The economic disaster will get worseBy Edmund Conway
It had to happen sooner or later. We have an economic disaster that cannot be blamed on Gordon Brown. No, not the collapse of Northern Rock, which the Prime Minister wrongly tried to attribute to problems in the American sub-prime market. Not the slump in house prices, rising unemployment or our stalling economic activity, which are all home-grown traumas.
We face longest era of turmoil in memory, says Bank boss
Read more from Edmund Conway
No, this is 21st-century stagflation: a toxic brew of soaring inflation and slumping growth. Technically, Mr Brown could have done more to prevent the latter, although I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the return of stagflation - or globeflation, or whatever peculiar name the wise men will give it - is an international phenomenon, with higher prices generated by China's rising economy and the fear that we may be running out of oil/metals/food/water.
Its consequences will be keenly felt here on our sensitive, import-dependent island. While we won't see inflation shoot up to 25 per cent as it did in the 1970s, the experience will be no less painful.
Experts, who had assumed that the Bank's next move with interest rates would be down rather than up, are scrabbling to change their forecasts. They are now betting on the apocalyptic prospect that the Monetary Policy Committee will raise borrowing costs as we head into a housing crash. They are also wagering that inflation will remain above four per cent for the next half-century.
This is terrible news for Mr Brown, who was quietly hoping the Bank would come to his rescue and slash rates to generate a bounce in time for the next election. While he may have looked across the Atlantic for his scapegoat last time, this time the culprit - or at least the catalyst - for the chaos is closer: in Frankfurt.
For it was there, last week, that the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, threw a massive spanner in the works by warning that inflation is such a concern that he is likely to raise euro rates next month.
Having weathered the financial markets crisis (give or take the nationalisation of a high street bank), we are now facing something quite different: a widespread economic crunch that will affect us all. And if this weren't enough doom and gloom, it is worth remembering that the behaviour by central banks in Europe and America is uncannily reminiscent of the spat in October 1987 that helped spark the worst-ever falls in the stock market (though, admittedly, share prices have fallen far enough to make a repeat of Black Monday a near-impossibility).
Either way, life is about to become even more painful - not just for homeowners, who are already having to contend with a fall in the value of their property, but for anyone with a job. Unemployment, already rising, will escalate, and companies will become increasingly reluctant to raise their wages. The standard of living for the average Briton will fall as the cost of living outpaces our earnings. The financial markets are starting to face up to this prospect. It will be some time before the full reality dawns on the wider public, but when it does it will be difficult to stomach.
Whether the Bank raises rates or not, the cost of borrowing for households and companies is already rising; this will accelerate over the next few weeks. With money market borrowing rates almost half a percentage point higher than last week, banks and building societies will soon pass this extra cost on to homeowners in the shape of higher fixed-rate mortgages and higher fees.
If the housing market were in good shape, this would be worrying enough, but coming as it does when prices are falling at the fastest rate since the last crash - by some measures even faster - it is a cause for concern. For all the damage done by higher taxes and regulations over the past decade, the economy is still a better-adjusted animal than it was in the early 1990s - albeit more debt-ridden.
But with mortgage rates spiralling just at the moment when consumers are at their least optimistic, there is no telling how severe the downturn could get. Mr Brown's personal poll ratings may have further depths to plumb as a result - even accounting for the traditional British affection for the underdog.
I used to believe that in economics and politics you make your own luck, and this dictum has applied pretty well for most of Brown's premiership. Having spent and borrowed too much when he should have been putting away cash for rainy days, he is now being punished for it. Unlike George Bush, he has nothing left in the can for major tax cuts, and would have to borrow in order to lower taxes.
This would be unwise. First of all, Alistair Darling has already cut taxes by £2.7 billion for those affected by the 10p tax fiasco; I doubt an extra few billion would make much meaningful difference.
Second, and most important, it would threaten to undermine the economy in more deep-seated ways than one can easily imagine. The two borrowing rules Brown laid down as Chancellor (that the Government must borrow only to invest; and that total government debt should not exceed 40 per cent of GDP) are among the few threads helping us avoid those double-digit inflation rates we saw in the 1970s. The minute anyone sensed that Labour really was preparing to borrow its way out of this, we would be punished by the international capital markets with an even weaker pound and far bigger price rises as a consequence.
The most sensible thing would be to batten down the hatches, keep cutting spending and to borrow as little extra as possible. We will have high inflation for the next year or so, but as the world economy slows, so will the price rises. Although the markets have become overexcited about high inflation, I still suspect the next move in Bank rates will be down - not up. Labour could put this at risk if it went for unfunded tax cuts.
Of course, an eventual upturn won't save Brown from what seems his inevitable fate - any more than it did John Major. However, it may prevent him from going down in history as the man who wrecked the British economy for the first quarter of the 21st century.
Have your say
Showing posts with label Global warnings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global warnings. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
John Carlisle ~ I blame the sun!!
Sun to Blame for Global Warming
by John Carlisle
Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.
The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.
That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.
The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.
There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.
Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979.
Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.
John K. Carlisle is the Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to JCarlisle@nationalcenter.org.
by John Carlisle
Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.
The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.
That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.
The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.
There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.
Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979.
Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.
John K. Carlisle is the Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to JCarlisle@nationalcenter.org.
Here comes the Sun.........
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 12 March 2007 07:27 am ET
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
Wobbly Mars
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.
“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”
As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”
These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.
Other warming worlds
Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Sun does vary
The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.
“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
The Maunder Minimum
This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.
Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
LiveScience staff writer Andrea Thompson contributed to this article.
More to Explore
10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
Emerging Environmental Technologies
Video: Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
How You Can Fight Global Warming
Global Warming Features
Earth Will Survive Global Warming, But Will We?
Strange Weather's Loose Link to Global Warming
Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views
Recent Climate Change News
Protecting Ozone Layer Also Slowed Global Warming
Surprising New Arctic Inhabitants: Trees
Earth's Polar Regions Target of Year-Long Study
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 12 March 2007 07:27 am ET
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
Wobbly Mars
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.
“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”
As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”
These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.
Other warming worlds
Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Sun does vary
The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.
“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
The Maunder Minimum
This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.
Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
LiveScience staff writer Andrea Thompson contributed to this article.
More to Explore
10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
Emerging Environmental Technologies
Video: Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
How You Can Fight Global Warming
Global Warming Features
Earth Will Survive Global Warming, But Will We?
Strange Weather's Loose Link to Global Warming
Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views
Recent Climate Change News
Protecting Ozone Layer Also Slowed Global Warming
Surprising New Arctic Inhabitants: Trees
Earth's Polar Regions Target of Year-Long Study
Al Gore is " a gross alarmist"
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist'' Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about,'' Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.
A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.
Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.
Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth,'' has helped fuel media attention on global warming.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in'' even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.
Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
International Group Issues Global Warming Report
All About Global Warming
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about,'' Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.
A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.
Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.
Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth,'' has helped fuel media attention on global warming.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in'' even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.
Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
International Group Issues Global Warming Report
All About Global Warming
Monday, March 31, 2008
Toni's story ~ I don't want children!
Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies - Because They're Not Eco Friendly.
When Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. At 27 this young woman was sterilised to "protect the planet". Her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. Toni says "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
Nothing in Toni's upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. "No sooner had we finished our wedding cake than all our relatives started to ask when they could expect a new addition to the family.
"When I was a child, I developed a passion for the environment - I became a vegetarian when I was 15. The only person who understood how I felt was my first husband, who didn't want children either. We both wanted to save the planet - not add to the problem."
"I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely. "My GP said I was far too young to be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day. "We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, but the GP allowed him to go ahead. "I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."
"Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own. "We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family. But when she was 25, she discovered that despite taking the Pill, she had fallen pregnant by her boyfriend. "I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time. "This time it was a male doctor. He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it. "After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation. I had my mother's support - she realised I wasn't going to grow out of my beliefs. At 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised. As Toni awaited the surgery which would destroy her fertility, she met her future husband, Ed, 38. "I liked him immediately, and I told him what I was doing because if he wanted children then he needed to know I wasn't the woman for him." "But Ed didn't want children for the same reasons."
Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children. "My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision. "What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
November 21, 2007 Daily Mail rw Karen Gaia says: I am not advocating that everyone remain childless. There are some people that want zero children, and some that want three. It all works out when women have choices and education.
When Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. At 27 this young woman was sterilised to "protect the planet". Her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. Toni says "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
Nothing in Toni's upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. "No sooner had we finished our wedding cake than all our relatives started to ask when they could expect a new addition to the family.
"When I was a child, I developed a passion for the environment - I became a vegetarian when I was 15. The only person who understood how I felt was my first husband, who didn't want children either. We both wanted to save the planet - not add to the problem."
"I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely. "My GP said I was far too young to be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day. "We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, but the GP allowed him to go ahead. "I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."
"Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own. "We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family. But when she was 25, she discovered that despite taking the Pill, she had fallen pregnant by her boyfriend. "I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time. "This time it was a male doctor. He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it. "After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation. I had my mother's support - she realised I wasn't going to grow out of my beliefs. At 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised. As Toni awaited the surgery which would destroy her fertility, she met her future husband, Ed, 38. "I liked him immediately, and I told him what I was doing because if he wanted children then he needed to know I wasn't the woman for him." "But Ed didn't want children for the same reasons."
Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children. "My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision. "What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
November 21, 2007 Daily Mail rw Karen Gaia says: I am not advocating that everyone remain childless. There are some people that want zero children, and some that want three. It all works out when women have choices and education.
Greedy Atlanta
Atlanta's Role in Drought is Scrutinized.
With officials projecting that Atlanta could run out of water within three months, Georgia politicians have pleaded with the Army Corps of Engineers not to release more water from the reservoir as part of an effort to save two species of mussels 200 miles downriver. Yet there is a growing sense that the metropolis itself is the problem. Atlanta's rapid growth, and its disregard for conservation, is straining the region's ecosystem. The governors of Florida, Alabama and Georgia agreed to reduce by 16% the amount of water released from Lake Lanier, which would give some relief. But experts say the Southeast's struggles over water resources are far from over. What has got to be on the table is Atlanta's unrestricted growth and cavalier attitude to water use. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist wrote in a letter to President Bush that Florida's $134 million commercial seafood industry depended on the water and added that his state had acted responsibly in enacting water legislation. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley argued that downstream communities and a nuclear-power plant in his state required water, too. Within Georgia the drought has brought to the fore long-simmering resentment against the booming capital of the New South. There is concern that Atlanta could slake its thirst on Augusta's water supplies.
Atlanta is a greedy, poorly designed behemoth of a city incapable of hearing the word 'no' and dealing with it. They cannot bring themselves to tell their constituents that perhaps if they didn't have six bathrooms, it might ease the situation a bit.
While other cities have water-conservation measures, Atlanta, one of the country's fastest-growing metropolitan regions, has been particularly shortsighted.
Atlanta's population climbed to 4.1 million from 2.9 million. Its draw on the water increased to 420 million gallons a day from 320 million. For its drinking water, Atlanta relies almost entirely on Lake Lanier, a 38,000-acre man-made reservoir in northern Georgia built in the 1950s. Not surprisingly, developers and members of the business community rankle at suggestion that the state should introduce legislation to prohibit developers from building if no water is available. February 07, 2008 Los Angeles Times rw Karen Gaia says: several states do have legislation to prohibit developers from building if no water is available. However, counties often play a shell game with the water to make developers happy. If states where water is a problem were take a careful look at their water supply and were to act responsibly, there would be litttle or no more development allowed.
With officials projecting that Atlanta could run out of water within three months, Georgia politicians have pleaded with the Army Corps of Engineers not to release more water from the reservoir as part of an effort to save two species of mussels 200 miles downriver. Yet there is a growing sense that the metropolis itself is the problem. Atlanta's rapid growth, and its disregard for conservation, is straining the region's ecosystem. The governors of Florida, Alabama and Georgia agreed to reduce by 16% the amount of water released from Lake Lanier, which would give some relief. But experts say the Southeast's struggles over water resources are far from over. What has got to be on the table is Atlanta's unrestricted growth and cavalier attitude to water use. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist wrote in a letter to President Bush that Florida's $134 million commercial seafood industry depended on the water and added that his state had acted responsibly in enacting water legislation. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley argued that downstream communities and a nuclear-power plant in his state required water, too. Within Georgia the drought has brought to the fore long-simmering resentment against the booming capital of the New South. There is concern that Atlanta could slake its thirst on Augusta's water supplies.
Atlanta is a greedy, poorly designed behemoth of a city incapable of hearing the word 'no' and dealing with it. They cannot bring themselves to tell their constituents that perhaps if they didn't have six bathrooms, it might ease the situation a bit.
While other cities have water-conservation measures, Atlanta, one of the country's fastest-growing metropolitan regions, has been particularly shortsighted.
Atlanta's population climbed to 4.1 million from 2.9 million. Its draw on the water increased to 420 million gallons a day from 320 million. For its drinking water, Atlanta relies almost entirely on Lake Lanier, a 38,000-acre man-made reservoir in northern Georgia built in the 1950s. Not surprisingly, developers and members of the business community rankle at suggestion that the state should introduce legislation to prohibit developers from building if no water is available. February 07, 2008 Los Angeles Times rw Karen Gaia says: several states do have legislation to prohibit developers from building if no water is available. However, counties often play a shell game with the water to make developers happy. If states where water is a problem were take a careful look at their water supply and were to act responsibly, there would be litttle or no more development allowed.
Water Water Everywhere ~ NOT
Are Our Current Growth and Water Use Sustainable?.
The use of water is constantly changing as our population continues to expand, and we respond to any number of external events, including new technologies, global climate, and energy availability. Arizona initially developed through exploiting its natural resources, often at rates that would deplete the region over time. We will need the ability to make adjustments in a timely manner and avoid crossing critical thresholds that could result in irreversible shortages. Groundwater overuse could dewater an aquifer and compact its underground structure. This could lead to permanent loss of water storage capacity, increased vulnerability to drought, drying up of streams, or land subsidence. All of which have occurred in Arizona.
To meet demand, we must increase our investments in new water resources. Many of our leaders miss this fundamental relationship. They want to allow continued growth, but do not want to invest in the tools needed to manage and serve our complex communities. Arizona has made significant advances in linking water and growth including requiring Arizona's larger or faster-growing local governments to consider water adequacy in their long-range plans. They require a 100-year renewable water supply before land can be subdivided, and last year's legislation allowing cities and towns to require new subdivisions to have a 100-year water supply.
Arizona's leaders will be considering transportation and water-management initiatives. It is hoped that we will, envision and plan for strong and healthy communities and be willing to invest to make it happen. Priority goals for assuring a sustainable Arizona water supply include: • Develop long-range water-demand projections. • Forge regional partnerships. • Secure future supplies. • Understand and prepare for climate change. • Modify the state's regulatory and water-management organizations to require water adequacy in urban and rural areas, and to facilitate water transfers. • Address environmental quality, related to water management. February 01, 2008 AZ Central.com rw
The use of water is constantly changing as our population continues to expand, and we respond to any number of external events, including new technologies, global climate, and energy availability. Arizona initially developed through exploiting its natural resources, often at rates that would deplete the region over time. We will need the ability to make adjustments in a timely manner and avoid crossing critical thresholds that could result in irreversible shortages. Groundwater overuse could dewater an aquifer and compact its underground structure. This could lead to permanent loss of water storage capacity, increased vulnerability to drought, drying up of streams, or land subsidence. All of which have occurred in Arizona.
To meet demand, we must increase our investments in new water resources. Many of our leaders miss this fundamental relationship. They want to allow continued growth, but do not want to invest in the tools needed to manage and serve our complex communities. Arizona has made significant advances in linking water and growth including requiring Arizona's larger or faster-growing local governments to consider water adequacy in their long-range plans. They require a 100-year renewable water supply before land can be subdivided, and last year's legislation allowing cities and towns to require new subdivisions to have a 100-year water supply.
Arizona's leaders will be considering transportation and water-management initiatives. It is hoped that we will, envision and plan for strong and healthy communities and be willing to invest to make it happen. Priority goals for assuring a sustainable Arizona water supply include: • Develop long-range water-demand projections. • Forge regional partnerships. • Secure future supplies. • Understand and prepare for climate change. • Modify the state's regulatory and water-management organizations to require water adequacy in urban and rural areas, and to facilitate water transfers. • Address environmental quality, related to water management. February 01, 2008 AZ Central.com rw
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Why is the weather so extreme?
WNC researchers plot wild swings of temperature, precipitation
by Dale Neal
published March 13, 2008 12:15 am
Asheville – With a balmy winter, a deep Easter freeze, hailstorms in June, a scalding heat wave in August and a yearlong exceptional drought, 2007 in Western North Carolina saw a host of weather extremes.
But the mountains weren’t alone. Nationwide, last year saw more extreme weather than any year except 1998, according to the U.S. Climate Index. The index, which extends back to 1910, has seen a trend toward more heat waves, deep freezes, intense storms and droughts affecting more of the nation over the past five years, according to Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the National Climatic Data Center in downtown Asheville.
“As far as extremes, we’ve been really up there since the 1980s,” Heim said. Whether hot or cold, wet or dry, “we’re having more extreme weather at both ends.”
Developed in the 1990s by researchers, including current NCDC director Thomas Karl, the index is a composite of weather extremes affecting the continental United States, showing whether a heat wave or a cold snap affects wide swaths of the nation.
Last year was the 10th-warmest on record for the nation, marked by deadly wildfires in California, spring storms that sent 600 tornadoes spinning across the Great Plains and South, severe flooding in Texas and Oklahoma, and a devastating drought across North Carolina and much of the Southeast.
