--------
1
Jane Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region
Coordinator
American Bird Conservancy
Brenwood, MO

----
Ohio
----
1
Richard J. Abitz, Ph. D.
Director
Fluor Fernaold, Inc
Cincinnati, OH
2
Neela Malati Akhouri, Ph. D.
Information Manager
University of Toledo
Lake Erie Center
Oregon, OH
3
Alexander Braun, Ph. D.
Geophysicist
Ohio State University
Byrd Polar Research Center
Columbus, OH
4
Randall Breitwisch, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Dayton
Department of Biology
Dayton, OH
5
Peter S. Curtis, Ph. D.
Professor
Ohio State University
Department of Evolution, Ecology,
and Organismal Biology
Columbus, OH
6
Robert T. Deck, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Toledo
Department of Physics
Toledo, OH
7
Steven Federman, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Toledo
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Toledo, OH
8
Rosanne W. Fortner, Ph. D.
Professor
Ohio State University
School of Natural Resources
Columbus, OH
9
Donald Geiger, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Dayton
Department of Biology
Dayton, OH
10
Robert T. Heath, Ph. D.
Professor
Kent State University
Department of Biological Sciences
Kent, OH
11
Leanne M. Jablonski, Ph. D.
Director
University of Dayton
Marianist Environmental Education Center
Dayton, OH
12
David T. Lee, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Wittenberg University
Springfield, OH
13
Victor J. Mayer, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
Ohio State University
Geological Sciences and Natural Resources
Columbus, OH
14
William Mitchell Masters, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Ohio State University
Department of Evolution, Ecology,
and Organismal Biology
Columbus, OH
15
Randall J. Mitchell, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University of Akron
Department of Biology
Akron, OH
16
Nancy D. Morrison, Ph. D.
Director
University of Toledo
Ritter Observatory
Toledo, OH
17
Ellen Mosley Thompson, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
Ohio State University
Byrd Polar Research Center
Columbus, OH
18
Laramie V. Potts, Ph. D.
Post Doctoral Researcher
Ohio State University
Department of Geological Sciences
Columbus, OH
19
Michaele Rallis, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
Ohio State University
Department of Astronomy
Columbus, OH
20
Jeffrey M. Reutter, Ph. D.
Director
Ohio Sea Grant College Program
Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem
Research Consortium
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
21
R. Peter Richards, Ph. D.
Senior Research Scientist
Heidelberg College
Water Quality Laboratory
Tiffin, OH
22
Scott O. Rogers, Ph. D.
Professor and Chair
Bowling Green State University
Department of Biological Sciences
Bowling Green, OH
23
Lauren Schroeder, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
Youngstown State University
Department of Biological Sciences
Youngstown, OH
24
Kristen Sellgren, Ph. D.
Professor
Ohio State University
Department of Astronomy
Columbus, OH
25
C.K. Shum, Ph.D.
Professor
Ohio State University
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Geodetic Science
Columbus, OH
26
Lawrence Spencer, Ph. D.
Vegetation Ecologist
Ohio State University
Center for Mapping
Ohio Gap Analysis Project
Columbus, OH
27
Carol A. Stepien, Ph. D.
Director and Research Professor
Cleveland State University
Center for Environmental Science,
Technology and Policy
Great Lakes Environmental Genetics Lab
Cleveland, OH

---------
Wisconsin
---------
1
Charles R. Bentley, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Department of Geology and Geophysics
Madison, WI
2
Marcia Bjornerud, Ph. D.
Professor and Chair
Lawrence University
Department of Geology
Appleton, WI
3
Christine Delire, Ph. D.
Associate Researcher
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Center for Sustainability and the
Global Environment
Madison, WI
4
Kevin Fermanich, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
Department of Natural and Applied Sciences
Green Bay, WI
5
James R. Hodgson, Ph. D.
Professor
St. Norbert College
Division of Natural Sciences
Depere, WI
6
David D. Houghton, Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Department of Atmospheric
and Oceanic Sciences
Madison, WI
7
John Cook Jenkins, M.S.
Program Manager
Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation
Madison, WI
8
Michael T. Neuman, M.S.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wisconsin Department or Natural Resources
Madison, WI

9
James A. Phillips, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
Department of Chemistry
Eau Claire, WI

10
Robert W. Pillsbury, Ph. D.
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
Department or Biology and Microbiology
Oshkosh, WI

11
Tom P. Rooney, Ph. D.
Assistant Scientist
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Department of Botany
Madison, WI

12
Eric M. Sanden, Ph. D.
Professor
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
Department of Plant and Earth Sciences
River Falls, WI

13
Misa T. Saros, M.S.
Physics Instructor
Viterbo University
Department of Chemistry and Physics
La Crosse, WI

14
Jeffrey A. Schuldt, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin, Superior
Department of Biology and Earth Sciences
Superior, WI

West Virginia
1
James Kotcon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
West Virginia University
Division of Plants and Soil Sciences
Morgantown, WV


End of list for Midwest

---------------------------

NORTHEAST
*********
EAST
****
SOUTH
*****************
WEST
****

Table 4:  Fields of work or study by scientists
that gave their signatories to the Letter

Minnesota Scientists

Civil Engineering (2)
Biology (8)
Water Projects
Geology
Ecology (4)
Hydrogeologist
Chemistry (2)
Natural Resources (2)
Soil, Water and Climate (2)
Physiology and Biophysics
Public Health (3)
Water Resources Management
Physics
Sea Grant
Air Quality

End of Table 3 (preliminary) ... at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive

Pat Neuman
Minnesota

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

I am a hydrologist living in Chanhassen, Minnesota.  I am one of the
concerned scientists that gave signature approval for:

A Letter From U.S. Scientists
The State of Climate Science: October 2003

I received notice earlier this month that over 1000 scientists gave their
signatures in support of the Letter on climate change.

I am asking scientists that signed the Letter and other people to take a
look at my final draft paper that I will be presenting at the National
Weather Service (NWS) - Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Workshop in Reno,
Nevada:  20-23 Oct 2003.

If you choose to take a look at my final draft, I would appreciate seeing
any comments you may have.   I would appreciate your support.  At this
date, I am still uncertain on whether or not my employer (NWS North
Central River Forecast Center) is supportive of my effort on this paper.
  The narrative portion of my paper is on the Minnesotan's For
Sustainability (MFS) website.

The MFS website is:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/table_of_contents.htm

The narrative of my paper on the MFS website is called:  "Snowmelt &
Dewpoints in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota".  The URL for my
paper is:

//www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm

If you would like to view the figures and tables that go with the paper
please send me an e-mail message to [ npat1@... ].

The figures and tables are in Excel format.  I can forward the Excel
spread sheets or I could fax or mail the printouts from the figures (4)
and tables (2).

I believe that Figure 1 on earlier snowmelt runoff for three major
headwater rivers is very telling on climate change.

I would appreciate any comment that people may have on my paper and work.


A copy of the narrative is included below, copied from my paper on the
MFS website.

Sincerely,

Affiliation is for identification purposes only

Patrick J. Neuman  (Pat)
Senior Hydrologist
National Weather Service
North Central River Forecast Center (NCRFC)
Affiliation is for identification purposes only

NCRFC is collocated in Chanhassen, MN (along with the NWS Weather
Forecast Office for east central Minnesota and northwest Wisconsin, and
the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center).

The narrative paper that follows is from the website at:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/table_of_contents.htm

Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff and Increasing Dewpoints for Rivers
in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota

Patrick J. Neuman, Snow Hydrologist, NWS, NCRFC

September 11, 2003

Outline
I.     Abstract
II.    Snowmelt physics
III.  Hydrologic area and data sources
IV.   Timing of annual snowmelt runoff
V.     Average monthly dewpoint
VI.   Conclusions on the timing of snowmelt runoff and humidity
VII.  Air temperatures
VIII. Additional discussion
IX.    Recommendations
X.     References

I.  Abstract

Daily river flow data were used to evaluate the timing of snowmelt runoff
at three river stations within the Northern Great Plains and Upper
Midwest.  Timing of snowmelt runoff is shown by a X-Y plot using 10 year
moving averages for “Annual Beginning Day of Snowmelt Runoff” at the
river stations for 1910-2003.  Average dewpoint plots are shown for three
climate stations near the river stations.  The plots show monthly January
- April dewpoint for 10 year moving averages for 1948 to 2003.  A
discussion of snowmelt physics is included, describing how humidity as
measured by dewpoint affects the rate of snowmelt.  Based on the study
results, shown by the plots on the timing of annual snowmelt runoff and
by plots of dewpoint averages at climate stations, conclusions are
reached, and recommendations are given.


