Global warming linked to gravity

[insert your own caption here]

Vacouver Sun/Reuters January 13, 2009

ANTARCTICA — Sea levels will rise at varying rates around the world because of a quirk of the earth’s gravity linked to global warming, a leading glaciologist said.

“Everyone thinks sea level rises the same around the world,” David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey, said on Tuesday at the Rothera Base on the Antarctic Peninsula. “But it doesn’t”.

Rises could vary by tens of centimetres from region to region if seas gained by an average of one metre by 2100 as temperatures rise, he said. Worst-affected nations would have to budget billions of dollars more than others on coastal defences.

Vaughan said big ice sheets on Antarctica and on Greenland have a gravitational pull that lifts the seas around them — water levels around Antarctica, for instance, are higher than if the frozen continent were an open ocean.

As ice thaws, Antarctica would get smaller and its gravitational tug would diminish.

Where are the Sunspots?

Sunspot activity continues to be very low to nothing at all. According to some sites that I have read, it appears that we my have gone into a second solar minimum after a recent, brief upturn in activity.

Latest image of the blank sun.

The latest prediction as of March 2009 indicates that sunspot activity will soon start to increase very shortly, but we have heard this before. Some predictions from over a year ago anticipated a solar minimum during March of 2008.

Anthropogenic Effects on Global Warming

Anthropogenic, (processes derived from human activities) effects on climate change is the topic for the next panel. William Kininmonth, a consulting climatologist with the Australian Climate Research Institute, says that anthropogenic effects on climate change are very real. But his data and evidence suggest there is nothing to worry about.

His main conclusions were that carbon affects global temperature through its increase in back radiation at the surface, but carbon dioxide is not dangerous nor are the anthropogenic effects that result in increased carbon dioxide.

Jan Veizer, professor of geology at the University of Ottawa, is talking about the relationship among climate, the water cycle, carbon dioxide and the sun. He put it best by saying (to paraphrase) that carbon dioxide is emitted from the top down and the bottom up. The top down is through solar radiance and cosmic rays that increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the bottom up is from human activity.

The big problem, however, is that the top down cause is greatly understated while the bottom up cause is greatly overstated. Like Kininmonth, Veizer draws the conclusion that CO2 is not a problem and policy implementations wouldn’t have any effect on the top down or botton up carbon emissions. Veizer also mentions that, methane is more potent than carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is more potent than water vapor but because water vapor is so dominant,( it comprises 98% of the greenhouse effect) virtually any policy to reduce carbon wouldn’t matter. Yes, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates.

Dr. Brian Valentine, general engineer in U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Rnewable Energy, is talking about the radiation caused by carbon dioxide and whether it can be resolved. The reality is that there is no direct empirical evidence that carbon dioxide has a detectable influence. Thus, EPA or Congress would be ill advised to implement a policy to regulate something we cannot successfully measure.

Skeptics Gather to Discuss Why Global Warming Isn’t Such a Big Worry

More than 600 self-professed climate skeptics are meeting in a Times Square hotel this week to challenge what has become a broad scientific and political consensus: that without big changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously heat up the planet.

The three-day International Conference on Climate Change — organized by the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit group seeking deregulation and unfettered markets — brings together political figures, conservative campaigners, scientists, an Apollo astronaut and the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.

Organizers say the discussions, which began Sunday, are intended to counter the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers, who have vowed to tackle global warming with legislation requiring cuts in the greenhouse gases that scientists have linked to rising temperatures.

But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.

The meeting participants hold a wide range of views of climate science. Some concede that humans probably contribute to global warming but they argue that the shift in temperatures poses no urgent risk. Others attribute the warming, along with cooler temperatures in recent years, to solar changes or ocean cycles.

But large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.

Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

Joseph L. Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, said that Exxon and other companies were just shifting their stance to improve their image. The Heartland meeting, he said, was the last bastion of intellectual honesty on the climate issue.

“Major corporations are painting themselves green around global warming,” Mr. Bast said, adding that the companies have shifted their lobbying and public relations efforts toward trying to shape climate legislation in their favor. He said that contributions, over all, had continued to rise.

But Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, who is attending the Heartland event, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves.”

