' The study has claimed average annual temperatures will rise by up to six
degrees by 2070'.  [ Degrees C ]

Friday, 2 January, 2004, 07:12 GMT
Australia 'facing hotter future'
By Phil Mercer
BBC correspondent in Sydney

There is a warning that Australia faces a future of higher temperatures, more
severe droughts and raging bushfires, as well as major outbreaks of tropical
diseases.

The forecast says Australia can expect more bushfires
These gloomy predictions are made in a new government report on climate change
over the next 70 years.

The findings will add to pressure on Prime Minister John Howard over his
decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases.

The report by Australia's leading climate scientists gives a devastating
assessment of what future generations can expect.

It is predicted the country will be hotter, more prone to drought and severe
storms.

The study has claimed average annual temperatures will rise by up to six degrees
by 2070.

Tropical disease

There is more bad news. Climate change caused by global warming will, say the
authors of the study, put great pressure on water resources, while the Great
Barrier Reef could be threatened by the bleaching of coral.

On top of all that, there is the prospect of more outbreaks of tropical diseases
such as dengue and Ross River Fever.

Global warming threatens the Great Barrier Reef
In what could be interpreted as a criticism of the government's opposition to
the Kyoto Protocol, the report has said any reduction in greenhouse gases would
help Australia avoid the most damaging aspects of a changing climate.

Prime Minister John Howard has refused to ratify the global agreement, claiming
it would cost jobs and damage industry and would be meaningless without the
support of the United States, which has also rejected it.

The government has established an action plan to ensure Australia continues to
cut damaging emissions without compromising its economic development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3361991.stm



________________________________________________________________
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 volcano erupts with a near clockwork cycle of every 600,000 years,"
according to the Web site armageddononline.com, which notes the last big
eruption was 640,000 years ago.
... bozeman daily chronicle

My question/concern: The IPCC accounted for scenarios of anthropogenic GHG
emissions in their outlooks for the end of the 21st century.  However, what if
Yellowstone releases its accumulation of GHGs during this century... would that
change the IPCC outlook?

In previous posts, I have expressed my concerns that changes in the weight
distribution of ice, and the density and distribution of ocean waters, could add
to tectonic/volcanic activity (a GW feedback of sorts).  Recently, there has
been an increase in quakes. Might there also be increases in volcanism, thermal
plumes?
Pat

Yellowstone a hotspot of contention
Thursday, January 01, 2004

By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer
The Internet news about Yellowstone National Park's volcano sure didn't look
cheery.

In fact, it was ghastly.

"We are overdue for annihilation," claimed one Web site.

"There is no question that this thing is going to explode momentarily," asserted
another.

And it went on from there over the past couple of months in chat rooms and
e-mail messages.

One widely posted e-mail claimed the park contained a "dead zone" that was
spreading outward, killing everything. Yellowstone Lake was "filled with dead
fish floating everywhere."

Plus, there was a conspiracy afoot.

"Our wonderful news media is not telling the public a thing about this," the
anonymous, but widespread, message maintained.

It cited as a source the Kansas City Star, which the author of the e-mail
presumably saw as a nonparticipant in the conspiracy of silence.

Like many others from around the nation, a Star reporter had written about the
Yellowstone volcano -- a topic that isn't new to most people living in or near
the park -- but he had made no calamitous predictions in the Oct. 7 article.

In fact, the story downplayed any concerns of imminent catastrophe.

"A good solid newspaper article got falsified on the Internet," said Hank
Heasler, the park's geologist. "It's interesting how the anarchy of the Web
contributes to misinformation."

Some people didn't see it that way. Apparently believing anonymous e-mail
instead of the newspaper, they denounced the Star, "angry that we hadn't done
more about the 'Yellowstone catastrophe,'" wrote Yvette Walker, the paper's
readers' representative. Others e-mailed the reporter, telling him he was
"either helping the government whitewash the Yellowstone story, or that he's an
unwitting dupe."

Yellowstone was designated as a national park in 1872 because of its unique and
fascinating geology. It contains the world's largest set of thermal features:
fumaroles and mudpots and geysers that are heated by a "hotspot" of magma under
the park's surface.

That hotspot also constitutes the base of one of the world's largest volcanoes,
though it's largely invisible and hasn't erupted for 70,000 years.

Three times in the past 2.1 million years, the park has blown its top, covering
much of the country in deep layers of volcanic ash and wreaking havoc with
global weather systems. The last big eruption was 640,000 years ago, and there
have been 30 smaller ones since then. The most recent was 70,000 years ago.

Things are still moving around, though.

"Yellowstone is one of the world's largest active volcanoes," Heasler said.

All this has been well known for decades.

Yet for a considerable period this fall, alarmed people called the park, worried
about a mega-explosion.

"The phones did ring off the hook" for a while in early October, said Stacy
Valle, a park spokeswoman.

But why all the renewed interest, all the heightened fears?

Part of it stems from new research last summer that detailed a "bulge" on the
floor of Lake Yellowstone. It's probably related to thermal activity, Heasler
said, but it isn't necessarily new.

Rather, new technology just defined it better.

Heasler compared the new underwater mapping to a person with poor eyesight
finally putting on a pair of eyeglasses. For years, that person might have
admired the shapes of distant hills, but didn't see the trees on them until
purchasing spectacles.

That person's world got more interesting, but that doesn't mean the trees
weren't there before, Heasler observed.

The bulge discovery was outlined in newspapers and broadcasts around the
country. Then rumor mongers and apocalyptic types on the Internet got involved.

"The volcano erupts with a near clockwork cycle of every 600,000 years,"
according to the Web site armageddononline.com, which notes the last big
eruption was 640,000 years ago.

That site also sells "books, videos and DVDs related to the end of the world"
and says it gets 90,000 hits a month.

Some of those people called the park.

"There's been a lot of energy and effort devoted to the concerns people have
about the park blowing up," said Heasler, who lives in Yellowstone and hasn't
packed any bags.

Another Web site connected the Yellowstone situation to a planetary link with
Mars.

When the National Park Service last summer closed part of the Norris Geyser
Basin, the most geologically active place in the park, it added to the
speculation. Soil temperatures there reached 200 degrees and a new thermal
feature opened up and started splashing acidic mud across a trail.

For obvious reasons, the area was closed to the public. It was reopened when
things cooled off.

It's all pretty interesting stuff, but not all that unusual at Norris.

"It occurs basically yearly," Heasler said.

The idea that Yellowstone is "overdue" for a giant eruption is a "gross
overstatement," according to the Web site of the Yellowstone Volcano
Observatory, a project that combines the research talents of the federal
government and the University of Utah.

A more likely event, Heasler said, would be a magma flow, events which happen
all the time around the world.

If the big one does come, it will give warnings and modern instruments likely
will detect it, Heasler said.

The park's frequent, low-intensity earthquakes -- there were an average of six a
day in 2002 -- probably would become a lot more intense if a major eruption was
brewing, Heasler said.

The park likely would be evacuated, as would parkside communities, he said, and
the media is unlikely to let a story like that go untold.

"All that's good stuff for a novel, but isn't worth spending a lot of time on
now," Heasler added.

The park is a fascinating geology lab, showcasing changes that normally take
hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

"Here, it's on a daily basis," Heasler said. "The thermal features are normal,"
but that means they're always rearranging themselves, sometimes causing paths or
areas to be closed for reasons of public safety.

"Is that unusual?" he asked. "Heck no. Just ask the boardwalk crew. But we see
no sort of indication of any sort of impending eruption."

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2003/12/07/news/03whassupbzbigs.tx\
t



________________________________________________________________
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!

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million
tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach,
1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes,
about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil
fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion
tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times
the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000
additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million
tonnes/year)!
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Pat



________________________________________________________________
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 following is from the introduction to the 'Indicators of Climate
Change
in the UK' - a government report produced by the Department for
Environment
Food and Rural Affairs.

"Global warming is no longer a theory. Since the 1970s, the world has
warmed
by about 0.15 °C per decade, and 1998 was the warmest year on record. In
England, four of the five warmest years in the 340-year record occurred
in
the last decade. These are startling statistics. The clear message from
the
scientific community is that this warming is due, at least in part, to
the
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The United Kingdom signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change at
Rio
in 1992, and, following the meeting of parties to the Convention in Kyoto
in
1997, has set itself the challenging target to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, even if all
nations fulfill their Kyoto commitments, warming is likely to continue.
We
must, therefore, remain alert and be prepared for change. "

http://www.nbu.ac.uk/iccuk/

The then Minister for the Environment, Rt Hon Micheal Meacher MP, also
wrote
in the forward to this report:-

"As greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise we can expect more
climatic changes. Evidence of  a changing climate strengthens the already
overwhelming case for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK has
taken a leading role in negotiations to agree the Kyoto Protocol under
which
the European Union have a legally binding target to cut emissions by 8%
against 1990 levels, of which we have a 12.5% share. We've also taken on
a
domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. Although I cannot
emphasise enough the need for action globally to tackle greenhouse gas
emissions these indicators also suggest that we need to turn our
attention
to adapting to climate change."

So, as you can see, the UK government believes GW is a real and serious
threat, and that GHGs are the primary cause.

The main institute for reseach into climate change is the Hadley Centre,
part of the UK Met Office
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html with
further
reseach being carried out by the Climatic Research Unit at the University
of
East Anglia http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

We, in the UK, are led (by our government and media) to beleive that a
relatively small reduction in GHG emissions will solve all our problems.
I
don't believe that to be the case at all.  I believe that there are many
other factors involved, and that in any case it is vitually impossible to
reduce GHG emissions sufficently so as to eliminate their influence.
Have
you tried telling everyone to stop driving their car lately?

I think we've poked a little hole in the dam and now think we can just
bung
it up again and all will be well.  But all we do is argue over how big
the
bung should be and who will contribute the resources for it.  And
meanwhile
we're ignoring all the other holes that occured naturally - some of which
may close naturally in time, but others?  who knows.....

Cheers
Andy

UKWeatherWorld Executive
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk

MBA Newsletter Editor
http://www.mountainbothies.org
----- Original Message -----
From: npat1@...
To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:02 PM
Subject: [P&C] Re: Promoting uncertainty when there is no doubt is
criminal

(snip)


________________________________________________________________
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 is not the timeline associated with anthropogenic
chlorofluorocarbons.  "Chlorofluorocarbons have a much
> longer lifetime in the atmosphere than does the nitric
> oxide and its associated constituents," he said.


* Earth loses its magnetism *
Like a Kryptonite-challenged Superman, the Earth's magnetic field has
steadily and mysteriously waned.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3359555.stm

By Molly Bentley
in San Francisco

Scientists have known for some time that the Earth's magnetic field is
fading.

The field is mainly dipolar - but there are anomalies
Like a Kryptonite-challenged Superman, its strength has steadily and
mysteriously waned, leaving parts of the planet vulnerable to increased
radiation from space.

Some satellites already feel the effects.

What is uncertain is whether the weakened field is on the way to a
complete collapse and a reversal that would flip the North and South
Poles.

Compasses pointing North would then point South.

It is not a matter of whether it will happen, but when, said scientists
who presented the latest research on the subject at a recent meeting of
the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

But when is hard to pinpoint. The dipole reversal pattern is erratic.

"We can have periods without reversals for many millions of years, and we
can have four or five reversals within one million years," said Yves
Gallet, from Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France, who studies
the palaeomagnetic record and estimates that the current decay started
2,000 years ago.

Flip or flop

Over the last century and a half, since monitoring began, scientists have
measured a 10% decline in the dipole.

At the current rate of decline it would take 1,500 to 2,000 years to
disappear.

  SEAFLOOR RECORDER

As molten rock rises, spreads out and cools, magnetised minerals record
field direction
Over millions of years, the seafloor rocks retain a 'barcode' of pole
reversals
These pole reversal events may take perhaps 10,000 years to complete
The last major pole flip appears to have been about 780,000 years ago
A particular weakness in the field has been observed off the coast of
Brazil in the so-called Southern Atlantic Anomaly. Here, eccentricities
in the Earth's core have caused a "dip" in the field, leaving it 30%
weaker than elsewhere.

The extra dose of radiation creates electronic glitches in satellites and
spacecraft that fly through it. Even the Hubble telescope has been
affected.

Magnetic reversals were always preceded by weakened magnetic fields, said
Dr Gallet, but not all weakened fields bring on a flip-flop.

The Earth's invisible shield could also grow back in strength. "Then
sometime, maybe 10,000 years from now, the dipole will decay again and
that will lead to a reversal," said Harvard physicist Jeremy Bloxham.