II.  Snowmelt Physics

After a long period of cold weather, a snowpack can absorb large amounts
of heat before thaw occurs.  Once the temperature of the snowpack reaches
zero degrees Celsius throughout, liquid water starts forming within the
snowpack.  When the liquid water exceeds a threshold (about 15 percent of
total snowpack water equivalent), snowmelt begins.

Solar radiation is the dominant energy transfer for snowmelt during clear
sky periods.  Usually snowmelt occurs on south facing slopes and hilltops
before snowmelt occurs on north facing slopes and other parts of the
basin.  In winter and early spring, sun angles are low and days are
short; thus snowmelt from solar radiation alone during this period is
usually gradual and intermittent.

The significance of latent heat for snowmelt has been described by Dunne
and Leopold (1978):

“If water from moist air condenses on a snowpack, 590 calories of heat
are released by each gram of condensate. This is enough energy to melt
approximately 7.5 gm of ice, which when added to the condensate yields a
total of 8.5 gm of potential runoff”.

Latent and sensible heat transfers can result in high snowmelt rates, as
warm moist air moves into a region.  Latent and sensible heat transfers
can cause rapid snowmelt from all parts of a basin simultaneously, day
and night, even during winter.  Warm temperatures, high humidity, and
strong winds have large effects on the rate of snowmelt.  In comparison,
heat supplied by rainfall is usually minor, unless a warm rainfall of
long duration occurs. A more detailed description of equations for
snowmelt are given by Price and Dunne (1976).

Dunne and Leopold (1978) show that “highest melt rates were associated
with the warm sector of a large weather disturbance” (Quebec, May of
1973).  For the last three days of an eight day melt of the snowpack in
May of 1973 (Quebec), melt due to latent heat was shown to be nearly
equal to melt from net radiation, and melt from latent heat during the
last three days was shown to be around 50 percent of the melt due to
sensible heat transfer from atmospheric convection (mixing).

From the theoretical and physical descriptions given above, it is clear
that the rate of snowmelt increases as humidity increases, due to latent
heat released as water vapor condenses when air temperatures are above
freezing.

III.  Hydrologic Area and Data Sources

The National Weather Service (NWS) North Central River Forecast Center
(NCRFC) is responsible for hydrologic forecasting for rivers in the Upper
Midwest and parts of the Northern Great Plains.  NWS hydrologic models
and NCRFC calibrated snow and soil moisture/runoff model parameters are
used in forecasting snowmelt runoff flow into the rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs (Neuman, 1999).

River stations selected for this study, which are within the headwaters
of three of the major basins of North America, include:

Red River at Fargo, ND, headwaters to Hudson Bay
St. Louis River at Scanlon, MN, headwaters to Lake Superior
St. Croix R. at St. Croix Falls, WI, headwaters to Mississippi River

The river stations were chosen based on:

1)  quality flow data from the early 1900s to current;
2)  annual snowmelt runoff nearly every year;
3)  location within the Upper Midwest and Northern Great Plains; and
4)  author's experience & expertise gained working in hydrology in
Midwest and Great Plains.

Hydrologic characteristics of the river basins, terminology, and study
methodology are outlined in Table 1 (work sheet for Figure 1, discussed
below).

Source of mean daily flow data was the United States Geological Survey
(USGS).  Source of dewpoint data was the Midwest Regional Climate Center
database.

IV.  Timing of Annual Snowmelt Runoff

Mean daily flows were used in this study to determine “Annual Beginning
Day of Snowmelt Runoff” for years from 1910 through 2003 at the three
river stations.  The methodology is explained in Table 1 (work sheet for
Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows 10 year moving averages for annual beginning day of
snowmelt runoff at the river stations.  The 10 year moving averages for
Julian Days (each Julian Day representing the beginning date of snowmelt
runoff for a year at a river station) are plotted on the 10th year of the
10 year moving Julian Day averages.

The data on Figure 1 show trends for recent earlier in the year annual
snowmelt runoff at the river stations, that began during the 1960-1980
period, and became more evident during 1981-2002 period.

V.  Average Monthly Dewpoint

Climate stations that are within or near the three river basins include:

Fargo, North Dakota (within Red River basin)
Duluth, Minnesota (southeast of St. Louis River basin)
Eau Claire, Wisconsin (southeast of St. Croix River basin)

Monthly January to April dewpoint (10 year moving averages), based on
1948-2003 monthly averages, are shown in figures 2-4. The figures show
recent increasing dewpoint trends for January, February, and March 10
year moving averages, but no trends for April monthly dewpoints.

VI.  Conclusions on the Timing of Snowmelt Runoff and Humidity

1) Trends were shown for recent earlier in the year annual snowmelt
runoff at three river stations within the Northern Great Plains and Upper
Midwest.

2) Trends were shown for recent increasing dewpoint averages for January,
February, and March but not April.

Other factors besides humidity are important in affecting snowmelt,
including air temperatures, wind speeds, temperature of precipitation,
ground temperatures, extent of snowpack over the entire Great Plains and
Midwest and its albedo (characteristics of the snow cover in reflecting
solar radiation).

VII.  Air Temperatures

Based on snowmelt physics, historical modeling, and real time operations
involving snowmelt and snowmelt runoff, air temperatures and humidity are
likely the most significant factors affecting the rate of snowmelt.

Thus some investigation and reporting on air temperatures is warranted
with respect to snowmelt.  “The largest increases in both temperatures
and humidity for the Northeast, Midwest, and Northern Great Plains have
been during Winter and early Spring months” (Neuman, 2003).  The report
by Neuman (2003) included selection of temperature stations and analysis
and summaries of mean air temperature and dewpoint data for many stations
in the Midwest and Northern Plains.  In an investigation and report on
the climate in the Great Lakes region, from a study that was entirely
independent from the work and report on the Northeast, Midwest, and
Northern Great Plains by Neuman (2003), the Kling (2003) concluded for
the Great Lakes region that:

“In the past four years, ..., annual average temperatures have ranged
from 2 to 4º F (1 to 2º C ) warmer than the long-term average and up to 7
ºF (4º C) above average in winter.”

The conclusions on temperatures by Kling (2003) and Neuman (2003) were in
agreement, even though the work was done independently.

VIII.  Additional Discussion

From the snowmelt physics discussion in Section II, it is clear that
humidity and the rate of snowmelt are connected, with increases in
humidity resulting in additional heat transfer from the latent heat of
condensation as water vapor condenses on a snowpack of 0 degrees Celsius,
when air temperatures are above freezing.  The process can be shown
theoretically but would require considerable work to demonstrate
experimentally or with operational hydrologic and meteorological data.
This work has shown the trend for earlier snowmelt runoff in recent
years, and the trends for higher dewpoints in recent years, but this work
has not proven that the higher average dewpoints have caused the earlier
in the year recent annual snowmelt runoffs.

Mean daily flow records that were used in the evaluation of the timing of
snowmelt runoff for the river stations in this study range from 1902 to
current, a period of 105 years of record.  However, monthly dewpoint data
for this study was only available from 1948 to current, only 55 years of
record.  Although figures 2-4 indicate trends for recent increasing
monthly dewpoint averages for January, February, and March, the 55 years
of record may be insufficient for making firm statements regarding long
term trends in average dewpoints.

However the river flow data records, with 105 years of record, show the
timing of annual snowmelt runoff for years that preceded the dewpoint
records used in this study.  In other words, the river flow data used in
the evaluation of the timing of annual snowmelt runoff for 1902 through
1947, infer the effects of temperatures and humidity for the period 1902
through 1947.

In viewing Figure 1, the 1920s to early 1950s period had earlier annual
snowmelt runoffs than the late 1950s and 1960s period.  However, the
period from the mid 1980s to the snowmelt runoff period in 2003 had the
earliest annual snowmelt of record, substantially earlier than the 1920s
to early 1950s period.  An evaluation of mean annual dewpoints at
Minneapolis, MN from1918 to the 1940s, which were calculated from mean
annual relative humidity and annual air temperature data (Table 2.) shows
that 5 year annual dewpoint averages for 1998 through 2002 exceeded all
previous 5 year averages at Minneapolis since the beginning of record for
calculated annual dewpoint averages (1918).

IX.  Recommendations

The recent trends shown in this study for earlier annual snowmelt runoff
at river stations within the Upper Midwest and Northern Great Plains, and
for  increasing January - April dewpoint averages call for:

1)  Review of NWS hydrologic models used by NCRFC in modeling snowmelt
runoff.

