Nature Features
Time running out to avoid climate disaster
By Simone Humml Apr 27, 2007, 12:24 GMT
Indonesian siblings wade in low tide at Kepulaun Seribu (thousand islands), north of Jakarta, Indonesia, 20 April 2007. Most of the population of Indonesia is unaware of the future impact of climate change and the dire predictions of scientists around the world. Indonesian Environment Minister, Mr. R. Witoelar, recently announced that about 2000 islands are expected to drown in his archipelagic nation due to climate change induced sea level rise. EPA/SHAILENDRA YASHWANT/HO
Hamburg - Once climate change gains momentum there is little we can do to stop it. Only 13 years are left to avert a catastrophe, according to a draft of the next part of the UN climate report.
Unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed by 2020, there will be irreversible consequences such as a melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels and widespread flooding, experts agree.
Mankind's role in damaging the climate its consequences for the planet have already been outlined in the first two parts of the report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In the third section due to be presented in the Thai capital of Bangkok on May 4, the IPCC is expected to outline what options are left for us to save the planet
One chance is a more efficient usage of energy, according to Professor Olav Hohmeyer from the University of Flensburg, one of the co-authors of the new report.
Hohmeyer says energy efficiency is more economical than renewable energy, although investments in renewable sources are necessary in order to contribute to efforts to counter global warming.
'Tightening guidelines on the construction of new homes could result in energy savings of 10 to 20 per cent from current levels,' says Hohmeyer. 'The regulations in force today are far removed from what is possible in the future,' Hohmeyer says.
The professor said the construction industry has a key role to play in conserving energy and called for steps to be introduced now so that climate issues could be resolved by 2050.
Hohmeyer sees household electrical equipment as another field in which there is a great potential for sayings. Japan, he says, has the toughest regulations for such goods. 'The highest standard there today will be the minimum standard in a few years' time,' he adds.
Hohmeyer believes a legal limit on fuel consumption should be introduced for cars using conventional fuels. 'Politicians need to define standards and constantly improve them,' he says.
Another German co-author of the report, economist Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, believes that economic incentives are needed to force action on climate change.
'The atmosphere should no longer be used free of charge. People who pollute have to pay,' he says, calling for improvements in carbon trading and the inclusion of more countries in the process.
Economists believe that investments in new technology to the tune of less than 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year would be enoughto achieve an effective slowdown in climate change.
'The conflict between business and environmental protection can only be overcome if governments invest in the proper technology,' says Edenhofer.
As examples, he mentions biomass, underground storage of carbon dioxide and solar thermal projects which convert heat from the sun. A pilot project has just started for CO2 storage, but scientists remain divided on whether this system will contribute to climate protection.
Hohmeyer is optimistic than China and the United States, two of the world's biggest polluters, will in future join in international agreements to protect the environment.
In the case of the United States, he believes this could could come after the presidential elections in 2008 when President George W. Bush will not be up for re-election.
'It's possible that the US might ratify the Kyoto protocols in 2008,' he says in reference to the agreement requiring countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions nationally by 2012.
If Washington were to do this, China and India could follow suit under a system that allows them carbon emission rights per head of population, according to Hohmeyer.
'Under such a system of apportion, each person on earth would receive the same emission rights by, say, 2080 or 2100,' he says.
In 2003 Americans produced 20 tons of carbon dioxide per head of population, Germans 10.5 tons, Chinese 3.5 tons and Indians 1 ton.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Nature
- 1. USA California Tsunami Wave Pictures
- 2. Japan Earthquake Tsunami Pictures
- 3. Indonesia Bromo Eruption Pictures
- 4. UN: Bee colonies worldwide under threat from chemicals and pollution
- 5. USA Hawaii Volcano Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
A few years ago scientists predicted what the effects of global warming would be by the year 2080. The trouble is that what they predicted for 2080 is happening now in 2007. I also am not confident that global warming can be stopped or even slowed down and we may already be passing the 'tipping point'.
Lobster - I too wonder if we are too late to reverse the warming. There are countless arguments about how much of the prolem is due to warmer sun and/or CO2 etc, but meanwhile time is passing. What is clear to me is that CO2 COULD have an effect - how much can be argued about for ever - so in the absence of any other causes which we might influence, we should at least get on with minimising the CO2 factor
Does anyone actually believe that they can regulate the climate? What kind of tinfoil hat science is this site disseminating?
No one is claiming they can regulate the weather. What is being said is that if there's is a small possibility of improving the situation, then its worth trying. Its like a stupid man - he may not be able to become intelligent, but everything he can learn will make him slightly better, so he won't make stupid comments !
.
We have laread DEREGULATED the weather .Science and economy if accompanied by political action are perfectly capable of savong the planet .First part,after convincing the national governments to participate is of course to have them reduce carbon emission.This is already happening in Europe.In some countries thousands of windmills provide renewable energy.The industry also is forced to emit less carbondioxides and other pollutants .