Organizers expected to top the attendance of about 500 at the first Heartland conference, held last year. They also point to the speaker’s roster, which included Mr. Klaus and Harrison Schmitt, a geologist, Apollo astronaut and former senator.

A centerpiece of the 2008 meeting was the release of a report, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Planet.” The document was expressly designed as a challenge to the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This year, the meeting will focus on a more nuanced question: “Global warming: Was it ever a crisis?”

Most of the talks at the meeting will challenge climate orthodoxy. But some presenters, including prominent figures who have been vocal in their criticism in the past, say they will also call on their colleagues to synchronize the arguments they are using against plans to curb greenhouse gases.

In a keynote talk Sunday night, Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger, first delivered a biting attack on what he called the “climate alarm movement.”

There is no solid scientific evidence to back up the models used by climate scientists who warn of dire consequences if warming continues, he said. But Dr. Lindzen also criticized widely publicized assertions by other skeptics that variations in the sun were driving temperature changes in recent decades. To attribute short-term variation in temperatures to a single cause, whether human-generated gases or something else, is erroneous, he said.

Speaking of the sun’s slight variability, he said, “Acting as though this is the alternative” to blaming greenhouse gases “is asking for trouble.”

S. Fred Singer, a physicist often referred to by critics and supporters alike as the dean of climate contrarians, said that he would be running public and private sessions on Monday aimed at focusing participants on which skeptical arguments were supported by science and which were not.

“As a physicist, I am concerned that some skeptics (a very few) are ignoring the physical basis,” Dr. Singer said in an e-mail message.

“There is one who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which goes against actual data,” Dr. Singer said, adding that other skeptics wrongly contend that “humans are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.”

There are notable absences from the conference this year. Russell Seitz, a physicist from Cambridge, Mass., gave a talk at last year’s meeting. But Dr. Seitz, who has lambasted environmental campaigners as distorting climate science, now warns that the skeptics are in danger of doing the same thing.

The most strident advocates on either side of the global warming debate, he said, are “equally oblivious to the data they seek to discount or dramatize.”

John H. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who has long publicly questioned projections of dangerous global warming, most recently at a House committee hearing last month, said he had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for “guilt by association.”

Many participants said that any division or dissent was minor and that the global recession and a series of years with cooler temperatures would help them in combating changes in energy policy in Washington.

“The only place where this alleged climate catastrophe is happening is in the virtual world of computer models, not in the real world,” said Marc Morano, a speaker at the meeting and a spokesman on environmental issues for Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

But several climate scientists who are seeking to curb greenhouse gases strongly criticized the meeting. Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University and an author of many reports by the intergovernmental climate panel, said, after reviewing the text of presentations for the Heartland meeting, that they were efforts to “bamboozle the innocent.”

Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations office running the meetings leading to a new global climate treaty, to be signed in December in Copenhagen, said, “I don’t believe that what the skeptics say should provide any excuse to delay further” action against global warming.

But he added: “Skeptics are good. It’s important to give people the confidence that the issue is being called into question.”

Copyright 2009, New York Times

Using Rocks to Absorb CO2 from The Air

Geologists from Columbia University and the U.S. Geological Survey have mapped several large rock formations in the U.S. that could potentially absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Outcrops of ultramafic rocks.

Ultramafic rocks in the United States could be enough to stash more than 500 years of U.S. carbon dioxide production, according to lead author Sam Krevor, who is a graduate student working through the Earth Institute's Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy.

"We're trying to show that anyone within a reasonable distance of these rock formations could use this process to sequester as much carbon dioxide as possible," said Krevor.

Most of the rock formations (see the map associated with the press release) are clustered in strips along the more populated east and west coasts.

These ultramafic rocks form in the earth's mantle, between twelve and hundreds of miles under the surface.

When the rocks are exposed to carbon dioxide they react and form common limestone and chalk.

The drawback of natural mineral carbonization is its slow pace (thousands of years), but scientists are testing out new ways to speed up the process.

Lake Superior is freezing over

Lake Superior last froze over in 2003. It has now, again, frozen over. The frequency of freeze overs has historically been around once every 20 years. Now, in the last decade, we have seen two freeze overs.

