Global data doesn’t support Reuters “fracking” Google search trend claim

Tom Nelson pointed this out this morning.

‘Fracking’ overtakes ‘climate change’ in Google searches | The Dickinson Press | Dickinson, North Dakota

This year, for the first time, U.S. online searches for the term “fracking” became more popular than “climate change,” Google data showed. Fracking has doubled on Google’s popularity index since last year, and while “global warming” still draws more hits, the gap is narrowing.

Only one problem with this: much like many claims made by the media these days related to climate, the actual data doesn’t support the claim. It took me less than a minute to locate the most recent Google trend data and see that the claim made by By Joshua Schneyer and Edward McAllister, Reuters (republished in the Dickenson Press) isn’t true.  See for yourself:

The two terms are six points apart (in global data) as of this month, and show no history of intersection.



The data shows “climate change” trending up from 2004, that we hit peak “climate change” right after Climategate, and it has never recovered.

They may intersect in the not too distant future, but unless Reuters has some inside track to Google data that others do not, the claim isn’t supported.

Note that “fracking” is also not as popular as “global warming” though both “global warming” and “Climate change are falling while “fracking” is on the rise.


“Fracking” is in blue, “climate change” is in reddish orange, and “global warming” is yellowish.  Source:,%22climate%20change%22,%22global%20warming%22

Noting the time when “fracking” first came on the scene, one wonders that in the wake of “climategate” on November 19th 2009, if the environmental movement may have decided that “climate change” was a dying issue and moved onto “fracking” as the next exploitable call to action. The data certainly suggests it.


All graphs from Google, and you can replicate them yourself here: 

UPDATE: My initial claim wasn’t fully correct. The Global data doesn’t support the claim, the USA data does:



I’ve updated the headline to reflect this data difference. Thanks to Roger Knights for pointing out the distinction in the story.  – Anthony



Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell


Guest post by

If some of Michael Mann’s followers think that prominent skeptics belong in a special circle of hell (see ‘Mannte’s Inferno‘), here’s news for them.  The Nine Circles of Scientific Hell*, as proposed by Neuroskeptic blogspot, are likely to be well populated with climate scientists (*An excellent post from 2010 recently published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science).  CAGW alarmism seems to think ‘the end justified the means’ and supporters have gone to extraordinary lengths to defend or justify highly dubious actions.

Dante's Academic Hell

Image Source: Neuroskeptic Blogspot

If Hell is for the unrepentant and those who try to justify their sins, where might such individuals meet their end?  In Dante’s Inferno the sinners in each circle face a punishment for all eternity that befits their crimes. What punishments might be meted out in relation to climate (other than the generic ones suggested in the original post)?  With a little help from Josh, and a suitable sound track, let me take you through the Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell.


But let’s begin with the repentant.  These brave souls have seen the light and thus have avoided Hell but face Purgatory, where they toil in reparation.  One scientist who has dared to speak out is Judith Curry.  Her Climate Etc. blog is one of the few places where sceptics mix with believers and she has developed a reputation of giving no quarter to those who step over the line on epistemological attribution.  Mark Lynas might also get a pass for his willingness to criticize the IPCC for its renewables report with a conclusion that owed more to Greenpeace than science.

Jude of Arc mark_lynas_scr

First Circle: Limbo

According to Neuroskeptic:

“The uppermost circle is not a place of punishment, so much as regret. Those who have committed no scientific sins as such, but who turned a blind eye to it, and encouraged it by their awarding of grants and publications, spend eternity on top of this barren mountain, watching the carnage below and reflecting on how they are partially responsible…”

Reserved for those who observe the mess that climate science has become, subservient as it is to politics, and wonder whether redemption and a return to a true science-serving path is ever possible. Despite this they remain silent and do not speak out even in defense of others. This place could be full to bursting, such is the influence of the Hockey Team of reviewers and the carrot of climate-related funding.

Likely Denizens:  hamstrung journal editors and others for whom keeping jobs has been more important than truth; reviewers who wanted to keep in with the Hockey Team; scientists fearful of having papers rejected; funding agencies (NSF, RCUK); many IPCC reviewers who quietly, but uncomfortably, toe the line (let’s hope more start to speak out).  Also found here would be The Royal Society, AGU and the world’s various scientific bodies.  They deserve to be  castigated for following their own financial interests at the expense of science, or alternatively, simply being fooled. Scientific method anyone? What happened to insistence on testing and evidence?

Second Circle: Overselling

join_the_dots_scr“This circle is reserved for those who exaggerated the importance of their work in order to get grants or write better papers. Sinners are trapped in a huge pit, neck-deep in horrible sludge. Each sinner is provided with the single rung of a ladder, labelled ‘The Way Out – Scientists Crack Problem of Second Circle of Hell”

Well where do we start? Another level full to bursting. The whole climate ‘movement’ is based on overselling uncertain science, turning it into a world-threatening catastrophe.

Who deserves to spend eternity here?
The IPCC most definitely, and in particular its political aides responsible for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) which rides roughshod over uncertainties; a vast swathe of alarmist climate scientists; Richard Muller for promoting BEST in advance of peer-review; University press departments who will happily spin a story on any finding way beyond its original significance; Tim Flannery for PR and wild statements; the late Stephen Schneider for his encouragement of climate science to oversell the science “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”; Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth; Bill McKibben for connecting the dots. I could go on. 

Third Circle: Post-Hoc Storytelling

First we were told winters would be warmer and wetter: according to UEA’s David Viner “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,…”.  Then, just when we had forgotten how to build snowmen in Britain, snowy winters returned with a vengeance. Now we have the explanation “warming makes winters colder“.

dr liz
In fact those who tout weather-as-climate alarmism in general will reside here, of which the most recent example is probably Superstorm Sandy – a wimp beside the New England Hurricane of 1938.   James Hansen blamed Climate Change for the Russian heatwave of 2010 and US drought; NOAA disagreed publishing an article that it was “well within the bounds of natural climate variability”. Here also we have Al Gore for “Dirty Weather” along with Bill McKibben and Joe Romm. Basically, take an extreme weather event and blame climate change for it in the media. No matter that others speak out to counter this propaganda – the damage is done.

Richard Muller may be deserving of this circle for saying that he was a sceptic when he wasn’t, and for saying that the BEST results had converted him to alarmism when he had been in that camp from the start.

Greenpeace also gets a place here for their renewables reporting.  As Mark Lynas put it –

“Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them.”

Fourth Circle: P-Value Fishing

“Those who tried every statistical test in the book until they got a p value less than 0.05 find themselves here, an enormous lake of murky water. Sinners sit on boats and must fish for their food. Fortunately, they have a huge selection of different fishing rods and nets (brandnames include Bayes, Student, Spearman and many more). Unfortunately, only one in 20 fish are edible, so they are constantly hungry.”

Matt Briggs
will appreciate this one and no doubt can suggest some misdemeanors.

On the basis that flawed use of statistical analysis also lands authors in this circle, we might find a certain Dr Eric Steig here, still arguing his side, having smeared warmth from the West Antarctic Peninsula across the continent as an artefact of his analysis.

A recent sinner here would be Dr Vaughan Pratt of Stanford University and his execrable post Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin on Judith Curry’s blog, in which he claimed to have matched Hadley Centre temperatures (which have error bands around +-100 milliKelvins) to within “a few milliKelvins”. See Mike Jonas’ criticism Circular Logic not worth a Millikelvin on WUWT.

Of course the poster child for p-value abuse has to be a recent paper that links heat waves and birth defects. Willis takes the authors to task in “Keep doing that and you’ll go blind” while Matt Briggs also damns it (as is deserved). Really, some authors (and reviewers) need a common sense check.

Fifth Circle: Creative Use of Outliers


According to Neuroskeptic: “Those who ‘cleaned up’ their results by excluding inconvenient data-points are condemned here. Demons pluck out their hairs one by one, every time explaining that they are better off without that hair because there was something wrong with it.”

Climate scientists like to do things a little differently; sometimes the outliers are more useful than the bulk of the data.

The ultimate example of the use of outliers in climate science has to be the Yamal hockey stick, where one tree came to represent the entire global temperature (see also: here).

Sixth Circle: Plagiarism

Miscreants in the Sixth Circle of Hell should be forced to sit while unable to move or speak and repeatedly watch others being lauded in their place for their work, stolen and used without attribution.

produced bluster over plagiarism of a book (by Raymond Bradley) by Edward Wegman’s report to Congress investigating hockey sticks before it was shown that Bradley had copied captions from a 1976 book, also without citation. Eventually Wegman was “slapped on the wrist” for ‘extensive paraphrasing’ and ‘poor attribution’. But lack of attribution seems common enough in climate science. Kevin Trenberth was caught out by Steve McIntyre and quietly added citations, while Anthony Watts handled attribution oversight by Matt Menne and NOAA in an exemplary manner.  At blog level Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate has certainly incorporated information without acknowledgement, probably out of pettiness as Steve McIntyre suggests.