The problem with the USA is partly the consequence of the adagio of the republicans and neocons :less government is better for the country .In other words 'laiisez faire,laisez passer ' .THat means give way to the industry to do whatever they deem necessary to do .THat is a complete deregulation .In Europe we DO meddle with economics,social issues,conflicts,etc .THat is social democarcy .So it is hard for a large part of the american people to even understand that the government of their country has the power to actively take mesures and have them enforced by industry and population .THis issue needs urgent adressing as the clocks now ticks irreversably towards a doomsday scenario .A new climate would mean widespread famine and very expensive food prices even in the USA as large part if it will be rendered unfit for agriculture .There are of course many other consequences ,which I will not detail now .BUt you can also imagine that other countries struggling to survive will no longer sell their agricultural production to the USA wut will be forced by circumstances to use their reduced crops to feed their own population.Brazil is a good example of that ,as well as many central and south-american countries currently growing soya for your Big Macs .And then what ?
THese are only a very few consequences of the failure to act quickly .
A mentality change is slowly happening in the USA too,but the media are slow or unwilling to adrress this issue .THe advertising bussiness which in fact dictates your programs on TV sees no benefit in doomsday programs .
Your president has not enough cognitive power,no vision and no interest in this issue .In fact the whole republican establishment is at best lukewarm to the problem .To me trhe only one who saw the urgency and the importance of the stakes is Al Gore .Now we al know what kind of forces he has to overcome .THat becomes clear just seein the kind of mud he has to wade trough .
Its not just food that other Global Warming affected countries may refuse to supply to the Yanks - they may well refuse to supply oil on the basis that america seems incapable of cutting their wasteful energy addiction to help solve the problem. If you're on a runaway train and one of the occupants refuses to use the brakes, you either lock him away or throw him overboard
Seriously? You actually think you can, somehow, drive climate change in another direction? I have to see these answers with my own eyes.
All I can envision is Cake's song 'We are building a religion'
Yes. If you want to be negative and refuse to keep an open mind, that's your problem, typical of so many americans
Will someone actually say they think that we can change global climate...just say it once. I must hear it to believe it...
How do you come to this conclusion, William, by the fact that America is spending 11 billion dollars per month in the blindly optimistic endeavour of trying to free 50 million fokks who won't free themselves?
Negative, closed minded? Who are these Americans you speak of, with the exception of Harry Reid?
I've already said Yes' - which bit of that didn't you understand ? I've never heard of Harry Reid. Who is he ?
It's kind of sad how this is turning into an American-bash fest. It's also typical and becoming really old really fast to overgeneralize and put all Americans under one umbrella of 'stupidity.' Save your words; every country has its idiots and every country has its share of informed and intelligent people.
I don't think it's very productive to be singling out any one country from this issue of global warming. I repeat, _global_ warming, which implies a global, all-inclusive issue. Just because the US is among the few countries that pollute the most doesn't mean it's the only country doing so. Therefore, we shouldn't be pointing fingers. We just need to act, and act quickly.
Aside from that, the sun isn't getting warmer anytime soon, our position in the galaxy (if you even want to suggest that far), or any other outer space-related aspects are hardly factors in the global warming equation. Taking an astronomy fundamentals course tells you this. The issue is indeed CO2 emissions and other local variables that we're hearing more and more about in the media. And yes, it's definitely an issue of politics and economics which is a sad thought but that's how today's society works and all of us on this planet just have to deal with that.
It is true sometimes the reactions in the posts look like yankee-bashing .Not at all the intention .Problem is the US-government lead by Bush is the biggest obstacle in dealing with this global disaster ?Do not forget Bush even denied the possibility of regulating carbon emission standards in his own country .There are also some republican posters and their neocon allies doing their utmost trying to oppose regulations .All this while the clock is ticking and the lurking disaster approaches with giant steps .It is important to reach as many americans possible and inform them of the reality of the problem and the consequences on their lives and country if they keep erring .Currently there is only one political person putting his weight in the balance ,Al Gore .
Yet he is opposaed from within his own country by posters using insults and slander to oppose his arguments ?What kind of political discussion is that ?When arguments fail they tackle the player .
Well since Belgium has done nothing again we have to hear from tonny. Global warming will soon be global cooling. Al gores movie has been proven to be propoganda and 17000 scientists refused to sign kyoto treaty.Glaciers are melting yet many more are expanding, Hurricanes were once the product of Global warming now after one quiet year now global warming will equal less hurricanes, Cant believe people are this gullibl, You know your in trouble when you are listening to Al Gore, Laurie David, Sherly Crow. We need al the Global warming we can get as the ice age approaches.
Laurie David, wife of Seinfeld creator and comedian Larry David, is now the premier Democratic organizer in Hollywood.