While the index itself isn’t a forecasting tool, those extremes could be tied to the climate change scientists charted in last year’s landmark reports from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those reports indicate that rising global temperatures could lead to more weather extremes with heavier rainstorms and perhaps more intense hurricane activity.
“Climate change is always happening, but man has reached a point where we are one of the controllers of climate change,” Heim said.
Civilizations and cultures changed along with the climate when droughts or colder temperatures in the Middle Ages disrupted agriculture and brought famine, Heim said. “A changing climate is not something you want to ignore. Decision-makers ought to be concerned.”
On the regional level, researchers at the Renaissance Computing Institute at UNC Asheville are trying to give planners more tools to work with in the event of future extreme weather, such as storms that could produce severe flooding like that along the Swannanoa and French Broad rivers in 2004.
Predicting weather is hard in the mountains, given the numerous microclimates, said Jim Fox, who heads the research group that’s part of RENCI.
“You look at Asheville, and it’s the driest part of the whole state. Down in Transylvania County is the wettest part of the state, and there’s not that much of a drive between Asheville and Brevard,” Fox said.
RENCI is using money from the state to place more rain and stream gauges around Western North Carolina to provide more local data.
WNC researchers plot wild swings of temperature, precipitation
by Dale Neal
published March 13, 2008 12:15 am
Asheville – With a balmy winter, a deep Easter freeze, hailstorms in June, a scalding heat wave in August and a yearlong exceptional drought, 2007 in Western North Carolina saw a host of weather extremes.
But the mountains weren’t alone. Nationwide, last year saw more extreme weather than any year except 1998, according to the U.S. Climate Index. The index, which extends back to 1910, has seen a trend toward more heat waves, deep freezes, intense storms and droughts affecting more of the nation over the past five years, according to Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the National Climatic Data Center in downtown Asheville.
“As far as extremes, we’ve been really up there since the 1980s,” Heim said. Whether hot or cold, wet or dry, “we’re having more extreme weather at both ends.”
Developed in the 1990s by researchers, including current NCDC director Thomas Karl, the index is a composite of weather extremes affecting the continental United States, showing whether a heat wave or a cold snap affects wide swaths of the nation.
Last year was the 10th-warmest on record for the nation, marked by deadly wildfires in California, spring storms that sent 600 tornadoes spinning across the Great Plains and South, severe flooding in Texas and Oklahoma, and a devastating drought across North Carolina and much of the Southeast.
While the index itself isn’t a forecasting tool, those extremes could be tied to the climate change scientists charted in last year’s landmark reports from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those reports indicate that rising global temperatures could lead to more weather extremes with heavier rainstorms and perhaps more intense hurricane activity.
“Climate change is always happening, but man has reached a point where we are one of the controllers of climate change,” Heim said.
Civilizations and cultures changed along with the climate when droughts or colder temperatures in the Middle Ages disrupted agriculture and brought famine, Heim said. “A changing climate is not something you want to ignore. Decision-makers ought to be concerned.”
On the regional level, researchers at the Renaissance Computing Institute at UNC Asheville are trying to give planners more tools to work with in the event of future extreme weather, such as storms that could produce severe flooding like that along the Swannanoa and French Broad rivers in 2004.
Predicting weather is hard in the mountains, given the numerous microclimates, said Jim Fox, who heads the research group that’s part of RENCI.
“You look at Asheville, and it’s the driest part of the whole state. Down in Transylvania County is the wettest part of the state, and there’s not that much of a drive between Asheville and Brevard,” Fox said.
RENCI is using money from the state to place more rain and stream gauges around Western North Carolina to provide more local data.
Latest on the Wilkins Ice Shelf.......
Huge Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegrating
Updated:11:06, Wednesday March 26, 2008
A massive ice shelf the size of the Isle of Man has started to break away from the Antarctic mainland because of global warming, experts have warned.
The Wilkins ice shelf breaking apart
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey have been closely monitoring the Wilkins Ice Shelf and say a large section is already disintegrating.
The main part of the shelf is now only supported by a thin strip of ice, hanging between two islands.
The event has happened much earlier than predicted. In 1993, experts warned the shelf would break away in 30 years, if global warming continued.
The collapse of the shelf was triggered on February 28 when an iceberg measuring 25.5 by 1.5 miles broke off its southwestern front.
That movement led to disintegration of the shelf's interior, of which 160 square miles have already disappeared, scientists said.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice 1,000 miles south of South America, on the south west Antarctic Peninsula.
"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened. This shelf is hanging by a thread," David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey, said.
Shelf is below South America
During the past half century, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the steepest temperature increase on Earth, 0.5C per decade.
With the Antarctic summer drawing to a close, scientists do not expect the ice shelf to further disintegrate in the next several months.
Ice shelf break-up in the Antarctic - more than 5,000 square miles have been lost over the past 50 years - could significantly increase ocean levels around the world.
In 1995 the Larsen A Ice Shelf - 47 miles long and 22 miles wide - disintegrated, fragmenting into icebergs in the Weddell Sea.
According to some calculations based on the present sea level rise of 3mm per year, ocean levels could rise by 1.4m (4.6ft) by the end of the century.
Latest comments on this story
Previous
Next
Loading comments...
'an excuse to tax us' "more tax" "scam for tax". My god, what is wrong with these people? People making comments about 'dont these experts know we are coming out of an ice age' etc etc. For starters no government, not one, were the ones to start making comment about global warming. It was the scientific community, the VAST majority of the scientific community so drop these stupid 'its for tax' comments. Secondly, yes the experts do have access to all the data. Far more data and information than you can shake a stick at and its after reviewing all of this that they draw their conclusions. All these armchair 'experts' that seem to know more than the people who make it their life's work to study. Oh, and Vinland is now considered to have been named after the old Norse word 'Vin' meaning pasture or meadow, not grapes. Posted by John from USA
Report this comment
No Simon Quine you are wrong!! SKY and the BBC reported that "The collapse of the shelf was triggered on February 28 when an iceberg measuring 25.5 by 1.5 miles broke off its southwestern front", they didn't say the Isle of Man was that size. It's hardly surprising that global warming isn't taken seriously if the people reading the articles cannot read and digest simple EnglishPosted by David from London
Report this comment
its now spring and its gonna be a couple of days when april comes, we are not meant to have snow the way we have been having it over the last couple of weeks. and people say it aint got nothing to do with the climate. wake up people cos it aint funny. Posted by louise from north london
Report this comment
Page 1 of 20 -->
Previous
Next
Updated:11:06, Wednesday March 26, 2008
A massive ice shelf the size of the Isle of Man has started to break away from the Antarctic mainland because of global warming, experts have warned.
The Wilkins ice shelf breaking apart
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey have been closely monitoring the Wilkins Ice Shelf and say a large section is already disintegrating.
The main part of the shelf is now only supported by a thin strip of ice, hanging between two islands.
The event has happened much earlier than predicted. In 1993, experts warned the shelf would break away in 30 years, if global warming continued.
The collapse of the shelf was triggered on February 28 when an iceberg measuring 25.5 by 1.5 miles broke off its southwestern front.
That movement led to disintegration of the shelf's interior, of which 160 square miles have already disappeared, scientists said.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice 1,000 miles south of South America, on the south west Antarctic Peninsula.
"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened. This shelf is hanging by a thread," David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey, said.
Shelf is below South America
During the past half century, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the steepest temperature increase on Earth, 0.5C per decade.
With the Antarctic summer drawing to a close, scientists do not expect the ice shelf to further disintegrate in the next several months.
Ice shelf break-up in the Antarctic - more than 5,000 square miles have been lost over the past 50 years - could significantly increase ocean levels around the world.
In 1995 the Larsen A Ice Shelf - 47 miles long and 22 miles wide - disintegrated, fragmenting into icebergs in the Weddell Sea.
According to some calculations based on the present sea level rise of 3mm per year, ocean levels could rise by 1.4m (4.6ft) by the end of the century.
Latest comments on this story
Previous
Next
Loading comments...
'an excuse to tax us' "more tax" "scam for tax". My god, what is wrong with these people? People making comments about 'dont these experts know we are coming out of an ice age' etc etc. For starters no government, not one, were the ones to start making comment about global warming. It was the scientific community, the VAST majority of the scientific community so drop these stupid 'its for tax' comments. Secondly, yes the experts do have access to all the data. Far more data and information than you can shake a stick at and its after reviewing all of this that they draw their conclusions. All these armchair 'experts' that seem to know more than the people who make it their life's work to study. Oh, and Vinland is now considered to have been named after the old Norse word 'Vin' meaning pasture or meadow, not grapes. Posted by John from USA
Report this comment
No Simon Quine you are wrong!! SKY and the BBC reported that "The collapse of the shelf was triggered on February 28 when an iceberg measuring 25.5 by 1.5 miles broke off its southwestern front", they didn't say the Isle of Man was that size. It's hardly surprising that global warming isn't taken seriously if the people reading the articles cannot read and digest simple EnglishPosted by David from London
Report this comment
its now spring and its gonna be a couple of days when april comes, we are not meant to have snow the way we have been having it over the last couple of weeks. and people say it aint got nothing to do with the climate. wake up people cos it aint funny. Posted by louise from north london
Report this comment
Page 1 of 20 -->
Previous
Next
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Are you worried about Flooding?