See also Donna LaFramboise’s post highlighting uncomfortable parallels between text in a chapter of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) and a book by the lead author.

Seventh Circle: Non-Publication of Data

Phil Jones and colleagues at UEA CRU, and Michael Mann/UVa get star billing here for their determination to avoid FOI requests.  Non-archiving of data counts too, but perhaps the most insidious example is the disappearing data from the Polar Urals enabling the perpetuation of the hockey stick sham. The story is well covered by Andrew Montford’s The Yamal Deception:

“… [Steve] McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original – in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn’t: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.”

Eighth Circle: Partial Publication of Data

Michael Mann gets a nomination for this circle for telling the story but not the whole story in Nature.  Of course Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are condemned here too by Phil Jones’ email:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Gergis et al, deserve a mention for prescreening of data (see subtitle “Screening Fallacy” here); selection of proxies in this manner constitutes partial publication – by only publishing the data that fits the presupposed relationship.  Partial publication could also be construed from the paper’s subsequent withdrawal – it partly made it.

Ninth Circle: Inventing Data


The ultimate crime. Inventing results, or publishing such erroneous and/or contrived data that the results constitute fraud near as dammit, comes pretty close too.

Stephan Lewandowsky is an offender here for “an article relying on fraudulent responses at stridently anti-skeptic blogs to yield fake results“.

Peter Gleick lands himself in this circle too. Luboš Motl summarized it as published a guest post by Eric Dennis Selling your soul for a narrative: understanding the Gleick fraud:

This fraud did not involve any aspect of his own research, but was purely ideological in nature, directed against the Heartland Institute, […]. Gleick impersonated a Heartland board member in order to obtain confidential documents including the institute’s donor list. He proceeded to combine this material with a fabricated strategy memo, […] and send the package anonymously to media organizations for the purpose of outing the donors and undermining future contributions.

Only after himself being outed as the source of these documents by the detective work of a non-catastrophist blog contributor, Gleick fessed up and thereby cemented his career self-sabotage.

Worthy of a Gleick Tragedy indeed.


Finally, if we total up the work done by Michael Mann and IPCC collaborators in producing, perpetuating and defending the Hockey Stick graph, clearly he has done plenty to earn a spot here for eternity.  It is a lot more than just ‘hiding the decline’ – see a History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured; How to Make a Hockey Stick– Paleoclimatology (What they don’t want you to know) and consider what Climategate, and FOI uncovered. If you are still in any doubt, review maps and graphs from Jo Nova’s Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data that make it clear ‘just how brazen the Hockey Stick fraud is’.


I like to think of Mann and his IPCC cohorts marooned in a ship frozen into the Arctic ice at the pole waiting in vain each year for the summer melt to bring an ice-free Arctic thus enabling the release of their ship.  In the meantime they are forced to use their own analytical methods to analyze large quantities of data.  If the method can produce anything other than a hockey stick they will escape, but it never does – all data run through the programme produces hockey sticks – even data from telephone directory.


An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

Here’s another good sign things are turning in the right direction…Mothership Earth is quite large, so it’s going to take awhile to get things turned around!

Environmental Protection Agency Seal

Environmental Protection Agency Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Environmental Protection Agency Seal

In the Washington Examiner today, there is this: Op-Ed: EPA’s carbon regs not based on sound science.

It is published by Joe D’Aleo on behalf of a number of people.  A longer more complete version of the essay is below, which could not be published for space reasons. Also included is a list of the 13 signers who drafted it. Please consider widely republishing this essay. – Anthony

EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.

1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.


2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.

3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.

Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.

More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.

EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.

In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.

Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)

Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics

Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
La Center, WA

Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford

Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

George H. Taylor,
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services

Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Anthony Watts
Former TV Meteorologist and founder of, Intelliweather, WattsUpWithThat


University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers”

UPDATE: 2PM PST After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original on the University of Graz website, it was removed and replaced with an apology. See below in the body of the story. – Anthony

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

Readers may recall this particular bit of ugliness: Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences

David M. Hoffer writes in comments:


2012/12/27 at 10:40 am

I sent a rather firm letter to the University which is reproduced upthread. I didn’t expect a response, but I got one. I reproduce their response here:

Die Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ist bestürzt und entsetzt über die Ansicht und distanziert sich davon klar und deutlich. Die Universität legt größten Wert, dass die Wahrung aller Menschenrechte zu den obersten Prinzipien der Universität Graz gehört und menschenverachtende Aussagen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Universität weist zusätzlich mit Nachdruck darauf hin, dass eine rein persönliche Ansicht, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, auf universitären Webseiten nicht toleriert wird.

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts


Here is Hoffer’s letter to the University of Graz:

I’ve sent the rector a complaint as worded below. Should I receive a reply (I know, unlikely) I will post it here as well:

I [am] writing to you in protest of the remarks made by Richard Parncutt. While the university has done the right thing by removing these remarks from their website, that is hardly strong enough action. I’m sure you need no reminder that advocating for forced “re-education” and death penalties for one’s beliefs carries with it the stench of barbarism from history’s darkest chapters. I am not one of those who “deny” the science of global warming, in fact the opposite. But having studied the science closely, I’ve also concluded that many of the draconian measures proposed to mitigate global warming would themselves cause more harm than good. As a single example, we are already converting crops into bio-fuels, in essence burning the food while millions around the world are starving. Are the deaths of those people similarly on Richard Parncutt’s conscious? By his own standard, should he not be punished in the precise same manner he proposes to punish others?

The issues regarding climate science are many and complex. They deserve to be debated publicly. Indeed, it is crucial that they be debated publicly that facts, logic and science may prevail over politics, rhetoric, and in the case of those such as Richard Parncutt, hate speech reminiscent of last centuries darkest horrors.

The university owes the world not simply an apology for what appeared on their web site, but a strong and unequivocal statement denouncing this blatant attempt to silence the debate by threat of violence. – David M. Hoffer


I checked to make certain he is a representative of the university. He is listed on the University of Graz website here.

We are still waiting for DeSmog Blog and “Skeptical Science” to disavow this man’s ideas, since he lists them as references in his hate speech essay.  The original is archived here:

Richard Parncutt. Death penalty for global warming deniers?. University of Graz. 2012-12-24. URL: Accessed: 2012-12-24. (Archived by WebCite® at

One final note, Helmut Konrad in his statement says:

Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

Despite that, Parncutt’s watered down opinion (changed after the uproar) still exists on the University of Graz website as seen here:

Perhaps Herr Konrad should be reminded of what he wrote. His email is on his University page here.

UPDATE: WUWT readers get results. After more complaints were lodged today by WUWT readers about the watered down version (PDF here) of Parncutt’s essay which had replaced the original, it was removed and replaced with an apology. It seems Monckton of Brenchley was instrumental in the about-face. This is what is there now:

Global warming

I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. I have been a member of Amnesty International for at least 14 years, and I admire and support their consistent stance on this issue.

Richard Parncutt, 27 December 2012

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author.

3MIN News December 28, 2012: Collapsing Atmosphere

Published on Dec 28, 2012


Why I am Here: My ‘Agenda’ is to undo the lie that is humanity’s primary role in global warming, we contribute a small fraction; and to differentiate the observation of real earth changes from the far extreme aspect of the ‘truth movement’.

The Solar Killshot:

Collapsing Atmosphere:

More WUWT.TV video segments – Joe D’Aleo on Hurricane Sandy and extreme weather

These are great presentations in the debate against global warming vs extremes in climate change.

Posted on November 28, 2012


I continue with uploading videos from the 24 hour WUWT.TV Gore-a-thon on November 14-15th seen live here on WUWT. This post contains two segments, one that was seen during the live session on Hurricane Sandy, and one that was a backup that never made it to air on extreme weather and climate connections.

Both are from Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, co-founder of the Weather Channel, and currently a lead forecaster for WeatherBELL. Joe offers decades of forecasting experience in these presentations.

First, the one that never aired, on extreme weather

And the one on Hurricane Sandy:


David Deutsch: Chemical scum that dream of distant quasars

Uploaded by on Jan 16, 2007 Legendary scientist David Deutsch puts theoretical physics on the back burner to discuss a more urgent matter: the survival of our species. The first step toward solving global warming, he says, is to admit that we have a problem.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes — including speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore and Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, politics and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on, at

Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions: Estimates of Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise May Be Too Low

ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2012) — Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century.

Past and possible future changes in sea levels. 