The picture below is a beautiful satellite photo of Lake Superior from yesterday. With the well below freezing temperatures seen over the region Thursday night (-20 F), any isolated open water could have frozen.

The NWS in Marquette MI writes:

Due to the recent cold spell and below normal temperatures for much of the winter of 2008-2009, ice covers nearly all of Lake Superior. Only small areas of open water remain. This image was taken on Tuesday, March 3rd. If arctic air does not return in the next couple of weeks, it is likely that this will be the day of maximum ice cover on Lake Superior for this winter as warmer weather and periods of stronger winds through the end of this week will cause open water areas to expand. Click on the image to view a higher resolution satellite picture (image is large — just under 1mb).

Source:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mqt/?n=lake_superior_ice

Northern Fringes of Ice Sheet Experienced Extreme Melting

The northern fringes of Greenland's ice sheet experienced much higher the normal melting during 2008, according to NASA researchers.

The image below shows the number of days when melting occurred on the ice sheet compared to the average number of melt days (anomaly) between 1979 and 2007. The blues indicate less melt days compared to normal in 2008, while the reds indicate a higher number of melt days compared to normal.

Other highlights from the research..........

--Many locations in northern Greenland experienced a record number of melt days.

--Average temperatures across northern Greenland were as much as 3 degrees C above average between June and August of 2008.

--Nearby ground based observations were unusually high and new records were set at many stations.

--------

The above image was made with data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) on board the F13 satellite of the U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).
Here is the link to the Earth Observatory story.

What You Need To Know About The Economic Impact Of Global Warming

Many people do not really see the economic impact of global warming. For most people, global warming is just changes in the weather and melting of the polar ice caps. However, the impact of global warming does not just affect the physical world, it also affect the people, the way they live, eat and use their resources. To understand better the economic impact of global warming in our daily lives, let us look at the following points.

Higher Energy Consumption

The economic impact of global warming is far reaching and it affects our day to day activities. For instance, in many parts of the world, summers can be excruciatingly hot. Although there are many people who can stand the heat without fainting or having heat strokes, many people are not that lucky. To dispel the heat and to make their homes more comfortable, people turn up their air conditioners and leave them on for most parts of the day and night. Since these air conditioning units run on electricity, people end up paying more money for their electric bills. Higher energy bills can erode the family budget to some degree. This is but a simple illustration of how the economic impact of global warming can affect ordinary citizens like you and me.

If you take a look at the larger picture of things, you may notice how the increase in the demand for energy can affect the environment and erode the economy. Studies show that as the earth heats up, we may have to use up more energy to live comfortably. Many experts agree that the economic impact of global warming can be catastrophic if left uncheck.

Lower Farm Production

The economic impact of global warming can be seen in many farms around the world. We must understand that global warming does not just affect human beings, it affects all living things. In fact, studies show that the impact of global warming on animals can be more severe than its impact among humans. Wild animals are especially vulnerable to severe climate changes. Since these animals are left to fend for their own, they are often exposed to great danger.

On the other hand, farm animals as well as their owners also suffer much from changes in the weather. Physical growth of farm animals is often affected by severe weather changes and when this happens, farmers lose money. If this cycle continues, some farmers may end up closing their farms and move on to another business.

Why it is Difficult to Measure Global Warming in Nigeria

President of the Nigerian Institution of Surveyors(NIS), Dr Olusola Atilola has revealed why it is difficult to measure global warming in the country blaming it on the absence of a baseline to measure the effects.

In an intervirew with Daily Sun, he attributed this to the lack of mapping of the country.

According to him, if the country is mapped, the next time one could use the map to check effect the global warming is having in the country.

His words “Global warming is a phenomenon that has been on for a long time but we are just having the impact now. It is mainly caused by ozone depletion and when this happens, the temperature is increased which causes the warming. The consequence is on vegetation and on the environment. The role of surveyors in this is to ensure that the country is mapped regularly and monitor the changes from satellite imageries. From there we discover what the effects are of the global warming in Nigeria .You must have a baseline.

But as today, no body can tell us how global warming has affected Nigeria in real terms because there is no baseline. But if you have a base line that you have map the country then after two or three years you map the country again, you will see the effect probably from the encroachment of the ocean. It is on the base map that you can represent or record environmental changes and changes in terms of a forestation and so on.