2)  Review of NCRFC snow and soil moisture model parameters used in
models by NCRFC in issuing hydrologic forecast products with the NWS
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS).  AHPS is described by
Deweese (2002).

X.  References

Deweese, M.M.. (2002) AHPS Procedures and Products at the NCRFC <
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/WebShows/AHPSRfc/sld001.htm >.
Dunne, T., Leopold, L.B. (1978) Water in Environmental Planning; pp.
477-499.
Kling, G.W. et. al. (April, 2003) “Confronting Climate Change In the
Great Lakes Region <
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glchallengetechbac.html >.
Neuman, P.J.(1999) Hydrologic Forecast Procedures & Spring Flood
Outlooks, Upper Midwest <
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ncrfc/documents/Papers/Outlooks/Outlooks.htm >.
Neuman P. J. (April, 2003) Special Report – Air Temperatures & Dew
Points, Great Lakes States <
http://www.mnforsustain.org/mn_dewpoints_neuman_p_special_report.htm >.
_____
Used with permission of the author.

Please send mail to webmaster@... with questions or comments
about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS) is not
affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity.

--------------
Pat Neuman
Chanhassen, MN



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

We are already witness to conclusive evidence that human activities of
the past have caused rapid increases in temperatures in the United States
and the world.

Despite an unusually cold air flow pattern in January and February of
2003 in northern major U.S. regions (Northeast, Midwest, and Northern
Great Plains), new evidence presented here shows that the average
temperatures for the last six year period (1998 to 2003 for January &
February) at climatological stations were much warmer than historical
average temperatures for the stations.

Historical average temperatures as used in this analysis were determined
using average mean daily temperatures by month for each station from the
beginning date of observation at each station through 1997).

Daily climatological observations in the Midwest and Northern Great
Plains began in the late 1800s, and have provided us with over 100 years
of high quality daily temperature data. In the Northeast, climatological
observations began in 1926, having provided over 75 years of high quality
temperature data. Mean daily temperatures have been
determined by taking the average of the daily maximum and minimum
temperatures.

Of the three major regions studied in this report, the largest
temperature change took place within the Northern Great Plains (North
Dakota, South Dakota, northeast Wyoming, and eastern Montana), with the
greatest increase in temperatures taking place in FEBRUARY. The average
February temperature for 1998 to 2003 near the small community of
Forestburg, South Dakota was 7.9 deg F above the 102 year (1896-1997)
historical average temperature for February at that station.

As shown on Table 1 below, 1998 to 2003 February mean daily temperatures
were much warmer than historical averages for the Northern Great Plains,
averaging 4.7 to 7.9 deg F above historical averages.

The Northeast and Midwest also experienced large FEBRUARY temperature
change, as indicated by average mean daily temperatures for the 1998 to
2003 period in comparison to the historical average temperatures. 1998 to
2003 February mean daily temperatures were 2.4 to 4.3 deg F above
historical averages in the Northeast, and 3.5 to 7.6 deg F above
historical averages in the Midwest.

JANUARY mean daily temperatures for the period 1998 to 2003 were also
warmer than historical averages, with temperatures above historical
averages by as much as 3.4 deg F in the Northeast, 5.3 deg F above
historical averages in the Midwest, and 5.9 deg F above historical
averages in the Northern Great Plains.

ANNUAL (all months) mean daily temperatures for the period 1998 to 2003
were warmer than historical averages by 1.1 to 2.8 deg F in the
Northeast, 0.3 to 3.6 deg F in the Midwest, and 1.0 to 3.0 deg F in the
Northern Great Plains.

In 2003, the Northeast, Midwest, and Northern Great Plains experienced
below historical average temperatures in January and February, due to an
unusually stubborn upper level low pressure system near Hudson Bay that
funnelled down cold air from the Arctic. The unusually stubborn air flow
pattern resulted in cold weather conditions in January and February of
2003 that were not indicative of what is to come in the years ahead (as
global warming continues to build). Ocean temperatures and global
temperatures are continuing their relentless upward trend, as the worlds
glaciers and sea ice continue to shrink.

------------------
TABLES 1 - 3
------------------

Average Mean Daily Temperatures(MDT) were computed for each temperature
station for two periods:

  1) AVE.MDT1 = (Average MDT from beginning of record through 1997)
  2) AVE.MDT2 = (Average MDT for 1998 to 2003).

MDT differences between AVE.MDT2 and AVE.MDT1 were
calculated for each station.   Average differences for each
region (Northeast, Midwest, and Northern Great Plains)
were determined by equal weighting of stations within each
region.  Stations used in the analysis were selected based
on having high quality data - away from urban areas.  The
analysis was based on 11 stations in the Northeast, 19 in
the Midwest, and 8 in the Northern Great Plains.

------------
TABLE 1:  Summary of Temperature Differences
------------

NORTHEAST
  Jan / Feb /Annual
  0.0 / 2.4 / 1.1 / Lowest
  3.4 / 4.3 / 2.8 / Highest

MIDWEST
  Jan / Feb /Annual
-0.4 / 3.5 / 0.3 / Lowest
  5.6 / 7.6 / 3.6 / Highest

NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
  Jan / Feb /Annual
  3.3 / 4.7 / 1.0 / Lowest
  5.9 / 7.9 / 3.0 / Highest

------------
TABLE 2:  Monthly Station Temperature Summary
------------
NORTHEAST STATIONS:

  Jan _Feb _Mar _Apr _May _Jun _Jul _Aug _Sep _Oct _Nov _Dec _Ann
EASTPORT, ME 1998-2003
23.3 25.7 33.3 42.4 52.1 59.1 64.2 65.3 59.6 48.3 39.9 30.0 45.4
EASTPORT, ME 1925-1997
22.3 23.0 30.8 40.2 49.2 56.8 62.2 62.5 56.8 48.3 38.9 27.2 43.1
EASTPORT, ME
  1.0 _2.7 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.3

BERLIN, NH 1998-2003
17.4 20.0 29.7 41.7 54.8 63.0 66.2 65.9 59.2 45.8 36.5 24.8 44.0
BERLIN, NH 1926-1997
15.5 17.0 27.2 40.2 52.5 61.9 66.6 64.3 56.2 45.7 34.3 20.6 41.9
BERLIN, NH
  1.9 _3.0 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.1

BRIDGEHAMPTON, NY 1998-2003
31.9 33.9 39.7 48.1 57.5 66.7 71.5 72.0 65.1 53.8 45.4 36.4 52.0
BRIDGEHAMPTON, NY 1929-1997
31.1 31.5 37.9 46.7 56.2 65.5 71.5 70.8 64.3 54.4 45.0 35.1 50.9
  0.8 _2.4 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.1
BRIDGEHAMPTON, NY

CANTON_3_SE, NY 1998-2003
16.9 21.2 30.2 43.7 57.2 64.8 68.6 68.0 60.9 47.6 38.1 25.4 45.5
CANTON_3_SE, NY 1922-1997
15.9 17.3 28.5 42.3 54.6 64.1 68.8 66.7 58.7 47.5 36.1 21.7 43.6
CANTON_3_SE, NY
  1.0 _3.9 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.9

COOPERSTOWN, NY 1998-2003
22.3 25.7 32.2 44.3 56.4 64.8 66.7 68.1 60.3 48.0 39.2 27.8 46.6
COOPERSTOWN, NY 1926-1997
21.5 22.5 31.6 43.8 54.9 63.6 68.1 66.2 59.1 48.8 37.8 26.0 45.4
COOPERSTOWN, NY
  0.8 _3.2 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.2

LITTLE_FALLS_CITY_RSVR, NY 1998-2003
21.5 24.1 31.1 44.2 55.1 64.5 68.2 69.1 60.9 48.0 38.9 27.3 46.6
LITTLE_FALLS_CITY_RSVR, NY 1926-1997
19.7 21.2 30.3 43.3 55.5 64.5 69.4 67.3 59.7 48.9 37.2 24.4 45.4
LITTLE_FALLS_CITY_RSVR, NY
  1.8 _3.1 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.2

LOWVILLE, NY 1998-2003
18.0 21.7 29.3 42.5 55.7 63.8 66.9 66.5 59.4 46.6 37.3 24.5 44.6
LOWVILLE, NY 1926-1997
17.5 19.0 28.9 42.4 54.5 63.7 68.1 66.2 58.4 47.7 36.0 22.7 43.8
LOWVILLE, NY
  0.5 _2.7 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.8