“What’s missing from the models used to forecast sea-level rise are critical feedbacks that speed everything up,” says Hay. He will be presenting some of these feedbacks in a talk on  Nov. 4, at the meeting of The Geological Society of America in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

One of those feedbacks involves Arctic sea ice, another the Greenland ice cap, and another soil moisture and groundwater mining.

“There is an Arctic sea ice connection,” says Hay, despite the fact that melting sea ice — which is already in the ocean — does not itself raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.

“So it’s a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic,” says Hay. “That’s not in any of the models.” That warmer water pushes the Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.

Then there are those gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. During the last interglacial period, sea level rose 10 meters due to the melting of all that ice — without any help from humans. New data suggests that the sea-level rise in the oceans took place over a few centuries, according to Hay.

“You can lose most of the Greenland ice cap in a few hundred years, not thousands, just under natural conditions,” says Hay. “There’s no telling how fast it can go with this spike of carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere.”

This possibility was brought home this last summer as Greenland underwent a stunning, record-setting melt. The ice streams, lubricated by water at their base, are speeding up.

Hay notes, “Ten years ago we didn’t know much about water under the Antarctic ice cap.” But it is there, and it allows the ice to move — in some places even uphill due to the weight of the ice above it.

“It’s being squeezed like toothpaste out of a tube,” explains Hay. The one thing that’s holding all that ice back from emptying into the sea is the grounded ice shelves acting like plugs on bottles at the ends of the coastal glaciers. “Nobody has any idea how fast that ice will flow into the oceans once the ice shelves are gone.”

Another missing feedback is the groundwater being mined all over the world to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the oceans (a recent visualization of this effect in the U.S. was posted by NASA’s Earth Observatory:

All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate and sea-level rise.

“You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point,” says Hay. “But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive.” The reason is that Earth’s climate seems to have certain stable states. Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. “Under human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state.”

Further information:


Wake Up! Our World Is Dying and We’re All in Denial

Had we been in a trance? I wanted to shout, “Wake up! Please wake up! Our old future is gone. Matters are urgent. We have to do something now.”
October 21, 2012  |

Photo Credit:

We live in a culture of denial, especially about the grim reality of climate change. Sure, we want to savor the occasional shrimp cocktail without having to brood about ruined mangroves, but we can’t solve a problem we can’t face.

I don’t like to think about global environmental problems, and neither do you. Yet we can’t deal with problems we can’t face. Isak Dinesen wrote, “All sorrows can be borne if put into a story.” Here’s my story. In the cataclysmic summer of 2010, I experienced what environmentalists call the “‘Oh shit!’ moment.” At that time, the earth was experiencing its warmest decade, its warmest year, and the warmest April, May, and June on record. In 2010, Pakistan hit its record high (129 degrees), as did Russia (111 degrees). For the first time in memory, lightning ignited fires in the peat bogs of Russia, and these fires spread to the wheat fields further south. As doctors from Moscow rode to the rescue of heat and smoke victims, they fainted in their non-air-conditioned ambulances. In July, the heat index in my town, Lincoln, Nebraska, reached 115 degrees for several days in a row. Our planet and all living beings seemed to be gasping for breath.

That same month, I read Bill McKibben’s Eaarth, in which he argues that our familiar Earth has vanished and that we now live on a new planet, Eaarth, with a rapidly changing ecology. He writes that without immediate action, our accustomed ways of life will disappear, not in our grandchildren’s adulthoods, but in the lifetimes of middle-aged people alive today. We don’t have 50 years to save our environment; we have the next decade.

Nothing I’d previously read about the environment could quite prepare me for the bleakness of Eaarth. I couldn’t stop reading, and, when I finished it, I felt shell-shocked. For a few days, all I could experience was despair. Everything felt so hopeless and so finite.

During this time, my grandchildren came to visit. As we picked raspberries, I thought about all the care we lavished on the children in our family. We made sure they ate healthy foods and brushed their teeth with safe toothpastes. We examined and treated every little bug bite or scratch. And yet, we–and I mean all the grandparents in the world, including myself–hadn’t worked to secure them a future with clean air and water and diverse, healthy ecosystems.

Had we been in a trance? That summer, when I listened to friends talking about mundane details of life, I wanted to shout at them, “Wake up! Please wake up! Our old future is gone. Matters are urgent. We have to do something now.”

After years of being a therapist and a mother, I’ve learned that shouting “wake up” doesn’t work. One of my most dispiriting realizations was that while I wanted desperately to preserve the world I loved, I didn’t even know how to share this fact with my closest friends.

One night, my daughter and her family came for dinner during a record-breaking rainfall. After the baby went to sleep, we watched the wind whip through the pines and listened to the torrents of rain hammer our windows. Sara asked if my husband and I thought the rain was related to global climate change. Jim and I stared at each other, too confused to speak.

My wonderful daughter had the dreams all mothers have for their children. She was already doing her best. I couldn’t bear to inflict any pain on her. However, Sara was persistent in her curiosity. In the most positive, calm way that I could, I told her what I’d recently learned.

Sara was devastated. She and John quickly bundled up the baby and said good night. I could see her weeping as she tucked Coltrane into his car seat. I felt anguished, and I wasn’t sure I’d done the right thing. Yet Sara was 33 years old. Could I really shield her from what scientific experts were telling us? Would I want to be “protected” from the truth? Wasn’t it better if we faced these things together?

That next week, I couldn’t enjoy anything. My conversations with my husband quickly fell into what we call “the dumper.” I was afraid to be around friends for fear I’d infect them with my gloominess.

I knew I had to find a way out of my state of mind. I couldn’t survive with all that awareness every minute of my day. I wanted to be happy again, to be able to laugh, and to snuggle with my grandchildren without worrying about their futures. But I couldn’t forget what I now understood.

What pulled me out of my despair was the desire to get to work. I didn’t know what I was going to do. I felt unqualified for virtually everything involving the environment, but I knew I had to do something to help. It was unclear how much my action would benefit the world, but I knew it would help me. I’ve never been able to tolerate stewing in my own anxiety. Action has always been my healing tonic.

I invited a group of people to my house to discuss what we could do to stop TransCanada from shipping tar-sand sludge through our state via the Keystone XL pipeline. We called ourselves The Coalition. For more than a year now, we’ve met for potluck dinners and planning sessions. We’ve made sure the meetings have been parties. We’ve had wine, good food, and lots of laughter and hugs. We’ve tried to end our meetings on a positive note, so everyone would want to return. None of us has time for extra tedium or suffering, but we like working together for a common cause.

If you want to discover how the world works, try to change it–especially if the changes involve confronting the fossil-fuel industry. Our campaign has been a complicated story about money, power, international corporations, and politics. But it’s also a simple story, about my friends and me, working to save our state from what we nicknamed the Xtra Leaky Pipeline.

Through the year, we held rallies, educational forums, and music benefits, and set up booths at farmers’ markets and county fairs. In other words, we “massified”–a term we used to signify momentum and getting increasing numbers of people on board.

By the summer of 2011, our entire state had united around the idea of stopping the XL Pipeline’s route through our Sandhills and over the Ogallala Aquifer. Our campaign was the best thing to happen to our state since Big Red football. Progressives and Western ranchers worked together, and Sierra Club attorneys were given standing ovations in VFW halls in little towns with no registered Democrats. We staged tractor brigades and poetry readings against the pipeline. What all of us had in common was a desire to protect the place we loved.

As Randy Thompson, a conservative farmer who fought the pipeline, said, “This isn’t a political issue. There’s no red water or blue water; there’s clean water or dirty water.”

I wanted to keep Nebraska healthy for my grandchildren. When my grandson Aidan was 6, he had a growth spurt in his point of view. Our family had gone to a lake to watch the Perseid meteor showers. Afterward, driving back home, we crested a hill and Aidan saw the lights of his small town on the horizon. He said, “Look at my beautiful city.” I responded, “It’s a pretty town at night with all the twinkling lights.” Aidan was quiet for a moment and then said, “Nonna, my town is big to me, but small to the rest of the world.” I sighed. That’s a lesson we all have to learn sooner or later.

In a speech at a rally, I recalled that night. I told the crowd, “Aidan may be small to TransCanada. He may be small to our governor and legislators, but he’s big to me, and I’m going to take care of him.”

In January 2012, President Obama denied a permit to TransCanada because of concerns about Nebraska. But the outcome is uncertain, and we may yet lose our fight. We’re still working. John Hansen, head of the Nebraska Farmer’s Union, said, “Working for a cause isn’t like planting corn. You don’t throw in some seeds and walk away. It’s like milking cows, something you do over and over, and can never ignore.”