The theme was recently taken up by Hollywood in the movie The Core, in
which the Earth's core mysteriously stops spinning, effectively turning
off the electromagnetic field.

The movie is nonsense, scientists told BBC News Online, except that the
Earth's magnetic field is generated by activity deep inside it.

Iron record

The heat of the solid inner core keeps the molten cocktail of nickel and
iron churning in the outer core, which generates a magnetic field.

It is not known how the core behaves exactly, but scientists have a
general understanding of how electrical and fluid currents and magnetic
field lines all interact to produce the field we experience outside
Earth.

   If we had the equivalent of a space probe that went into the core and
made measurements for us, that would tell us a tremendous amount

Jeremy Bloxham, Harvard
Imagine the magnetic field lines within the core "twisting like
spaghetti," said Peter L Olson, geophysics professor at Johns Hopkins
University.

As they wind and kink around each other, their interaction can accentuate
the magnetic field or diminish it.

"Depending on how it's kinked," he said, "it can be helpful or harmful."

The last time the field lines kinked into a dipole reversal was 780,000
years ago.

By studying seafloor sediment and lava flows, scientists can reconstruct
the magnetic field patterns of the past. Iron in lava, for example,
points in the direction of the then-existing field and is frozen in that
orientation as the lava cools and hardens.

According to Dr Gallet, the oldest reversal that has been studied by lava
flows comes from Greenland, dated at 16 million years. The time between
reversals varies from a thousand to millions of years.

Global light show

So is the Earth about to flip? The safe bet may disappoint screenplay
writers everywhere.

"Chances are we're not," said Dr Bloxham. "Reversals are rare events."

And they would certainly not threaten life on Earth as they do in science
fiction. Although there would be extra radiation exposure to satellites
and some airplanes, there would also be enough of a residual field to
provide protection to people, and certainly no more radiation than what
is observed at the poles, where the field lines currently dip.


Supercomputers have modelled the pole flipping process (Image: Los Alamos
Nat Lab)
But there would be some bizarre readjustment. Prior to Earth's poles
re-establishing themselves, a period of disorder would produce multiple
poles, according to Dr Bloxham, which may make backwoods camping tricky.

"Getting around using a magnetic compass would be a more complicated
endeavour," he said.

A collapse would also produce a great increase in auroral activity - the
beautiful display of lights generated by solar particles that follow the
magnetic field lines down into the atmosphere.

And there would be plenty to time to grab a camera - the reversal is
gradual.

This would give animals which use the magnetic field for navigation, such
as some birds, turtles and bees, time to reorient themselves.

"They'd go through many generations in the period in which the field was
entering the phase of reversal," said Dr Bloxham. "Presumably they would
learn new behaviour patterns to accommodate it."

Space within

As for the ozone layer - which was thought to be vulnerable without a
protective shield - the effects would be negligible unless there was a
super-solar proton event, said Charles H Jackman, an atmospheric
physicist at the US space agency's Goddard Flight Center, referring to
the high-energy radiation that can accompany solar flares.

The charged particles zinging down to Earth, said Dr Jackman, break apart
molecules of nitrogen, whose atoms go on to form nitric oxide, which
devours up ozone.

This happens all the time, but the effects would be increased during a
magnetic reversal or diminished magnetic field.


Fluctuations and movement of field strength across the globe are recorded

But he said scientists saw no significant change in ozone depletion due
to the Southern Atlantic Anomaly. In any case, the ozone layer would
bounce back quickly from the heavy solar bombardment, healing itself in
just two to three years, according to Dr Jackman.

This is not the timeline associated with anthropogenic
chlorofluorocarbons.

"Chlorofluorocarbons have a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere than
does the nitric oxide and its associated constituents," he said.

But all these scenarios are of an indeterminate future. The Earth's
interior will remain unexplored for a long time to come - only in science
fiction can humans or their equipment survive the 5,500 Celsius
temperature in the core to study its activity.

"If we had the equivalent of a space probe that went into the core and
made measurements for us, that would tell us a tremendous amount," said
Dr Bloxham. "Hollywood may be able to do these things, but we can't."





________________________________________________________________
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!

' Consequently, the sulfur compounds have a greater
short-term effect, and cooling dominates. However,
over long periods of time (thousands or millions of years),
multiple eruptions of giant volcanoes, such as the
flood basalt volcanoes, can raise the carbon dioxide
levels enough to cause significant global warming.'

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html

Volcanoes & Climate

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and
long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped
about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount
Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and
famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption
of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the
earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by
ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and
dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of
the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface,
depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The
amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust put into the air, and the
duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles.
Particles the size of sand grains fall out of the air in a matter of a
few minutes and stay close to the volcano. These particles have little
effect on the climate. Tiny dust-size ash particles thrown into the lower
atmosphere will float around for hours or days, causing darkness and
cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly
washed out of the air by the abundant water and rain present in the lower
atmosphere. However, dust tossed into the dry upper atmosphere, the
stratosphere, can remain for weeks to months before they finally settle.
These particles block sunlight and cause some cooling over large areas of
the earth.

Volcanoes that release large amounts of sulfur compounds like sulfur
oxide or sulfur dioxide affect the climate more strongly than those that
eject just dust. The sulfur compounds are gases that rise easily into the
stratosphere. Once there, they combine with the (limited) water available
to form a haze of tiny droplets of sulfuric acid. These tiny droplets are
very light in color and reflect a great deal of sunlight for their size.
Although the droplets eventually grow large enough to fall to the earth,
the stratosphere is so dry that it takes time, months or even years to
happen. Consequently, reflective hazes of sulfur droplets can cause
significant cooling of the earth for as long as two years after a major
sulfur-bearing eruption. Sulfur hazes are believed to have been the
primary cause of the global cooling that occurred after the Pinatubo and
Tambora eruptions. For many months, a satellite tracked the sulfur cloud
produced by Pinatubo. The image shows the cloud about three months after
the eruption. It is already a continuous band of haze encircling the
entire globe. You can learn more about the cooling effects of sulfur
hazes by clicking here.

Volcanoes also release large amounts of water and carbon dioxide. When
these two compounds are in the form of gases in the atmosphere, they
absorb heat radiation (infrared) emitted by the ground and hold it in the
atmosphere. This causes the air below to get warmer. Therefore, you might
think that a major eruption would cause a temporary warming of the
atmosphere rather than a cooling. However, there are very large amounts
of water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already, and even a large
eruption doesn't change the global amounts very much. In addition, the
water generally condenses out of the atmosphere as rain in a few hours to
a few days, and the carbon dioxide quickly dissolves in the ocean or is
absorbed by plants. Consequently, the sulfur compounds have a greater
short-term effect, and cooling dominates. However, over long periods of
time (thousands or millions of years), multiple eruptions of giant
volcanoes, such as the flood basalt volcanoes, can raise the carbon
dioxide levels enough to cause significant global warming.
HTML code by Chris Kreger
Maintained by ETE Team
Last updated May 16, 2003

Privacy Statement and Copyright© 1997-2003 by Wheeling Jesuit
University/NASA Classroom of the Future™. All rights reserved.

Center for Educational Technologies and the COTF/Classroom of the Future
logo are registered trademarks of Wheeling Jesuit University.


________________________________________________________________
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!

--- In Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com, Tim Jones
<deforest@a...> wrote:
DAILY GRIST
22 Oct 2003
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://www.gristmagazine.com>

New Stats On Energy Use in China Alarm Environmentalists

The most populous country on the planet may also pose the biggest
threat to the global climate, according to recently released
statistics about coal production and consumption in China.  Until a
few months ago, many energy experts hoped that the nation would have
a relatively limited impact on climate change, because its
state-owned companies were thought to be increasingly efficient and
coal use appeared to be declining steeply.  But with the release of
the official government figures, cause for optimism has disappeared:
Coal use in China is growing faster than almost anywhere in the
world, and the International Energy Agency predicts that China's
increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2030 will almost
equal the increase in emissions in the entire industrialized world.
At the same time, sales of cars -- another major factor in greenhouse
emissions -- are also growing explosively in China, and home energy
use due to televisions, air-conditioning, and other electronics and
appliances is also on the rise.

straight to the source:  New York Times, Keith Bradsher, 22 Oct 2003
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=1639>
expired link

This one doesn't seem to Google up from the abyss.
--
<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>
--- End forwarded message ---

--- In Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com, Tim Jones
<deforest@a...> wrote:
This is a terrific site regarding green building:
-T

Green Construction
http://www.greenconstruction.co.uk/

Green Construction is a collection of abstracts
of newspaper and periodical articles relevant to
green building in the UK.

It is designed to help you find out about the
stories of interest to you. In many cases, there
is a link directly to the story at its source, so
you can follow it up immediately. However, some
online services are paid subscriber only access
or have session log-in parameters. For this
reason certain articles and news items may not
have links to the full text, even though this is
available on the web. In these cases a search on
the relevant website using the article title will
retrieve the text.

We have also provided a selection of
carefully-chosen links to other useful websites,
to help your research.

<>

Green Construction Round-Up No.77
November 16 - 30 2003

http://www.greenconstruction.co.uk/Archive/RoundUp77.htm

Mini-turbine brings 'green power for all'
The winds of change will blow a little stronger
this morning when a small Scottish company
launches Britain's first wind power system
designed to be fitted on almost any roof or wall
to supplement electricity from the grid. The
machine, a 3ft by 2ft sealed box with three
blades which face into the prevailing wind, is
backed by the energy minister, Brian Wilson, who
is a paid consultant for Windsave, the company
behind it.
The Guardian. 24 November

Domestic wind generators ready to power homes
Television aerials and satellite dishes were
facing some new roof-top competition yesterday,
with the launch of the world's first domestic
wind generator. Windsave's micro wind-generator
is the first to bring clean, green renewable
electricity within the grasp of most families,
and can be plugged directly into the mains. The
system, a 3ft by 2ft sealed unit with three
blades, can operate in wind speeds as low as
three miles-per-hour and requires no batteries to
store the electricity. The revolutionary system
could save consumers up to 15 percent of energy
costs per year for a single payment of £750.
The Scotsman. 25 November

--
<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>
--- End forwarded message ---

Excerpt from a post I made on Jan 19, 2000 to Minnesota Politics Discussion,
public archives at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/3177

...

'I am very concerned about global warming. Dr. James Baker of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that: "The
world continues to get warmer. There is no question we are seeing global
warming". Dr. Baker said this on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather on January
10, 2000.

It is well known by scientists that global warming would have drastic
environmental and economic impacts on the entire world.

I believe that this growing phenomenon of global warming should be a
major concern of all government agencies in this country and the world. The
causes and impacts of global warming should receive immediate attention by all
political parties. Carefully prepared action plans should be developed as soon
as possible by all agencies to try to slow global warming and to prepare for its
onslaught.

Although I work under (snip), I am representing only myself in this
message and all messages which I have sent, and will send, on this topic of
global warming and related issues.

Sincerely,

Pat Neuman
Private citizen - St. Paul, moving to Chanhassen, MN soon.
Public servant - (snip)
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!

American Petrolium Institute website:
http://api-ec.api.org/AdvancedSearch.cfm

Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP (Wojick_CCSP_Report Final
04Dec03.pdf)

David E Wojick, Ph.D., PE, offers An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program in his December 2003 report on Key
Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues: " . . . the Strategic Plan of the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program is a significant piece of work.





________________________________________________________________
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!

US Energy Demand to Grow 1.5 Pct Annually

WASHINGTON - U.S. energy consumption is expected to grow 1.5 percent a
year over the next two decades, with America using less natural gas and
crude oil but more coal, nuclear power and renewable energy sources than
previously thought, the government said this week.

Oil demand was revised lower because of expected increases in federal
vehicle gasoline mileage requirements, and higher natural gas prices will
push down gas demand, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's long-term forecast.
Nonetheless total U.S. energy use will increase more rapidly than
domestic energy production and more imports - particularly oil - will be
needed to meet a growing share of energy demand, EIA said.

The Energy Department's analytical arm said U.S. crude oil production
will increase from 5.6 million barrels per day (bpd) last year to a peak
of 6.1 million bpd in 2008 and gradually decline to 4.6 million bpd in
2025.

At the same time, domestic oil demand will jump from the current 20
million bpd to 28.3 million bpd in 2025.

As a result, petroleum imports - including both crude oil and refined oil
products like gasoline - will account for 70 percent of demand, up from
54 percent last year.

Separately, U.S. natural gas demand is forecast to grow 1.4 percent a
year from 22.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2002 to 31.4 Tcf in 2025,
primarily because of more power plants being built that use gas as a fuel
for generating electricity, EIA said.