NORWICH, NY 1998-2003
23.4 27.2 34.6 45.9 57.5 65.5 68.3 68.5 61.7 48.9 39.9 27.7 47.3
NORWICH, NY 1926-1997
21.2 22.0 31.5 43.6 54.8 63.6 68.1 66.3 59.0 48.2 37.6 25.8 45.1
NORWICH, NY
  2.2 _5.2 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.2

PORT_JERVIS, NY 1998-2003
27.8 30.7 39.3 50.2 60.4 68.7 72.1 71.8 64.4 51.3 42.3 31.5 51.3
PORT_JERVIS, NY 1925-1997
26.3 28.2 37.2 48.6 59.5 67.9 72.5 70.5 63.0 52.0 41.4 30.1 49.8
PORT_JERVIS,
  1.5 _2.5 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.5

RIDGWAY, PA 1998-2003
25.2 28.7 33.5 45.7 55.9 64.0 66.6 66.6 59.8 48.2 39.3 28.3 47.1
RIDGWAY, PA 1925-1997
23.7 24.4 32.9 44.3 55.0 63.5 67.4 66.1 59.4 48.6 38.0 27.7 45.9
RIDGWAY, PA
  1.5 _4.3 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.2

ST_JOHNSBURY, VT 1998-2003
20.6 22.4 32.6 44.4 57.3 65.7 68.3 68.2 61.2 47.3 37.8 25.6 46.1
ST_JOHNSBURY, VT 1925-1997
17.2 19.4 29.9 42.9 55.6 64.9 69.3 67.1 59.1 48.1 35.9 22.0 44.3
ST_JOHNSBURY, VT
  3.4 _3.0 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.8

MIDWEST STATIONS:

MINONK, IL
20.5 23.4 2003
24.4 31.1 37.8 51.8 63.3 70.9 76.3 73.2 66.7 54.0 43.6 28.5 52.5
MINONK, IL 1896-1997
23.4 26.8 38.2 50.3 61.3 70.9 74.8 72.9 65.8 54.3 39.9 27.8 50.6
MINONK, IL
  1.0 _4.3 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.9

MARION_2_N, IN 1998-2003
26.9 32.6 37.8 51.9 62.3 70.5 74.3 72.1 66.1 53.6 43.4 30.4 52.1
MARION_2_N, IN 1901-1997
25.8 28.0 38.4 49.5 60.4 69.9 74.0 71.9 65.3 53.7 41.0 29.7 50.7
MARION_2_N, IN
  1.1 _4.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.4

ATLANTIC_1_NE, IA 1998-2003
23.3 29.2 35.4 51.4 62.5 70.6 76.7 73.5 65.6 51.7 40.0 25.5 50.7
ATLANTIC_1_NE, IA 1893-1997
20.3 24.5 36.3 49.7 60.8 70.3 74.9 72.8 64.4 52.6 37.3 24.9 49.1
ATLANTIC_1_NE, IA
  3.0 _4.7 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.6

CARROLL, IA 1998-2003
21.5 26.6 33.5 49.1 61.4 69.3 75.4 72.6 64.5 50.8 39.9 24.7 49.3
CARROLL, IA 1896-1997
18.8 22.7 34.6 48.5 60.0 69.5 74.2 71.9 63.4 51.8 36.0 23.5 47.9
CARROLL, IA
  2.7 _3.9 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.4

FAYETTE, IA 1998-2003
18.0 24.0 31.0 47.1 58.6 66.1 71.8 68.8 60.4 48.1 37.2 22.0 46.3
FAYETTE, IA 1896-1997
16.1 20.3 32.5 46.7 58.4 67.7 72.2 69.9 61.6 50.1 34.6 21.3 46.0
FAYETTE, IA
  1.9 _3.7 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 0.3

HAMPTON, IA 1998-2003
19.1 24.9 31.8 47.6 59.9 67.6 73.8 70.4 62.7 49.7 38.3 23.2 47.6
HAMPTON, IA 1893-1997
16.2 20.4 32.6 47.4 59.3 68.8 73.0 70.9 62.7 51.1 34.7 21.7 46.5
HAMPTON, IA
  2.9  4.5 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.1

IOWA_FALLS, IA 1998-2003
19.5 25.5 32.5 47.9 60.0 67.6 73.8 70.7 63.0 49.7 38.8 23.4 47.9
IOWA_FALLS, IA 1896-1997
16.8 20.9 33.5 47.7 59.4 68.6 73.0 70.5 62.4 51.1 35.2 21.9 46.8
IOWA_FALLS, IA
  2.7 _4.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.1

WILLIAMSTOWN_5_WSW, KY 1998-2003
26.5 30.1 2003
34.3 39.4 44.8 57.5 66.5 73.2 77.1 76.3 70.6 58.7 48.5 36.4 57.3
WILLIAMSTOWN_5_WSW, KY 1902-1997
32.1 34.5 43.9 54.3 63.9 72.1 76.0 74.6 68.7 57.6 45.1 35.1 54.8
WILLIAMSTOWN_5_WSW, KY
  2.2 _4.9 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.5

BIG_RAPIDS_WATERWORKS, MI 1998-2003
23.3 26.5 32.8 46.1 57.6 66.3 70.8 68.4 60.7 47.9 38.7 26.7 47.3
BIG_RAPIDS_WATERWORKS, MI 1896-1997
20.8 21.3 30.8 43.9 55.4 64.9 69.3 67.0 59.4 48.5 36.4 25.5 45.3
BIG_RAPIDS_WATERWORKS, MI
  2.5 _5.2 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.0

MARYVILLE_2_E, MO 1998-2003
26.3 32.0 37.3 52.6 63.6 71.5 77.6 75.5 67.0 53.9 42.5 28.5 52.5
MARYVILLE_2_E, MO 1897-1997
23.0 27.2 38.5 51.1 62.0 71.4 76.4 74.3 65.9 54.3 39.6 27.3 50.9
MARYVILLE_2_E, MO
  3.3 _4.8 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.6

BELLEFONTAINE, OH 1998-2003
20.3 22.8 2003
26.4 31.8 37.8 51.3 62.0 70.1 73.1 71.5 65.6 53.1 43.0 30.4 51.6
BELLEFONTAINE, OH 1896-1997
26.3 28.3 38.3 49.0 59.9 69.1 73.1 71.4 65.2 53.8 41.0 30.0 50.5
BELLEFONTAINE, OH
  0.1 _3.5 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.1

CIRCLEVILLE, OH 1998-2003
30.2 35.7 40.7 54.1 63.4 71.8 74.6 73.4 67.0 55.6 44.7 33.8 54.0
CIRCLEVILLE, OH 1896-1997
30.6 32.1 42.3 52.4 62.8 71.3 75.3 73.4 67.2 55.7 43.7 33.5 53.3
CIRCLEVILLE, OH
-0.4 _3.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 0.7

LEECH_LAKE_FEDERAL_DAM, MN 1998-2003
10.8 17.6 26.1 42.0 54.9 63.3 69.7 67.6 57.6 43.2 32.2 19.9 42.3
LEECH_LAKE_FEDERAL_DAM, MN 1888-1997
  6.0 10.9 24.3 40.3 53.2 62.9 68.0 65.4 56.3 44.9 27.8 12.7 39.5
LEECH_LAKE_FEDERAL_DAM, MN
  1.5 _6.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.8

ALBERT_LEA_3_SE, MN 1998-2003
16.6 21.8 30.2 46.6 59.5 67.2 73.3 70.0 61.9 47.9 37.2 21.3 46.3
ALBERT_LEA_3_SE, MN 1889-1997
13.7 18.2 30.5 45.8 58.2 68.0 72.6 70.3 61.4 49.6 32.9 19.3 45.2
ALBERT_LEA_3_SE, MN
  2.9 _3.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.1

BRODHEAD_1_SW, WI 1998-2003
20.9 27.5 34.7 48.6 60.2 68.1 73.8 70.9 62.6 50.5 40.0 24.9 48.8
BRODHEAD_1_SW, WI 1898-1997
18.4 21.6 33.6 47.1 58.6 68.1 72.8 70.4 62.4 50.9 36.4 23.2 47.1
BRODHEAD_1_SW, WI
  2.5 _5.9 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.7

OCONTO_4_W, WI 1998-2003
18.3 22.6 31.4 44.5 56.2 64.7 69.7 67.6 59.5 47.1 37.7 23.1 45.4
OCONTO_4_W, WI 1896-1997
16.2 18.2 29.1 42.6 54.4 64.6 69.7 67.4 59.5 48.5 34.4 21.6 43.8
OCONTO_4_W, WI
  2.1 _4.4 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.6