Once a talent coordinator, David, with the financial success of her celebrity husband, has put her talent for publicity at the service of the environmentalist movement. After hearing a speech by the environmentalist activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., David in 1999 signed on as a trustee for the radical environmentalist group the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), where Kennedy is a senior attorney. As well, David heads the NRDC Action Forum, an unofficial group of affluent and connected women whose aim, according to David, 'is to use our resources to help stop the assault from this current [Bush] administration on our environmental laws.' Besides Kennedy, now one of her closest friends, another of David's environmentalist mentors is former vice president Al Gore. David has even produced a documentary film, titled An Inconvenient Truth, based largely on Gore's alarmist writings on global warming.
In addition to her with work with the NRDC, David is also the co-founder, with liberal commentator Arianna Huffington, of Americans for Fuel-Efficient Cars (AFEC), a leftwing nonprofit group that, as part of a program of reducing American dependency on foreign oil, attacks the Bush administration's environmental policies generally and SUV-owners specifically. One AFEC initiative called the Detroit Project ran television advertisements accusing SUV owners of supporting terrorism. A variant of the 'No Blood For Oil' argument, the reasoning behind the charge was that the unrestrained appetite for oil created by SUVs has led the U.S. to intrude into the MIddle East and create the conditions there that have led to bin-Ladinism. The ads, rejected by most TV markets, featured an actress intended to resemble a suburban mother saying, 'I helped hijack an airplane. I helped blow up a nightclub. So what if it gets 11 miles to the gallon?' Similarly, David has said of SUV's: 'These cars should just have 'pig' spray-painted on them.' David also admits to 'yelling at people on the highway' for driving cars she deems insufficiently congenial to the environment.
Even as she cricizes the purchases of American consumers (of SUVs), David defends her right to keep her prized material possessions, not least her Tudor mansion home in the Pacific Palisades, a ritzy suburb of Los Angeles. Says David: 'My philosophy about this stuff is, it's not all-or-nothing. A lot of people have that attitude: So you drive a fuel-efficient car, what about your giant house? What about this, what about that? I just got asked that on [the] Paula Zahn [TV program] and I was like, I'm not looking for perfection in any of this. We're an imperfect people.' Similarly, David defends her house on the grounds that she uses it 'to gather hundreds of people for eco-salons,' and it is therefore conducive to the 'greater environmental good.' Of the considerable amounts of energy required by her massive residence, David makes no mention.
As author Bernard Goldberg reports in his 2005 book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, David is no slouch with regard to energy consumption: While hectoring SUV drivers, David, who dislikes traveling on commercial airlines, is ferried about in private Gulfstream jets that operate on some 2,100 gallons of jet fuel. Queried about her travel preferences by the New York Times, David, typically anxious for media attention, declined to comment.
When not cheerleading for the environmentalist movement, David is a devout adherent of the Democratic Party. A review of David's campaign contributions since 1996 reveals that she had given over $132,000 to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Barbraba Boxer, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, Al Gore and John Kerry, as well as the pro-Democratic political network MoveOn.org and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the 2004 presidential election, David enthusiastically endorsed John Kerry, calling him a 'great environmentalist.' She also worked to defeat President Bush. In December of 2003, David presided over a meeting of two prominent leftwing political action committees, America Coming Together and The Media Fund. Called a 'Meeting to Change the Leadership in America,' the event was convened to devise strategies to thwart the president's reelection bid.
Why are diehard liberals and wacko's leading this global warming fraud?
29 Mar 07 - The first reports began in November of bees mysteriously disappearing. Not just one or two, but entire colonies of tens of thousands of bees at a time. As temperatures have warmed and it has become safe to open hives, the extent of losses is grave:
In Michigan, Terry Klein, vice president of the Michigan Beekeepers Association and a commercial beekeeper, said reports of huge losses are beginning to arrive.
'One beekeeper started with 1,500 hives and had only 500 colonies left,' Klein said. 'Over three or four more weeks, he lost 70 percent of those.'
Assuming a winter population of approximately 20,000 bees, this would leave losses for one beekeeper at 27 million bees! The losses have been widespread in North America, with some beekeepers losing up to 80 percent of their hives. Over 400 reports have come in from at least 22 states so far. Given the extent of losses, the most puzzling thing is the lack of dead bees:
Although the bodies of dead bees often are littered around a hive, sometimes carried out of the hive by worker bees, no bee remains are typically found around colonies struck by the mystery ailment. Scientists assume these bees have flown away from the hive before dying.
27 million dead bees in a relatively small area should leave some physical evidence. Curiously, it has been noted that something similar happened in North America approximately 50 years ago.
What about Sunspots?
Sunspots follow an approximate 11-year cycle, corresponding to increases in solar activity. This solar activity causes geomagnetic effects during the peaks, but effects on earth’s magnetic field also occur during the minimums. Using these observations, scientists have predicted that the next solar maximum, expected to peak in 2010, could be the most intense ever.
Combined with another observation on the sun, Physicist David Hathaway noticed a correlation that allowed prediction of solar activity 6-8 years later. In his observations, the last time something similar to the IHV measurements he sees today happened was about 50 years ago.
How could sunspots and honeybees be related?