However, domestic gas production is not expected to grow as fast and
imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) will have to close the widening
gap between supply and demand.

Tighter supplies of natural gas mean U.S. production will be 23.79 Tcf in
2020 - significantly lower than the 25.1 Tcf that the EIA forecast one
year ago for 2020. The change is due to declining production from
existing gas wells and new fields that are typically smaller than the
large, older fields already tapped.

LNG imports are forecast to increase to 4.8 Tcf in 2025, double the EIA's
estimate last year in its long-term energy outlook. The increase would
mean LNG would account for 15 percent of total U.S. gas demand in 2025.

LNG is natural gas super-cooled for transportation aboard special
tankers. The manufacturing process cools the gas to minus-259 degrees
Fahrenheit, changing the gas into liquid and shrinking it to less than
1/600 of its original volume.

Other highlights of the EIA's energy forecast between 2002 and 2025
include: * Average world oil price, reflecting inflation, rises from $27
a barrel to $52.

* Coal remains the primary fuel for power plants, accounting for 52
percent of electric generation in 2025 from the current 50 percent.

* Electricity generated by renewable sources like solar and wind
increases 1.9 percent a year to 518 billion kilowatt-hours.

* No new nuclear power plants expected to be built, but current plants
increase their generating capacity.

* Carbon dioxide emissions increase 1.5 percent a year from 5,729 million
metric tons to 8,142 million metric tons.

Story by Tom Doggett
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SEARCH
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23186/story.htm

  Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version


________________________________________________________________
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: npat1@...
To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:26:29 -0600
Subject: [P&C] Re: Promoting uncertainty when there is no doubt is
criminal
Message-ID: <20040102.102629.-16329253.0.npat1@...>

Hi Andy,

Thanks for answering my request for information about the official UK
position on global warming.

As far as I know, the United States still has no position on global
warming.  Some not for profit organizations and many professional
scientific groups have issued formal statements regarding global warming.

However, the United States government to my knowledge has no formal
position that U.S. citizens are aware of.  Some U.S. government agencies
make statements about climate variability and change,  but many people
find that it's impossible to figure out what is meant by that.

This lack of an official position by the U.S. has opened the door to many
quack climate scientists to get widespread media attention for telling
their stories to the public, for a profit I suspect.

For example,  last night on the FOX TV Network I watched an interview
with the Midwest's ' chief ' climatologist Bruce Watson.  Watson said
that global warming was real...  then added that global climate has
always gone through warming and cooling periods.  He said that the causes
of the latest warming are unknown. Then he said that he expects global
cooling to start again soon, but didn't say why.   In Sept or Oct of
2003, Watson predicted a colder than 'normal' winter for the Midwest.
December of 2003 in the Midwest was, again,  much above normal for
temperatures.  Although next week is expected to be cold, another warm up
is expected to follow.  The winter of Dec 2003 through February of 2004
will be another winter with above normal temperatures, without a doubt in
my view.

When the public, industry and government hear or read these way out
Watson, et. al.  explanations of climate and the unlikely climate
scenarios for the future it is no wonder that the environmentalists
speaking out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions get ridiculed and falsely
accused of being unpatriotic.

Pat





On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:33:53 -0000 "Andy Mayhew" <andy@...>
writes:
> Hi Pat
>
> The following is from the introduction to the 'Indicators of Climate
> Change
> in the UK' - a government report produced by the Department for
> Environment
> Food and Rural Affairs.
>
> "Global warming is no longer a theory. Since the 1970s, the world
> has warmed
> by about 0.15 °C per decade, and 1998 was the warmest year on
> record. In
> England, four of the five warmest years in the 340-year record
> occurred in
> the last decade. These are startling statistics. The clear message
> from the
> scientific community is that this warming is due, at least in part,
> to the
> increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> The United Kingdom signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change
> at Rio
> in 1992, and, following the meeting of parties to the Convention in
> Kyoto in
> 1997, has set itself the challenging target to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, even if all
> nations fulfill their Kyoto commitments, warming is likely to
> continue. We
> must, therefore, remain alert and be prepared for change. "
>
> http://www.nbu.ac.uk/iccuk/
>
> The then Minister for the Environment, Rt Hon Micheal Meacher MP,
> also wrote
> in the forward to this report:-
>
> "As greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise we can expect more
> climatic changes. Evidence of  a changing climate strengthens the
> already
> overwhelming case for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK
> has
> taken a leading role in negotiations to agree the Kyoto Protocol
> under which
> the European Union have a legally binding target to cut emissions by
> 8%
> against 1990 levels, of which we have a 12.5% share. We've also
> taken on a
> domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. Although I
> cannot
> emphasise enough the need for action globally to tackle greenhouse
> gas
> emissions these indicators also suggest that we need to turn our
> attention
> to adapting to climate change."
>
> So, as you can see, the UK government believes GW is a real and
> serious
> threat, and that GHGs are the primary cause.
>
> The main institute for reseach into climate change is the Hadley
> Centre,
> part of the UK Met Office
> http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html with
> further
> reseach being carried out by the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of
> East Anglia http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
>
> We, in the UK, are led (by our government and media) to beleive that
> a
> relatively small reduction in GHG emissions will solve all our
> problems.  I
> don't believe that to be the case at all.  I believe that there are
> many
> other factors involved, and that in any case it is vitually
> impossible to
> reduce GHG emissions sufficently so as to eliminate their influence.
>  Have
> you tried telling everyone to stop driving their car lately?
>
> I think we've poked a little hole in the dam and now think we can
> just bung
> it up again and all will be well.  But all we do is argue over how
> big the
> bung should be and who will contribute the resources for it.  And
> meanwhile
> we're ignoring all the other holes that occured naturally - some of
> which
> may close naturally in time, but others?  who knows.....
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> UKWeatherWorld Executive
> http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk
>
> MBA Newsletter Editor
> http://www.mountainbothies.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: npat1@...
> To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:02 PM
> Subject: [P&C] Re: Promoting uncertainty when there is no doubt is
> criminal
>
>
> Andy,
>
> I'm not able to connect to Internet this morning.
> I haven't checked on the Financial Times article yet.
>
> Is there an official statement on global warming by the UK?
>
> Is there a person viewed as most knowledgeable on climate?
> What science discipline is considered authoritative on climate?
>
> Pat
>
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:02:00 -0000 "Andy Mayhew"
> <andy@...>
> writes:
> > IMO the problem (certainly in the UK) is more one of overkill with
> > the media
> > attributing all and every weather to global warming.  So pleased to
> > see this
> > article in the Financial Times which strikes a better balance:-
> >
> > "Was 2003 the year that global warming made itself unmistakably
> > felt? Or is
> > the perception that we are living in an age of extreme
> temperatures,
> > storms,
> > floods and droughts merely a consequence of more monitoring and
> > vivid
> > television images?"
> >
> > "Global warming sceptics also point out that extreme weather events
> > may be
> > more common than we think. The devastating European floods of 2002,
> > which
> > caused irreparable damage to historic buildings, were not abnormal,
> > according to work published in the journal Nature in September.
> > Analysis of
> > heavy floods in the past 1,000 years showed no evidence of "recent
> > upward
> > trends", said researchers from the University of Leipzig."
> >
> > "Another problem for those trying to detect the fingerprints of
> > global
> > warming is the difficulty of attributing any particular flood,
> > drought or
> > heatwave to climate change. At the heart of this issue is the
> > distinction
> > between weather - which is all that can ever be observed directly -
> > and
> > climate. "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get,"
> said
> > Edward
> > Lorenz, an MIT atmospheric science researcher who in the late 1950s
> > explained why weather is inherently unpredictable"
> >
> >
>
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStor
> y&c
> > =StoryFT&cid=1071251842578
> >
> > GHC may well be contributing to GW, which in turn may be increasing
> > the
> > number of extreme weather events being experienced around the
> world.
> >  But we
> > should be cautious of blaming everything on GW and remember that
> > such events
> > have occurred repeatedly throughout history.  Maybe today they are
> > just a
> > bit more frequent......
> > .......or are we just nowadays made more aware of them?
> >
> > Cheers
> > (and best wishes everyone for a peaceful 2004!)
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > UKWeatherWorld Executive
> > http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk
> >
> > MBA Newsletter Editor
> > http://www.mountainbothies.org
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: npat1@...
> > To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 12:39 AM
> > Subject: [P&C] Promoting uncertainty when there is no doubt is
> > criminal
> >
> >
> > According to Mike Neuman, the practice by media of promoting two
> > sides to
> > the global
> > warming issue is contributing to the fossil fuel industry's
> > manipulation
> > of the public consciousness, into believing global warming is not a
> > problem, so people can keep
> > driving their automobiles and flying everywhere they want to
> travel.
> >
> > I agree.  A specific case showing the media is promoting
> uncertainty
> > when
> > there is no doubt is given below.  There is no doubt that global
> > warming
> > is being driven primarily by fossil fuel emissions.  Media are not
> > giving
> > the public the truth that the public needs to hear often - without
> > hesitation or other gestures of doubt or foolishness.
> >
> > From 30 December, 2003 Minneapolis Star Tribune:
> > > Paul Douglas
> > > .. worldwide this year ...
> > > A string of 100-degree days in Europe may have led to the
> > > deaths of 20,000 to 25,000 people. That was the greatest
> > > weather-related tragedy.  Second on the list was flooding
> > > along the Huai and Yangtze rivers in China that destroyed
> > > 650,000 apartments.
> > > Whether the climate is really more vulnerable to swings in
> > > moisture or whether we're just more vulnerable to swings
> > > in moisture and temperatures remains up for debate.
> > >
> > > Mobile My-Cast founder Paul Douglas is the WCCO-TV4Warn
> > > Storm Team's chief meteorologist.
> >
> > Weather fact :  .. also in 30 December Minneapolis Star Tribune:
> > > Statistics gathered by the World Health Organization
> > > show that heat waves accounted for the two deadliest
> > > weather-related disasters in the United States over the
> > > past decade and three of the top five.
> >
> > Pat Neuman
> > United States citizen
> >
________________________________________________________________

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Water_Resources/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Birds-and-Landscapes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo



________________________________________________________________
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 30 December, 2003 Minneapolis Star Tribune:
> Paul Douglas
> .. worldwide this year ...
> A string of 100-degree days in Europe may have led to the
> deaths of 20,000 to 25,000 people. That was the greatest
> weather-related tragedy.  Second on the list was flooding
> along the Huai and Yangtze rivers in China that destroyed
> 650,000 apartments.
>
> Whether the climate is really more vulnerable to swings in
> moisture or whether we're just more vulnerable to swings
> in moisture and temperatures remains up for debate.
>
> Mobile My-Cast founder Paul Douglas is the WCCO-TV4Warn
> Storm Team's chief meteorologist.

Weather fact :  .. also in 30 December Minneapolis Star Tribune:
> Statistics gathered by the World Health Organization
> show that heat waves accounted for the two deadliest
> weather-related disasters in the United States over the
> past decade and three of the top five.

Pat Neuman
United States citizen

________________________________________________________________
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: Pat J Neuman <npat@...>
To: Debate@...
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:23:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's
Assessment  of Plan (D 2003)
Message-ID: <20040103.162336.-442433.0.npat@...>

David,

Regarding the StratPlan, you say ...
> they systematically blur the distinction between natural
> climate change and human induced change, even though
> that is the fundamental scientific issue.

From my 7 Feb 2003 post to CCD by NOAA/CMDL:

> >> "What's missing is that climate change itself could
> >> significantly affect our predictions for the carbon cycle
> >> even if we understand carbon dynamics pretty well.

How is it possible not to systematically blur the distinction between
natural climate change and human induced change, when climate change
itself significantly affects the carbon cycle?  The is absolutely no
natural climate or natural climate change anymore, its already completely
blurred with anthropogenic elements overwhelming minimal natural
influences to such an extent that the natural influences are near zero in
effect.

From one of my Feb posts on the draft StratPlan: ...

> >> Comments on SPCC: Chapter 9: Carbon Cycle
From: npat1 (view other messages by this author
<index.html?by=Author&a=npat1>)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:21

I  recently reviewed:   "The Written Public Comments on the Strategic
Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program"  (SPCC).

In my review of public comments on Chapter 9,  carbon cycle,  I selected
a few excerpts that I think have important information for consideration.
    It is clear to me that the greatest and overwhelming influence on
world climate warming are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

MCCLAIN, NASA
"Derscriptions or the atmospheric and terrestrial knowledge, needs,
products, and payoffs are more detailed than for the oceans.  However,
it is thought that the oceans regulate about half of the CO2 uptake and
global primary production (some recent publications have reduced the
sequestration numbers).  Therefore, the oceans role should be
represented in a more balanced manner."