PORTAGE, WI 1998-2003
20.2 26.3 34.0 48.3 59.8 67.7 73.1 70.8 62.2 49.4 39.9 24.9 48.3
PORTAGE, WI 1896-1997
17.6 21.0 32.6 47.0 58.7 67.9 72.5 70.1 62.0 50.8 36.2 22.8 46.6
PORTAGE, WI
  2.6 _5.3 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.7

SPOONER_EXPERMNT_FARM, WI 1998-2003
16.1 22.1 30.7 46.1 58.4 65.2 71.1 69.1 60.6 47.6 36.7 20.8 45.6
SPOONER_EXPERMNT_FARM, WI 1896-1997
10.5 14.5 27.3 43.0 55.3 64.4 69.3 66.7 58.1 47.0 30.7 16.5 42.0
SPOONER_EXPERMNT_FARM, WI
  5.6 _7.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 3.6

WATERTOWN, WI 1996-2003
20.9 27.1 34.2 48.1 59.5 67.9 73.2 70.7 62.8 50.2 40.1 25.4 48.6
WATERTOWN, WI 1895-1997
18.5 21.5 32.7 46.2 57.8 67.4 72.1 70.0 62.0 50.8 36.5 23.6 46.7
WATERTOWN, WI
  1.4 _5.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.9

NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS STATIONS:

CULBERTSON, MT 1998-2003
14.8 21.7 29.2 45.0 56.0 62.9 72.3 70.9 60.4 44.6 31.9 18.5 44.2
CULBERTSON, MT 1900-1997
  9.4 14.9 27.5 43.2 54.7 63.2 69.5 67.7 56.5 44.9 27.9 15.7 41.2
CULBERTSON, MT
  5.4 _6.8 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 3.0

EKALAKA, MT 1998-2003
23.5 26.6 31.3 43.7 53.8 61.5 72.7 70.9 60.2 45.2 34.0 23.5 45.7
EKALAKA, MT 1897-1997
18.0 21.9 30.7 43.5 53.9 63.2 70.9 69.3 58.3 46.2 31.8 22.2 44.2
EKALAKA, MT
  5.5 _4.7 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.5

BOTTINEAU, ND 1998-2003
  7.1 14.3 22.9 41.1 53.6 61.0 68.9 67.2 56.4 40.3 28.4 12.1 39.8
BOTTINEAU, ND 1898-2003
  2.4  7.3 21.2 39.3 52.7 62.1 67.5 65.6 54.8 42.2 23.8  9.0 37.4
BOTTINEAU, ND
  4.7 _7.0 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.4


CROSBY, ND 1998-2003
11.4 18.3 25.2 42.9 54.6 61.7 69.7 68.2 57.5 42.3 29.3 15.4 41.5
CROSBY, ND 1909-1997
  6.2 11.9 24.5 41.0 53.6 62.6 68.4 66.3 55.4 43.7 26.0 13.1 39.5
CROSBY, ND
  5.2 _6.4 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.0

JAMESTOWN_ST_HOSPITAL, ND 1998-2003
12.4 18.1 27.4 43.9 56.8 65.2 72.0 70.1 59.7 43.8 32.0 17.1 43.5
JAMESTOWN_ST_HOSPITAL, ND 1900-1997
  7.9 12.5 26.3 42.4 55.2 64.5 70.3 68.4 57.6 45.6 28.0 14.1 41.0
JAMESTOWN_ST_HOSPITAL, ND
  4.5 _5.6 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.5

FORESTBURG_3_NE, SD 1998-2003
20.0 27.1 31.4 48.5 60.1 68.3 76.1 73.4 64.5 49.0 36.1 22.7 48.3
FORESTBURG_3_NE, SD 1896-1997
14.6 19.2 31.8 46.8 58.4 67.8 73.7 71.9 62.2 49.9 33.0 19.8 45.8
FORESTBURG_3_NE, SD
  5.4 _7.9 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.5

MITCHELL, SD 1998-2003
19.7 26.0 30.5 47.1 59.5 68.6 76.2 73.2 63.7 48.2 36.4 23.3 47.9
MITCHELL, SD 1896-1997
16.4 20.7 32.9 47.8 59.3 68.9 74.7 72.6 63.0 50.7 34.3 21.6 46.9
MITCHELL, SD
  3.3 _5.3 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 1.0

CAMP_CROOK, SD 1998-2003
23.1 27.2 31.9 44.3 54.4 62.5 73.3 71.2 60.8 44.9 34.3 24.8 46.2
CAMP_CROOK, SD 1896-1997
17.2 21.4 30.2 43.6 54.2 63.6 71.1 69.4 58.5 46.2 31.3 21.6 44.1
CAMP_CROOK, SD
  5.9 _5.8 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.1

CODY, WY 1998-2003  (not considered part of Northern Plains)
29.0 30.8 36.7 45.2 54.6 61.3 71.7 69.7 60.8 47.4 37.7 28.2 47.8
CODY, WY 1915-1997
23.8 28.0 34.7 43.8 53.0 61.8 69.4 67.4 57.4 47.6 34.2 26.7 45.7
CODY, WY
  5.2 _2.8 Jan & Feb Change includes 2003.  Annual thru 2002: 2.1

------------
TABLE 3:  Summary of Average Temperature Differences by Region
------------

NORTHEAST
  Jan / Feb /Annual
  1.1 / 2.9 / 1.8 / Average

MIDWEST
  Jan / Feb /Annual
  2.2 / 4.8 / 1.6 / Average

NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
  Jan / Feb /Annual
  5.0 / 6.2 / 2.1 / Average

END

Pat Neuman
Chanhassen, Minnesota
npat1@j...

Article shown above was posted on Tue Mar 4, 2003, available in archives
of ClimateConcern Group (CCG) message 6175, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/6175

Other reports by same author (P. Neuman) include:

16 April 2003 article: "Special Report – Air Temperatures & Dew Points –
Great Lakes States" at:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/mn_dewpoints_neuman_p_special_report.htm

and

11 Sep 2003 article: "Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff & Increasing
Dewpoints for Rivers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota" at:
//www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm

Additional data and articles by this author and
by Michael Neuman,
Environmental Specialist,
Madison, Wisconsin

can be found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

Pat Neuman
Chanhassen, Minnesota




________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff and Increasing Dewpoints for Rivers in
Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota:

Final Narrative:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm

Figure 1: Beginning Day of Snowmelt Runoff
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_table_fi\
gure1.htm

Figure 2: Jan - Apr Monthly Dewpoint Averages at Fargo, ND
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_figure2.\
htm

Figure 3: Jan - Apr Monthly Dewpoint Averages at Duluth, MN

http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_figure3.\
htm

Figure 4: Jan - Apr Monthly Dewpoint Averages at Eau Claire, WI
will be added early next week.

Table 2: Annual dewpoint data at Minneapolis, MN 1918 - 2002
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_table2.h\
tm


[At the Minnesotans For Sustainability© website]


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

October 3, 2003
Senator Russ Feingold
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510-4904

Dear Senator Feingold,

I was pleased to receive your reply last month to my letter and to
see you've already been working on the issue of climate change. Of
the two pieces of legislation you're reviewing, I'd say the
Liebermann-McCain bill (S. 139) comes closest to what is really
needed, right now, to begin dealing with this issue.

Nationwide programs and enforceable regulations, as would be
authorized by S. 139, are now imperative to curb the rising
greenhouse gas accumulations in our atmosphere from human fossil fuel
burning activities. Concerted actions to bring about significant
greenhouse gas emission reductions, throughout the U.S. economy, are
needed at all levels of government, the private sector, by NGOs, and
by individuals and families alike. It is the overwhelming consensus
of scientific opinion that rising greenhouse gas accumulations from
extensive burning of fossil fuel burning over the last century are
causing the earth's average temperature, including the oceans, to
increase.

S. 139 would create a system that would lead to more immediate
reductions in cumulative greenhouse gas quantities from the U.S than
the alternative of instituting a voluntary registry system. Because
of the long delay that has already occurred, we cannot afford to
further delay major actions to reduce greenhouse gases from the
United States. These reductions must begin now.

Doing essentially nothing will only leave the U.S. population,
environment and economy increasingly vulnerable to more dangerous
consequences from global warming, essentially jeopardizing future
economic and social sustainability on the entire planet. Because the
U.S. is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere --
emitting roughly 25% of the annual amount from human activities - the
U.S. has, therefore, a major responsibility to reduce its
contributions to the problem.