Barbara Shipman, mathematician and daughter of a bee researcher, first noticed something peculiar about the dance bees use to describe where pollen sources are located to other bees. Observed over 40 years by Karl von Firsh, these movements seemed an overly complex way to convey information, especially in insect behavior. No one had yet made sense of the dance the bee scouts performed on returning to a hive, but one thing was clear. All of the dance was based on a triangulation of the hive, the food source, and the sun.
Since then, researchers have discovered that things such as the polarization of the light of the sun and local variations of the earth’s magnetic field affect the components of the dance, suggesting bees have sensitivities that would require re-writing our biology, physics and cosmology texts from scratch:
Other than the coincidence that a similar disappearance of bees and the precursor to a strong sunspot cycle both occurred at the same time, just as is happening now, how could such revelations be related to the solar cycle?
Science is still at a loss to explain the power of the sun’s magnetic field, or the Solar Dynamo. A set of observations seem all to relate, yet the observations cannot be explained individually or together:
The solar probe Ulysses’ circumpolar orbit took it below the south pole of the sun this past winter. While there, sunspot 938 put on the most energetic performance of any sunspot in four years, ejecting a particle storm that would have been a 'ground-level event' (penetrating the entire atmosphere) had it been directed at earth. Instead, it was directed towards the south pole, shattering current models of solar functioning.
If we consider such a particle stream to be a secondary stream to the 'imaginary' component of the solar field that would be dominant during a solar minimum, then the quantum field to which the bees may be sensitive could have been disturbed. Or, the bees could have lost navigation, possibly abandoning the hive as one of the directional components of either the quantum field or local terrestrial magnetic variations moved drastically closer to the sun. They may have flown skyward, attempting to keep up with the rapidly moving target of home in six dimensions.
Similar events could have happened 50 years ago when geomagnetic events preceded the most active solar cycle recorded. Bee disappearances were reported across the southern United States in the time preceding the increased activity. Physicist David Hathaway:
Enough anecdotal evidence and coincidence combined with solid observation also exists to link the disappearance of the bees with changes in the sun, even if the reason why is not clear.
25 Apr 07 - Waterville, ME - Retired physics professor Howard Hayden does not dispute that global warming is happening. But Hayden is an unabashed contrarian when it comes to assigning blame for the phenomenon.
'You think SUVs are the cause of glaciers shrinking?' he said to his audience. 'I don't think so.'
The culprits, he said, are more likely astronomic and solar events.
Hayden, a physics professor for 32 years at the University of Connecticut, is an editor of a monthly newsletter called 'The Energy Advocate.'
He also is the author of the book 'The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World.'
In his presentation, Hayden argued that climatic history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backwards.
A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, he said, does not cause the Earth to be warmer.
Instead, he said, a warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels.
'The sun heats up the Earth,' he said, 'and the oceans warm up and atmospheric carbon dioxide rises.'
Hayden said humans' contribution to global carbon dioxide levels is virtually negligible.
See full article by Colin Hickey
The United States’ leading hurricane forecaster said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.
William Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the U.S. Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide will not produce more or stronger hurricanes.
He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined compared with the previous 40 years, even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.
Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state lawmakers, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
“They’re blaming it all on humans, which is crazy,” he said. “We’re not the cause of it.”
Gray is no fan of the Goracle.
Gray, 77, has long criticized the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, he described former U.S. vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore “a gross alarmist” for making the Oscar-winning documentary that helped focus media attention on global warming.
On Friday, Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created “almost an industry” that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.
That’s where he’s wrong. It’s not “almost an industry.” It is an industry.
In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
That’s big business. So what are they selling? One airline says, “snake oil.”
Toby Nicol, easyJet’s communications director, said the company had been shocked by how much money carbon offsetting firms wanted for their service. “We have been quite surprised at the percentage that the offsetting companies would like to take out of the scheme for administration costs. Between 25% and 30% of every pound put in by consumers would go into administrating the company and that was simply too expensive,” he said.
“There are a lot of people who have dived into the market who are desperate to make a margin from it. There are too many snake oil salesmen in the business.”
Snake oil or not, the facts won’t stop the likes of Thom Friedman from trying to replace the red, white and blue with green.
More: Before they turn the flag green, environmentalists ought to see red.
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
Spirit and Opportunity still need to purchase their carbon offsets, just in case.
If the bee/sunspot theory is correct and an ice age is on the way, why didn't the same bee problems 50 years ago produce an ice age in the 1960s ?
It looks as if this discussion is being hi-jacked by a group of anti-warming activists spreading unfounded theories. A similar hi-jacking occurs whenever the question of gun ownership in america arises on other pages - the gun-fixated groups try to swamp the discussion with spurious arguments
It really isn't worth trying to hold rational exchanges of information with that group or the global warming refusniks here. However, the following is relevant -
The UK has just had an April mean temperature 10% higher than the previous highest mean, and the highest since records began 350 years ago (I know thats a long way back and americans were still at a slightly less primitive stage than now, so don't have such records, but these are accurate reflections of the temperature trends). Even if sunspots are the underlying cause of warming, the rate and degree of change far exceeds any previous experience for modern man, so there is clearly some other factor(s) at work. CO2 could be a major influence so it makes sense to maximise our chances by suppressing it as much as possible.