Our coalition isn’t about odds. When we started, we didn’t think we had a chance. We did it because it was the right thing to do, and we couldn’t let our state be destroyed without a protest. Our reward for this work has been a sense of empowerment and membership in what Martin Luther King, Jr., called a beloved community.

From this work, I’ve learned that saving the world and savoring it aren’t polarities, but turn out to be deeply related. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes, “The best way to save the environment is to save the environmentalist.”

George Orwell argued that pessimism is reactionary because it makes the very idea of improving the world impossible. I found that whether or not we believe we can change the world, even in a small way, acting as if we can is the healthiest emotional stance to take in the face of injustice and destruction.


“He who fights the future has a dangerous enemy,” said Søren Kierkegaard. Life is stressful. We think something is wrong with us, but the problems are endemic and systemic. As a people, we’ve lost our grounding in deep time and in our place. At root, our problems are relationship problems. We have a disordered relationship with the web of life.

Right now, the more we connect the dots between events, the more frightened we become. This reminds me of a night I slept in a tent with three of my grandchildren. Kate was 6, Aidan was 4, and Claire was 2. Claire and Aidan were blissfully happy. They snuggled and listened to the sounds of the cicadas and night birds. Meanwhile, Kate kept telling me she was scared and that she wanted to sleep in the house. Stupidly, I chided her for her fears. I asked, “Kate, you are the big sister and the oldest. Why can’t you be as brave as your sister and brother?” She wailed, “Nonna, they’re little. They don’t know enough to be scared!”

These days, I often feel like Kate did that night. I know too much about deforestation, nuclear power plants, our tainted food supply, and our collapsing fisheries. Sometimes I wish I didn’t know all these things. But if we adults don’t face and come to grips with our current reality, who will?

Neither individuals nor cultures can keep up with the pace of change. Recently I was telling my grandchildren about all the things that didn’t exist when I was a girl. I mentioned televisions (in my rural area), cell phones, the Internet, cruise control, texting, computerized toys, laptops, video recorders, headphones for music, and microwaves. The list was so long that my grandson Aidan asked me, “Nonna, did they have apples when you were a girl?”

We’re bombarded by too much information, too many choices, and too much complexity. Our problem-solving abilities and our communication and coping skills haven’t evolved quickly enough to sustain us. We find ourselves rushed, stressed, fatigued, and upset.

On all levels–international, national, and personal–many situations now seem too complicated to be workable. A friend of mine put it this way: “There are no simple problems anymore.”

In addition to the problems that we can describe and label, we have new problems that we can barely name. Writers are coining words to try to describe a new set of emotions. For example, Glenn Albrecht coined the term solastalgia to describe “homesickness or melancholia when your environment is changing all around you in ways that you feel are profoundly negative.”

We experience our own pain, but also the pain of the earth and of people and animals suffering all over the world. Environmentalist Joanna Macy calls this pain “planetary anguish.” We want to help, but we all feel that we have enough on our plates without taking on the melting polar ice caps or the dying oceans.

One night before dinner, Jim asked me to sit and have glass of wine with him. That day, he’d overseen the installation of a heating and air-conditioning system after a tree had crushed our old one. That same week, our refrigerator had needed replacing. And suddenly our dishwasher wasn’t working properly either. I’d been writing about global climate change and working with the Coalition to Stop the XL Pipeline. I said, “I’ll sit down with you as long as we don’t have to discuss the fate of the earth.” Jim agreed readily and added, “I don’t even want to discuss the fate of our appliances.”

The climate crisis is so enormous in its implications that it’s difficult for us to grasp its reality. Its scope exceeds our human and cultural resilience systems. Thinking about global climate collapse is like trying to count two billion pinto beans. Oftentimes, because we don’t know how to respond, we don’t respond. We develop “learned helplessness” and our sense that we’re powerless becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In States of Denial, Stanley Cohen writes about Germany and the denial of the Holocaust. He talked about a state of knowing and not knowing that arises in ongoing traumatic situations. This “willful ignorance” occurs when information can’t be totally denied, but can’t be processed either. That’s the state I think we’re in now when we try to deal with global climate change.

We live in a culture of denial. A Pew Research Center poll in September 2011 revealed that, in spite of increasing evidence, belief in climate change was at its lowest level since 1997. In fact, belief had decreased from 71 percent to 57 percent in the previous 18 months. Even the manner in which we discuss climate change is odd. We don’t talk about “believing in” the laws of aerodynamics, the DNA code, or faraway galaxies. By now the evidence for global climate change is solid and the scientific community is united. So why do we speak of believing in it as if we were speaking of belief in extraterrestrials?

Partly these poll numbers reflect a well-funded and orchestrated misinformation campaign by the fossil-fuel industry. Robert Proctor at Stanford University coined another new word, agnotology, for the study of ignorance or doubt that’s deliberately manufactured or politically generated.

The poll results also can be explained by what Renee Lertzman called “The Myth of Apathy.” She interviewed people about global climate change and found that they actually care intensely about the environment, but that their emotions are so tangled up and they’re so beset by internal conflicts that they can’t act adaptively. They aren’t apathetic, but rather shut down psychologically.

All cultures have rules about what can and can’t be acknowledged. This reminds me of an old joke about the Soviet Union. Two KGB men were walking together down the street. One of them said to the other, “What do you think of this system?” “I don’t know,” said the other one. “I probably think about the same as you do.” “In that case,” said the first, “I’m going to have to arrest you.”

Social and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard writes, “The denial of global warming is socially constructed. In America it is almost as if relevant information about our climate crisis is classified. Our national policy towards the devastation we face is, ‘Don’t ask. Don’t tell.'”

We all have a healthy and understandable desire to avoid feeling pain. We want to savor the occasional shrimp cocktail without thinking about the ruined mangroves or read a book about lions to children without wondering how many are left in the wild. Yet we cannot solve a problem we will not face.

Once we face the hard truths about our environmental collapse, we can begin a process of transformation that I call the “alchemy of healing.” Despair is often a crucible for growth. As we expand ourselves to deal with our new normal, we can feel more vibrant and engaged with the world as it is.

We can be intentional when we’re shopping, planning a trip, or working in our communities. We can be citizens of the world, rather than consumers, and we can vote every time we hand over our debit card.

We’re all community educators whether we know it or not. Everything we say and do is potentially a teachable moment for someone. So appoint yourself a change agent, engage in participatory democracy, and help yourself, your country, and your world. Belief often follows action. The harder we work, the likelier we are to experience hope and to improve our situation.

Amazement is another antidote to despair. Author Hannah Tennant-Moore wrote, “It took me a long time to learn that being miserable does not alleviate the world’s misery.”

After a rough week, I felt compelled to drive to Spring Creek Prairie, about 30 minutes from my home. I joined a group of birders doing a winter bird count. It was a grand experience, with long lines of snow geese overhead, woodpeckers in the burr oaks, and a mink ice-skating in the little pond. However, at some point, I wanted to be away from people, even the birders I normally enjoy.

I walked alone to a sunny patch of prairie, lay on the ground, and looked at the sky through the waving big bluestem. I imbibed the prairie. I felt the warm earth beneath me. I smelled the moisture, the dirt, and the cereal-like aroma of the tall grasses. I looked up through the golden seed heads at the blue sky and the geese. I heard their calls and the wind rustling in the grasses. As I lay there, I thought, “I’m getting what I most needed today.”

I’m lucky to have a prairie nearby, but we all have green space available to us. We all can look at the sky. As my friend Sherri said, “I’ve never seen an ugly sky.”

Another day, Margie brought her dog over for a walk around the lake. When we returned to my house, Leo began rolling around in the grass. First, he rolled on his back; then he lolled about on his stomach, trying to have every possible inch of skin touching the grass. Margie said, “If you want to know the time, ask a dog. They always know, and they’ll tell you the correct time, which is now, now, now.”

Transcendence can come from work, bliss, or an expanding moral imagination. I define the moral imagination as the ability to understand how the world looks and feels to another person. It involves motivation, heart, and imagination. My respect for the moral imagination leads to a simple value system–good is that which increases it and evil is that which decreases it.

I believe that the purpose of life is to expand our own moral imagination and to help others expand theirs, so that our circle of caring, which begins with our families, eventually includes all living beings.

One day, I played my grandchildren a song called “Hey Little Ant” by Phillip and Hannah Hoose. This song is a conversation between an ant and a boy on a playground with his friends watching. He wants to squish the ant just for fun. But the ant sings that he has a home and a family, too. He sings to show the boy that his life is as precious to his ant family as the boy’s life is to his human family. The song ends with a question for the listener to ponder: “Should the ant get squished? Should the ant go free? / It’s up to the kid, not up to me. / We’ll leave that kid with the raised-up shoe. / Now what do you think that boy should do?”