Under S. 139, reductions in annual greenhouse gas quantities emitted
to the atmosphere would be accomplished through the employment of a
market-driven credit system, not unlike the tradable allowances
system used for other air pollutant emissions in the U.S. and other
countries. Entities that substantially reduce their annual greenhouse
gas amounts would earn credits they could trade to other entities
unable to reduce their total greenhouse gas amounts. Greenhouse gas
reductions could begin as soon as the program can be established; and
the creation of that program should be "fast tracked".

Tom Daschle's bill (S. 17), on the other hand, does not immediately
put into place a mechanism that would reduce greenhouse gas
quantities emitted from the U.S. The sole act of reporting of
greenhouse gas quantities by using a registry system would not
function to reduce the annual quantities in a timely enough manner to
slow down the rate of global warming.

It is essential that a massive program for greenhouse gas reductions
be put into place, as soon as possible. Until major and significant
greenhouse gas emission reductions begin to be made, greenhouse gas
quantities will build in the atmosphere to higher and higher levels
of concentration. Moreover, because of their exceedingly long life in
the atmosphere (decades and centuries), greenhouse gases released to
the air now -- from a multitudes of sources -- will remain in the
atmosphere for decades and even centuries.

Research on monitoring and mitigating global warming, on finding ways
to derive energy safely without burning fossil fuels, and on adapting
to a warming climate in the United States, in the meantime, must be
made.  Actions to reduce current levels of greenhouse gas emissions
from the U.S. should not be delayed in abeyance of completing such
research. Nor should measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
the present wait for any committee to reexamine the consequences of
the U.S. reentering the Kyoto Protocol.

Regarding the operating details of the mandatory cap and trade system
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are bound to be some
glitches in the implementation of such a system for a parameter like
carbon dioxide, which is common to all burning activities. For
example, it could be especially difficult to achieve maximum emission
reductions from the transportation and residential sectors' burning
of fossil fuels for energy.

The transportation sector itself pumps out more greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere than the other three end use sectors (industrial,
commercial and residential). Roughly a third of the greenhouse gases
emitted from the U.S. comes from motorized transportation.

Transportation's source of greenhouse gas emissions is varied. It
comes from: automobile drivers, truck drivers, airline users, NASCAR
drivers, motorized recreational vehicle users and others. The
adoption of measurably higher fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and
automobiles could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
coming from transportation. Combining such an approach with a
strategy that would pay financial rewards for fewer numbers of miles
driven (by the average family or individual), in combination with
higher fuel taxes to fund the incentive programs, would serve to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector even
further.

A similar market-driven strategy to reduce the demand for commercial
jet travel could be employed, whereby Americans who don't fly at all
during the year would be financially rewarded (rebated) for not
flying. Huge amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted in jet travel,
much of it being primarily for recreational vacations and business
excursions. When the need to protect the climate is factored in, it
may be that the country can no longer afford to subsidize air travel
that is not absolutely essential. While cutting down on such travel
would certainly have economic repercussions to the airline and
tourist industries, there is no denying the fact that the greenhouse
gas quantities from jet travel represent a tremendous burden on the
atmosphere, already.

Energy use by the residential sector would also be difficult to
regulate since it is individual home owners and apartment dwellers
who are the decision-makers on how much electricity or fuel is used
in the home, or how much insulation is used and other energy
conservation measures adopted.

A program that would require utilities to offer financial incentives
to households who use significantly less energy per individual living
in the household, over a year's time, might be an effective way to
bring about better energy conservation practices in the home. Funds
for these programs could be generated through charging higher rates
for energy use to households and business that use significantly more
fossil fuel derived energy than the average, rather than the current
practices of rewarding heavy users of energy with lower per energy
unit prices. A source for additional details on these kinds of
program can be found at:
<<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229>>

I thought you might also like to know that I have been working with a
group of other citizens from the Madison/Middleton on the issue of
climate change.

Our group is called "Preserve Our Climate", and we have been engaged
in doing educational outreach and advocacy about the issue of global
warming for the past 2-3 years now. We've worked closely with the
Union of Concerned Scientists over the past 2 years, including
outreach and public release of their recent excellent report:
Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes region (April 2003). We
would be pleased to meet with you or your representatives at your
Middleton office, upon your request, concerning the findings of that
report or any other informational needs or input you might be seeking
regarding the issue of climate change.

In closing, I am attaching a fact sheet I prepared regarding the
status of the changing climate and greenhouse gas concentrations and
sources. I hope this is helpful to your decision-making regarding
this issue of paramount importance for the country and all of the
world's populations.

Sincerely,

Michael T. Neuman
----------------------------------
Attachment A

Facts and Figures: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Accumulations and Rising
Temperatures

There is no question that warming is occurring. According to the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climate Data Center, there have now been 88 consecutive months that
the global monthly temperature (land and ocean) has exceeded the
corresponding average monthly temperature during the period 1971 -
2000. The 10 warmest years since record keeping began in 1880 have
occurred in just the last 13 years.

According to a recent study published in the "Journal of Geophysical
Research Letters" (August 31, 2003), the Northern Hemisphere is
warmer now than it's been in at least the last 2,000 years. The study
examined the trunks of ancient trees, ice cores, vegetation patterns
and historical records before concluding that the late 20th century
warmth is "unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia
for the Northern Hemisphere". The study also concludes the earth has
warmed faster in just the last 20 years than its temperature has
historically fluctuated over periods of one hundred years and more.

An analysis of data from the National Climate Data Center (1895-2001)
and the Midwest Climate Center (1900-2000), in "Confronting Climate
Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts on Our Communities and
Ecosystems", by George W. Kling (Ph.D), Katharine Hayhoe (M.S.),
Lucinda B. Johnson (Ph.D.), John J. Magnuson (Ph.D.), Stephen Polasky
(Ph.D.), Scott K. Robinson (Ph.D.), Brian J. Shuter (Ph.D.), Michelle
M. Wander (Ph.D.), Donal J. Wuebbles (Ph.D.) and Donald R. Zak
(Ph.D.), a report of the Union of Concerned Scientists and The
Ecological Society of America (April 2003), shows that in the period
1998-2001, annual average temperatures in the region increased by 2
to 4 degrees F (1 to 2 degrees C) over the long-term average in the
region (U.S. and Canada), and were up to 7 degrees F (4 degrees C)
warmer in winter in the region.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glchallengereport.html>
<http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/pdf/ex_sum.pdf>

An analysis by Patrick J. Neuman of Midwest Climate Data Center
temperature data recorded at NWS airport weather stations around the
Midwest found similar results. For the 5-year period 1998-2002,
Neuman found increases in temperature ranging from 1.1 - 3.6 degrees
F above the average period of record temperatures for the sites.
Several sites from Wisconsin were included in this study. Average
annual temperatures for 1998 through 2002 were the highest for a 5-
year period at numerous NWS cooperative climate stations, with the
years of data going back as far as 1896 for many of the Midwest
stations, and back to 1926 for the more Eastern stations (PA & NY).
<http://www.mnforsustain.org/table_of_contents.htm>> (scroll
to "climate change")

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased
significantly:

The atmospheric concentration level of carbon dioxide, the most
abundant of the greenhouse gases, has risen from a background level
of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-1800s, to a
level of 375 ppm at present - an increase of over 33%. Considering
the huge size of the atmosphere, a one-third increase in the
atmosphere's concentration level of carbon dioxide gas is hugely
significant; the amount of increase has been estimated at 170 billion
tons over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

The amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere over the
past 150 years of fuel burning by humans, in inventions such as the
automobile, coal and natural gas fired electricity generating plants,
industrial furnaces, incandescent and florescent lights, air
conditioning, airplanes, trucks, locomotives, ships, and other
machines that rely on internal combustion for energy, is by no means
a small amount, despite what global warming skeptics may claim.

According to laboratory analysis of ice cores take from deep within
Greenland's glaciers, today's concentration levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere are higher than they've been in at least the last 400,000
years, perhaps even millions of years before then, as well.

There is a huge differences between now and the more distant past in
terms of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere on a
daily and annual basis. Earth is now home to 6.3 billion people now
versus approximately 150 million people at the beginning of the first
millennium. A sizable number of the 6 billion people living today on
the planet burn fossil fuels on a regular basis, with each individual
person sending several tons of heat-trapping gases into the
atmosphere. The United States and a number of other highly developed
countries (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) send large yearly
amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere per individual person,
with the U.S. per capita emission of the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide exceeding 20 tons per year, on average.