Residents Near Fox, Rock Rivers Worry About Flooding
FEMA Stresses Importance Of Flood Insurance
POSTED: 10:15 am CDT March 25, 2008
As the snow melts, rivers are starting to rise, causing concerns in several of Wisconsin's southern counties.
Doug Sherman lives in a small town called Newville in Rock County along the Rock River.
"Every year you have to worry about the river, especially if there's a heavy snow," Sherman said.
And this year is no exception.
The pier behind his house is already under water.
He's keeping his fingers crossed that it doesn't get any worse.
"Folks in Newville are no strangers to spring flooding. They've done a lot of sandbagging there in the past 50 years. For them, it's just a way of life," WISN 12 News reporter Kai Reed said.
Still, state officials have warned counties all over Wisconsin to get their sand bags ready and to gear up for possible spring flooding because of the higher than normal snow totals this winter.
The Fox River in Kenosha County has been over flood stage for most of the winter.
The Rock River is flowing over roadways in Jefferson County.
Predictions are it could reach 9 feet in the next two weeks.
Residents there know how bad it can get.
"It becomes difficult to live, you know? You have to go from the boat to the house, and then you've got a dog, and what's he going to do?" John Scullin said.
Monday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency urged residents to make sure their flood insurance policies are up to date.
Sherman doesn't have flood insurance, like 99 percent of Wisconsin residents.
"I guess if I was going to get it, I should have a long time ago," Sherman said.
"And why not?" Reed asked.
"It's expensive," Sherman said.
He's hoping his luck doesn't run out.
"I was born and raised here. I just love being on the water," Sherman said.
State officials are most concerned about the Fox, Rock, Baraboo, Wisconsin and Kickapoo rivers.
Related Story:
March 24, 2008: FEMA Offers Flood Preparedness Tips
Copyright 2008 by WISN.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
FEMA Stresses Importance Of Flood Insurance
POSTED: 10:15 am CDT March 25, 2008
As the snow melts, rivers are starting to rise, causing concerns in several of Wisconsin's southern counties.
Doug Sherman lives in a small town called Newville in Rock County along the Rock River.
"Every year you have to worry about the river, especially if there's a heavy snow," Sherman said.
And this year is no exception.
The pier behind his house is already under water.
He's keeping his fingers crossed that it doesn't get any worse.
"Folks in Newville are no strangers to spring flooding. They've done a lot of sandbagging there in the past 50 years. For them, it's just a way of life," WISN 12 News reporter Kai Reed said.
Still, state officials have warned counties all over Wisconsin to get their sand bags ready and to gear up for possible spring flooding because of the higher than normal snow totals this winter.
The Fox River in Kenosha County has been over flood stage for most of the winter.
The Rock River is flowing over roadways in Jefferson County.
Predictions are it could reach 9 feet in the next two weeks.
Residents there know how bad it can get.
"It becomes difficult to live, you know? You have to go from the boat to the house, and then you've got a dog, and what's he going to do?" John Scullin said.
Monday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency urged residents to make sure their flood insurance policies are up to date.
Sherman doesn't have flood insurance, like 99 percent of Wisconsin residents.
"I guess if I was going to get it, I should have a long time ago," Sherman said.
"And why not?" Reed asked.
"It's expensive," Sherman said.
He's hoping his luck doesn't run out.
"I was born and raised here. I just love being on the water," Sherman said.
State officials are most concerned about the Fox, Rock, Baraboo, Wisconsin and Kickapoo rivers.
Related Story:
March 24, 2008: FEMA Offers Flood Preparedness Tips
Copyright 2008 by WISN.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Do Genes respond to Global Warming?
Do Genes Respond to Global Warming?
Citation: (2004) Do Genes Respond to Global Warming? PLoS Biol 2(10): e338 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020338
Published: September 7, 2004
Copyright: © 2004 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Scientists continue to argue the extent that human activities drive global warming, but few would argue that it exists. The International Panel on Climate Change predicts that greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures by 3.6 degrees F by 2100—a rise unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. What might the world look like as we approach that point? Wetlands will disappear. Floods, hurricanes, and droughts will become progressively more severe. Infectious diseases will increase in virulence and range. Montana's famed glaciers may all but disappear within 30 years. A quarter of species may vanish by 2050.
While the effects of climate change on species' geographic ranges and population dynamics have been studied to some extent, scientists know little about how species respond to climate change at the genetic level. In this issue, Elizabeth Hadly and colleagues analyze three different dynamic processes—environmental change, population response, and gene diversity fluctuations—and present evidence that climate change influences variation in genetic diversity.
Focusing on two mammal species—the Montane vole and the northern pocket gopher—Hadly et al. asked how the two species responded to historical climate-induced habitat alterations in northwestern Wyoming. They gathered fossils from Yellowstone National Park's Lamar Cave, which contains a treasure trove of carbon-dated deposits that mirror the community of mammals in the area today. Comparing genetic material extracted from fossil samples from different time points over the past 3,000 years to genetic data taken from contemporary animals, Hadly's team tracked genetic changes in populations of the two species and used this information (along with relative fossil abundance and modern population density) to estimate changes in effective population size over time. (Effective population size refers to the number of individuals contributing genetic material to the next generation. Populations with a small effective population size, for example, would be highly vulnerable to environmental catastrophe.) The genetic and demographic data were then combined with environmental records to analyze the relationship between the factors.
Studying these populations in space and time—an approach the authors call “phylochronology”—offers an opportunity to analyze the genetic diversity of a species against the backdrop of environmental fluctuation within an evolutionary time frame. It also suggests how microevolutionary forces—factors that affect genetic variation in populations over successive generations—shape genetic responses to climate change. Such evolutionary forces include mutation, genetic drift (the random gene fluctuation in small populations that stems from the vagaries of survival and reproduction), and gene flow (changes in the gene frequency of a population caused by migration).
The past 3,000 years includes two periods marked by dramatic climate change—the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age—that had different effects on local mammal populations depending on their habitat preferences. Habitat specialists, the vole and pocket gopher live in the wet mountain regions of western North America. Though both showed population increases during wetter climates and declines during warmer periods, Hadly et al. predicted the gene diversity fluctuations of the two species would differ based on their different ecological behaviors. And that's what they found: genetic response is tied to population size. Pocket gophers have low population densities, stick close to home, and are fiercely territorial, while voles live in high-density populations and range more widely. For the gophers, population declines resulted in reduced gene diversity; for the voles—which have a larger effective population size and greater dispersal between populations—population declines resulted in increased gene diversity. But what forces underlie these differences in genetic variation?
A recent study suggests that migration (a primary agent of gene flow) is most common in and between low-density patches in vole populations, which implicates gene flow as the driver of gene diversity patterns. But the authors don't rule out selection as a possibility, and suggest how to go about resolving the question. Hadly et al. show that phylochronology opens a unique window onto the relatively recent evolutionary past and offers “the potential to separate cause from effect.” They also conclude that “differences in species demography can produce differential genetic response to climate change, even when ecological response is similar.” With a 3-degree temperature increase in just the past 50 years in the American West, conservation of biodiversity may well depend on such insights.
Citation: (2004) Do Genes Respond to Global Warming? PLoS Biol 2(10): e338 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020338
Published: September 7, 2004
Copyright: © 2004 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Scientists continue to argue the extent that human activities drive global warming, but few would argue that it exists. The International Panel on Climate Change predicts that greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures by 3.6 degrees F by 2100—a rise unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. What might the world look like as we approach that point? Wetlands will disappear. Floods, hurricanes, and droughts will become progressively more severe. Infectious diseases will increase in virulence and range. Montana's famed glaciers may all but disappear within 30 years. A quarter of species may vanish by 2050.
While the effects of climate change on species' geographic ranges and population dynamics have been studied to some extent, scientists know little about how species respond to climate change at the genetic level. In this issue, Elizabeth Hadly and colleagues analyze three different dynamic processes—environmental change, population response, and gene diversity fluctuations—and present evidence that climate change influences variation in genetic diversity.