JEFFREY GAFFNEY, ARGONNE NAT'L LABORATORY
"the carbon cycle includes the emissions of isoprene and monoterpene
hydrocarbons as well as a number of other trace gas species..."   These
emissions are quite large and are now known to play a role in
determining the atmospheric composition of the troposphere on regional
and global scales.  Indeed their presence in areas where there are
anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide, can lead to increased levels or regional ozone and fine
aerosols that are important in radiative balance considerations"
   >snip<
Ozone is a potent plant phytotoxin.  Increased tropospheric ozone (a
greenhouse gas) levels will lead to the stomatal resistance beintg
increased leading to reduced uptake of carbon dioxide, less water
emitted through evapotranspiration, and less emission of volatile
organic carbon (i.e. isoprene) from plants.  Carbon sequestration under
ozone exposures have been shown to reduce carbon uptake in FACE
experiments even at moderate levels ...".   "At 60 ppb levels carbon
dioxide uptake even under high carbon dioxide exposure was reduced
significantly due to this interaction.
This type of feedback  is not really addressed in this document."

NED FORD, SIERRA CLUB
"A reasonable estimate of the rate of ocean saturation suggests that by
the end of this century under BAU, we will have effectively saturated
the ocean.  Further air/ocean transfer will occur, but it will require
proportionally larger increases in atmospheric levels and much more
time."

NOAA/CMDL
"What's missing is that climate change itself could significantly affect
our predictions for the carbon cycle even if we understand carbon
dynamics pretty well.  CH4 is specifically mentioned here and Human
Dimensions pops up."

Public comments on SPCC are in:
<http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/toc.htm>

> >> Pat Neuman
> >> Chanhassen, MN

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:28:18 -0500 "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
writes:
> Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
> One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
> they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
> criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
> Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
> including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
> presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
> pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
> View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
> with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it,  etc.,
> etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
> uncertainty.
>
> On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
> pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
> blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
> induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
> issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
> regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
> possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
> That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
> what can't be done by their own numbers.
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> David W.
>
> >--------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: npat1@...
> >To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
> >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:30:18 -0600
> >Subject:
> >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's Assessment of
> Plan
> >(D 2003)
> >Message-ID: <20040103.083020.-358945.0.npat1@...>
> >
> >To: Paleontology_and_Climate discussion group members:
> >
> >Please post any comments you may have on:
> >
> >1.  Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003
> >
> >and/or:
> >
> >2.  Wojick's: ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP.
> An
> >Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science
> >Program'  (Dec 2003).
> >
> >Explanation follows.  Please let me know if you have questions.
> ... pat
> >...
> >
> >Wojick boasted about his new role in Washington during the Fall of
> 2002
> >... while the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science
> Program
> >(CCSP) was being developed in Washington.
> >
> >Wojick's latest report ... ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues
> in the
> >CCSP. An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate
> Change
> >Science Program' (Dec 2003) is at  http://www.api.org ( do a search
> on '
> >wojick ' ).
> >
> >Wojick concludes that:
> >
> >'Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before the
> >science is settled, one way or the other. This in itself is
> >an important finding. Comments welcome'
> >
> >Question: How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
> the
> >U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP?  [ Report with Letter to Members
> of
> >Congress dated July, 2003]
> >
> >I provided comment for the draft Strategic Plan for the CCSP in
> January,
> >2003.  From page 1. of my copy of the:
> >
> >
> >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003:
> >
> >---
> >July 2003
> >
> >Members of Congress:
> >
> >Transmitted herein is a copy of the Strategic Plan for the Climate
> Change
> >Science Program.  This document describes the Climate Change
> Science
> >Program(CCSP) approach to enhancing scientific understanding of
> global
> >climate change. ...
> >...
> >...
> >We than the participating departments and agencies of the CCSP for
> their
> >close cooperation and support and look forward to working with
> Congress
> >in the continued development of these important programs.
> >
> >Spencer Abraham
> >Secretary of Energy
> >Chair, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >
> >Donald L. Evans
> >Secretary of Commerce
> >Vice Chair, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >
> >John H. Marburger III, Ph. D.
> >Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
> >Executive Director, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >---
> >
> >
> >>From the back cover of the:
> >Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
> >
> >
> >---
> >CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICE
> >
> >(right side of page)
> >
> >To obtain a copy of this document, contact:
> >
> >Climate Change Science Program Office
> >1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> >Suite 250
> >Washington, DC 20006
> >202 223 6262 (voice)
> >202 223 3065 (fax)
> >information@...
> >http://www.climatescience.gov
> >http://usgcrp.gov
> >
> >The Climate Change Science Program
> >incorporates the U.S. Global Change
> >Research Program and the Climate Change
> >Research Initiative.
> >
> >(left side of page)
> >
> >James R. Mahoney, CSSP Director
> >Richard H. Moss, CCSPO Director
> >...
> >---
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >--------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
> >To: Debate <Debate@...>
> >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0500
> >Subject: My science milestone report is up
> >Message-ID: <p04320401bc1b7314dce3@[204.111.84.75]>
> >
> >Dear Listers, I have a new report just out--
> >
> >Wojick, David E., 2003. Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the
> CCSP.
> >An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change
> Science
> >Program. December 2003. Online go to <http://www.api.org> and
> search on
> ><wojick>.
> >
> >My basic point is that the CCSP Strategic Plan gives many
> time-estimated
> >milestones for resolving key scientific uncertainties. These must
> be
> >resolved before we can determine whether or not humans are in fact
> >influencing climate. This definition of milestones is a major step
> >forward, for which the CCSP is to be commended. What remains is to
> >network the critical dependencies between these milestones, to find
> the
> >critical path to resolution. Then do the research to work thru that
> path.
> >
> >
> >Many of the key time estimates are "beyond 4 years," and some have
> to
> >wait for others to be resolved along the critical path. Therefore,
> it
> >will likely be a decade or more before the science is settled, one
> way or
> >the other. This in itself is an important finding. Comments
> welcome.
> >
> >Critical path scheduling is a well known project management method.
> it
> >should be applied to climate research.
> >
> >Happy New Year,
> >
> >David W.
> >
> >David E. Wojick, PE, Ph.D.
> ><dwojick@...>
> >President
> >Climatechangedebate.org
> >
> >Over 15,000 knowledgeable postings a year!
> >Non subscribers can follow the debate at
> >http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
> >or sign up for the free email debate listserv at
> >http://www.climatechangedebate.org
> >See my latest climate science study at http://www.nam.org/wojick
> >
> >http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides a Wojick
> bio and
> >client list.
> >
>

________________________________________________________________
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!

Posted to ClimateArchive for use in discussion at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: mtneuman@...
To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:59:40 -0600
Subject: [P&C] Re: The Oregon Petition
...
...
Mike Neuman responds:   In my opinion, unless someone is asking a
question, I would say it is the person who initially posts the
information who has the main responsibility to check the accuracy of the
information before posting it to others.  In this case, that was not done
sufficiently by the initial poster of the information, so the burden of
investing time in researching the topic fell onto others (me), unfairly I
might add.

Be that as it may, the problems embedded in the development and promotion
of the "Oregon Petition" demonstrate the depth some global warming
skeptics will go to, just to convey to the public, governmental officials
and the mass media the false perception that global warming is not a
problem to be all that concerned about, and that it is not newsworthy.
That background is provided below.  My source for this information is a
book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, authors from the Center for
Media and Democracy, Madison, WI, who also wrote the book "Mad Cow USA"
that is getting all the attention in the media these days.  This
information on the Oregon Petition is paraphrased from their (also)
excellent 2001 book: "Trust Us, We're Experts! - How Industry Manipulates
Science and Gambles with Your Future":

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, was circulated in April 1998, in a bulk mailing to tens of
thousands of U.S. scientists.  In addition to the petition, the mailing
included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper.  Authored
by Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled
"Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in
the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.  A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served
as president of the academy in the 1960s, added to the impression that
Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's
peer-reviewed journal.

Robinson's paper claimed that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.  "As atmospheric CO2
increases", it stated, "plant growth rate increase.  Also, leaves lose
less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier
conditions.  Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food,
increases proportionally", the paper stated. "This will help to maintain
and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people", Robinson's paper said.

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor the Oregon Institute of Science
and Medicine petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy
of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began
calling to ask if the academy had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty.

Robinson was a biochemist with no published research in the field of
climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by
anyone with training in the field.  In fact, the paper had never been
accepted for publication - anywhere - let alone in the National Academy
of Sciences Proceedings.  It was self-published by Robinson, who did the
typesetting himself on his own computer under the auspices of the Oregon
Institute of Sciences and Medicine, of which Robinson himself was the
founder.

The bulk mailing that went out to scientists gave no information about
the Oregon Institute itself, other than the address of a post office box.
  The institute describes itself as "a small research institute" located
in Cave Junction (population 1,126), Oregon. It is not known as a center
for scientific and medical research.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of
Chicago, complained at the time that "the mailing is clearly designed to
be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is
full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review".
TheNational Academy of Sciences' foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, a
Nobel Laureate atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if
some is trying to hoodwink them".  Academy council member Ralph J.
Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of
California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described
himself in the cover letter as a past president of the academy.  Although
Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone said he hoped the
scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into
believing that he "still had a role in governing the organization"

The academy issued an usually blunt formal response to the petition
drive.  "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition
has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the
manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news
release.  "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert
reports of the Academy."  In fact, it pointed out, its own prior
published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties
in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a
potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.  Investment in
mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great
uncertainties and the potential of dramatic surprises."

Rampton and Stauber write that: "When questioned in 1998, Robinson
admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified
themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or
meteorologists."  In fact, when the Oregon Petition first circulated,
environmental advocates successfully added the names of several
characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael
J. Fox and Benjamin Pierce from the TV show M*A*S*H*, and Geraldine
Halliwell, formerly known as the pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice
Girls.

Source:  Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, "Trust Us, We're Experts! -
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future", John P.
Tarcher/Putnam, a member of Penguin Putnam Inc., New York, 2001.

---End of  Forwarded message from: 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!

Correction to month date in following sentence should read:
...  public forum in Oct 2002 at the University of Minnesota ...

Furthermore, chief atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann,
University of Washington, Seattle showed in his powerpoint
lecture at a public forum in Oct 2003 at the University of
Minnesota that anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse
gases overwhelmed all other forcing in the late 1990s-early
21st century period.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: npat1@...
To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:57:00 -0600 Subject:
Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's Assessment  of
Plan(D 2003)

> npat1@j... wrote:
> >
> > the enhanced greenhouse effect overwhelms other
> > factors in driving climate change (global warming)
> >
>
> Please explain the above. Since the enhanced greenhouse
> effect is all about trapping heat, how are the other factors
> overwhelmed?
> Jim

Jim,

Please reread the  excerpts that follow from the statement by the
American Geophysical Union - Human Impacts on Climate - adopted by the
Council December, 2003:

- - -
Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot
explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed
during the second half of the 20th century.

A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be
rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly
following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will
remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.

The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in
water supply as well as flood and drought patterns.

Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their
climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together
with other human influences on climate over the past century and those
anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.
- - -
American Geophysical Union (AGU), Human Impacts on Climate,  Adopted by
Council December, 2003 [ Entire statement has been posted to
ClimateArchive].

I think my statement:

> > the enhanced greenhouse effect overwhelms other
> > factors in driving climate change (global warming)

is not much different than the statements above by AGU.  Furthermore,
chief atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington,
Seattle showed in his powerpoint lecture at a public forum in Oct 2003 at
the University of Minnesota that anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse
gases overwhelmed all other forcing in the late 1990s-early 21st century
period.  The powerpoint lecture is on the Internet, found through the
link to Minnesota Climatology office, as I suggested for review to Bob on
the 1991Pinatuba eruption.

Pat


________________________________________________________________
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 have summarized below what I feel are the important points regarding
this threat, please review.   If others are willing to provide comments
on this threat I will continue to participate in it.  Otherwise, I
consider this threat stopped for now.

Summary:

This threat was begun for the purpose of receiving comment from others
regarding:

A.  Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (July, 2003)

B.  David Wojick's Strategic Plan Assessment (Dec. 2003)

More specifically,

1. - - - Wojick concluded:
> > Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before
> > the science is settled, one way or the other. This in
> > itself is an important finding. Comments welcome.

Many scientists believe that the science has been settled for many years
already, and that further delay in slowing anthropogenic GHG emissions
will be extremely costly in damages to the environment.