“You cannot know the effect of global warming by mere looking at it. You have to continue to map the country to ensuring sustainable development. Development that takes care of the immediate without jeopardizing the future. Without knowing your environment, there is no way you can develop sustainably. We have a big role to play in global warming.”

He said that his institution is very much concerned about the development of the country, adding that the only impediment is that they are not being carrying along in the scheme of things,most especially during road construction.

According to him, in the other countries,surveying content in engineering is separated from construction projects but here in the country road contracts are given in turn key basis, thereby giving the contractor the freedom to use whoever he likes.

“My institution is concerned about the issue of the environment and development of this country. Development comes from the fact that you have to interact on road network. Our roads are bad and in the construction of roads, surveyors are not carried along. We are not empowered and enabled to make input in the development of the country. Construction of roads is a multi-disciplinary project that is many professionals come together. Surveyors have to come in first in the planning to map. During road construction surveyors come.

During maintenance we come in But the way things are any direct legal role in construction in the country. In the other countries of the world surveying content on engineering projects are separated and allowed to be executed by professionals .In the other countries you cannot just go and carry out survey for government or for legal use without involving the surveyor. The surveyor is legally empowered and allowed to determine the coordinator point of the country. Surveyors must be carried along and be allowed to carry out their profession properly .If we want good roads in this country, the professionals must be allowed to play their parts.”

On the agencies that embark on constitutency delimitations, he said “As I said before, some of this government parastatals have no right whatso ever to embark on delimitations of the country but because of the allurement of what they will get in awarding the contracts, they carry on certain acts that are not within their areas of jurisdiction.

Now the delimitation of constituency is supposed to be done in conjunction with the Office

of the Surveyor General like the local government, the delimitation of the local government ought to be done by the Office of the Surveyor General. The same thing with the delimitation of the state and if any thing is to be done at all. It must be done properly. The delimitation that they are going to do now they are going to use odometer and it will have over laps because they don’t know. There is advancement in technology now that will make surveyors to produce those maps within a very short period and when these maps are produce, it will not be used by only the agency but by the other sectors of the economy. So why can’t we do things properly.

Why are they interested in doing it haphazardly? These are the areas that we have been talking to government that government parastatals need not to waste scarce taxpayers money on things that don’t concern them. What do they know about survey for them to delineate.

How are they going to use it? How are they going to reference it?.If they are going to use odometer won’t they have overlapping whereas if it is done properly and made a national exercise under the office of the Survey General then you divide it and step it under the office of the surveyor general in the state, we will have a properly demarcated and delineated constancy that would make meaning, and would be transparent and not under the whims and caprices of those who don’t even know the terrain. I think that it is an exercise that would not yield good dividends”.

Why has the Warming nearly flatlined Recently?

The recent near flatlining of global temperature anomalies since 2001 has been talked about a lot in the comment section of this blog and elsewhere over the past 1-2 years. An atmospheric science professor from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee says that this recent flat line of temperatures does not appear to have a firm cause, unlike previous cooling events since 1950 that were influenced by strong La Nina's and volcanic eruptions.

Associate Professor Kyle Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate.

According to Swanson, global temperatures should have gone up .2 C or .36 F between 2001 and 2007, but instead the temperatures have been nearly flat.

So what could be the cause?

Swanson believes that there could be several reasons. Here are the two that were listed.....

1. Sinking water currents in the North Atlantic could be sucking heat down into the deeper depths.

2. Greater than normal amount of tropical cloudiness, which is reflecting more of the sun's energy back into space.

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

Here is the link to the Discovery News article.

The study was posted in the Geophysical Research Papers.

Coming of Age in the Holocene -A Galaxy Insight

Many of us are blissfully unaware that almost the whole of human history -from the hunters and gatherers to the rise of towns and cities, the development of science and medicine -the whole of our great human pageant- has taken place within an atypical period of fair weather.