Focusing on two mammal species—the Montane vole and the northern pocket gopher—Hadly et al. asked how the two species responded to historical climate-induced habitat alterations in northwestern Wyoming. They gathered fossils from Yellowstone National Park's Lamar Cave, which contains a treasure trove of carbon-dated deposits that mirror the community of mammals in the area today. Comparing genetic material extracted from fossil samples from different time points over the past 3,000 years to genetic data taken from contemporary animals, Hadly's team tracked genetic changes in populations of the two species and used this information (along with relative fossil abundance and modern population density) to estimate changes in effective population size over time. (Effective population size refers to the number of individuals contributing genetic material to the next generation. Populations with a small effective population size, for example, would be highly vulnerable to environmental catastrophe.) The genetic and demographic data were then combined with environmental records to analyze the relationship between the factors.
Studying these populations in space and time—an approach the authors call “phylochronology”—offers an opportunity to analyze the genetic diversity of a species against the backdrop of environmental fluctuation within an evolutionary time frame. It also suggests how microevolutionary forces—factors that affect genetic variation in populations over successive generations—shape genetic responses to climate change. Such evolutionary forces include mutation, genetic drift (the random gene fluctuation in small populations that stems from the vagaries of survival and reproduction), and gene flow (changes in the gene frequency of a population caused by migration).
The past 3,000 years includes two periods marked by dramatic climate change—the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age—that had different effects on local mammal populations depending on their habitat preferences. Habitat specialists, the vole and pocket gopher live in the wet mountain regions of western North America. Though both showed population increases during wetter climates and declines during warmer periods, Hadly et al. predicted the gene diversity fluctuations of the two species would differ based on their different ecological behaviors. And that's what they found: genetic response is tied to population size. Pocket gophers have low population densities, stick close to home, and are fiercely territorial, while voles live in high-density populations and range more widely. For the gophers, population declines resulted in reduced gene diversity; for the voles—which have a larger effective population size and greater dispersal between populations—population declines resulted in increased gene diversity. But what forces underlie these differences in genetic variation?
A recent study suggests that migration (a primary agent of gene flow) is most common in and between low-density patches in vole populations, which implicates gene flow as the driver of gene diversity patterns. But the authors don't rule out selection as a possibility, and suggest how to go about resolving the question. Hadly et al. show that phylochronology opens a unique window onto the relatively recent evolutionary past and offers “the potential to separate cause from effect.” They also conclude that “differences in species demography can produce differential genetic response to climate change, even when ecological response is similar.” With a 3-degree temperature increase in just the past 50 years in the American West, conservation of biodiversity may well depend on such insights.
Harlequin Frogs ~ Leaping to the wrong conclusion......
In the scientific equivalent of the board game Clue, teams of biologists have been sifting spotty evidence and pointing to various culprits in the widespread vanishing of harlequin frogs.
Related
Frog Killer Is Linked to Global Warming (January 12, 2006)
Dot Earth: Frogs, Climate and the Front Page (March 24, 2008)
Web Link
Riding the Wave: Reconciling the Roles of Disease and Climate Change in Amphibian Declines (PloS Biology)
Dot Earth
Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Join the discussion.
The amphibians, of the genus Atelopus — actually toads despite their common name — once hopped in great numbers along stream banks on misty slopes from the Andes to Costa Rica. After 20 years of die-offs, they are listed as critically endangered by conservation groups and are mainly seen in zoos.
It looked as if one research team was a winner in 2006 when global warming was identified as the “trigger” in the extinctions by the authors of a much-cited paper in Nature. The researchers said they had found a clear link between unusually warm years and the vanishing of mountainside frog populations.
The “bullet,” the researchers said, appeared to be a chytrid fungus that has attacked amphibian populations in many parts of the world but thrives best in particular climate conditions.
The authors, led by J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica, said, “Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming.” The study was featured in reports last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Other researchers have been questioning that connection. Last year, two short responses in Nature questioned facets of the 2006 paper. In the journal, Dr. Pounds and his team said the new analyses in fact backed their view that “global warming contributes to the present amphibian crisis,” but avoided language saying it was “a key factor,” as they wrote in 2006.
Now, in the March 25 issue of PLoS Biology, another team argues that the die-offs of harlequins and some other amphibians reflect the spread and repeated introductions of the chytrid fungus. They question the analysis linking the disappearances to climate change. In interviews and e-mail exchanges, Dr. Pounds and the lead author of the new paper, Karen R. Lips of Southern Illinois University, disputed each other’s analysis. Experts who have researched the amphibian said neither group had enough evidence to nail down its case and warned that this normal tussle over scientific details should not distract from the reality that humans are clearly roiling biology in ways important and yet poorly understood.
“There is so much we still do not know!” David B. Wake, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail note after reading the new paper. The origin of the fungus and the way it kills amphibians remain unknown, he said, and there are ample mysteries about why it breaks out in certain places and times and not others.
Dr. Pounds and Dr. Lips have both done important work, Dr. Wake said, adding, “I hope this does not turn into a ‘spitting contest,’ because we all have a lot to learn about amphibian declines.”
Ross A. Alford, a tropical biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, said such scientific tussles, while important, could be a distraction, particularly when considering the uncertain risks attending global warming.
“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”
Related
Frog Killer Is Linked to Global Warming (January 12, 2006)
Dot Earth: Frogs, Climate and the Front Page (March 24, 2008)
Web Link
Riding the Wave: Reconciling the Roles of Disease and Climate Change in Amphibian Declines (PloS Biology)
Dot Earth
Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Join the discussion.
The amphibians, of the genus Atelopus — actually toads despite their common name — once hopped in great numbers along stream banks on misty slopes from the Andes to Costa Rica. After 20 years of die-offs, they are listed as critically endangered by conservation groups and are mainly seen in zoos.
It looked as if one research team was a winner in 2006 when global warming was identified as the “trigger” in the extinctions by the authors of a much-cited paper in Nature. The researchers said they had found a clear link between unusually warm years and the vanishing of mountainside frog populations.
The “bullet,” the researchers said, appeared to be a chytrid fungus that has attacked amphibian populations in many parts of the world but thrives best in particular climate conditions.
The authors, led by J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica, said, “Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming.” The study was featured in reports last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Other researchers have been questioning that connection. Last year, two short responses in Nature questioned facets of the 2006 paper. In the journal, Dr. Pounds and his team said the new analyses in fact backed their view that “global warming contributes to the present amphibian crisis,” but avoided language saying it was “a key factor,” as they wrote in 2006.
Now, in the March 25 issue of PLoS Biology, another team argues that the die-offs of harlequins and some other amphibians reflect the spread and repeated introductions of the chytrid fungus. They question the analysis linking the disappearances to climate change. In interviews and e-mail exchanges, Dr. Pounds and the lead author of the new paper, Karen R. Lips of Southern Illinois University, disputed each other’s analysis. Experts who have researched the amphibian said neither group had enough evidence to nail down its case and warned that this normal tussle over scientific details should not distract from the reality that humans are clearly roiling biology in ways important and yet poorly understood.
“There is so much we still do not know!” David B. Wake, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail note after reading the new paper. The origin of the fungus and the way it kills amphibians remain unknown, he said, and there are ample mysteries about why it breaks out in certain places and times and not others.
Dr. Pounds and Dr. Lips have both done important work, Dr. Wake said, adding, “I hope this does not turn into a ‘spitting contest,’ because we all have a lot to learn about amphibian declines.”
Ross A. Alford, a tropical biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, said such scientific tussles, while important, could be a distraction, particularly when considering the uncertain risks attending global warming.
“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Crock of SH..........T
Wagoner: Global warming not "a crock"
Posted by Rick Haglund March 12, 2008 11:47AM
Categories: industry news
Rick Wagoner
Bob Lutz
When you hire the outspoken Bob Lutz, you take the chance that he'll say something that will give you heartburn. General Motors Corp. Chairman Rick Wagoner obviously knows that. But Wagoner had to engage in a bit of damage control after the blogs went wild over Lutz's recent comment that global warming is a "crock of sh--."
Wagoner, who ironically was in Washington Tuesday lobbying for government policies that promote alternative energy, such as ethanol, told reporters that Lutz's comment didn't reflect the automaker's view on climate change.
Lutz, GM's vice chairman, has said he's leading GM's charge to develop alternative-fuel vehicles because he's more worried about the United States' dependence on foreign oil than he is about global warming. Lutz also defended his comments in his GM Fastlane blog. Regardless of his views, Lutz said GM will continue work on vehicles powered by electricity, ethanol and other alternative fuels because it's the right thing to do. An excerpt:
As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that's what people ought to be focusing on.
Posted by Rick Haglund March 12, 2008 11:47AM
Categories: industry news
Rick Wagoner
Bob Lutz
When you hire the outspoken Bob Lutz, you take the chance that he'll say something that will give you heartburn. General Motors Corp. Chairman Rick Wagoner obviously knows that. But Wagoner had to engage in a bit of damage control after the blogs went wild over Lutz's recent comment that global warming is a "crock of sh--."
Wagoner, who ironically was in Washington Tuesday lobbying for government policies that promote alternative energy, such as ethanol, told reporters that Lutz's comment didn't reflect the automaker's view on climate change.