2. - - - How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
> > the U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP?  [ Report with Letter to
> > Members of Congress dated July, 2003 (excerpt included below)

David Wojick answered my question by his Jan 3 post to his discussion
group at ClimateChangeDebate, shown below.

> Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
> One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
> they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
> criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
> Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
> including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
> presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
> pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
> View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
> with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it,  etc.,
> etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
> uncertainty.
>
> On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
> pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
> blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
> induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
> issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
> regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
> possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
> That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
> what can't be done by their own numbers.
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> David W.

I provided my answer on why I asked in a post included below.  If others
are willing to provide comments on this threat I will continue to
participate.  Otherwise, I consider this threat stopped for now.

Pat

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: npat1@...
To: ClimateArchive@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com,
	  Birds-and-Landscapes@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:13:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's
Assessment  of Plan(D 2003)
Message-ID: <20040104.081336.-292597.0.npat1@...>


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pat J Neuman <npat@...>
To: Debate@...
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:23:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's
Assessment  of Plan (D 2003)
Message-ID: <20040103.162336.-442433.0.npat@...>

David,

Regarding the StratPlan, you say ...
> they systematically blur the distinction between natural
> climate change and human induced change, even though
> that is the fundamental scientific issue.

From my 7 Feb 2003 post to CCD by NOAA/CMDL:

> >> "What's missing is that climate change itself could
> >> significantly affect our predictions for the carbon cycle
> >> even if we understand carbon dynamics pretty well.

How is it possible not to systematically blur the distinction between
natural climate change and human induced change, when climate change
itself significantly affects the carbon cycle?  The is absolutely no
natural climate or natural climate change anymore, its already completely
blurred with anthropogenic elements overwhelming minimal natural
influences to such an extent that the natural influences are near zero in
effect.

From one of my Feb posts on the draft StratPlan: ...

> >> Comments on SPCC: Chapter 9: Carbon Cycle
From: npat1 (view other messages by this author
<index.html?by=Author&a=npat1>)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:21

I  recently reviewed:   "The Written Public Comments on the Strategic
Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program"  (SPCC).

In my review of public comments on Chapter 9,  carbon cycle,  I selected
a few excerpts that I think have important information for consideration.
    It is clear to me that the greatest and overwhelming influence on
world climate warming are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

MCCLAIN, NASA
"Derscriptions or the atmospheric and terrestrial knowledge, needs,
products, and payoffs are more detailed than for the oceans.  However,
it is thought that the oceans regulate about half of the CO2 uptake and
global primary production (some recent publications have reduced the
sequestration numbers).  Therefore, the oceans role should be
represented in a more balanced manner."

JEFFREY GAFFNEY, ARGONNE NAT'L LABORATORY
"the carbon cycle includes the emissions of isoprene and monoterpene
hydrocarbons as well as a number of other trace gas species..."   These
emissions are quite large and are now known to play a role in
determining the atmospheric composition of the troposphere on regional
and global scales.  Indeed their presence in areas where there are
anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide, can lead to increased levels or regional ozone and fine
aerosols that are important in radiative balance considerations"
   >snip<
Ozone is a potent plant phytotoxin.  Increased tropospheric ozone (a
greenhouse gas) levels will lead to the stomatal resistance beintg
increased leading to reduced uptake of carbon dioxide, less water
emitted through evapotranspiration, and less emission of volatile
organic carbon (i.e. isoprene) from plants.  Carbon sequestration under
ozone exposures have been shown to reduce carbon uptake in FACE
experiments even at moderate levels ...".   "At 60 ppb levels carbon
dioxide uptake even under high carbon dioxide exposure was reduced
significantly due to this interaction.
This type of feedback  is not really addressed in this document."

NED FORD, SIERRA CLUB
"A reasonable estimate of the rate of ocean saturation suggests that by
the end of this century under BAU, we will have effectively saturated
the ocean.  Further air/ocean transfer will occur, but it will require
proportionally larger increases in atmospheric levels and much more
time."

NOAA/CMDL
"What's missing is that climate change itself could significantly affect
our predictions for the carbon cycle even if we understand carbon
dynamics pretty well.  CH4 is specifically mentioned here and Human
Dimensions pops up."

Public comments on SPCC are in:
<http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/toc.htm>

> >> Pat Neuman
> >> Chanhassen, MN

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:28:18 -0500 "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
writes:
> Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
> One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
> they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
> criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
> Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
> including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
> presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
> pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
> View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
> with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it,  etc.,
> etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
> uncertainty.
>
> On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
> pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
> blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
> induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
> issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
> regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
> possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
> That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
> what can't be done by their own numbers.
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> David W.
>
> >--------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: npat1@...
> >To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
> >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:30:18 -0600
> >Subject:
> >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),  Wojick's Assessment of
> Plan
> >(D 2003)
> >Message-ID: <20040103.083020.-358945.0.npat1@...>
> >
> >To: Paleontology_and_Climate discussion group members:
> >
> >Please post any comments you may have on:
> >
> >1.  Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003
> >
> >and/or:
> >
> >2.  Wojick's: ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP.
> An
> >Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science
> >Program'  (Dec 2003).
> >
> >Explanation follows.  Please let me know if you have questions.
> ... pat
> >...
> >
> >Wojick boasted about his new role in Washington during the Fall of
> 2002
> >... while the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science
> Program
> >(CCSP) was being developed in Washington.
> >
> >Wojick's latest report ... ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues
> in the
> >CCSP. An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate
> Change
> >Science Program' (Dec 2003) is at  http://www.api.org ( do a search
> on '
> >wojick ' ).
> >
> >Wojick concludes that:
> >
> >'Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before the
> >science is settled, one way or the other. This in itself is
> >an important finding. Comments welcome'
> >
> >Question: How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
> the
> >U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP?  [ Report with Letter to Members
> of
> >Congress dated July, 2003]
> >
> >I provided comment for the draft Strategic Plan for the CCSP in
January, 2003.
> >
> >
> >  From page 1. of my copy of the:
> >
> >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003:
> >
> >---
> >July 2003
> >
> >Members of Congress:
> >
> >Transmitted herein is a copy of the Strategic Plan for the Climate
> Change
> >Science Program.  This document describes the Climate Change
> Science
> >Program(CCSP) approach to enhancing scientific understanding of
> global
> >climate change. ...
> >...
> >...
> >We than the participating departments and agencies of the CCSP for
> their
> >close cooperation and support and look forward to working with
> Congress
> >in the continued development of these important programs.
> >
> >Spencer Abraham
> >Secretary of Energy
> >Chair, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >
> >Donald L. Evans
> >Secretary of Commerce
> >Vice Chair, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >
> >John H. Marburger III, Ph. D.
> >Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
> >Executive Director, Committee on Climate Change
> >Science and Technology Integration
> >---
> >
> >
> >>From the back cover of the:
> >Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
> >
> >
> >---
> >CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICE
> >
> >(right side of page)
> >
> >To obtain a copy of this document, contact:
> >
> >Climate Change Science Program Office
> >1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> >Suite 250
> >Washington, DC 20006
> >202 223 6262 (voice)
> >202 223 3065 (fax)
> >information@...
> >http://www.climatescience.gov
> >http://usgcrp.gov
> >
> >The Climate Change Science Program
> >incorporates the U.S. Global Change
> >Research Program and the Climate Change
> >Research Initiative.
> >
> >(left side of page)
> >
> >James R. Mahoney, CSSP Director
> >Richard H. Moss, CCSPO Director
> >...
> >---
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >--------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
> >To: Debate <Debate@...>
> >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0500
> >Subject: My science milestone report is up
> >Message-ID: <p04320401bc1b7314dce3@[204.111.84.75]>
> >
> >Dear Listers, I have a new report just out--
> >
> >Wojick, David E., 2003. Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the
> CCSP.
> >An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change
> Science
> >Program. December 2003. Online go to <http://www.api.org> and
> search on
> ><wojick>.
> >
> >My basic point is that the CCSP Strategic Plan gives many
> time-estimated
> >milestones for resolving key scientific uncertainties. These must
> be
> >resolved before we can determine whether or not humans are in fact
> >influencing climate. This definition of milestones is a major step
> >forward, for which the CCSP is to be commended. What remains is to
> >network the critical dependencies between these milestones, to find
> the
> >critical path to resolution. Then do the research to work thru that
> path.
> >
> >
> >Many of the key time estimates are "beyond 4 years," and some have
> to
> >wait for others to be resolved along the critical path. Therefore,
> it
> >will likely be a decade or more before the science is settled, one
> way or
> >the other. This in itself is an important finding. Comments
> welcome.
> >
> >Critical path scheduling is a well known project management method.
> it
> >should be applied to climate research.
> >
> >Happy New Year,
> >
> >David W.
> >
> >David E. Wojick, PE, Ph.D.
> ><dwojick@...>
> >President
> >Climatechangedebate.org
> >
> >Over 15,000 knowledgeable postings a year!
> >Non subscribers can follow the debate at
> >http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
> >or sign up for the free email debate listserv at
> >http://www.climatechangedebate.org
> >See my latest climate science study at http://www.nam.org/wojick
> >
> >http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides a Wojick
> bio and
> >client list.
> >
>


________________________________________________________________
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!

-- BobReuschlein <earlwal@...> wrote:
Does someone have a US temperature average year by year for the last century
plus? back to 1880 or maybe 1850's? What is meant by the average temperature?
For Earth? For Land? For US? I have US up to 1988, and the nineties were very
hot, but not quadruple hot.
Bob Reuschlein

Bob,

The GLT data used in the graph on ClimateArchive
was from NOAA NCDC, which I copied to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/343
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo/message/157

The post I made below to energyresources provides additional explanation that I
hope is helpful.  pat

--------------
Tue Dec 30, 2003  4:09 pm
Subject:  Global Land Temperature figure on ClimateArchive -

I did a copy-paste from NOAA URL, below. Earlier in 2003 I did extensive
analysis of NWS cooperative climate station data, many of the tables are on
ClimateArchiveTwo. In addition, I authored articles that were based on the
temperature and dewpoint data from ClimateArchiveTwo. May latest reports are on
the Minnesotan's for Sustainability website. The easiest way to get there
(shortest URL) is to use:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/264

I have created Excel spread sheets for three stations with annual temperature
data at non-urban or small town locations, for use with my article presented in
Reno, Nevada at the NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center Workshop 20-23 October
2003. The stations are at Jamestown, ND, Leech Lake Dam, MN and Spooner
Experimental Farm, WI. I plan to create figures for those three stations showing
annual temperatures from 1898 through 2003 later this week.

NOAA URL for Global Land Temperature methodology:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#index

Overview NCDC's long-term mean temperatures for the Earth were calculated by
processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea
for the entire period of record of the data. Many parts of the globe are
inaccessible and therefore have no data. The temperature anomaly time series
presented here were calculated in a way that did not require knowing the actual
mean temperature of the Earth in these inaccessible areas such as mountain tops
and remote parts of the Sahara Desert where there are no regularly reporting
weather
stations. Using the collected data available, the whole Earth long-term mean
temperatures were calculated by interpolating over uninhabited deserts,
inaccessible Antarctic mountains, etc. in a manner that takes into account
factors such as the decrease in temperature with elevation. By adding the
long-term monthly mean temperature for the Earth to each anomaly value, one can
create a time series that approximates the temperature of the Earth and how it
has been changing through time.

An Operational Near Real Time Global Temperature Index
Robert G. Quayle, Thomas C. Peterson, Alan N. Basist, and Catherine S. Godfrey
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), NOAA/NESDIS, Asheville N.C.

Abstract. To capture the global land surface temperature signal in a timely way,
a blend of traditional long-term in situ climatic data sets, combined with real
time Global Telecommunications System monthly CLIMAT summaries is employed. For
the global sea surface, long-term ship data climatologies are combined with a
blend of ship, buoy, and satellite data to provide the greatest possible
coverage over the oceans. The result is a global century-scale surface
temperature index that closely parallels other widely published global surface
temperature measurements and can be updated monthly a week or two after the end
of a data month.

Introduction

The Third Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan, was but one client of NOAA that
needed quick and authoritative information on century scale climate perspectives
in a near-real-time mode. NCDC was able to offer help, and this work documents
the methodology which has been used since that time. It seems paradoxical that
we need near-real-time data for a system that responds as slowly as climate, but
recent paleoclimatic evidence and the recent warmth of the globe suggest that
this paradigm is not always justified. Moreover, as nations struggle to develop
effective environmental policies, the observed data become a critical part of
these ongoing discussions; and the meteorological infrastructure of the globe is
also geared to real-time operation. Therefore, both the need for, and the
capability for delivering near-real-time climatic analyses are quite real. In
fact, timely climatic information (provided when there is a maximum of interest)
may be the best way to provide the most reliable information to the greatest
number of people.