For most of our 4.5-billion year history, the typical pattern was for the earth to be hot, sans ice anywhere. The current ice epoch started about 40 million years ago, with at least 17 serious glacial episodes in the last 2.5 million years, which coincides with the rise of homo sapiens, the rise of the Himalayas and the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, disrupting the flows of warming currents between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Before 50 million years ago the planet had no cyclical ice ages. What it did have was a pair of glacial whoppers: one about two billion years ago, followed by a billion years of warmth and another mega ice age called the Cryogenian (you get the picture!) when temperatures plunged 80 degrees Fahrenheit, creating a global Antarctica, dubbed by pundits as "Snowball Earth."

Recent analysis of ice cores from Greenland show that climate change occurs abruptly with temperature swings of up to 15 degrees over a 10-year period dramatically altering the climate rather than gradual change over hundreds of thousands of years. One thing is certain, change is on the way.

At the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference in San Francisco, climatologists described an "intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires and severe storms" as "early warning signs of yet more devastating damage to come". In Great Britain, Stephen Hawking and the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said that climate change that it posed a greater threat than , in tune with other experts who describe global warming as a "weapon of mass destruction."

Our period of unusual tranquility known as the Holocene is on the wane. If all our ice sheets melted (and melting they are-in the past 50 years the waters around the West Antarctic ice sheet have warmed 2.5 degrees centigrade) sea levels would rise two hundred feet, drowning the world's coastal cities. Yet another certainty is the complexity of climate change and all its variables from orbit fluctuations known as Milankovitch cycles, to rising carbon dioxide levels, to shifts in tectonic plates, to solar flare cycles. Some believe that global warming might actually trigger the next major ice age.

One thing is certain: it certainly has been nice to come of age in the Holocene. Original posting by Casey Kazan.

Blair urges global warming fight

pa.press.net

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said that tackling global warming during the economic downturn was important if the world was to avoid the future costs of climate change.

In an interview with CNN, Mr Blair said that in the long-term, the price of environmental and weather change would be much more than if measures to curb emissions were not implemented.

The former British leader urged US president Barack Obama to continue with "a bold, assertive line" from the beginning on global warming as he also tackled the challenges of economic crisis and security threat.

Asked if he thought Mr Obama was overreaching in the first few weeks of his administration, Mr Blair said: "It would be neat in a way to say, 'Let's deal with the global economic crisis first, then move on to the security threat and then deal with global warming'.

"I'm afraid they are all there and in the entree and that is why, no, I think on the contrary - by taking a very bold, assertive line from the beginning, I think his leadership is giving people some hope that these problems that are major and difficult - difficult challenges to meet - will be met."

Mr Blair was in Washington to attend a global symposium on the response to climate change.

Asked if it was wise to push forward with taxes and caps to reduce carbon emissions at a time of economic strife, Mr Blair said that it was not about imposing a burden, but giving people an opportunity to cut their electricity bills.

He told CNN: "We were hearing from business people, American power companies, business people, people who are there to make a profit that are also saying how by introducing energy saving devices the consumer could actually cut the amount of money it was paying on its energy bills. So there are opportunities here, as well. Yes, of course, there are big challenges, but there are opportunities.

"And if you think going forward if we don't resolve this problem and we end up with major climate change happening, it's going to impact here and it's going to impact right around the world and of course impose its own cost."

He added that during the global climate change symposium, he presented a study showing how much more the world would have to pay if it did not deal with major environmental and weather change problems.

Building Green For Stopping Global Warming

Building green is one of the solutions to global warming that many people do not think about. Building green is designing and constructing buildings with the environment in mind. Building green is these practices that can have an impact on stopping global warming.

Building green houses give off a high percentage of a country’s total carbon dioxide emissions. In the United States, the figure is about 38%. Since carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases, houses contribute strongly to global warming.

One way to cut the greenhouse emissions of houses, and therefore help stop global warming, is to minimize the energy use needed to sustain comfortable living in a house. There are several ways to do this.

What you need for building green house?

One way is to be careful about what building green materials are used. Some building green materials can be from quickly renewable sources. These include bamboo and straw. Also, building green materials can be used that originates near the site of your building green.

This building green cuts down on transportation, and so cuts down on emissions of greenhouse gases and global warming. One example is stone houses built with local stone. Building green is also often built using recycled materials. Wood can be used from an older home that has been torn down. This building green will prevent the need to cut down other trees.