I don't expect the refusniks to accept this, but I suggest you print these discussions, keep them for 10 years and then compare with actuality - its my bet that your arguments will have been proved wriong by then
I couldn'e agree more - it even looks as if one of these deniers of global warming has stooped to pretending to be Tonny from Belgium - the second letter from 'Tonny' is completely at variance with the first and looks like a fake
The only unfounded theory being spread is Global Warming. Looks like we were hijacked by refusniks on the other side. Why are the Global warming folks so closed minded, angry and anti USA? Heres some cold data, January 1916 Mildest January on record
January 1916 was the mildest January on record with a CET of 7.5. There was little frost and snow during the month with maxima often in double figures, 17.2C was recorded at Rhyl on the 6th due the fohn effect. The weather was unsettled especially in the north as Atlantic lows regularly pushed through maintaining the mild martime airflow across the UK throughout the month.
Record Maxima and Minima for each date in October
1 29.4 1985
2 28.1 1908
3 28.3 1908
4 28.3 1908
5 28.9 1921
6 28.9 1921
7 26.7 1921
8 25.6 1921, 1995
9 27.8 1921
10 25.6 1921
11 25.2 1978
12 25.2 1978
13 25.3 2001
14 23.0 1990
15 22.8 1908
16 23.2 1977
17 22.8 1954
18 25.9 1997
19 24.6 1899
20 21.7 1969
21 22.0 1893
22 22.2 1965
23 21.4 1996
24 21.7 1996
25 20.2 1949
26 22.8 1969
27 22.5 2005
28 20.6 1958
29 19.2 1984
30 21.3 2005
31 19.4 1968
Record Minima
1 -6.4 1928
2 -4.9 1888
3 -4.8 1928
4 -6.7 1912
5 -7.2 1966
6 -6.2 1972
7 -6.7 1919
8 -6.7 1907
9 -3.3 1919, 1970
10 -5.8 1902
11 -6.7 1946
12 -8.5 1973
13 -8.3 1971
14 -8.3 1971
15 -7.2 1919
16 -9.2 1993
17 -9.9 1993
18 -7.2 1926
19 -7.8 1926
20 -11.4 1880
21 -9.4 1935
22 -8.6 1880
23 -9.1 1880
24 -9.4 1885
25 -8.9 1896
26 -9.4 1931
27 -10.6 1926, 1948
28 -11.7 1948
29 -9.4 1911
30 -10.0 1926
31 -10.6 1926
November the coldest month of the year
Here's a CET list of Novembers that were the coldest month of that year
1993 Jointly with Feb 4.6
1923 Nov 3.3
1921 Nov 4.6
1915 Nov 2.8
1910 Nov 3.2
1862 Nov 3.2
1851 Nov 3.1
1782 Nov 2.3
1750 Jointly with Jan 4.0
1702 Jointly with Dec 4.4
23rd November 1981: Tornadoes galore
The 23rd of November 1981 was an exceptional day as a very active cold front replaced very mild SWly winds with much colder NWlies as it crossed England and Wales. The front produced heavy rain, hail, severe squalls and 105 tornados, the largest outbreak of tornados in one day ever recorded in the UK. Fortunately, most of the twisters were weak and short-lived.
The cold spell of early November 1980
The first week of November 1980 was very cold especially in the south as a high pressure over Scandinavia drew a cold easterly flow across the UK. This brought snowfalls to the south with Jersey recording 6cm of lying snow on the 6th and maxima of a mere 1C.
Your right, I never see these these sky is falling libs post any facts:Heres some Extremely heavy snowfall and unusually low temperatures affected Russia yesterday, as Muscovites celebrated the Easter period.
Meteorologists say that this is the heaviest Easter snowfall in Moscow for many years. One tourist said it was normally warm at this time of year ‘but now it is very cold on the eve of Easter.’
Unusual snowy weather also occurred in North Texas as light snow flurries fell on Saturday morning. The last time spring snow fell here was April 1938, according to the National Weather Service (NWS) records. On Saturday the maximum temperature in Amarillo was -2C (28F) when the long-term average is 21C (70F).
In Washington D.C. visitors to the capital awoke to see cherry blossoms coated with snow on Saturday. This bitter weather is due to frigid air from Canada feeding much further south than is normal at this time of year.
Meanwhile many parts of the U.K. will enjoy Easter with temperatures above average and a forecast high in Central London of 20C (68F). However snow is not unheard of; in fact it is more likely to snow at Easter than it is at Christmas. The most widespread and disruptive Easter snow fell in eastern Britain in 1983.
Does this mean we are in cooling, since a warm UK in april meant global warming? It’s the 21st of March, the first official day of spring, but much of Europe has been struggling with wintry weather for the last few days as winter brings a sting in its tail.