Lutz, GM's vice chairman, has said he's leading GM's charge to develop alternative-fuel vehicles because he's more worried about the United States' dependence on foreign oil than he is about global warming. Lutz also defended his comments in his GM Fastlane blog. Regardless of his views, Lutz said GM will continue work on vehicles powered by electricity, ethanol and other alternative fuels because it's the right thing to do. An excerpt:
As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that's what people ought to be focusing on.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Strong evidence of GB from glaciers
Stronger evidence of global warming
R. Ramachandran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of glaciers reduced from 3,391 to 2,721 sq. km. between 1962-2004
By 2050, negative mass balance of glaciers will be
90 per cent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Udhagamandalam: With more recent data on the Himalayan glaciers from the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites, scientists of the Space Applications Centre (SAC) of the Indian Space Research Organisaation (ISRO) at Ahmedabad now have much stronger evidence of the finger print of global warming in the observed alarming retreat of these glaciers.
The new results were presented at the ongoing National Space Science Symposium (NSSS-2008) here by Dr. Anil V. Kulkarni of SAC.
In 2004 Dr. Kulkarni and his colleagues investigated the spatial extent of 466 glaciers in the basins of Chenab, Parbati and Baspa using remote sensed data and compared them with the 1962 topographic data of the Survey of India.
They found an overall reduction of 21 per cent in the glacial surface area. They had also found that the process of deglaciation had led to the fragmentation of large glaciers resulting in the reduction in the mean surface area of glacial extent from 1 sq. km. to 0.32 sq. km. during 1962-2004.
The new data pertains to two additional basins of Warwan and Bhut comprising 253 and 189 glaciers respectively. Together with the earlier data on 466 glaciers, the cumulative area of these 908 Himalayan glaciers has been found to have reduced from 3391 sq. km. to 2721 sq. km., implying a total area reduction of 20 per cent.
Another new finding is that the snow line — altitude above which there is no snowmelt had significantly increased in the Himalayan basins since 1970. Snow line essentially is the line of zero mass balance, where snow accumulation equals ablation or melting. For example, studying 30 glaciers in the Baspa basin, the scientists found that the snow line had increased from 4900 m in 1970 to 5300 m in 2006.
More quantitatively, the scientists found that the percentage area of the 30 glaciers below the snow line was only 25 per cent between up to 1990. This means that only 25 per cent of the glacial area had negative mass balance. In 2006, this fraction increased to 70 per cent. The scientists predict that by 2050, this fraction would be a high 90 per cent.
One of the significant changes due to warming that Dr. Kulkarni and his associates had seen even in the earlier work was that the winter run off had increased by as much as 75 per cent between 1966 and 1995. Now they have more quantitative glacier-wise data, which shows the snow accumulation having a wavelike pattern, instead of a flat profile of accumulated snow during peak winter.
Snowfalls
This shows that between snow storms or heavy snow falls the warming is resulting in significant melt. So, even the episodes of heavy snowfalls in the north during the most recent winter should not be taken to imply that warming has not significantly affected the Himalayan snow and glacier formation, Dr. Kulkarni said. Far less accumulation is occurring in glaciers today than before and this is a clear imprint of warming, he added.
R. Ramachandran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of glaciers reduced from 3,391 to 2,721 sq. km. between 1962-2004
By 2050, negative mass balance of glaciers will be
90 per cent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Udhagamandalam: With more recent data on the Himalayan glaciers from the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites, scientists of the Space Applications Centre (SAC) of the Indian Space Research Organisaation (ISRO) at Ahmedabad now have much stronger evidence of the finger print of global warming in the observed alarming retreat of these glaciers.
The new results were presented at the ongoing National Space Science Symposium (NSSS-2008) here by Dr. Anil V. Kulkarni of SAC.
In 2004 Dr. Kulkarni and his colleagues investigated the spatial extent of 466 glaciers in the basins of Chenab, Parbati and Baspa using remote sensed data and compared them with the 1962 topographic data of the Survey of India.
They found an overall reduction of 21 per cent in the glacial surface area. They had also found that the process of deglaciation had led to the fragmentation of large glaciers resulting in the reduction in the mean surface area of glacial extent from 1 sq. km. to 0.32 sq. km. during 1962-2004.
The new data pertains to two additional basins of Warwan and Bhut comprising 253 and 189 glaciers respectively. Together with the earlier data on 466 glaciers, the cumulative area of these 908 Himalayan glaciers has been found to have reduced from 3391 sq. km. to 2721 sq. km., implying a total area reduction of 20 per cent.
Another new finding is that the snow line — altitude above which there is no snowmelt had significantly increased in the Himalayan basins since 1970. Snow line essentially is the line of zero mass balance, where snow accumulation equals ablation or melting. For example, studying 30 glaciers in the Baspa basin, the scientists found that the snow line had increased from 4900 m in 1970 to 5300 m in 2006.
More quantitatively, the scientists found that the percentage area of the 30 glaciers below the snow line was only 25 per cent between up to 1990. This means that only 25 per cent of the glacial area had negative mass balance. In 2006, this fraction increased to 70 per cent. The scientists predict that by 2050, this fraction would be a high 90 per cent.
One of the significant changes due to warming that Dr. Kulkarni and his associates had seen even in the earlier work was that the winter run off had increased by as much as 75 per cent between 1966 and 1995. Now they have more quantitative glacier-wise data, which shows the snow accumulation having a wavelike pattern, instead of a flat profile of accumulated snow during peak winter.
Snowfalls
This shows that between snow storms or heavy snow falls the warming is resulting in significant melt. So, even the episodes of heavy snowfalls in the north during the most recent winter should not be taken to imply that warming has not significantly affected the Himalayan snow and glacier formation, Dr. Kulkarni said. Far less accumulation is occurring in glaciers today than before and this is a clear imprint of warming, he added.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
David Suzuki & Global Warming
David Suzuki and uncomfortable warming
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:44 PM Comments: 15Previous Post Next Post
If you listen to David Suzuki, you'd hear about how human activity is causing the Earth to warm up. Specifically, how a mere 30 million Canadians are supposed to shoulder a large amount of the blame.
His rhetoric has become increasingly heated, ironically.
Well, it seems that the heat generated by his latest comments has caused David Suzuki to throttle it back.
David Suzuki was embroiled in controversy over the last two weeks following repeated comments made to university students in which he declared not believing in the theory of anthrogenic global warming to be a crime, and that politicians ought to be imprisoned who do not follow David Suzuki's formula to save the planet.
The apparent shift from scientific theory to a state-sponsored religious orthodoxy became a flashpoint for a slew of editorials across the country denouncing Suzuki's comments.
For many columnists, Suzuki's comments represented confirmation of what they had long suspected -- global warming was no longer a matter of science, but of faith. And a dark form of faith, with inquisitions and imprisonment for those who exhibited less-than-acceptable zeal for the Environmental Word.
Though nowhere does it say this, I wonder if David Suzuki was feeling progressively more uncomfortable with the increased temperature. Even as the initial furor died down, references to Suzuki and his demand for jail terms for the unbelievers continued to appear in the media -- sometimes in a serious way, sometimes in a mocking tones.
Unless something was done quickly, that image of David Suzuki demanding that prisons be emptied of killers and thieves to make room for skeptics who drive SUVs (not what he called for, exactly, but these things grow in the retelling) would become indelible.
And so the next major announcement from David Suzuki speaks of taxes. Not higher taxes to shut down the carbon dioxide spewing economy, but lower taxes for all of us:
David Suzuki is trying to speak Stephen Harper's language, releasing a report Monday that argues a strong climate change plan could produce deep income tax cuts.
The well-known environmentalist and Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard released a report Monday morning on Parliament Hill that outlines various options for Ottawa to implement a carbon tax or other ways of forcing polluters to pay for their environmental impacts.
The report argues that making polluters pay a fee for every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere could raise between $50-billion and $100-billion in revenue annually by 2020.
The report argues that most of that revenue could be used to greatly reduce personal income taxes.
Rather than devoting all the revenue to tax cuts, the report suggests some of the money be put toward renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power.
Suggests that some of the money be put into windmills?
Who are you and what have you done with the real David Suzuki?!
I'll leave the question of whether this idea seems credible. I won't even delve into the question of whether David Suzuki is being sincere when he says money ought to be put back into the economy, or even if he really believes there is any likelihood of money being available to put back in.
But I find the timing interesting. David Suzuki's middle initial is "T". Perhaps he was worried if people would wonder if it stood for Torquemada, the Dominican most identified with the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition. So out comes a report in which David Suzuki bangs on the "lower taxes" drum.
Go green and we'll all be rich!
Right. Sure. And if I'm as skeptical of your wildly optimistic economic theories as I am of your shrill environmental prophecies of doom, then what? Is there a wing of your prison those people too?