Surface Land Temperatures

Surface land air temperature (LAT) climatology (at instrument shelter height) is
derived from the Global Historical Climatology Network version 2 data set (GHCN,
Peterson and Vose 1997). GHCN v.2 includes previously unavailable Colonial Era
data that fill in data sparse times and places (Peterson and Griffiths 1997).
All data are processed via the Climate Analysis System (CAS) developed at NCDC.
The update system subjects the most recent data to a rigorous quality control
(Peterson et al. 1998a). Its unique duplicate preservation scheme preserves the
integrity of the input data streams (Peterson and Vose 1997). The
First-Difference area averaging technique thrives on these duplicates and
maximizes the global data available for analysis (Peterson et al. 1998b).
Homogeneity adjustment procedures developed over several years assures
objective, reproducibly homogeneous time series (Peterson and Easterling 1994,
Easterling and Peterson 1995, Peterson et al. 1998c). Data volume varies from
several hundred stations per year to several thousand (Peterson and Vose, 1997).
For 1997, over 14,000 individual station monthly records are used in the
analysis to produce 5x5 degree grid box data that are summarized into
hemispheric and global averages.

Sea Surface Temperatures

The Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas (GOSTA, Bottomley et al. 1990),
provides a century+ global record of 5x5 degree grid box in situ Sea Surface
Temperature (SST) means by year through 1996. For this application, we use the
U. K. Meteorological Office version, called UKMO HSST in the form of anomalies
with respect to a 1961-90 averaging period (Folland et al. 1993). For near real
time updates, the most timely and geographically complete data available are the
National Centers for Environmental Prediction - Optimum Interpolation (NCEP OI)
blended satellite, ship and buoy SST data set (Reynolds and Smith 1994), also in
monthly 5x5 degree grid box format, available for all years since 1982. NCDC
produced global averages and the accompanying anomaly series from both data
sets. To produce a long time series (beginning in 1880) with maximum
contemporary coverage, these two SST data sets are combined.

Pat

________________________________________________________________
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!

Bob,  this info may be useful.

Pat

1820-2002 mean annual temperatures at Minneapolis
http://www.goldcoastwx.com/minn_climo/annmean.gif

From: npat1 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:04:16

1880 was ABOVE normal at Minneapolis (1820-2002 long term average mean
annual temp at Minneapolis = 44.5 F. Coldest years were 1842-1876.   The
coldest year was 1843, about 38 F.  From Charles Fisk at:
http://www.goldcoastwx.com/minn_climo/annmean.gif

The 1998-2002 mean annual temp at Minneapolis and Farmington, Minnesota
were around 47.5 F (about 3.0 F above the long term mean for
Minneapolis).

MSP:   Minneapolis-St.Paul
FARM: Farmington about 50 km southeast of downtown MSP.

Table *
INTERVAL: MSP FARM
1820-1840 44.5
1841-1875 43.0
1876-1990 44.5
1891-1917 44.5 43.1
1918-1944 45.6 44.4
1945-1984 45.1 44.3
1985-1997 45.3 45.5
1998-2002 47.5 47.4

* My estimates based on the time series by Charles Fisk and climate
records at Farmington.

I selected 1898 as the starting year for my work because many station
records began in 1898.   According to the work by Fisk, annual temp at
Minneapolis in 1898 was  about 1 F above the long term (1820-2002)
average annual temp.

Pat

http://www.escribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/m27731.html
Pat




________________________________________________________________
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 ----------

I have at least temporarily lost several
groups on my yahoo 'mygroups' list... including:

Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com

Birds-and_Landscapes@yahoogroups.com

and a few others.

Hopefully they have not been sabotaged.

Pat


-- Tim Jones <deforest@...> wrote:
Dear Friend,

Please check out
<http://www.leonardodicaprio.org/globalwarninglaunch.html>http://www.leonardodic\
aprio.org/globalwarninglaunch.html

for a surprisingly well done short video narrated by Leondardo
DiCaprio on the burning of fossil fuels ("ancient sunlight") and
climate change.

Tim
--
http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Water_Resources/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Birds-and-Landscapes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveTwo



Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  Paleontology_and_Climate-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


________________________________________________________________
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!

Tropical Oceans Were Overheated During Prehistoric Greenhouse Effect

Biogeochemists from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
have shown that prehistoric tropical oceans were no less than five to
eight degrees warmer than they are now. Their findings have been
published in the December issue of the renowned American journal
Geology.

During the mid-Cretaceous period, some 90 to 120 million years ago,
the seawater around the equator had a temperature of 30 to 37 degrees
Celsius, which is five to eight degrees higher than the temperature
now. This was revealed in research that used a new method to
determine the temperatures of oceans in the distant past.

The finding concurs with recently developed climate models, which
indicate that higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the greenhouse
climate of 90 to 120 million years ago resulted in warmer tropical
oceans. The biogeochemists' findings reveal how seawater temperatures
changed when large quantities of greenhouse gases entered the
atmosphere. Scientists had suspected that seawater temperatures were
significantly higher then, but no method had been available to
precisely determine these.

The new method is based on the chemical structure of membrane lipids
in archaea, which are also referred to as archeabacteria. These
organisms live in the surface waters of oceans. The composition of
the membrane lipids was found to depend on the seawater temperature.
At higher temperatures, the organisms produce greater quantities of
lipid molecules containing rings.

The researchers examined fossil remains taken from the floors of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The remains were located in deposits
from the mid-Cretaceous period, which is known for its very high
concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Earlier research by the biogeochemists had demonstrated that the
membrane lipids of archaea remained conserved in sediments. In a
paper published in Science two years ago, scientists described the
discovery of fossil remains containing membrane lipids 112 million
years old. Since then the researchers have found remains as old as
140 million years.

---------------------------
Forwarded Message (from CCG)
Netherlands Organization For Scientific Research Date:2003-12-25

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031222071851.htm

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Netherlands
Organization For Scientific Research.



________________________________________________________________
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 costs of soil carbon sequestration: an economic analysis for small-scale
farming systems in Senegal

Petra Tschakert, Arid Lands Resource Sciences, University of Arizona, 1955, E.
Sixth Street, AZ 85719, USA

Received 11 March 2003;  revised 12 November 2003;  accepted 17 November 2003. ;
Available online 20 December 2003.

Abstract
Carbon sequestration in degraded agricultural soils in developing countries to
mitigate atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is increasingly promoted as a
potential win–win strategy, particularly for drylands. While considerable effort
has been made to assess the benefits for local soils, regional ecosystems, as
well as the global climate, few estimates exist regarding detailed costs and
benefits for local smallholders, the ultimate actors and beneficiaries of carbon
offset projects. This paper presents a farmer-centered ex-ante cost–benefit
analysis of 15 management and land use options combined with a household budget
model to assess what practices are most profitable and economically feasible for
local farmers in the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. The results show significant
differences in anticipated net benefits for various management options, ranging
from -$1400 to $9600 tC-1. Given the differential resource-endowment of local
smallholders, carefully designed cost-sharing mechanisms would be necessary to
achieve equitable and efficient local participation in carbon sequestration
schemes.

Author Keywords: Cost–benefit analysis; Carbon sequestration; Farming systems;
Drylands; Systems analysis

Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Biology, McGill University,
1205 Ave Dr. Penfield, Montreal, Canada PQ H3A 1B1. Tel.:
+1-520-628-4320/514-398-6726; fax: +1-520-621-8586/514-398-5069

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3W-4B8P4G2-2&_coverD\
ate=12%2F20%2F2003&_alid=138217904&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4957&_s\
ort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2ce9dc28f0\
fe832dfc12bca98679686f

Forwarded from CCG.

________________________________________________________________
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!

Patagonian Icefields Melting at Accelerating Rate
Rosanne Skirble
Washington
03 Jan 2004, 14:15 UTC

Listen to Rosanne Skirble's report (RealAudio)
Skirble report - Download 320k (RealAudio)


Lucia Glacier, Southern Patagonia Icefield
(NASA photo - Andres Rivera)
The Patagonian icefields, which cover 13,000 square kilometers in Chile and
4,200 square kilometers in Argentina, are a sparsely inhabited world of rough
terrain, poor weather and blue glaciers that tumble down from the snow covered
mountains of the Andean range. New research shows that these icefields, the
largest non-Antarctic ice masses in the Southern Hemisphere, are melting at an
accelerating rate.
Melting ice from mountain glaciers is raising sea levels around the world. A new
study has found 10 percent of that rise is due to ice melt from Patagonia. That
may not seem like much, until you consider that glaciers in Alaska, which cover
an area five times larger than Patagonia, account for about 30 percent of that
increase.

"So, in effect the Patagonia icefields are contributing more per unit area than
the glaciers in Alaska," said Eric Rignot.

Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California is
principal scientist for the study. He says so-called calving glaciers, which
spawn icebergs into the ocean or lakes, dominate the Patagonian icefields. "And
these types of glaciers are known to be more sensitive to climate change," he
said. "Once you push them out of equilibrium they can retreat very rapidly, even
if climate comes back to normal."

Mr. Rignot says it is the internal dynamics of these icefields that make
Patagonia the fastest area of glacial retreat on Earth. "If you warm an
icefield, the glaciers can start flowing faster," he explained. "They can
produce more icebergs and as a result, they can thin even faster."

Is climate change enough to explain the rapid thinning? "What we found in our
study is that climate warming and drier conditions seem to only explain about
half of the observed signals," said Mr. Rignot. "And, we believe that the other
half is due to the mechanics of ice flow, and in particular some of these
glaciers may be flowing faster than they used to be and as a result they thin
faster and discharge more ice into the ocean than they used to."

What does the situation in Patagonia tell us about what may be happening
elsewhere? "It is showing us an example of interaction of ice and climate
warming," said Mr. Rignot. "This is important for our studies of the larger ice
sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. It is showing us how rapidly ice can respond
to climate warming."


Mt. San Valentin glacier
(NASA photo - Andres Rivera)
Results of the study are reported in the journal Science. Researchers with the
U.S. Space Agency and the Centro de Estudios Cientificos compared data from the
NASA space shuttle topography mission in 2000 with historical elevation surveys
from aerial photographs, and ground experiments in the 1970s and 1990s.

Email this article to a friend.
  Printer Friendly Version

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=09093FF4-6065-428F-A125A2049567F2D3

________________________________________________________________
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!

Forest fires fuel climate change variations
Ehsan Masood
5 January 2004
Source: SciDev.Net

http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1177&language=1

Forest fires could play a more significant role in the build-up of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere than was previously thought, according to new research
published in the journal Science.

Levels of gases that cause climate change, such as carbon dioxide and methane,
have been rising since measurements began in the 1950s, mainly as a result of
human activities such as burning fossil fuels. But each year there is
considerable variability in the extent of the increase, and scientists have been
trying to understand the reasons for this.

Now, researchers from the United States have found that forest fires during the
drought of 1997/98 contributed most of the extra methane, carbon dioxide and
carbon monoxide found in the atmosphere above that which would be expected from
the burning of fossil fuels and other factors during those years.

Using a combination of satellite data and computer-based climate models, Guido
van der Werf and colleagues from the US Department of Agriculture and NASA, the
US space agency, found that 60 per cent of this 'extra' increase in greenhouse
gas emissions came from Southeast Asia, 30 per cent from Central and South
America and 10 per cent from wooded areas of Europe, Asia and North America.

The higher emissions coincide with a drought that caused severe forest fires in
Indonesia, Central America, parts of Amazonia, and both north and southern
Africa, as well as North America, Europe and Asia. The drought was caused by the
El Niño Southern Oscillation, the periodic reversal of currents in the Pacific
Ocean, which disrupts the world’s weather.

The conclusions have important implications for understanding the current
process of global warming, which is predicted to lead to a doubling of the
frequency of the El Niño Southern Oscillation from once every seven years to
every three years.

The research suggests that more frequent El Niño events could lead to forest
fires becoming more frequent, and thus to larger quantities of carbon being
pumped into the atmosphere as a result. Another implication, according to the
researchers is “that regions that have long served as carbon sinks may suddenly
become sources [of carbon]”. Both conclusions are likely to require the
modification of existing computer-based models of anticipated climate change in
the years ahead.