Most of the UK has had snow and strong winds over the past few days; In Scotland heavy snow showers have caused several road accidents. As an addition to this strong winds blew which caused many of the main ferry crossings in the northwest of the country to be cancelled.
Even in Tenerife heavy snow caused problems. Earlier this week 12 people were trapped in their cars in Las Canada del Teide after heavy snow hit the area. On the Spanish mainland over 20cm of snow fell on the Basque region, cutting off road links to several villages. Elsewhere heavy rain sparked flooding, and high winds drove huge waves onto the Santander coast smashing railings and moving parked cars.
In parts of Switzerland up to 37cm of snow fell in a matter of hours on Tuesday afternoon. In neighbouring Austria nearly half a metre of snow fell in some parts, cutting power to around 40,000 people as power lines came down.
Despite the chaos caused by the wintry spell; this may come as welcome news for those heading to the Alpine slopes during the Easter break.
Snow blanketed much of Jordan on Thursday, briefly whited out road signs in Jerusalem as freak weather created high waves in Egypt's Red Sea and forced four ports to close.
In the Jordanian capital and northern and western provinces, officials closed schools as snow flurried around buildings and traffic jams persisted after the usual morning rush-hour.
'Thanks be to God for this blessing that he granted us with this snowfall,' Agriculture Minister Mustafa al-Koronfola said on television.
The desert state has suffered dry spells for years and its religious affairs ministry frequently urges citizens collectively to pray for rain -- the last such appeal was in December.
It was less of a blessing for motorists.
Civil defence chief General Awwad al-Massaeed said 12 people were hurt in a weather-related accident involving a Saudi bus near the eastern oasis town of Azraq.
Police spokesman Major Bashir Daajeh told state television that 93 road accidents occurred up to midday, causing minor injuries.
In Jerusalem, thick wet flakes fell intermittently during the morning leaving streets signs covered in a thin blanket of white before the snow turned to rain.
Thursday's snow was the first in March in Jerusalem since 1998 when a surprise storm also dumped snow in the West Bank.
In Egypt, a maritime official said the Red Sea ports of Al-Zaitiya, Al-Adabiya, Port Tawfiq and the tourist harbour of Hurghada were closed after waves reached four metres (13 feet) and wind speed 35 knots.
But he said the Suez canal -- through which an estimated seven percent of global trade passes -- remained open to traffic.
Picking out all these unusual weather events is actually indicating that Global Warming is happening because the models indicate that weather patterns will become increasingly erratic
That is a typical american argument tactic- the spam flood. Drown out the discussion with loud, repeated assertion. Try to make the one guy that agrees with you sound like an army. Soon he should be attacking the character of people who disagree with him. The american right has thousands of mindless drones like him, incapable of objective thought, knee-jerk haters. I would feel sorry for them if they were not capable of doing so much damage.
In the South of England we used to have snow on a regular basis every winter. Now it is extremely rare. Many birds used to migrate in the Winter - now they don't bother, it is quite warm enough here for them. Plants are budding some 2 weeks earlier than they did 2 or 3 decades ago. Many 'Mediterranean' fish are now common in our previously cold seas
These are all examples of a steadily warming climate, which I can see all around me.
No doubt all sorts of clever people with bees in their bonnet about Ice Ages approaching or Global Warming happening can produce statistics and records of highs and lows to support their cases, but it is the long term steady trend which I observe - I see no evidence of this reversing from a steady warming, even though there are blips here and there with cold snaps and ice. Consequently I foresee further warming, but no ice in the immediate future. If its more than 20 years away it probably won't bother me anyway
The myths on this are just laughable. People actually think we can regulate earths temperature! Hell, find the dial...quick!
What a golden opportunity to bash the USA. After all, who lese would be to blame?
Blame the arabs for pumping all THAT BAD OIL? naw!
When I sumbled across this site I assumed it was for intelligent discussion. However, having seen the most recent item I realise it is populated by a number of nutters and american apologists who can't grasp basic information or logic. No point in arguing with people with their heads in the ground and spouting hot air (more global warming) through the only orifice then remaining above the ground. Goddbye
All I see are people with no facts or information and a closed mind and quick to bash the USA.I guess looking out your window and observing weather for the last 20 years or 40 years is more indicative than looking at the last 1000 years globally, to top it off everything now is global warming, what are the ramifications if we are heading to cooling? What do we do for that? . By the way, when Greenland was green not to long ago, how much sea rise was there? Cant believe you people believe everything that you read or hear, esp from hollywood types, unreal!...
The sea was anything up to 13 feet higher when all the icecap melted, but that was not neccesarily during the most recent warm period. Measurements are also confused by the depression of the land by the sheer weight of the ice (up to 2 miles thick)
Greenland was named as such by Erik the Red, but this is not proof that it was a completely warm, ice free land, because a) he was using the name as propaganda to attract new settlers and b) it may have been only the edges which were ice free and habitable (as today)
Here in the Netherlands we have just had our warmest April for 300 years , with an average which is 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than the previous record, but I expect the Ice Age believers will tell me I'm imagining this higher temperature
Yo, Hans Many areas just had the coldest month, So what is the point, Maybe we have a new phrase, Weather in my backyard WIMB. That means everything right?...While we are at it Pluto,Juptor and Mars are also having their warmest April too, serious.