It'll take more than promising money you don't have to make people forget that you told Canadian youth to put the previous generation in jail.
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
David Suzuki global warming taxes
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:44 PM Comments: 15Previous Post Next Post
If you listen to David Suzuki, you'd hear about how human activity is causing the Earth to warm up. Specifically, how a mere 30 million Canadians are supposed to shoulder a large amount of the blame.
His rhetoric has become increasingly heated, ironically.
Well, it seems that the heat generated by his latest comments has caused David Suzuki to throttle it back.
David Suzuki was embroiled in controversy over the last two weeks following repeated comments made to university students in which he declared not believing in the theory of anthrogenic global warming to be a crime, and that politicians ought to be imprisoned who do not follow David Suzuki's formula to save the planet.
The apparent shift from scientific theory to a state-sponsored religious orthodoxy became a flashpoint for a slew of editorials across the country denouncing Suzuki's comments.
For many columnists, Suzuki's comments represented confirmation of what they had long suspected -- global warming was no longer a matter of science, but of faith. And a dark form of faith, with inquisitions and imprisonment for those who exhibited less-than-acceptable zeal for the Environmental Word.
Though nowhere does it say this, I wonder if David Suzuki was feeling progressively more uncomfortable with the increased temperature. Even as the initial furor died down, references to Suzuki and his demand for jail terms for the unbelievers continued to appear in the media -- sometimes in a serious way, sometimes in a mocking tones.
Unless something was done quickly, that image of David Suzuki demanding that prisons be emptied of killers and thieves to make room for skeptics who drive SUVs (not what he called for, exactly, but these things grow in the retelling) would become indelible.
And so the next major announcement from David Suzuki speaks of taxes. Not higher taxes to shut down the carbon dioxide spewing economy, but lower taxes for all of us:
David Suzuki is trying to speak Stephen Harper's language, releasing a report Monday that argues a strong climate change plan could produce deep income tax cuts.
The well-known environmentalist and Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard released a report Monday morning on Parliament Hill that outlines various options for Ottawa to implement a carbon tax or other ways of forcing polluters to pay for their environmental impacts.
The report argues that making polluters pay a fee for every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere could raise between $50-billion and $100-billion in revenue annually by 2020.
The report argues that most of that revenue could be used to greatly reduce personal income taxes.
Rather than devoting all the revenue to tax cuts, the report suggests some of the money be put toward renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power.
Suggests that some of the money be put into windmills?
Who are you and what have you done with the real David Suzuki?!
I'll leave the question of whether this idea seems credible. I won't even delve into the question of whether David Suzuki is being sincere when he says money ought to be put back into the economy, or even if he really believes there is any likelihood of money being available to put back in.
But I find the timing interesting. David Suzuki's middle initial is "T". Perhaps he was worried if people would wonder if it stood for Torquemada, the Dominican most identified with the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition. So out comes a report in which David Suzuki bangs on the "lower taxes" drum.
Go green and we'll all be rich!
Right. Sure. And if I'm as skeptical of your wildly optimistic economic theories as I am of your shrill environmental prophecies of doom, then what? Is there a wing of your prison those people too?
It'll take more than promising money you don't have to make people forget that you told Canadian youth to put the previous generation in jail.
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
David Suzuki global warming taxes
Are you Skeptical?
Global warming sceptics bouyed by record cold
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:01pm GMT 26/02/2008
Global warming sceptics are pointing to recent record cold temperatures in parts of North America and Asia and the return of Arctic Sea ice to suggest fears about climate change may be overblown.
The deceit behind global warming
Climate debate far from over, claim senators
Climate shift 'poles apart'
According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982.
Although some areas of the Northern Hemisphere experienced record cold, other areas experienced recorded above average temperatures
Temperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China.
The NCDC reported that the cold conditions were associated with "the largest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent and for the Northern Hemisphere".
In some parts of China and central Asia, snow fell for the first time in living memory, the NCDC noted.
"For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5°F (-0.83°C) for January, which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data".
advertisement
Much of North America was also hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s.
Meanwhile, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre found the January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, while below the 1979-2000 mean, was greater than the previous four years.
And the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was significantly above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period.
Generally there were cooler-than-average conditions in the southern oceans and in Niño regions, where the average temperature decreased markedly in January.
Canada's National Post reported that there were so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec that the property market has suffered because buyers did not want to go out. And in the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950.
Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year.
"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.
"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."
He also quotes Kenneth Tapping, of Canada's National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun and is convinced the Earth is destined for a long period of severely cold weather if solar activity does not pick up soon.
"The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850," Gunter writes.
"It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too."
Other figures from the NCDC, however, show that during January 2008, Europe, northern Asia and most of Australia experienced above average temperatures. According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), temperatures were 3-4°C (5-7°F) above average across large areas of Western and Central Australia and as a whole, the country had its warmest January on record.
Sea surface temperatures were also warmer than average in the Atlantic, Indian, and the northwestern Pacific oceans.
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:01pm GMT 26/02/2008
Global warming sceptics are pointing to recent record cold temperatures in parts of North America and Asia and the return of Arctic Sea ice to suggest fears about climate change may be overblown.
The deceit behind global warming
Climate debate far from over, claim senators
Climate shift 'poles apart'
According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982.
Although some areas of the Northern Hemisphere experienced record cold, other areas experienced recorded above average temperatures
Temperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China.
The NCDC reported that the cold conditions were associated with "the largest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent and for the Northern Hemisphere".
In some parts of China and central Asia, snow fell for the first time in living memory, the NCDC noted.
"For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5°F (-0.83°C) for January, which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data".
advertisement
Much of North America was also hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s.
Meanwhile, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre found the January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, while below the 1979-2000 mean, was greater than the previous four years.
And the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was significantly above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period.
Generally there were cooler-than-average conditions in the southern oceans and in Niño regions, where the average temperature decreased markedly in January.
Canada's National Post reported that there were so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec that the property market has suffered because buyers did not want to go out. And in the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950.
Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year.
"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.
"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."
He also quotes Kenneth Tapping, of Canada's National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun and is convinced the Earth is destined for a long period of severely cold weather if solar activity does not pick up soon.
"The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850," Gunter writes.
"It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too."
Other figures from the NCDC, however, show that during January 2008, Europe, northern Asia and most of Australia experienced above average temperatures. According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), temperatures were 3-4°C (5-7°F) above average across large areas of Western and Central Australia and as a whole, the country had its warmest January on record.
Sea surface temperatures were also warmer than average in the Atlantic, Indian, and the northwestern Pacific oceans.
Eskimos to sue......Quite right too??
Eskimos to sue over global warming
A tiny Alaska village is suing two dozen oil, power and coal companies, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to the global warming they say threatens the community's existence.
The city of Kivalina and a federally recognised tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, has launched action against nine oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.
Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village of about 390 people about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage.
It is built on an eight-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River.
Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou.
But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from autumn and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities.
"We are seeing accelerated erosion because of the loss of sea ice," City administrator Janet Mitchell said.
"We normally have ice starting in October, but now we have open water even into December so our island is not protected from the storms."
Relocation costs have been estimated at 400 million dollars (£20 million) or more.
Damage to Kivalina from global warming has been documented in official government reports by the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Accounting Office.
Hosted by
Copyright © 2008 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
_
A tiny Alaska village is suing two dozen oil, power and coal companies, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to the global warming they say threatens the community's existence.
The city of Kivalina and a federally recognised tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, has launched action against nine oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.
Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village of about 390 people about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage.
It is built on an eight-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River.
Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou.
But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from autumn and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities.
"We are seeing accelerated erosion because of the loss of sea ice," City administrator Janet Mitchell said.
"We normally have ice starting in October, but now we have open water even into December so our island is not protected from the storms."
Relocation costs have been estimated at 400 million dollars (£20 million) or more.
Damage to Kivalina from global warming has been documented in official government reports by the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Accounting Office.
Hosted by
Copyright © 2008 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
_
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Tipping Point.......
Scientists identify 'tipping points' of climate change
By Steve Connor, Science EditorTuesday, 5 February 2008
Nine ways in which the Earth could be tipped into a potentially dangerous state that could last for many centuries have been identified by scientists investigating how quickly global warming could run out of control.
A major international investigation by dozens of leading climate scientists has found that the "tipping points" for all nine scenarios – such as the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest – could occur within the next 100 years.
The scientists warn that climate change is likely to result in sudden and dramatic changes to some of the major geophysical elements of the Earth if global average temperatures continue to rise as a result of the predicted increase in emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
Most and probably all of the nine scenarios are likely to be irreversible on a human timescale once they pass a certain threshold of change, and the widespread effects of the transition to the new state will be felt for generations to come, the scientists said.
"Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change. Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic [man-made] climate change," they report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study came out of a 2005 meeting of 36 leading climate scientists who drew on the expertise of a further 52 specialists. It is believed to be the first time that scientists have attempted to assess the risks of what they have termed "tipping elements" in the Earth's climate system.