Since the deforestation of the land contributes to global warming, this will help the situation. Heating and cooling have a big effect on the amount of global warming caused by a house. Some ways to help this are very simple. One is to design the building green house to sit on the lot so that sunlight will come in through the windows and warm the house.

It can also be oriented so that breezes will blow through the windows more naturally for cooling. In this way, passive solar energy can be used to heat and cool the house. This building green will cut down on the greenhouse emissions from a house. Global warming will be lessened. Insulation is important to maximize on the cool or heat that is in the house.

With good insulation, you will need a less intense heat or cooling source. The main heating and cooling source in most green houses will be solar panels, wind power, or hydropower. Any of these sources will power a house with minimal effects on global warming. At the same time, these sources of energy will sustain a household in a comfortable style.

There are several organizations in the US that aid in the cause of stopping global warming by encouraging building green. One non-profit organization makes it their business to foster green building methods in both houses and commercial buildings. This group of people from the building industry is a part of the Green Building Initiative.

The state of Washington has required builders of buildings larger than 5000 square feet to use building green practices. Their law was enacted in 2005. It should help to keep a cap on global warming.

Green building is important for a number of reasons. One just happens to be that it can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. If green building can help stop global warming, perhaps it is time for everyone to build green.

Effects of Global Warming on Health

A report of the effects of global warming on health published by WHO, has estimated around one million fifty thousand deaths every year due to global warming. Further it declared that each year five million people are suffering from health problems and diseases caused for this global warming. The rising concern over this matter has led many scientists and researchers to take a deeper look and prepare a plan to save human civilization from this onslaught.


Global warming has caused changes in temperature, ocean current flow, sea level, ecosystem, economy, agriculture, industry, settlements and related to all these – the health and living. Warmer world has created congenial atmosphere for the breeding and life expanse of various virus, bacteria and carriers of infectious diseases. Few evidences of global warming leaving negative effects on human health are –


- The vectors distribution of infectious diseases have been altered for global warming.


- Heat wave resulted for global warming are causing deaths.


- The seasonal distribution of few species of allergenic pollen have been altered for global warming.


- Various extreme conditions of global warming like droughts, heat and cold wave, storm, flood, fire will increase the death tolls as well as injuries and diseases.


- Malnutrition and disordered development of children are few long term results of global warming.


- Global warming will cause increase of malaria, diarrhea, cholera, dengue, encephalitis and other diseases.


- There will be constant rising rate of mortality due to ground level ozone related diseases as well as high cardio respiratory morbidity for global warming.


Thus global warming will affect human health in two major ways – with extreme weather condition and with rising infectious diseases. IPCC in a study of one of the most global warming affected area of Illionis, Chicago, has provided an apprehensive report that by 2020 extreme climate condition like heat wave will raise the climate average deaths to 400 and to 497 by 2050 from the present average of 191. European heat wave of 2003 is an example of its severity. Heat waves will even cause cardio respiratory complications resulting to high rate of deaths.


The results of ill health due to global warming and infectious diseases are already evident. Houston as well as many tropical countries are experiencing frequent outbreak of malaria, dengue and other encephalitis diseases. Even colder regions like Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Queens are severely suffering from malaria since 1990 as a result of global warming. McAllen of Texas also suffered a dengue epidemic in 1995. Florida, New Oreleans, Arizona, Mississippi, Texas, Colorado, and California – all are experiencing encephalitis epidemic for global warming since 1987. According to IPCC, 65% of world population will suffer from high risk of infectious diseases in near future. The risk itself will be increased by 20%, only as a result of global warming.


Facing such an impending calamity due to global warming, the requirement of proper planning and organized adaptation to new and changing condition has received a new dimension. Along with urgent and basic adaptation practices to fight the immediate effects, a longer planning and elaborate gradual methodology are also necessary to address the severity of future conditions resulted from global warming. A participatory approach to the holistic development of human health is expected to sober down the effects of global warming on health to some extent.

NOAA benefits from “spendulus”

Maybe they can buy some new thermometers and shelters:

USHCN station, St. Johns, AZ

Contact: David Miller FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

202-482-0013 Mar. 3, 2009

202-329-4030 (cell)

NOAA Receives $830 Million Through Recovery Act

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will receive $830 million in funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The agency will use the funds, equivalent to 20 percent of NOAA’s 2008 budget, for projects that protect life and property and conserve and protect natural resources.