If rightwing spinsters had been on the airwaves during the Dustbowl, they would have argued it was caused by natural drying and a cyclic increase in wind, utterly unconnected to farming practices. Then, when everyone realized the truth, they would have said it was impossible to reverse or even slow the process, so why do anything at all?
What would al and laurie say during a ice age, betty? R they spinsters?
One woman, a TV meteorologist, insisted “the science is really solid” that man-made emissions cause the global warming that so agitates the IPCC and has Americans fretting about scrapping their SUVs.
Prof. Lindzen calmly replied he couldn’t dispute her assertion “because she never says what science she is talking about.” That’s one of the problems with the alleged danger of global warming, supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide being churned into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, cars and, judging from a recent report, the “emissions” from cattle.
Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven.
Yet unlike most scientific theories, it is politically incorrect (and in cases politically prohibited) to question its validity or demand deeper research.
The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a “Summary for Policymakers” which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters.
This year’s report is the fourth since IPCC was founded in 1988. The 2001 report said it was “likely” global warming was man-made from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while this year’s report upgrades “likely” to “very likely.” And that seems to have even President George Bush retreating and promising to do something (one isn’t sure what), and commentators coming on side with global warming hysteria.
In Canada, Stephen Harper apparently feels his chance for a majority in the next election, hinge on his bending to the global warming/Kyoto gang, despite no evidence justifying the money it’s going to cost.
To dispassionate observers, the Kyoto protocols aimed at reducing emissions are an embarrassment to Canada, which already is 35% (and growing) over what it agreed to. Countries like India and China, horrible offenders, are excluded leading many to think Kyoto is more a wealth distributing ploy rather than an aid to the planet.
Talk of “consensus” in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.
Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of “consensus.” Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens’ bodies.
Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who’ve been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC.
In the 1970s, global cooling was the boogie man. In the late 1960s we were warned the world’s supply of oil was running out. Also the world could no longer supply enough food for rising populations. Hysteria and nonsense.
Complex science
Predicting climate change is more than computerized models — and far more complex than predicting the weather change — which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week.
Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it’s man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet. As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life.
More food may be produced in some areas, but many more areas will be drought stricken, so the net food production could well be lower. Furthemore, the population of the drought stricken areas will try to move - to where ?
Mexico is one of the earliest likely drought areas - better build that proposed wall along the US border to keep them out, as soon as possible.
Drought won't happen ? Witness the Sahara - the 'granary' of the Roman Empire, but which has produced nothing for centuries, and vast swathes of Africa, the Middle East, Idia, Mongolia, China, even Italy and the Alps, rapidly drying up. (The water from these areas, incidentally, has gone into the atmosphere - is probably falling in colder areas, and may even be adding to those glaciers which are considered to be growing at present and therefore claimed to be heralding another ice age. Believe it if you want to, but Ice Ages don't usually have rapidly expanding, warming, drought areas)
One of the overlooked pieces of 'censorship' in the recent IPCC report was a graph showing how global warming could be reduced by curtailing CO2 emissions. After 5 revisions and 8 meetings the graph was excluded under pressure from Saudi Arabia. Couldn't possibly be anything to do with Saudi Arabia being the largest oil producer could it ?
I wonder how many other pieces of information are being suppressed by the oil lobby - or how many of the supposedly unbiased pieces of research, or letters to sites such as this, are being manipulated by the oil companies as they try to preserve their profits in the advancing tide of Global Warming and the refining of our understanding of the man made causes ?
P.S. Also have a look at the item on this site about the rate of Arctic Warming. Not much sign of an approaching Ice Age there !
Rashiki - my point (which you asked for) - is that there are steadily accumulating record hot events, but I also accept there are some cold events. However, the number of hotter records far exceed the cold ones and show 1) That there is a steadily rising mean temperature throughout the world and 2) that the predicted effects of Global Warming - wider and wider fluctuations in weather conditions as the atmosphere becomes more unstable - are happening.
The warming of other planets is known about and indicates that the output from the sun is increasing, so the world warms. BUT, on top of this effect from the sun on Earth, there is the additional effect of CO2 trapping more of the incoming heat and not letting it escape into space.
Just a follow up - April has now been confirmed as having the hottest mean UK temperature for 350 years - up 10% on the previous record. Furthermore the rainfall was just 5% of the average in the South (30% down in Scotland)
It may not prove global warming is happening to the die-hard anti-warmers, but when you experience consecutive hottest Summer, Autumn and Winter since records began, one begins to suspect a shift in weather patterns. Meanwhile, where is the missing rain ? (along with the absence of it in Italy, the Alps, Australia etc etc ?) Ah Yes - its all falling on glaciers and 'proving' that an ice age is upon us, say the anti-warmers.