Greenhouse gas emissions:

For each gallon of gas, 22 pounds of CO2 are emitted to the
atmosphere (plus other greenhouse gases). Each ton of coal burned in
power plants or other furnaces adds 7,320 pounds of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. Each therm of natural gas burned in furnaces or
appliances adds 11 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The total amount of CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since
1900 is 170 billion tons, plus there are all the other greenhouse
gases that are also increasing: methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). The global warming potential of these chemicals
range from 140 to over 11,000 times the warming potential of CO2, and
their lifetime in the atmosphere ranges from hundreds to thousands of
years.

From a report planned for release later this month (Neuman, 2003)
called:

"Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff and Increasing Dewpoints for
Rivers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota", final draft at:
<http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neum
an.htm

" Trends were shown for recent earlier in the year annual snowmelt
runoff at three river stations within the Northern Great Plains and
Upper Midwest."

and:

"the period from the mid 1980s to the snowmelt runoff period in 2003
had the earliest annual snowmelt of record, substantially earlier
than the 1920s to early 1950s period."

Archived mean daily river flow data by the USGS is extremely
important data for use in assessment of climate change. Daily river
stage data has been collect on a continuous basis throughout the U.S.
Mean daily flow data has been archived by USGS scientists, based on
stage and other, for thousands of river stations in the U.S. for more
than 100 years.

The St. Croix River, which was included in the report by Neuman is a
National Scenic River Way. The Upper Mississippi River in Minnesota
and Wisconsin has just recently become a National Park.

Neuman P. J. 2003. "Changes in the Timing of Snowmelt Runoff at River
Stations within the Northern Great Plains and Upper Midwest, and
Changes in Monthly (January - April) Dewpoint at Climate Stations
near the River Stations " for presentation at the National Weather
Service (NWS) Climate Prediction (CPC) workshop Oct 20-23, Reno NV.
Final draft report 11 September 2003 sent to NWS North Central River
Forecast Center for the CPC October Workshop.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Global Warming Means Snow for Great Lakes - Report

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

WASHINGTON - In theory, global warming should be a good thing for the
Great Lakes, right? Wrong.
Global warming means more snow, not less, for the snowbound region along
the eastern border between Canada and the United States, researchers said
this week.

Their study of snowfall records in the Great Lakes region and elsewhere
suggests there has been a significant increase in snowfall in the Great
Lakes region since the 1930s but not anywhere else.

The team, at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, said that global
warming does not mean sunnier weather everywhere. Other researchers have
predicted that, as the climate gets warmer overall, it could mean colder
temperatures in some parts of the world and more severe weather in
general as weather patterns change.

For instance, warmer surface sea temperatures could fuel more violent
hurricanes and typhoons.

In the Great Lakes region, warmer temperatures mean more snow, Adam
Burnett, an associate professor of geography, writes in the November
issue of the Journal of Climate.

"Recent increases in the water temperature of the Great Lakes are
consistent with global warming," Burnett said in a statement. "This
widens the gap between water temperature and air temperature - the ideal
condition for snowfall."

Burnett and colleagues compared snowfall records from 15 weather stations
within the Great Lakes region with 10 stations at sites outside of the
region and checked weather records dating as far back as 1931.

"We found a statistically significant increase in snowfall in the
lake-effect region since 1931, but no such increase in the
non-lake-effect area during the same period," Burnett said.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22770/story.htm
Story Date: 6/11/2003



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

The Paleontology_and_Climate yahoo group has been opened to the
public & is open for posting (unmoderated).

Persons that are serious in their views about Paleontology_and_Climate
are invited to join, post information, and have discussions with
others.

The homepage is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/

Please consider joining & contributing in a positive manner.

Pat
Minnesota

Calculations illustrate fossil-fuel crisis: Plant-to-oil equations point
up unsustainable profligacy.Calculations illustrate fossil-fuel crisis
Plant-to-oil equations point up unsustainable profligacy. 29 October 2003
BETSY MASON
http://www.nature.com/nsu/031027/031027-3.html

If you burned a litre of petrol on the way to work this morning, consider
this: it took 23.5 tonnes of ancient, buried plants to produce. That's
the equivalent of 16,200 square meters of wheat, roots and stalks
included. So says new research that aims to raise awareness about the
need to change our energy-consumption habits. The long, slow process that
converts plant matter into oil is extremely inefficient, says ecologist
Jeff Dukes of Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, who did the
calculations. Less than one part in 10,000 of the organic matter becomes
oil.
"So much carbon is lost back to the atmosphere through decomposition,
it's only the residues that are turned into fossil fuels," says Dukes. He
warns that less than a tenth of the carbon in plants buried in peat bogs
was turned into coal1.
In 1997, he points out, we burned fossil fuels equivalent to more than
400 times the amount of plant matter produced on Earth in the same year.
Despite these inefficiencies, fossil fuels created over the past 500
million years have given us a relatively inexpensive fuel source for the
past 250 years. "It is fantastic stored free energy from the past, but
it's not sustainable," Dukes says. Modern ways to convert biomass into
fuels such as ethanol are far more efficient. But it would still take
nearly a quarter of all the plants on Earth to replace the fuel used in
1997. That's 50% more than humans already remove or pave over each year,
says Dukes. "Hopefully we'll use more wind and solar power," he suggests.
It's a valid point, says geologist Sandra Neuzil of the US Geological
Survey in Reston, Virginia, who studies peat decomposition. But she is
cautious about the many unknowns in such equations, saying: "When you
start multiplying uncertainties the numbers start to become meaningless."
Dukes acknowledges that his calculations have a large degree of
uncertainty, but believes he has captured the essence of the process.
"I'm hoping that it will make people think," he says.
References
Dukes, J. S. Burning buried sunshine: Human consumption of ancient solar
energy. Climatic Change, published online, (2002). |Homepage|
© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2003


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Editorial: Carbon caps/Senators' bill deserves support
Published October 30, 2003ED1030

The Climate Stewardship Act, on which the U.S. Senate may act any day
now, is regarded by most observers to be going nowhere soon. In the
unlikely event that a majority of senators vote in favor, the House is
sure to disagree. Even if a miracle occurs in each chamber, the measure
would likely draw a veto from President Bush.

But there is merit in voting for this bill, the first piece of
legislation to give the Senate a chance of declaring its clear support
for reining in U.S. production of globe-warming carbon dioxide. Limits on
greenhouse gases continue to gain favor with national
governments around the world, with state and local governments in this
country, and
with some of the largest corporations contributing to the problem. It is
only a matter of time before a Congress and a president commit the nation
to such a program. Thus the measure offered by Republican Sen. John
McCain and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman presents their colleagues,
first of all, with a chance to demonstrate vision.

The bill also offers them a chance to declare agreement with most climate
scientists -- and a growing majority of the voting public -- that
whatever uncertainties remain about the planet's warming trend, and how
the blame ought be apportioned among all the contributing causes, two
things are clear: Carbon dioxide emissions are the major contributor
subject to human control, and countermeasures will be more effective if
undertaken sooner rather than later.

On that latter point, opponents assert that the McCain-Lieberman goal of
reducing U.S. emissions to their year 2000 levels by 2012 will have only
a modest impact on the atmospheric carbon load. This is correct but not
compelling. The carbon problem has been a long time in the making and,
yes, it will take a long time to reverse. How does that support delaying
a first step toward solution?

Emission caps are not the only important elements of this first-step
legislation. It would also create a market-based trading program for
exchanging emission rights, as well as incentives for development of
cleaner energy technologies. These approaches recognize that American
businesses can lead the way to solutions, if only Congress can influence
a system that essentially rewards continued carbon pollution with profits
and burdens reduction efforts with costs.

Those costs can be significant for individual companies or economic
sectors, but they do not support President Bush's contention that carbon
caps would damage the U.S. economy and promote a massive migration of
jobs to other countries. A recent MIT study predicts that the
McCain-Lieberman program would cost less than $20 per household per year
-- and also suggests that such costs might be outweighed by new growth in
industries related to emissions cuts. So this bill also offers an
investment opportunity, one that all senators ought to be willing to
make. And there may be added incentive for Democrats, at least, in
casting a vote that separates their record from
the president's on an issue he is finding to be a political liability.
Minneapolis StarTribune Carbon caps editorial (ME3... )



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

From the NY Times, October 29, 2003
The Warming Is Global but the Legislating, in the U.S., Is All Local
By JENNIFER 8. LEE

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Motivated by environmental and economic concerns,
states have become the driving force in efforts to combat global warming
even as mandatory programs on the federal level have largely stalled.