When 9-year-old Kate heard it, she said, “Nonna, I’ll never squish an ant again.” Aidan, who was 7, also promised to let all ants run free. But 5-year-old Claire said, “Nonna, I still like to squish ants, but I won’t kill any talking ants.” Sigh. She’ll have a growth spurt soon enough.

Poet Pablo Neruda wrote, “We are each one leaf on the great human tree.” I hope we can extend that to include all living beings.

Dealing with our global crisis is essentially an ethics problem. If we don’t expand our moral imaginations, we’ll destroy ourselves. Healing will involve reweaving the most primal of connections to this sacred web.

Interconnection can be seen as a spiritual belief, especially in Buddhism. As Thich Nhat Hanh says, “we inter-are.” But it’s also a scientific fact. Economist Jeremy Rifkin writes, “We are learning that the earth functions like an invisible organism. We are the various cells of one living being. Those who work to save the earth are its antibodies.” At its core, interconnection is a survival strategy. Gregory Bateson said it best, “The unit of survival is the organism and his environment.”

The next great rights battle will be a fight to rescue our beleaguered planet. It’ll be about air, plants, animals, water, energy, and dirt. We have a right to a sustainable planet and a future for our grandchildren. And the meadowlark, the fox, the bull snake, the mosquito, and the cottonwood also have this right.

We’re in a race between human consciousness and the physics and chemistry of the earth. We can equivocate, but the earth will brook no compromises.

In our great hominid journey, no one really knows what time it is. We could be at its end, or we could be at the beginning of a great and glorious turning toward reconnection and wholeness.

We who are alive today share what Martin Luther King, Jr., called “the inescapable network of mutuality.” We aren’t without resources. We have our intelligence, humor, and compassion, our families and friends, and our ancestry of resilient hominid survivors. We can be restored.

Since the beginning of human time, how many people have loved and cared for each other in order for us to be alive today? How many fathers have hunted and fished, fought off predators, and planted grain so that we could breathe at this moment? How many mothers have nursed babies and carried water so that we could savor our small slice of time?

We can never know the significance of our individual actions, but we can act as if our actions are significant. That will create only good on earth. Besides, what’s our alternative?

As U.S. Poet Laureate W. S. Merwin said, “On my last day on Earth, I’d like to plant a tree.”

So let’s save and savor the world together.

I wish you well on your journey.

Mary Pipher, Ph.D., is the author of the bestseller Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. Her other books include The Middle of Everywhere and Seeking Peace: Chronicles of the Worst Buddhist in the World. Her latest is The Green Boat: Writing to Change the World.


Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions of People


By Cassandra Anderson
October 2, 2012

gates22Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming.  There is evidence that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known as chemtrails.

A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith.  Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates.  Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.

Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming.  But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!

Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.

Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death 

The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.  A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.

Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!

Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion, reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river flow and soil moisture.

While the scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the experiments appear to believe in man-made global warming, they do have stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.
2012 Geo-Engineering Study

The Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering models based on volcanoes, but the study was unrealistic because it used climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial era.  However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a strong decrease in rainfall (a 15% loss in North America and Eurasia and a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall would be reduced by 5%.

Unless one considers the financial benefits (government and private grants), it is bewildering why the academia would support geo-engineering.

Geo-Engineering Can Cause Warming

atmosphere2Geo-engineering can actually cause global warming when tampering with clouds in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.  The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists propose spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico experiment proposes spraying 15 miles above surface- both of these fall within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.

The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, extending an average of 4 to 12 miles above surface.  Clouds that are in the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate of albedo or reflectivity of the sun’s rays away from Earth that produce a cooling effect.  However, the experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.

The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high as 31 miles above the Earth’s surface. The clouds in the higher stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and act like a blanket that traps heat.

Both experiments propose dumping  SO2 in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would theoretically increase warming.  This is the opposite of Gates’ stated goal to cool the planet.

(Note: most long-distance planes fly at 6 miles above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)

What About the EPA?

Given that the EPA claims that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cause health problems and early death and that they are shuttering coal plants over emissions, you may be wondering why the EPA isn’t screaming bloody murder over Gates’ SO2 aerosol-spraying experiments.

The answer can be found on the EPA’s own website where they promote giving regulatory power over geo-engineering/chemtrails to the UN and/or developed countries that fund the programs.  The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.

Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.

Global Warming and UN Control

Global warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain.  Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.


Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.

Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.


Whistleblowers Prosecuted While War Criminals Remain Free?

by Debbie Menon

Dr.Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, and professor of economics in six universities, wrote in A Story… The Last Whistleblower :

“The ability of whistleblowers to bring accountability to government is about to disappear.”

It was quite a story! I liked it.

Stories are all we shall hear someday because no one will have the courage or the opportunity to tell the truth.

But even story tellers must be careful.  Aesop told fables.  He invented the genre in fact, the fabulous story form.  And, he was hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead, because  some of his fables upset  some very important men.

George Orwell’s 1984 is a story.  No way it could be anything but fiction, right?  They didn’t hang George Orwell, but if he were alive today I have no doubts that there are people who would like to see him tried on a trumped up charge of treason or discredited in some way or another, if not actually hung.

They didn’t hang or kill Winston Smith, either, but he was effectively assassinated.

RT reports A newly released document acquired by Wired Magazine exposes the United States Defense Department’s torture techniques. In the 37 page report, former CIA official John Kiriakou warns the George W. Bush administration about the techniques that were being used on detainees and explains how they are against US law. His warnings went unheard of, until Kiriakou was indicted for leaking the information to the media.

David Swanson, campaigner for Roots Action, joins us with more.


 Words don’t mean anything anymore!

GEORGE Bush, Dick Cheney, Tito Gonzales, David Levin, Keith Olbermann, many others have had their chance to speak, and their words to say on “waterboarding” and “ torture;”  “we do not,” “…we do, but it is legal.” “It is not,” “It is…” etc.

The bottom line of those with first hand experience seems to be that it hurts, damages, frightens the hell out of, and is persuasive enough to make almost anyone say what the teacher wants them to say, just to make it stop.

Torture becomes legal, “creative interrogation”; Kidnapping becomes “rendition.” C’mon! My common sense tells me better.

It would appear that “common sense” is not so common anymore. In fact, it’s becoming a rare, very rare, commodity throughout the world—particularly in North America.

An adjunct to Truth and Beauty, it is of no use in the politics of today’s world.

You can say anything you like. Call it what you like and, yes, the ignorant and ill-informed will believe you, if you say it forcefully and frequently enough, especially while standing in front of an altar, a flag or some such token of symbol of Truth, and Sincerity.

Words don’t mean anything anymore! Maybe, in this world where individualism is so important, we can write our own definitions, and if someone doesn’t like them, then we can, imprison them, holocaust, apartheid, genocide, or just kill them all, ship them out, or ban them from a web.

Or, we can brand them an anti-Semite and destroy their intellectual credentials and no one will ever listen to anything they ever say again.

Keith Olbermann editorial to Obama “Future Of The U.S. Depends On Torture Accountability”

Link to Olbermann video:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hawaii’s weather takes ‘unprecedented’ turn towards the bizarre

Posted on March 10, 2012
March 10, 2012HAWAII – A rare tornado blew roofs off homes and left other damage in its path through the Hawaiian communities of Lanikai and Enchanted Lake on Oahu, weather officials confirmed Friday. A National Weather Service team surveying damage and talking to witnesses determined a waterspout came ashore and was reclassified as a tornado in Lanikai about 7:30 a.m. The 20-yard-wide tornado traveled about 1.5 miles in 15 minutes to Enchanted Lake with wind speeds reaching 60 to 70 mph before dissipating, officials said. Hawaii, known for its famous sunshine, has been hit with unusually harsh weather for about a week. Kaeo DePonte stands with a trampoline lifted out of an Enchanted Lake yard by high winds on Friday morning. A 30-minute hail storm on Friday in Oahu was “unprecedented,” Tom Birchard, senior meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Honolulu, told the Associated Press. Some of the hail stones have been unusually large for the islands — the size of marbles and discs more than a half inch long, reported. The islands also saw heavy rains and thunderstorms that closed schools, flooded homes and led to sewage spills. Landslides, power outages and roads blocks by trees, boulders and mud were reported. Some vacationers in the tropical paradise had their vacations dampened. When heavy rains canceled flights out of Kauai after midnight on Tuesday, about 20 passengers were stuck at the airport. The heavy rains were expected to subside by Saturday. There were no reports of deaths or injuries due to the storm. –MSNBC
Hailstones pound Hawaii: Deadly, devastating tornadoes in the northeastern U.S. are again setting records this year, and arriving earlier than ever. Meanwhile, frigid conditions have killed hundreds across Europe, while spring-like conditions exist in vast areas of North America. Now folks in Hawaii are seeing something previously unheard of: golf ball sized hail stones on the North Shore of Oahu and in some other areas across the state. In June, 2011 snow on Hawaii’s Mauna Kea (the dormant volcano which is the highest point in the Islands) was unusual, but according to experts, not unheard of. reports that hot air met cold above Mauna Kea, one of several volcanic island mountains that make up the Hawaii island chain , causing a powerful thunderstorm that, in the presence of the cooler-than-normal air, dropped roughly 6 inches of snow on the mountaintop. “The ground coverage was significant, mostly above 12,000 feet,” Ryan Lyman, a forecast climatologist at the Mauna Kea Weather Center, told Life’s Little Mysteries. –