Link to research paper by Guido van der Werf et al in Science

Reference: Science 303, 73 (2003)

Fwd from CCD

Pat


________________________________________________________________
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!

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004010516349.html

January 5, 2004

El Niño-Related Fires Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year-to-year changes in concentration of carbon dioxide and methane, two
important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, can be linked to fire activity
associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle, according to a study conducted by a
team of NASA scientists and other researchers.

Study results appear in an article in the Jan. 2, 2004, issue of Science. “Many
scientists have attributed this atmospheric variability to changes in the
balance between plant growth and microbial respiration,” said James Randerson of
the University of California-Irvine, one of the study’s authors. “Our work
indicates, however, that the sum of these two processes has a smaller impact on
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than previously believed.”

The scientists also determined almost all the increased levels of carbon dioxide
and methane measured during 1997 and 1998 could be attributed to the worldwide
fires at the time, underscoring the impact El Niño has on greenhouse gas
emissions. Carbon is stored in vegetation, and when the vegetation burns, the
carbon returns to the atmosphere.

By combining satellite data and measurements of atmospheric gases, researchers
from NASA, the University of California-Irvine and other institutions have for
the first time quantified the amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide
and methane, emitted by these fires on global and interannual scales.

The researchers found that fire emissions of greenhouse gases increased across
multiple continental regions in 1997-98, including Southeast Asia (60 percent of
the global increase), Central and South America (30 percent), and boreal forests
of North America and Eurasia (10 percent).

“The rate of accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is highly variable,”
Randerson said. “Vast areas of the tropics dry out and become vulnerable to fire
during El Niño events. It appears that El Niño events accelerate carbon loss
from terrestrial ecosystems because they enable humans to use fire more
effectively as a tool for clearing land in the tropics.”

Scientists today are trying to understand the relationship between the carbon
cycle and the climate system. The carbon cycle is the movement of carbon, in its
many forms, among the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and the geosphere. The
cycling of carbon affects the amount of carbon-based greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and thus the Earth’s climate. This study shows carbon loss in the
biosphere over the next several centuries may be sensitive to the intensity and
variability of El Niño-induced droughts.

“An important next step is to identify the processes that contributed to the
high fire emissions, including deforestation, pasture maintenance, agricultural
waste burning and savanna fires,” Randerson said. “This will help us understand
how quickly greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane will accumulate in
the atmosphere due to burning.”

Satellite measurements of many Earth system properties were input into fire
models. “The work involves data products from instruments aboard NASA’s Terra,
Aqua, Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission and Active Cavity Radiometer
Irradiance Monitor satellites,” said Guido R. van der Werf of NASA’s Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., one of the study’s authors. NASA also
processed data on vegetation, precipitation, surface air temperatures and
changes in Earth’s radiation, all used in the fire modeling. Data from the
European Space Agency’s Along Track Scanning Radiometer was used as well.

The study authors, in addition to Randerson and van der Werf, include G. James
Collatz and Louis Giglio of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center; Prasad S.
Kasibhatla and Avelino F. Arellano Jr. of Duke University, Durham, N.C.; Seth
Olsen of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; and Eric S. Kasischke
of the University of Maryland, College Park.

The research was funded by NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise, which is dedicated
to understanding the Earth as an integrated system. The Enterprise applies Earth
System Science to improve prediction of climate, weather and natural hazards
using the unique vantage point of space.

For more information and images on the Internet, visit:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0102firenino.html


###
Contacts:

Elvia H. Thompson
Headquarters, Washington
Phone: 202/358-1696

Rob Gutro
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Phone: 301/286-4044

Iqbal Pittalwala
University of California, Irvine
Phone: 949/824-3969

Monte Basgall
Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Phone: 919/681-8057







Fire and Smoke in Southern California
Ten large fires rage across southern California in this true-color Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image taken on October 27, 2003 at
10:25am PT by NASA’s Terra satellite. Starting in the north, the first cluster
of yellow dots is a combination of the Piru, Verdale, and Simi Incident Fires,
which have burned a combined 113,680 acres of land. The next line of dots
consists of the Old, Grand Prix, and Mountain Fires. The small cluster closer to
the coast is the Roblar 2 Fire. Going south, the Paradise Fire (top), the Cedar
Fire (center), and the Otay Fire (bottom) form a massive veil of smoke over San
Diego. Overall, well over 200,000 acres have burned in the fires. CREDIT:
NASA/MODIS Rapid Response Team
High-Resolution Image




A Movie of One Year’s World Fires
This movie shows the locations of global fires (indicated by red and yellow) as
a typical year progresses. This data over 2002, was taken from MODIS instrument
data on the Terra and Aqua satellites. CREDIT: NASA/GSFC, Univ. of Maryland,
Chris Justice





Fire Emissions Around the World
The top map shows unusually large emissions from fires during the just 1997-98
El Niño period. The units are grams per carbon over a square meter, and range
from yellow (small amounts) to orange to red (large amounts of carbon).

The bottom map shows average total fire emissions in grams of carbon per meter
squared around the globe per year. They range from zero (dark blue) to more than
300 grams of carbon (red).

An atmospheric transport computer model and atmospheric observations of carbon
monoxide were used to calculate fire emissions, and a biogeochemical computer
model to estimate fuels. Based on these, emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 and
Methane) were predicted and compared to atmospheric observations. CREDIT:
NASA/GSFC, University of California, Irvine



This text derived from http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0102firenino.html

Recommend this Article to a Friend

Back to: News
  Fire and Smoke in Southern California
Ten large fires rage across southern California in this true-color Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image taken on October 27, 2003 at
10:25am PT by NASA’s Terra satellite. Starting in the north, the first cluster
of yellow dots is a combination of the Piru, Verdale, and Simi Incident Fires,
which have burned a combined 113,680 acres of land. The next line of dots
consists of the Old, Grand Prix, and Mountain Fires. The small cluster closer to
the coast is the Roblar 2 Fire. Going south, the Paradise Fire (top), the Cedar
Fire (center), and the Otay Fire (bottom) form a massive veil of smoke over San
Diego. Overall, well over 200,000 acres have burned in the fires. CREDIT:
NASA/MODIS Rapid Response Team
High-Resolution Image




A Movie of One Year’s World Fires
This movie shows the locations of global fires (indicated by red and yellow) as
a typical year progresses. This data over 2002, was taken from MODIS instrument
data on the Terra and Aqua satellites. CREDIT: NASA/GSFC, Univ. of Maryland,
Chris Justice





Fire Emissions Around the World
The top map shows unusually large emissions from fires during the just 1997-98
El Niño period. The units are grams per carbon over a square meter, and range
from yellow (small amounts) to orange to red (large amounts of carbon).

The bottom map shows average total fire emissions in grams of carbon per meter
squared around the globe per year. They range from zero (dark blue) to more than
300 grams of carbon (red).

An atmospheric transport computer model and atmospheric observations of carbon
monoxide were used to calculate fire emissions, and a biogeochemical computer
model to estimate fuels. Based on these, emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 and
Methane) were predicted and compared to atmospheric observations. CREDIT:
NASA/GSFC, University of California, Irvine



________________________________________________________________
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!

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2003/2003123116355.html

December 31, 2003

Ocean Life Depends on Single Circulation Pattern in Southern Hemisphere
A study has shown that marine life around the world is surprisingly dependent on
a single ocean circulation pattern in the Southern Hemisphere where
nutrient-rich water rises from the deep and spreads across the seas.

The results suggest that ocean life may be more sensitive to climate change than
previously believed because most global warming predictions indicate that major
ocean circulation patterns will change. While oceanographers have identified
many ocean circulation patterns, the study found that three-quarters of all
biological activity in the oceans relies on this single pattern.

“When we shut off this one pathway in our models, biological productivity in the
oceans drops to one-quarter of what it is today,” said Jorge Sarmiento, a
Princeton oceanographer who led the study published in the Jan. 1, 2004, issue
of Nature. Marine organisms account for half all biological productivity on
Earth.

The discovery helps oceanographers settle a longstanding question about what
keeps the world’s oceans fertile. Most biological activity in the ocean is
concentrated near the surface where an abundance of microorganisms perform
photosynthesis and support marine food chains. These organisms and their
byproducts slowly sink from the surface, decomposing along the way and carrying
nutrients to the deep ocean. Until now, it has not been clear how the surface
becomes replenished with the nutrients that seemed lost to the deep ocean.

Previous research has shown that ocean water does not mix well across layers of
equal density, which are mostly oriented horizontally in the ocean. Once the
organic matter sinks to the abyss, it takes a long time for nutrients to cross
the layers and return to the surface. Without a mechanism to bring deep water
back to the surface, the oceans would lose about one-fiftieth of their nutrients
to this sinking process each year, Sarmiento said.

Sarmiento and colleagues identified what amounts to an enormous conveyor belt
that carries nutrient-rich seawater southward in the deep ocean, brings it to
the surface in the Antarctic Ocean where the density layer barrier is weak and
ships it north. The water sinks again in the Northern Hemisphere and starts
over. The researchers discovered a chemical signature (the presence of high
nitrate and low silicate levels) that is unique to this nutrient carrier, which
is called the Subantarctic Mode Water, and used it to trace the influence of
this water in surface waters around the world.

“It is really quite amazing,” said Sarmiento. “I had no idea of the extent of
its influence.”

The SAMW is responsible for feeding nearly all the world’s oceans, except for
the North Pacific, which is resupplied with nutrients through another
circulation pattern, the researchers found.

The finding already has attracted interest among oceanographers. “They have
clearly identified the pathway that counteracts the so-called biological pump,
which acts to strip the surface layer of its nutrients,” said Arnold Gordon of
Columbia University. “One now wonders how global change will alter the
efficiency of this pathway.”

Sarmiento said the research group “is now hard at work investigating the details
of this nutrient circulation pattern with an eye to examining how it might
respond to global warming in model simulations.”

###
Contact:

Patty Allen
Princeton University
609-258-6108
pallen@...

This text derived from http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/atmospheric.php

Subscribe to the Earth Observatory
About the Earth Observatory
Please send comments or questions to: eobmail@...
Responsible NASA official: Yoram Kaufman
NASA/GSFC Security and Privacy Statement




________________________________________________________________
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!

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2003/2003121716309.html

December 17, 2003

Studies Show Global Warming is Likely to Drive Big Changes in California’s
Coastal Waters
Global warming could have profound effects on the wind-driven upwelling of deep
ocean water along the California coast, according to recent studies by
researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The studies showed
changes in both the intensity and the seasonal timing of the upwelling, which
brings cold, nutrient-rich water into coastal ecosystems.

This seasonal upwelling supports California’s diverse marine life and productive
fisheries, but how changes in the upwelling will affect these and other aspects
of coastal ecosystems remains uncertain. The researchers, led by professor of
Earth sciences Lisa Sloan, used computer simulations of the regional climate to
show that wind-driven upwelling along the California coast will likely intensify
over the next 50 years as a result of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. In addition, the models showed the upwelling season extending
later into the fall.

The first set of experiments was published in the August 14 issue of Geophysical
Research Letters (GRL), and a second paper with additional findings will be
published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).

Previous studies by other researchers found that the intensity of upwelling
along the California coast has been increasing over the past 30 years, leading
some to speculate that the trend is a result of global warming, said Mark
Snyder, lead author of the GRL paper. Snyder earned his Ph.D. this month working
with Sloan.

“Some people think we may already be seeing the effects of climate change on the
upwelling regime, so we thought we would use our climate models to see how
increases in greenhouse gases would affect the winds that drive the upwelling,”
he said.

These winds are the result of differences in atmospheric pressure over the land
and the ocean that develop because the land surface heats up faster than the
ocean surface. Similarly, global warming could be expected to raise temperatures
more over land than over the ocean, making the differences in atmospheric
pressure even greater and creating stronger winds. Sloan’s group set out to test
this hypothesis using powerful computers to run complex models of the climate
system.

The researchers used a high-resolution regional climate model, centered over
California and driven by inputs from a global climate model with coarser
resolution, to look at the effects of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps
heat in the atmosphere, are increasing due to emissions from the burning of
fossil fuels.

The first set of experiments, published in the GRL paper, showed that with
increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the intensity of upwelling is
decreased in the early season (April to May) and is dramatically increased
during the peak season (typically July to August). The results also showed the
duration of the upwelling season extends further into the fall.

“The increase we saw in the upwelling intensity in the peak season supports some
of the observational work showing a trend toward increased upwelling intensity
in the present day,” Snyder said.

The new results just published by PNAS reinforce these findings. In these
experiments, the researchers included the effects on the climate system of
changes in vegetation that are likely to occur with increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide. The results showed the same general effects on upwelling as in the
previous studies, only more pronounced, said postdoctoral researcher Noah
Diffenbaugh, lead author of the PNAS paper.