The act provides $230 million for habitat restoration, navigation projects, vessel maintenance, and other activities. An additional $430 million will be dedicated for construction and repair of NOAA facilities, ships and equipment, improvements for weather forecasting and satellite development. A total of $170 million will also be directed for climate modeling activities, including supercomputing procurement and research into climate change.

“Whether providing grants for habitat restoration or issuing contracts for construction and repair of our facilities, these funds will create jobs while advancing our vital mission to the American people,” said Mary Glackin, deputy under secretary for oceans and atmosphere. “We will ensure that the Recovery Act funding is used as effectively as possible and in a manner that will allow for maximum transparency and accountability.”

Department of Commerce agencies receiving one-time funds through the act are required to submit a plan to Congress with specifics on how allocations will be spent within 60 days of the legislation being enacted. Once completed, NOAA’s plan will be available to the public at the Department of Commerce and NOAA Web sites. Requests and applications for funding will be accepted when instructions and rules are posted for specific projects.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to promote economic recovery and growth, and includes measures to modernize our nation’s infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

On the Web:

Recovery Act: http://www.recovery.gov

IPCC Co-Chair Updates Congressional Committee on Global Warming

Dr. Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Co-chair of working group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) briefed the Environment and Public Works Congressional Committee earlier this week on the latest global warming science.

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

Here are some of the highlights from Field's testimony. Much of it includes the earlier consensus findings of from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC.

--Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

--Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

--Very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

--Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.

--Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.

--Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

--For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

--Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.

--Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk.

--Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s.

--Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit.

--In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels.

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

You can read the full testimony from Dr. Field right here.

----------

Major funding to Dr. Field and the Carnegie Institution for Science provided by the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Vannevar Bush Society, Edwin Hubble Society and the Carnegie Founders Society.

A Sun Shield that will Stop or Reverse Global Warming

Dr. Roger Angel, an astronomer from the University of Arizona has come up with a theory that he thinks will stop, and perhaps even reverse global warming. His theory involves a massive sun shield.

The shield would cover about 100,000 square miles and be made up by trillions of mirrors that would be launched (fired) into space about one million miles above earth. The shield would form a "sun shade" that would deflect the sun's rays. The article does not say how much of the sun's rays would be deflected.

How would they get the mirrors launched that far out into space?

They would use a huge (and I mean huge!!) cannon, which would pack 100 times the power of conventional weapons. The barrel of this cannon would need to be over a half mile (.6 miles) in diameter! I can't imagine the amount of noise and ground shaking this thing would produce.

The cannon would need to be fired at least a million times.

If the project can get going in the near future, it could be ready to launch in 20 or 30 years. If successful, the mirrors could last 50 years before being replaced.

Angel says that the cost of the project would be about 350 trillion dollars!

So far, Dr. Angel has secured NASA funding for a pilot project.

Researchers at the University of Victoria, Canada are currently testing the sun shield theory by using computer simulations. You can watch more about the testing of this theory on the embedded video segment by DiscoveryChannel UK, which is next to the Telegraph article.

Hansen’s Coal and Global Warming protest may get snowed out

Many WUWT readers have heard about this:

Here is my IntelliWeather Monday and hour by hour forecast for Washington, DC.

WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT UNTIL 2 PM EST MONDAY
Includes the Counties: District Of Columbia, Arlington/Falls Church/Alexandria

Includes the cities: Washington, Alexandria, Falls Church

Tonight…Snow. Snow accumulation of 4 to 8 inches. Brisk with lows in the lower 20s. North winds 20 to 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph. Chance of snow near 100 percent.

Monday…Cloudy. Snow likely in the morning…Then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Additional snow accumulation around an inch. Total snow accumulation 7 to 8 inches. Brisk with highs in the mid 20s. Northwest winds 20 to 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph. Chance of snow 70 percent.

Hour by Hour, as of 4:30PM EST Sunday. Click for full sized image

By the time Partly Cloudy skies appear about 3PM Monday, there will be about 4-8″ of snow on the ground in DC.