Kribati The lost paradise – Remote Pacific islands slipping below the ocean, plan launched to relocate entire population

March 9, 2012 –  FIJI – Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji. Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could provide an insurance policy for Kiribati’s entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave. “We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it,” Tong said. “It wouldn’t be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won’t be a matter of choice. It’s basically going to be a matter of survival.” Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island’s underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly. Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change. Fiji, home to about 850,000 people, is about 1,400 miles south of Kiribati. But just what people there think about potentially providing a home for thousands of their neighbors remains unclear. Tong said he’s awaiting full parliamentary approval for the land purchase, which he expects in April, before discussing the plan formally with Fijian officials. –MSNBC

Big Siberian Freeze to Hit Britain

Nathan Rao
Daily Express
Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:40 CDT
UK snow cars

Heavy snowfall last year disrupted traffic during December

Britain faces a sudden shivering end to the exceptionally warm late autumn with temperatures plunging towards Siberian levels.

Winter weather will arrive with a vengeance with temperatures well below zero within the next fortnight.

Experts then predict a bitterly cold December with thermometers falling at least as low as -15C (5F).

Snow could hit the country even earlier than last year when a big freeze at the end of November sent temperatures to -20C (-4F), crippling transport. And some forecasters fear that temperatures could plunge as low or even lower this winter.

UK rail snow

Snow on the railways earlier this year

Jonathan Powell of Positive Weather Sol­utions said: “It will not be as sustained as last year, but these episodes are expected to be severe, with Siberian temperatures.”

The warnings came as the Government announced the Met Office will send out extreme weather alerts this year to the NHS, social services and other agencies in a bid to cut the 25,000 extra deaths winter causes in the UK.

Forecaster Brian Gaze of The Weather Outlook, said: “There are signs of a significant change in the mild weather in mid-November.

“The current mild weather is caused by a high-pressure block to our east, keeping us under a south-westerly flow of Atlantic air. But it looks as though high pressure could move further north west, allowing much colder air to filter across the UK from the north or east, with the risk of snow increasing.”

James Madden, of Exacta Weather, warned the theme of this winter would be “very cold and snowy across many parts of the UK”.

He said there would be “frequent and widespread heavy snowfalls during November to January across many parts of the UK and Ireland, with below-average temperatures”.

The new winter alerts will come in the form of one of four possible warnings depending on the severity of the conditions the Met Office expects.

Level One will initiate long-term planning, Level Two will indicate a 60 per cent risk of extreme cold for 48 hours, Level Three means severe weather is expected to impact on health and Level Four is a “major cold weather incident.”

UK snow

Severe weather this year could be just as bad as last year
Previously local areas were left to decide how to react to cold snaps.

The alert system is part of the Government’s Cold Weather Plan which also contains advice to individuals and carers, such as making sure at-risk groups get vaccinated against flu and keep homes heated adequately.

A minimum of 70F is being recommended during the day and 61F at night. Below that, the risk of heart problems, strokes and respiratory illness increases. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “Older people and those with long-term illnesses are particularly vulnerable to the cold and we need to be aware – within families, in communities and across the NHS – of how we can help others.

“Every year, there is a 20 per cent increase in deaths in the winter in England. By working together, this coordinated plan will help protect those most in need. We are determined to do all we can to achieve this.”

Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK said: “The coalition Government has set a new emphasis on public health as one of its key objectives, and this Cold Weather Plan is a very important step in the right direction.

“Age UK will be building on this with its own winter campaign to help vulnerable older people live well through the cold months of the year.”

The Met Office said: “Our excess winter mortality, of an average 25,000 extra deaths in winter compared to other months of the year – 80 per cent thought to be due to the cold – is very poor compared to other countries in Europe.

“The aim of the cold weather alerts is to reduce winter mortality by allowing action to be taken, helping people and patients reduce the risks of cold weather.”

“Emergency” Arctic Mission Discovers Millions Of Tons Of Powerful Greenhouse Gas Methane Bubbling From Arctic Ocean

As stated below,  apparently the initial findings on the Arctic Ocean methane releases first came out in 2008, the most recent findings were from a second expedition that went out in September 2011 and the results from that trip won’t be available for another five months or so.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:13 PM EST
By Physicist-retired…m-arctic-ocean

Last September, U.S. and Russian scientists embarked on a ‘rapidly-coordinated’ mission to investigate reports of extremely high methane emissions escaping from the Siberian Continental Shelf – specifically, the sea shelf of the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea and the Russian part of the Chukotsk Sea.

The 45-day mission has been completed – and preliminary reports are emerging.

They are most disturbing.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas. But unlike carbon dioxide, methane is much, much more powerful – more than 20 times as powerful, in fact.

In the past, large-scale releases of methane have been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species.

And now, this ’emergency’ mission to Siberia is seeing underwater releases of methane so large, and so rapid, that the ocean is literally bubbling.

Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden, one of the leaders of the expedition, reported this in an email leaked just two days ago:

“We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night.

An extensive area of intense methane release was found.

At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface.

These ‘methane chimneys’ were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments].”

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent reports:

Methane concentrations at some points reached 100 times background levels.

These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson.

“This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean,” he said. “Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.

The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is believed to be greater than all the carbon stored in coal reserves on the planet.

It’s actually bubbling to the surface now.

Editor’s Note: When this article was first published, I believed that the email quoted above was in a Telegraph article dated November 10, 2011. I was mistaken – the quote and article refer to a 2008 mission. Rather than remove the quote and link, and substantially alter the original article, I am adding an update on the 2011 Mission from the Russian Geographic Society, via The Arctic.

This reference would have been a far better, and more accurate, addition to the original article then the (mistaken) one I used.

I apologize for any confusion this has caused.

Russian and U.S. scientists discover new methane emissions in the Arctic

September 27, 2011

The international expedition of Russian and American scientists has led to a discovery of new sites of intense methane emissions in the eastern Arctic that can strongly impact the greenhouse effect, Igor Semiletov, Head of the Arctic Research Lab of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Far Eastern Branch, told RIA Novosti Tuesday.

Findings from this 2011 mission should be released in about five months.

One has to wonder – if methane was actually seen bubbling from the surace of the Arctic 3 years ago, what is happening there now that prompted this hastily-organized mission?

U.S. Inaction on Climate is Criminal, Activists Say

In fact, the World Bank said back in February that an additional 44 million people were pushed into poverty this year as a result of rising food prices and millions more could be hungry by the end of 2012 if current trends continue.

Article image

The United States’ del­e­ga­tion at the 17th an­nual Con­fer­ence of the Par­ties (COP) to the United Na­tions Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change (UN FCC) in Dur­ban, South Africa has come under heavy fire from civil so­ci­ety lead­ers and ac­tivists around the globe for stand­ing in the way of real so­lu­tions to cli­mate change.

Be­tween 15,000 and 20,000 farm­ers, union­ists, teach­ers, peas­ants, stu­dents, garbage pick­ers, trans­port work­ers and other in­dig­nant cit­i­zens gath­ered out­side the U.N. con­sul­ta­tion cham­bers in Dur­ban on Sat­ur­day call­ing for “sys­tem change, not cli­mate change”.

Many of these pro­tes­tors marched to the U.S. em­bassy, de­mand­ing that the “world’s biggest pol­luter” start sup­port­ing cli­mate so­lu­tions that ben­e­fit the 99 per­cent.

In sol­i­dar­ity with their African coun­ter­parts, cit­i­zens in 20 cities across the U.S. ral­lied against the eco-de­struc­tive ac­tions of the “one per­cent” as part of the Dec. 3 global day of ac­tion to save the planet and “oc­cupy the cli­mate”.

Spear­headed by the Grass­roots Global Jus­tice Al­liance (GGJA), a na­tional net­work of grass­roots or­ga­ni­za­tions, along with the North Amer­i­can chap­ter of the 200 mil­lion mem­ber in­ter­na­tional farm­ers’ move­ment, La Via Campesina, Sat­ur­day’s events were an at­tempt to draw to­gether dis­parate cli­mate-re­lated strug­gles under one ban­ner.