“The interactions between vegetation and climate that are set in motion by
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations enhance the effects on the upwelling
regime,” Diffenbaugh said.

The projected changes in vegetation result from warmer and dryer conditions
created by global warming and lead to changes in the overall energy balance of
the land surface, he said.

Diffenbaugh cautioned, however, that despite the complexity of the climate
models, they still represent a simplified view of an extraordinarily complicated
system of feedbacks and interactions. Nevertheless, as human activities continue
to pour more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, these studies show just how
wide-ranging its effects may be.

“The regional climate model is certainly the best tool we have at the moment,
and it shows us that elevated carbon dioxide is important not only for its
direct effects on the climate, but also because it induces other changes that
feed back into the climate system, and the magnitudes of those feedbacks appear
to be substantial,” Diffenbaugh said.

Researchers at UCSC and elsewhere are currently working to understand how
changes in upwelling conditions will affect fisheries and the dynamics of
coastal ecosystems. The new climate studies highlight the importance of those
efforts, Snyder said.

###
Contact:

Tim Stephens
University of California - Santa Cruz
831-459-2495
stephens@...

This text derived from
http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=433

Recommend this Article to a Friend

Back to: News



Subscribe to the Earth Observatory
About the Earth Observatory
Please send comments or questions to: eobmail@...
Responsible NASA official: Yoram Kaufman
NASA/GSFC Security and Privacy Statement



________________________________________________________________
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!

December 17, 2003 STABLE ISOTOPE DATA PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR HUGE GLOBAL METHANE
RELEASEABOUT 600 MILLION YEARS AGO The Earth's most severe ice coverings are
thought to have occurred about 600 million years ago, with frozen ice sheets
covering much of the globe. Some scientists have suggested the oceans froze over
during that time, resulting in a white planet or "snowball Earth" that would
have reflected much of the Sun's heat and resulted in a condition of persistent
extreme cold. Now, in a study published in the December 18 issue of the journal
Nature, scientists describe new evidence from south China that explains how the
planet might have thawed from its icy past. According to geologist Ganqing Jiang
of the University of California at Riverside and lead author of the paper, the
results point to the release of the powerful "greenhouse gas" methane, than to
the release of carbon dioxide, which has been believed to be the mechanism by
which the Earth re-warmed. Where did the methane come from? "It probably arose
from deposits known as methane hydrates," said Jiang. "Methane hydrates likely
were widespread in sediments deposited under very cold conditions and would have
been released as a gas at the end of this ice age, rapidly warming Earth's
climate." Methane hydrates usually are locked away in Earth's sediments, said
Herman Zimmerman, director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) division
of earth sciences, which funded the research. NSF is the federal agency
responsible for supporting basic science, engineering and education research
"But large amounts of greenhouse gases may be released from those sediments,
during so-called 'destablization events.'" If this hypothesis is correct, added
Enriqueta Barrera, geology and paleontology program director at NSF, "this could
have been the largest such release of methane in Earth history. This is an
important process needing further study, because a similar event could occur in
the future as a consequence of global warming." The new data provide strong
support for an idea first published by Jiang's coauthors, geologists Martin
Kennedy, also at UC-Riverside, and Nicholas Christie-Blick of Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Features observed in many of the
sediments studied seemed to indicate a role for a release of methane from
exposed methane hydrates. The new data are based on especially well preserved
samples, say the scientists. "If this study is borne out by further research, it
may point to the largest such methane hydrate release in more than four billion
years of Earth history," said Jiang. "Such an event would have had a profound
impact on global climate." ## Contact: Cheryl Dybas National Science Foundation
703-292-7734 cdybas@...

This text derived from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03140.htm

Recommend this Article to a Friend

Back to: News



Subscribe to the Earth Observatory
About the Earth Observatory
Please send comments or questions to: eobmail@...
Responsible NASA official: Yoram Kaufman




________________________________________________________________
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!

December 17, 2003

New Study Reports Large-scale Salinity Changes in the Oceans
Tropical ocean waters have become dramatically saltier over the past 40 years,
while oceans closer to Earth’s poles have become fresher, scientists report in
the December 18th issue of the journal Nature. These large-scale, relatively
rapid oceanic changes suggest that recent climate changes, including global
warming, may be altering the fundamental planetary system that regulates
evaporation and precipitation and cycles fresh water around the globe.

The study was conducted by Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI); Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and
Aquaculture Science in Lowestoft, U.K.; and Igor Yashayaev of the Bedford
Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Canada.

“This study is important because it provides direct evidence that the global
water cycle is intensifying,” said Elise Ralph, associate director of the
National Science Foundation’s (NSF) physical oceanography program, which funded
the research. “This is consistent with global warming hypotheses that suggest
ocean evaporation will increase as Earth’s temperature does. These issues are
particularly important as pressure on freshwater resources has become critical
in many areas around the world.”

An acceleration of Earth’s global water cycle can potentially affect global
precipitation patterns that govern the distribution, severity and frequency of
droughts, floods and storms. It would also exacerbate global warming by rapidly
adding more water vapor—itself a potent, heat-trapping greenhouse gas—to the
atmosphere. And it could continue to freshen North Atlantic Ocean waters to a
point that could disrupt ocean circulation and trigger further climate changes.

The oceans and atmosphere continually exchange fresh water. Evaporation over
warm, tropical and subtropical oceans transfers water vapor to the atmosphere,
which transports it toward both poles. At higher latitudes, that water vapor
precipitates as rain or snow and ultimately returns to the oceans, which
complete the cycle by circulating fresh water back toward the equator. The
process maintains a balanced distribution of water around our planet.

The oceans contain 96 percent of the Earth’s water, experience 86 percent of
planetary evaporation, and receive 78 percent of planetary precipitation, and
thus represent a key element of the global water cycle for study, the scientists
said. Because evaporation concentrates salt in the surface ocean, increasing
evaporation rates cause detectable spikes in surface ocean salinity levels. In
contrast, salinity decreases generally reflect the addition of fresh water to
the ocean through precipitation and runoff from the continents.

Curry, Dickson, and Yashayaev analyzed a wealth of salinity measurements
collected over recent decades along a key region in the Atlantic Ocean, from the
tip of Greenland to the tip of South America. Their analysis showed the
properties of Atlantic water masses have been changing—in some cases
radically—over the five decades for which reliable and systematic records of
ocean measurements are available, the scientists report.

They observed that surface waters in tropical and subtropical Atlantic Ocean
regions became markedly saltier. Simultaneously, much of the water column in the
high latitudes of the North and South Atlantic became fresher.

This trend appears to have accelerated since 1990—when 10 of the warmest years
since records began in 1861 have occurred. The scientists estimated that net
evaporation rates over the tropical Atlantic have increased by five percent to
ten percent over the past four decades.

These results indicate that fresh water has been lost from the low latitudes and
added at high latitudes, at a pace exceeding the ocean circulation’s ability to
compensate, say the scientists. Taken together with other recent studies
revealing parallel salinity changes in the Mediterranean, Pacific, and Indian
Oceans, a growing body of evidence suggests that the global hydrologic cycle has
revved up in recent decades.

Among other possible climate impacts, an accelerated evaporation - precipitation
cycle would continue to freshen northern North Atlantic waters. The North
Atlantic is one of the few places on Earth where surface waters become dense
enough to sink to the abyss. The plunge of this great mass of cold, salty water
helps drive a global ocean circulation system, often called the Ocean Conveyor.
This Conveyor helps draw warm Gulf Stream waters northward in the Atlantic,
pumping heat into the northern regions that significantly moderates wintertime
air temperatures, especially in Europe.

If the North Atlantic becomes too fresh, its waters would stop sinking and the
Conveyor could slow down. Analyses of ice cores, deep-sea sediment cores, and
other geologic evidence have clearly demonstrated the Conveyor has abruptly
slowed down or halted many times in Earth’s history. That has caused the North
Atlantic region to cool significantly and brought long-term drought conditions
to other areas of the Northern Hemisphere over time spans as short as years to
decades.

Melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, another consequence of global warming, are
other sources of additional fresh water to the North Atlantic. An accelerated
water cycle also appears to be increasing precipitation in higher latitudes,
contributing to the freshening of North Atlantic waters and increasing the
possibility of slowing the Conveyor.

A cooling of the North Atlantic region would slow the melting process, curtail
the influx of fresh water to the North Atlantic. The Conveyor would again begin
to circulate ocean waters. But global warming and an accelerated water cycle
would continue to bring fresh water to high latitudes—possibly enough to
maintain a cap on the Conveyor even if the Arctic melting ceased. Monitoring
Earth’s hydrological cycle is critical, the scientists said, because of its
potential near-term impacts on Earth’s climate.

###
Contact:

Cheryl Dybas
National Science Foundation
703-292-7734
cdybas@...

This text derived from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

Recommend this Article to a Friend




________________________________________________________________
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!

December 8, 2003

Atmospheric Compound is Double-edged Sword in Climate Change

Recent studies suggest that an atmospheric compound derived primarily from coal
combustion may have contradictory effects on the earth’s climate.

Under many conditions, sulfuric acid may cool the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfuric
acid particles seem to scatter ultraviolet light back into space before it has a
change to enter the troposphere the bottom layer of earth’s atmosphere. But if
conditions are right, this same chemical can warm the earth by combining with
other compounds in the atmosphere to form clouds.

Researchers at Ohio State University looked at the interaction of sulfuric acid
and methanol and what the compounds’ combined effect might mean to global
climate change. Both compounds are usually found in aerosol form in the upper
atmosphere.

Scientists believe that methanol comes primarily from natural sources, such as
oceans, forests and the decay of organic matter. While there are a few natural
sources for sulfuric acid, such as volcanoes and marine sea spray, its precursor
sulfur dioxide comes mainly from the burning of coal. In the atmosphere, sulfur
dioxide is oxidized primarily by atmospheric moisture, resulting in sulfuric
acid.

Sulfuric acid molecules in atmospheric aerosols can act as sort of a force field
by reflecting light and heat back into space, said Heather Allen, a study
co-author and an assistant professor of chemistry at Ohio State. This reflection
contributes to a cooling effect on the earth. Methanol by itself doesn’t really
have an effect on climate change.

But when the two molecules get together about 5 to 10 percent of the methanol in
the atmospheric aerosols reacts with sulfuric acid they form methyl sulfate.
Methyl sulfate is less volatile than methanol, meaning there’s less chance that
methyl sulfate will evaporate or be vaporized.

And while it seems like a relatively small amount of methanol gets converted to
methyl sulfate, it’s still enough to have an impact on global climate change,
Allen said.

She and colleague Lisa Van Loon, a doctoral student in chemistry at Ohio State,
found that methyl sulfate’s stability provides a springboard for cloud formation
water droplets collect on the stable molecules and eventually form clouds.
Instead of causing light and heat to bounce back into space, most clouds create
a warming effect by trapping light and heat in the atmosphere.

Van Loon presented the findings December 12 at the fall meeting of the American
Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

The researchers used a laboratory technique called Raman spectroscopy to analyze
the behavior of methanol, sulfuric acid and methyl sulfate. They focused a beam
of laser light onto a sample of each substance in order to analyze differences
in the bonds that hold the molecules together. The frequencies of the resulting
wavelengths told the researchers how the compounds behaved, and also how
methanol and sulfuric acid interacted. From this information, they could
determine what each compound might do in the atmosphere.

The researchers found that sulfuric acid combines with a small amount of
methanol essentially starting points for cloud formation.

But the conditions must be right in order to create methyl sulfate, Allen said.

“The atmospheric chemistry community is trying to understand what conditions let
these atmospheric particles combine, or cause them to stay aerosol-sized,” Allen
said, adding that cloud particles are about three times the size of aerosol
particles.

The interaction between sulfuric acid and methanol affects global climate change
and the aerosol picture, Allen said.

“Right now these aerosols are probably helping to slow down the human-induced
warming effect on the earth, but it’s a complicated balance that we’re
struggling to fully understand,” she said. “We certainly know that the earth is
warming at a rate that isn’t totally natural. It’s the warming rate that we’re
more concerned about.

“More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling,” Allen
continued. “But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and
ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There’s a complex
balance between warming and cooling.”

###
Contact:

Heather Allen
Ohio State University
614-292-4707
Allen@...

This text derived from http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sulmeth.htm

Recommend this Article to a Friend

Back to: News



Subscribe to the Earth Observatory
About the Earth Observatory
Please send comments or questions to: eobmail@....



________________________________________________________________
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!