At least half of the states are addressing global warming, whether
through legislation, lawsuits against the Bush administration or programs
initiated by governors.

In the last three years, state legislatures have passed at least 29
bills, usually with bipartisan support. The most contentious is
California's 2002 law to set strict limits for new cars on emissions of
carbon dioxide, the gas that scientists say has the greatest role in
global warming.

While few of the state laws will have as much impact as California's,
they are not merely symbolic. In addition to caps on emissions of gases
like carbon dioxide that can cause the atmosphere to heat up like a
greenhouse, they include registries to track such
emissions, efforts to diversify fuel sources and the use of crops to
capture carbon dioxide by taking it out of the atmosphere and into the
ground.

Aside from their practical effects, supporters say, these efforts will
put pressure on Congress and the administration to enact federal
legislation, if only to bring order to a patchwork of state laws.

States are moving ahead in large part to fill the vacuum that has been
left by the federal government, said David Danner, the energy adviser for
Gov. Gary Locke of Washington.

"We hope to see the problem addressed at the federal level," Mr. Danner
said, "but we're not waiting around."

There are some initiatives in Congress, but for the moment even their
backers acknowledge that they are doomed, given strong opposition from
industry, the Bush administration — which favors voluntary controls — and
most Congressional Republicans.

This week, the Senate is scheduled to vote on a proposal to create a
national regulatory structure for carbon dioxide. This would be the first
vote for either house on a measure to restrict the gas.

The proposal's primary sponsors, Senator John McCain, Republican of
Arizona, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, see it
mainly as a way to force senators to take a position on the issue, given
the measure's slim prospects.

States are acting partly because of predictions that global warming could
damage local economies by harming agriculture, eroding shorelines and
hurting tourism.

"We're already seeing things which may be linked to global warming here
in the state," Mr. Danner said. "We have low snowpack, increased forest
fire danger."

Environmental groups and officials in state governments say that energy
initiatives are easier to move forward on the local level because they
span constituencies — industrial and service sectors, Democrat and
Republican, urban and rural.

While the coal, oil and automobile industries have big lobbies in
Washington, the industry presence is diluted on the state level.
Environmental groups say this was crucial to winning a legislative battle
over automobile emissions in California, where the automobile industry
did not have a long history of large campaign donations and
instead had to rely on a six-month advertising campaign to make its case.

Local businesses are also interested in policy decisions because of
concerns about long-term energy costs, said Christopher James, director
of air planning and standards for the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. As a result, environmental
groups are shifting their efforts to focus outside Washington.

Five years ago the assumption was that the climate treaty known as the
Kyoto Protocol was the only effort in town, said Rhys Roth, the executive
director of Climate Solutions, which works on global warming issues in
the Pacific Northwest states. But since President Bush rejected the Kyoto
pact in 2001, local groups have been
emerging on the regional, state and municipal levels.

The Climate Action Network, a worldwide conglomeration of nongovernment
organizations working on global warming, doubled its membership of state
and local groups in the last two years.

The burst of activity is not limited to the states with a traditional
environmental bent.

At least 15 states, including Texas and Nevada, are forcing their state
electric utilities to diversify beyond coal and oil to energy sources
like wind and solar power.

Even rural states are linking their agricultural practices to global
warming. Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming have all passed initiatives in
anticipation of future greenhouse-gas emission trading, hoping they can
capitalize on their forests and crops to capture carbon dioxide during
photosynthesis.

Cities are also adopting new energy policies. San Franciscans approved a
$100 million bond initiative in 2001 to pay for solar panels for
municipal buildings, including the San Francisco convention center.

The rising level of state activity is causing concern among those who
oppose carbon dioxide regulation.

"I believe the states are being used to force a federal mandate," said
Sandy Liddy Bourne, who does research on global warming for the American
Legislative Exchange Council, a group contending that carbon dioxide
should not be regulated because it is not a pollutant. "Rarely do you see
so many bills in one subject area introduced across the country."

The council started tracking state legislation, which they call
son-of-Kyoto bills, weekly after they noticed a significant rise in
greenhouse-gas-related legislation two years ago. This year, the council
says, 24 states have introduced 90 bills that would build
frameworks for regulating carbon dioxide. Sixty-six such bills were
introduced in all of 2001 and 2002.

Some of the activity has graduated to a regional level. Last summer, Gov.
George E. Pataki of New York invited 10 Northeastern states to set up a
regional trading network where power plants could buy and sell carbon
dioxide credits in an effort to lower overall emissions. In 2001, six New
England states entered into an agreement with Canadian provinces to cap
overall emissions by 2010. Last month, California, Washington and Oregon
announced that they would start looking at shared strategies to address
global warming.

To be sure, some states have decided not to embrace policies to combat
global warming. Six — Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West
Virginia and Wyoming — have explicitly passed laws against any mandatory
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

"My concern," said Ms. Bourne, "is that members of industry and
environment groups will go to the federal government to say: `There is a
patchwork quilt of greenhouse-gas regulations across the country. We
cannot deal with the 50 monkeys. We must have one 800-pound gorilla.
Please give us a federal mandate.' " Indeed, some environmentalists say
this is precisely their strategy.

States developed their own air toxics pollution programs in the 1980's,
which resulted in different regulations and standards across the country.
Industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, eventually
lobbied Congress for federal standards, which
were incorporated into the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.

A number of states are trying to compel the federal government to move
sooner rather than later. On Thursday, 12 states, including New York,
with its Republican governor, and three cities sued the Environmental
Protection Agency for its recent decision not to
regulate greenhouse-gas pollutants under the Clean Air Act, a reversal of
the agency's previous stance under the Clinton administration.

"Global warming cannot be solely addressed at the state level," said Tom
Reilly, the Massachusetts attorney general. "It's a problem that requires
a federal approach."



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lance Olsen <lance@...>
To: climateconcern@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:53:19 -0700
Subject: [CCG] Arctic climate reports

Here are two from Tidepool's news service:
www.tidepool.org
Lance Olsen

Signs of radical change in Arctic ecosystem

Shrubs are appearing where before there were none; gray whales are
venturing farther north; clams and their predators, diving sea ducks, are
less plentiful. The ice is melting. These disparate phenomena are signs
of a radical change in the Arctic ecosystem. Moreover, changes in the
Arctic mean changes everywhere else. That consensus is part of a broad
discussion among 400 Arctic scientists meeting in Seattle this week as
part of a new multimillion-dollar effort to study the far-reaching
changes occurring in the far north. (10/29/03) Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001777464_arctic29m.html

Polar Winds Spinning Faster (10/29/03) Seattle P-I
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/145924_polarsci29.html
--


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

I just got back today from making a poster presentation at a workshop in
Sparks, Nevada, cosponsored by the National Weather Service - Climate
Prediction Center (CPC) and the Desert Research Institute (DRI).

While at the workshop, I learned that the 2002-2003 El Nino had the
warmest El Nino temperatures of record, that peaked far from land in open
waters.

Regarding the topic of glaciers, it is important to keep in mind that
increasing humidity increases snow & ice melt rates (snowmelt physics is
discussed in my 22 Oct 2003 paper on Earlier Seasonal Snowmelt Runoff in
the Upper Midwest & Great Plains Regions.

After presenting my paper at the CPC / DRI Workshop, I stopped at the
National Monument sites at Fossil Butte (WY) and Dinosaur (CO).   Very
rewarding experiences for me.

I think learning about past warm climates can be helpful in the future as
global warming continues (indefinitely).

Web addresses for access to my 23 Oct 2003 paper (with figures and tables
of data) are at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/264

Pat Neuman
Chanhassen


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

1.  Changes in the Arctic
###################

Link to National Public Radio - ScienceFriday - 31 Oct 2003 at:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2003/Oct/hour1_103103.html

2. Snowmelt runoff & increasing dewpoints
#################################
Paper presented at NOAA-NWS-CPC & Desert Research Institute Climate
Workshop, 20-23 October 2003 :  At - Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS)
homepage

Links to MFS, snowmelt runoff paper at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/264
Title of paper on MFS:  "Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff and
Increasing Dewpoints for Rivers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota:
- Upper Midwest & Northern Great Plains"  Date of paper: September 11,
2003
Work by MFS continuing at this time.

3.  Links to npat1 : climate groups
#########################
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Birds-and-Landscapes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Great_Lakes

Pat Neuman
npat1@...
Chanhassen, Minnesota


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!