“We are mo­bi­liz­ing to de­nounce quick fix so­lu­tions being pro­moted by gov­ern­ments and cor­po­ra­tions – like car­bon mar­kets, REDD++, and geo- en­gi­neer­ing – all of which are just cre­ative ways for cor­po­ra­tions to con­tinue prof­it­ing at the ex­pense of the peo­ple and Mother Earth,” said Dena Hoff, a Mon­tana-based mem­ber of the Na­tional Fam­ily Farm Coali­tion.

“As stew­ards of the land, feed­ing the world’s peo­ple, we can’t stand by as our ecosys­tems are de­stroyed for cor­po­rate greed,” she added.

“U.S. gov­ern­ment and cor­po­ra­tions are the one per­cent re­spon­si­ble for the ma­jor­ity of pol­lu­tion af­fect­ing the 99 per­cent of the world,” Fran­cisca Por­chas of the LA-based Labor Com­mu­nity Strat­egy Cen­ter, said Sat­ur­day. “We de­mand that the U.S. im­me­di­ately re­duce car­bon emis­sions to 50 per­cent of cur­rent lev­els by 2017, and stop ob­struct­ing progress to­wards pay­ing cli­mate debt and forg­ing an in­ter­na­tion­ally bind­ing deal.”


Ac­tions in the U.S. kicked off Fri­day, when a del­e­ga­tion rep­re­sent­ing lead­ers from hun­dreds of Na­tive Amer­i­can tribes pre­sented Pres­i­dent Barack Obama with the Mother Earth Ac­cord, a doc­u­ment stat­ing their op­po­si­tion to the de­vel­op­ment of the bit­terly con­tested Tran­sCanada Key­stone XL Pipeline through In­dian coun­try.”Rec­og­niz­ing that the pipeline would stretch 1,980 miles, from Al­berta, Canada to Ned­er­land, Texas, car­ry­ing up to 900,000 bar­rels per day of filthy tar sands crude oil,” the Ac­cord roundly con­demned the pro­ject as “sui­ci­dal” for scores of Na­tive com­mu­ni­ties and sa­cred sites as well as for the Ogal­lala Aquifer, which cur­rently sus­tains mil­lions of peo­ple and ir­ri­gates huge swathes of farm­land through­out the heart­land of the United States.

The U.S. gov­ern­ment’s in­de­ci­sion on the pro­ject, de­spite re­ported ev­i­dence of nu­mer­ous spills and ir­refutable data on the pipeline’s im­pact, is in­dica­tive of its over­all in­dif­fer­ence to so­cial move­ments and civil so­ci­ety’s de­mands, ac­tivists say.

The U.S. del­e­ga­tion in Dur­ban, led by spe­cial envoy Todd Stern and his deputy Jonathan Per­sh­ing, have re­mained im­mune to civil so­ci­ety pres­sure by con­tin­u­ing to push its agenda of pro­mot­ing new “cli­mate fi­nanc­ing” sys­tems to mit­i­gate the im­pacts of car­bon emis­sions and global warm­ing.

This, de­spite the fact that a 2011 World Bank re­port, pre­pared for this year’s G20 meet­ing in France and leaked to the British Guardian in Sep­tem­ber, con­fessed that global car­bon mar­kets are in deep trou­ble.

“The value of trans­ac­tions in the pri­mary CDM mar­ket de­clined sharply in 2009 and fur­ther in 2010 … amid chronic un­cer­tain­ties about fu­ture mit­i­ga­tion tar­gets and mar­ket mech­a­nisms after 2012,” the re­port said.

The fail­ure of fi­nan­cial mar­kets to reg­u­late them­selves, much less the cli­mate, notwith­stand­ing, Stern and Per­sh­ing have blocked even the most wa­tered down pro­pos­als on the ne­go­ti­at­ing table in Dur­ban, such as the es­tab­lish­ment of a Green Cli­mate Fund, en­dorsed by most de­vel­op­ing na­tions as well as the Eu­ro­zone.

“The U.S. is putting the cart be­fore the horse in terms of the cli­mate fund by re­fus­ing to sign onto some­thing be­fore the de­tails have been worked out,” Jen So­ri­ano, com­mu­ni­ca­tions co­or­di­na­tor for the Dur­ban del­e­ga­tion of the GGJA, told IPS. “In fact, noth­ing can be con­cretized until coun­tries like the U.S. com­mit to the fund in the first place, so this is the per­fect stall tac­tic.”

“It re­flects the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s total in­abil­ity to take the lead, even over a pro­posal that would es­sen­tially be man­aged by (con­tro­ver­sial) for-profit ac­tors like the World Bank,” she added.

“The U.S. del­e­ga­tion also told a gath­er­ing of NGOs in Dur­ban yes­ter­day that they would ab­solutely not re-rat­ify an up­dated ver­sion of the Kyoto pro­to­col until 2020… prov­ing that there is no sci­en­tific basis to the U.S.’s agenda,” So­ri­ano said.

In fact, every note­wor­thy doc­u­ment on cli­mate change, from the land­mark Cochabamba Peo­ple’s Agree­ment signed last year in Bo­livia to the U.N.’s own In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change (UN IPCC) 2011 re­port, pre­dict cat­a­strophic re­sults if in­dus­trial coun­tries don’t limit global warm­ing to less than two de­grees Cel­sius and fol­low the basic con­di­tions laid out in the Kyoto pro­to­col.

The sig­na­to­ries to the Cochabamba Agree­ment stressed, “Be­tween 20 per­cent and 30 per­cent of species would be in dan­ger of dis­ap­pear­ing, large ex­ten­sions of for­est would be af­fected, droughts and floods would af­fect dif­fer­ent re­gions of the planet, deserts would ex­pand, and the melt­ing of the polar ice caps and the glac­i­ers in the Andes and Hi­malayas would worsen.

“Many is­land states would dis­ap­pear, and Africa would suf­fer an in­crease in tem­per­a­ture of more than three de­grees Cel­sius. Like­wise, the pro­duc­tion of food would di­min­ish and the num­ber of peo­ple in the world suf­fer­ing from hunger would in­crease dra­mat­i­cally, a fig­ure that al­ready ex­ceeds 1.02 bil­lion peo­ple.”

Mean­while the 220 sci­en­tists who com­prise the U.N.’s IPCC noted last month that “ex­treme weather events” would likely suck bil­lions out of na­tional economies and de­stroy mil­lions of lives, par­tic­u­larly in Africa.

“We have to think not only in terms of loss of life but also cli­mate dis­place­ment, the loss of homes, sep­a­ra­tion from fam­i­lies and poverty,” Jill John­ston, pro­grams co­or­di­na­tor of the South­west Work­ers Union, told IPS.

In fact, the World Bank said back in Feb­ru­ary that an ad­di­tional 44 mil­lion peo­ple were pushed into poverty this year as a re­sult of ris­ing food prices and mil­lions more could be hun­gry by the end of 2012 if cur­rent trends con­tinue.

“Viewed against this back­drop, the U.S. has been in­cred­i­bly ir­re­spon­si­ble at these talks. Its neg­li­gence in find­ing real so­lu­tions to the cli­mate cri­sis often bor­ders on crim­i­nal,” John­ston added.

Climate Change Data, 5200 Years & The Mayan Calendar (3rd Dec 2011)

Uploaded by on Dec 3, 2011

Mirrored from Thyalwaysseek on Dec 3, 2011








MrRedway1’s Channel

The Redway

Game Over for Planet Earth: The Month’s Biggest Story You Never Read

By Tom Engelhardt,
Posted on November 16, 2011, Printed on November 22, 2011


To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from here. 

What’s the biggest story of the last several weeks?  Rick Perry’s moment of silence, all 53 seconds’ worth?  The Penn State riots after revered coach JoePa went down in a child sex abuse scandal? The Kardashian wedding/divorce?  The European debt crisis that could throw the world economy into a tailspin?  The Cain sexual harassment charges?  The trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor?

The answer should be none of the above, even though as a group they’ve dominated the October/November headlines.  In fact, the piece of the week, month, and arguably year should have been one that slipped by so quietly, so off front-pages nationwide and out of news leads everywhere that you undoubtedly didn’t even notice.  And yet it’s the story that could turn your life and that of your children and grandchildren inside out and upside down.

On the face of it, it wasn’t anything to shout about — just more stats in a world drowning in numbers.  These happen to have been put out by the U.S. Department of Energy and they reflected, as an Associated Press headline put it, the “biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases.”  In other words, in 2010, humanity (with a special bow to China, the United States, and onrushing India) managed to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than at any time since the industrial revolution began — 564 million more tons than in 2009, which represents an increase of 6%.