However, thinking around this a bit - a hotter atmosphere absorbs more moisture and is capable of holding more without having to drop it as rain. But, when the atmosphere moves over a cold landmass - as in an area with glaciers down below - it cools and is forced to drop the water content = snow = apparently growing glaciers. But growing glaciers in this scenario is a result of hotter conditions, not a cooling Earth. Same logic for sudden snow storms as quoted above and the snow in Northern America recently
...Now, I've heard everything: There are folks who actually credit global warming for both growing and shrinking glaciers!
Next: the alien overlords!
New York Temperatures Rival Record for Coldest April
Science – Just 10 days into April, temperatures have averaged 42 degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 Celsius), about one degree warmer than the average for April 1874, the coldest on record, said Michael Silva, meteorologist with the National Weather Service's Upton, New York, station
Why is Antarctica getting colder in the middle when it’s warming up around the edge?
One possible explanation, says NOAA, is that the warmer temperatures in the
surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent’s interior, and this
increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole.
So ... ocean warming has resulted in increased snowfall which has created a cooling
trend.
Sound familiar? Now we have a quote from a government agency backing up what
I’ve been saying all along.
An analysis of 35 years of climate data shows most of Antarctica is cooling down, not warming up, claim US researchers. This conclusion conflicts with 'greenhouse' climate models that predict the largest temperature rises at the poles. Other researchers also dispute the team¹s findings.
'We are not saying that global warming is not going on,' says Peter Doran at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who has led the new analysis. 'But something is going on in the Antarctic that is not predicted by the climate models.'
Doran's team studied air temperature measurements taken across Antarctica over the past 35 years. They also analysed a highly detailed set of temperature measurements taken between 1986 and 2000 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, a small ice-free region at the edge of the continent, south of New Zealand.
Here, the average air temperature has cooled by 0.7°C per decade, primarily because of colder summer and autumn temperatures, Doran says.
Data combined from numerous recording stations across the continent point to a similar trend over the last 35 years, he says.
Heated argument
Most climate researchers in Antarctica are based on the Antarctic Peninsula, on the other side of the planet, below South America. Air temperatures around this peninsula have shown a dramatic increase over the past 35 years, several times higher than the average rise for the planet as a whole.
But this peninsula, unlike the rest of Antarctica, is less affected by an ocean current called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This might explain the difference in temperature data, Doran suggests.
However, other researchers maintain that the temperature of 'mainland' Antarctica has also been increasing.
'Whether or not there has been significant cooling or not is open to a great deal of argument,' says David Vaughan at the British Antarctic Survey.
Records covering the last 50 years show beyond doubt that the continent is warming, he claims.
Animal life hit
Whatever the long-term picture, Doran's surveys of the McMurdo Dry Valleys suggest that recent cooling is having a devastating impact on the plant and animal life in the region. The largest animals are microscopic plankton in the frozen lakes and tiny nematode worms in the soil.
No snow falls in the dry valleys, but in summer, when temperatures just tip above freezing for four to six weeks, meltwater from glaciers feed the frozen lakes in the valley floor.
'Summer temperatures are key to the ecosystem,' says Doran. But colder summers mean the lakes are replenished with less meltwater, and so are starting to dwindle. Their frozen 'lids' are also getting thicker, restricting photosynthesis.
The researchers estimate that the colder weather is causing the number of soil invertebrates to fall by 10 per cent each year, and plant productivity to fall by six to nine per cent per year.
Journal reference: Nature (DOI 10.1038/nature710)
Only the artic penisula is warming, the rest of anartica is getting colder, the artic penisula is like south carolina compared to north america, amazing we only hear about the artic penisula.
I think thats agreeing with what I'm saying - but there are two trends - cooling in the middle and warming on the edges. Also, the increased precipitation in the centre will load up the glaciers, which will start to move faster
Something similar is happening in Greenland, but there the movement is also accelerated by the meltwater getting down to the bottom of the glaciers and lubricating the movement
Meanwhile, Arctic ice coverage has been disappearing a rate of 7.5% per decade for the last two or three decades, whereas it was previously thought to be only 2.5%. This results in more ocean being exposed and, being dark, a greater absorbtion of heat from the sun - hence even more warming
The ice has now retreated so far in Greenland that a new island several miles long has been revealed, and tourist cruises are being arranged to view this and the rapidly disappearing sea ice. Recommended holiday for all those Global Warming sceptics - don't pontificate - go and see !
Global warming is occuring and will occur again and so will cooling and ice ages, so what is your point. PS this activity will occur no matter what...
page: 1
JimApr 28th, 2007 - 13:11:23
Whilst the Global warming refusniks still bury their heads in the sand, time is running out - perhaps even faster than suggested above. The provisonal figures for the UK for April show a nearly 10% gain in the mean temperature over the previous highest record for April, and the highest since records began 300 years ago.
There have been temperature records in the Summer, Autum and Spring over the past 12 months - and people still say Global Warming isn't happening !
Report this comment