Plus, in New York City, where Jim Hansen would likely depart from, they also have a Winter Storm Warning in effect to 6PM Monday with forecast of:

WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 PM EST MONDAY
Includes the Counties: Hudson, New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Richmond (Staten Island), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens Tonight…Snow developing this evening…Heavy at Times. Snow accumulation of 6 to 10 inches. Windy with lows in the mid 20s. North winds 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph. Chance of snow near 100 percent.

Monday…Snow in the morning…Then snow likely in the afternoon. Snow May be heavy at Times in the morning. Total snow accumulation of 8 to 12 inches. Windy. Near steady temperature in the mid 20s. North winds 20 to 30 mph. Chance of snow near 100 percent.

If Hansen hasn’t left NYC already, I’d say it is doubtful he’ll even make the protest given it is a Monday, and Monday’s are usually pretty bad commutes even without bad weather. Looks like it is going to be a…

More on the DC weather story form Justin Berk, Baltimore Weather Examiner

I interrupt the snowstorm updates to bring you this pressing issue. Monday, March 2nd 2009 is the date for a scheduled protest by Capitol Climate Action (CCA).

Heavy snow expected at the Nation’s Capitol on Monday

Their website labels it:

Mass civil disobedience at the coal fired power plant in Washington, DC

CCA claims this will be the largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in US history. There is actually a request to wear dress clothes. That seems odd. Is this a target to get young Americans in a vogue protest?

My forecast from this morning can be found here (I will have a new update by this evening). If you go just by the NWS forecast, then snow will range between 5-10 inches with wind gusts over 30 mph. The snowstorm forecast is ironic not only because it falls on the date of this protest, but also because it is a late season event. The normal high for the date in Washington, DC is 51F. What would be worse: Keep the protest on in the snowstorm, or cancel it because of the snowstorm?

The infamous Dr. James Hansen should be there leading the charge. My post last week about 2008 being the coldest year this decade included a reference to Hansen. I wrote, “This is the same man who turned off the air conditioning in the Capitol while speaking about Global Warming on a hot day in 1988.” I also mentioned his exposure of bad data for Russia just this past October. He used September data (a statistically warmer month) in place of cooler October data. This skewed the temperatures upward.

I don’t knock him for his extreme beliefs, but I do disagree with the questionable tactics he uses to get his message across. According to Fox News , he is in hot water since he works for NASA, yet is helping to organize a protest.

It seems like the Climate Crew has had some trouble getting their messages across. It’s almost as if mixed signals are coordinated by nature itself. Marc Marano, Communications Director for the GOP on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) sent out a list of events that seem to follow the Gore Effect. This was labeled by Politico.com as:

The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather.

Check out this list courtesy of Marc Marano:

Note: The “Gore Effect” has a long and storied history. What follows is a sampling of how Mother Nature enjoys mocking global warming fear promoters.

1) First October snow since 1922 blankets London as global warming bill debated – October 2008

2) Global Warming Vote on Snowy Day in Washington - Senate committee debates expensive climate change bill snow blanket D.C. – December 2007

3) HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM – February 2007

4) NOT AGAIN! DC ‘Snow Advisory’ Issued on Day of Congressional Global Warming Hearing – March 2007

5) Gore decries ‘global warming’ in bitterly cold NYC – December 2006

6) Gore delivers environmental message at Harvard - …with near 125-year record breaking low temps – October 2008

7) Global warming activists urged to focus on Earth Day rallies and ignore snow as it ‘piles up outside our windows’ – April 17, 2007

8) No Joke! Cyclists ‘braved freezing cold temps’ to promote global warming awareness in New York - October 22, 2008

9) Global warming protest in Maryland frosted with snow – January 2008

10) Global warming rally in the snow – April 2007

11) Snow won’t dampen global-warming rallies – April 2007

12) Brrr. - Obama to global warming demonstrators: ‘This is probably not the weather to hold up those signs…it’s a little chilly today’ - October 28, 2008

13) Global Warming Awareness Walk Braves Snow Storm – March 2007

14) The Gore Effect, Cont. - Gore speaks in Italy during ‘rare’ cold and snow

15) Tracking ‘The Gore Effect’ – Politico November 26,6, 2008

16) Climate protest cancelled ‘due to rain and cold’ – Nov. 23, 2008