According to AP’s Seth Borenstein, that’s “higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.” He’s talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which is, if anything, considered “conservative” in its projections of future catastrophe by many climate scientists.  Put another way, we’re talking more greenhouse gases than have entered the Earth’s atmosphere in tens of millions of years.

Consider as well the prediction offered by Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency: without an effective international agreement to staunch greenhouse gases within five years, the door will close on preventing a potentially disastrous rise in the planet’s temperature.  You’re talking, that is, about the kind of freaky weather that will make October’s bizarre snowstorm in the Northeast look like a walk in the park.  (That storm had all the signs of a climate-change-induced bit of extreme weather: New York City hadn’t recorded an October snowfall like it since the Civil War and it managed to hit the region in a period of ongoing warmth when the trees hadn’t yet had the decency to lose their leaves, producing a chaos of downed electrical wires.)  And don’t get me started on what this would mean in terms of future planetary hot spells or sea-level rise.

Honestly, if we were sane, if the media had its head in the right place, this would have been screaming headlines.  It would have put Rick Perry and Herman Cain and the Kardashians and Italy and Greece and Michael Jackson’s doctor in the shade.

The only good news — and because it unsettled the politics of the 2012 election, it did garner a few headlines — was that the movement Bill McKibben and spearheaded to turn back the tar-sands pipeline from Hades (or its earthly global-warming equivalent, which is Alberta, Canada) gained traction in our Occupy Wall Street moment.  Check out McKibben’s account of it, “Puncturing the Pipeline,” and think of it as a harbinger.  Mark my words on this one: sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to climate change, just as they have this year on the issue of inequality, and when they do, watch out.  There will be political hell to pay.


 Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s as well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s His latest book, The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books), will be published in November.

Sign up to receive the latest updates here.

© 2011 All rights reserved.
View this story online at:

Mitch Battros – Solar Flares, Cosmic Rays affect on Earth Changes, Global Warming, Humanity and 2012

Part 1 of 6


Intense heat wave bakes the Eastern U.S.

Published: 3:27 PM GMT on July 22, 2011

Intense heat seared large sections of the U.S. on Thursday, with dozens of new daily high temperature records adding to the formidable number of new records piling up this week. On Wednesday, 140 daily maximum temperature records were tied or broken, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. This represents over 2.4% of all stations in the U.S., which is an exceptionally high number of records for one day. Over the past 30 days, daily high temperature records have outpaced low temperature records by more than 4 to 1, 1859 to 453, and by almost three to one over the past year. Daily high temperature records set yesterday included 100° at Detroit, the first time in sixteen years that city has seen the century mark. Two hyperthermia deaths were reported in the Detroit area, bringing the heat wave death toll for the U.S. to 24 for the week. Newark, NJ hit 103°, just 2° below that city’s all-time record hottest temperature of 105°. That record may be challenged today, as the temperature in Newark at 11am was already 100°. Other notable temperatures yesterday included 101° in Syracuse, NY, only 1° below that city’s all-time high of 102°; 95° in Binghamton, NY, 3° below their all-time high; 102° in Toledo, 3° below their all-time high; 102° in Raleigh, 3° below that city’s all-time high of 105°. Accompanying the heat was high levels of air pollution, which also contributes to mortality. Air pollution reached code red, “Unhealthy”, in Gary Indiana yesterday, and was code orange, “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” in thirteen other states.

The blast furnace-like conditions will continue today across much of New England and the mid-Atlantic, where high temperatures are expected to climb above 100° in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and New York City. Air pollution is expected to exceed federal standards and reach code orange, “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups”, in at least 18 states today, according to the latest forecasts from EPA. The pollution will be worst in Washington D.C. and Baltimore, where “code red” conditions–“Unhealthy”–are expected. The heat will continue in the mid-Atlantic states through Sunday, then ease on Monday when a cold front is expected to move through.

Figure 1. July temperatures in the lower 48 states between 1895 – 2010 showed a warming of about 1.2°F (red line) during that time period. The warmest July on record was 1936, with an average temperature of 3.1°F above average. The year 2006 was a close second, just 0.1°F behind. If model projections of an increase in U.S. temperature of 4 – 6.5°F by 2100 are correct, an average July in 2050 will have temperatures warmer than the record warm temperatures of 1936. Image credit: NOAA/NCDC.

The summer of 2011’s place in history
July 2011 is on pace to be one of the five hottest months in U.S. history, but may have a tough time surpassing the hottest month of all time, July 1936. In that year, the dry soils of the Midwest’s Dust Bowl helped create the most extreme heat wave in U.S. history during July. Wunderground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, has a look back at this great heat wave in his current post. I expect that by the time July 2011 is done, it will be a top-five warmest July on record, but will not surpass July of 1936 or July of 2006 (which holds second place, just 0.1° cooler than July 1936.) The summer of 1936 was also the hottest summer in U.S. history. That mark will also be tough to surpass this year, since June 2011 was the 26th warmest June on record, and June 1936 was the 11th warmest. August 1936 was the 4th warmest August on record. At this point, there’s no telling how warm August 2011 will be, though NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is forecasting a much above average chance of warmer than average conditions over 95% of the contiguous U.S for the first week of August.

Figure 2. The 8 – 14 day outlook from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center predicts much above average chances of warmer than normal temperatures during the last few days of July and the first four days of August.

Climate change and U.S. heat waves
The heat index–how hot the air feels when factoring in both the temperature and the humidity–has been exceptionally high during this week’s heat wave, due to the presence of very high amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere. That has made this heat wave a very dangerous one, since the body is much less able to cool itself when the humidity is high. The high humidities in the Midwest were due, in great part, to the record rains and flooding over the past few months that have saturated soils and left farmlands flooded. Today’s extreme heat index values over the mid-Altantic are due, in large part, to near record warm ocean temperatures off the mid-Atlantic coast. According to the UK’s HADSST2 data set, sea surface temperatures between 35° – 40°N and 75 ° – 70°W, along the coast from North Carolina to New Jersey, were 5.4°F (3.0°C) above average during June 2011. This is the warmest such temperature difference for any month in the historical record, going back to the 1800s. The most recent sea surface temperature anomaly maps from NOAA show that the July ocean temperatures have not been quite as extreme, but ocean temperatures in this region during July have averaged nearly 2°C above average, the second highest July ocean temperatures on record, behind 2010.

During the 1930s, there was a high frequency of heat waves due to high daytime temperatures resulting in large part from an extended multi-year period of intense drought. By contrast, in the past 3 to 4 decades, there has been an increasing trend in high-humidity heat waves, which are characterized by the persistence of extremely high nighttime temperatures. In particular, Gaffen and Ross (1999) found that summer nighttime moisture levels increased by 2 – 4% per decade for every region of the contiguous U.S. between 1961 – 1995. Hot and humid conditions at night for a multi-day period are highly correlated with heat stress mortality during heat waves.

Not surprisingly, the frequency, intensity, and humidity of heat waves is expected to increase dramatically in coming decades, if the forecasts of a warmer world due to global warming come true. A study presented in the U.S. Global Change Program Impacts Report, 2009, predicted that by 2080 – 2099, a heat wave that has a 1-in-20 chance of occurring in today’s climate will occur every 2 – 3 years over 95% of the contiguous U.S. (Figure 3.) I estimate that this week’s U.S. heat wave has been a 1-in-5 to 1-in-20 year event for most locations affected, so heat waves like this week’s will be a routine occurrence, nearly every year, by the end of the century. According to a study published by scientists at Stanford University last month, though, this may be too optimistic. In their press release, lead author Noah Diffenbaugh said, “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years.”

Figure 3. Simulations for 2080-2099 indicate how currently rare extremes (a 1-in-20-year event) are projected to become more commonplace. A day so hot that it is currently experienced once every 20 years would occur every other year or more frequently by the end of the century under the higher emissions scenario. Image credit: U.S. Global Change Program Impacts Report, 2009.

Arctic sea ice continues its record retreat
Sea ice in the Arctic continues to melt at the fastest pace in recorded history, as July ice extent has been averaging 5 – 10% less than the record low values set in 2007. According to the July 18 update from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the rapid decline in the past few weeks is related to persistent above-average temperatures, and an early onset of the melting season due to especially low snow cover in Europe and Asia during May and June. High pressure and clear skies have dominated in the Arctic this summer, but that pattern is changing. The latest 2-week forecast from the GFS model shows that low pressure will dominate the Arctic for the next two weeks, bringing cloudier skies and less melting. This will likely slow down the melting enough so that sea ice loss will no longer be on a record pace by the 2nd week of August.

continued here..