The nine elements range from the melting of polar ice sheets to the collapse of the Indian and West African monsoons. The effects of the changes could be equally varied, from a dramatic rise in sea levels that flood coastal regions to widespread crop failures and famine. Some of the tipping points may be close at hand, such as the point at which the disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic becomes inevitable, whereas others, such as the tipping point for the destruction of northern boreal forests, may take several more decades to be reached.
While scenarios such as the collapse of the Indian monsoon could occur within a few years, others, such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap or the West Antarctic ice sheet, may take several centuries to complete. "Our findings suggest that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point in this century under human-induced climate change," said Professor Timothy Lenton, of the University of East Anglia, who led the study.
A tipping point is defined as the point where a small increase in temperature or other change in the climate could trigger a disproportionately larger change in the future. Although there are many potential tipping points that could occur this century, it is still possible to avoid them with cuts in greenhouse gases, said Professor Lenton.
He added: "But we should be prepared to adapt ... and to design an early-warning system that alerts us to them in time."
Irreversible changes
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise.
Interesting? Click here to explore further
By Steve Connor, Science EditorTuesday, 5 February 2008
Nine ways in which the Earth could be tipped into a potentially dangerous state that could last for many centuries have been identified by scientists investigating how quickly global warming could run out of control.
A major international investigation by dozens of leading climate scientists has found that the "tipping points" for all nine scenarios – such as the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest – could occur within the next 100 years.
The scientists warn that climate change is likely to result in sudden and dramatic changes to some of the major geophysical elements of the Earth if global average temperatures continue to rise as a result of the predicted increase in emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
Most and probably all of the nine scenarios are likely to be irreversible on a human timescale once they pass a certain threshold of change, and the widespread effects of the transition to the new state will be felt for generations to come, the scientists said.
"Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change. Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic [man-made] climate change," they report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study came out of a 2005 meeting of 36 leading climate scientists who drew on the expertise of a further 52 specialists. It is believed to be the first time that scientists have attempted to assess the risks of what they have termed "tipping elements" in the Earth's climate system.
The nine elements range from the melting of polar ice sheets to the collapse of the Indian and West African monsoons. The effects of the changes could be equally varied, from a dramatic rise in sea levels that flood coastal regions to widespread crop failures and famine. Some of the tipping points may be close at hand, such as the point at which the disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic becomes inevitable, whereas others, such as the tipping point for the destruction of northern boreal forests, may take several more decades to be reached.
While scenarios such as the collapse of the Indian monsoon could occur within a few years, others, such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap or the West Antarctic ice sheet, may take several centuries to complete. "Our findings suggest that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point in this century under human-induced climate change," said Professor Timothy Lenton, of the University of East Anglia, who led the study.
A tipping point is defined as the point where a small increase in temperature or other change in the climate could trigger a disproportionately larger change in the future. Although there are many potential tipping points that could occur this century, it is still possible to avoid them with cuts in greenhouse gases, said Professor Lenton.
He added: "But we should be prepared to adapt ... and to design an early-warning system that alerts us to them in time."
Irreversible changes
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise.
Interesting? Click here to explore further
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Global Warnings
Tomgram: Collins and Frantz, Pakistan's Nuclear Wal-Mart in Its Infancy
There they go again. While Somalia burns at one end of "the arc of instability" (as Bush administration officials liked to call a swath of territory from North Africa to the Chinese border in the good old days before they thoroughly destabilized it), at the other end, the Taliban is now considered a "permanent presence" in more than 50% of Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan is in increasing chaos. As if that weren't enough, Bush administration supporters and officials are already starting to plan for, or call for, more of the same when it comes to solving Washington's problems -- that is, militarizing them further. Various possible military interventions in Pakistan are now clearly going on the table. They range from sending A! merican military trainers into Pakistan's tribal areas to train a supposedly pro-government militia force to the mad suggestion that U.S. Special Forces extract Pakistani "nuclear materials and warheads" from that country and somehow ship them to New Mexico in the US of A.
That gem of a proposal, which appeared in a recent New York Times op-ed, is the bizarre stepchild of an American Enterprise Institute/Brookings Institution collaboration from the tag-team of Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon. As journalist Jim Lobe comments, "I have no doubt that their musings are indeed an indication of what is speeding to the top of the administration's national-security agenda."
The urge to militarize anti-nuclear-proliferation efforts has been at the heart of the Bush administration's post-9/11 planning. The potential for "loose nukes" in Pakistan and the possibility of that country being a "ticking nuclear time bomb" for the proliferation of such weaponry is indeed unnerving. But journalists Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz, who spent four years tracking the most sensational proliferation story in history -- the troubling journey of the "father" of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, A. Q. Khan -- for their just published book, The Nuclear Jihadist, provide a timely reminder of exactly how hopeless a military response to nuclear proliferation really is.
You just can't launch a war against an underground global business, one that, until recently, the Bush administration showed a remarkable lack of interest in pursuing in more peaceful ways in Pakistan, including by questioning Khan himself. Any military "solution" to the Pakistani bomb crisis will undoubtedly prove as hopeless there as elsewhere. In the end, A.Q. Khan's proliferation spree may be the most devastating horror story of the nuclear age. It's also riveting, as Collins and Frantz show us, using private letters that Khan exchanged with a Canadian-Pakistani friend and collaborator. Tom
The Proliferation Game
How the World Helped Pakistan Build Its Bomb
By Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz
Globalization, what a concept. You can get a burger prepared your way practically anywhere in the world. The Nike Swoosh appears at elite athletic venues across the United States and on the skinny frames of t-shirted children playing in the streets of Calcutta. For those interested in buying an American automobile -- a word of warning -- it is not so unusual to find more "American content" in a Japanese car than one built by Detroit's Big Three.
So don't kid yourself about the Pakistani bomb. From burgers to bombs, globalization has had an impact. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- as many as 120 weapons -- is no more Pakistani than your television set is Japanese. Or is that American? It was a concept developed in one country and, for the most part, built in another. Its creation was an example of globalization before the term was even coined.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
There they go again. While Somalia burns at one end of "the arc of instability" (as Bush administration officials liked to call a swath of territory from North Africa to the Chinese border in the good old days before they thoroughly destabilized it), at the other end, the Taliban is now considered a "permanent presence" in more than 50% of Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan is in increasing chaos. As if that weren't enough, Bush administration supporters and officials are already starting to plan for, or call for, more of the same when it comes to solving Washington's problems -- that is, militarizing them further. Various possible military interventions in Pakistan are now clearly going on the table. They range from sending A! merican military trainers into Pakistan's tribal areas to train a supposedly pro-government militia force to the mad suggestion that U.S. Special Forces extract Pakistani "nuclear materials and warheads" from that country and somehow ship them to New Mexico in the US of A.
That gem of a proposal, which appeared in a recent New York Times op-ed, is the bizarre stepchild of an American Enterprise Institute/Brookings Institution collaboration from the tag-team of Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon. As journalist Jim Lobe comments, "I have no doubt that their musings are indeed an indication of what is speeding to the top of the administration's national-security agenda."
The urge to militarize anti-nuclear-proliferation efforts has been at the heart of the Bush administration's post-9/11 planning. The potential for "loose nukes" in Pakistan and the possibility of that country being a "ticking nuclear time bomb" for the proliferation of such weaponry is indeed unnerving. But journalists Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz, who spent four years tracking the most sensational proliferation story in history -- the troubling journey of the "father" of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, A. Q. Khan -- for their just published book, The Nuclear Jihadist, provide a timely reminder of exactly how hopeless a military response to nuclear proliferation really is.
You just can't launch a war against an underground global business, one that, until recently, the Bush administration showed a remarkable lack of interest in pursuing in more peaceful ways in Pakistan, including by questioning Khan himself. Any military "solution" to the Pakistani bomb crisis will undoubtedly prove as hopeless there as elsewhere. In the end, A.Q. Khan's proliferation spree may be the most devastating horror story of the nuclear age. It's also riveting, as Collins and Frantz show us, using private letters that Khan exchanged with a Canadian-Pakistani friend and collaborator. Tom
The Proliferation Game
How the World Helped Pakistan Build Its Bomb
By Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz
Globalization, what a concept. You can get a burger prepared your way practically anywhere in the world. The Nike Swoosh appears at elite athletic venues across the United States and on the skinny frames of t-shirted children playing in the streets of Calcutta. For those interested in buying an American automobile -- a word of warning -- it is not so unusual to find more "American content" in a Japanese car than one built by Detroit's Big Three.
So don't kid yourself about the Pakistani bomb. From burgers to bombs, globalization has had an impact. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- as many as 120 weapons -- is no more Pakistani than your television set is Japanese. Or is that American? It was a concept developed in one country and, for the most part, built in another. Its creation was an example of globalization before the term was even coined.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)