Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Report: Global warming to blame for bigger, more frequent rainstorms - Whittier Daily News

Opposing view: Natural cycles trigger extremes in weather - USA TODAY

The argument that global warming is causing more extreme weather is problematic because it presumes the globe is warming.

  • As bad as the current drought is, the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s remains the worst. At its height in July 1934, almost 80% of the nation was enduring drought conditions, compared with about 55% today.

    AP

    As bad as the current drought is, the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s remains the worst. At its height in July 1934, almost 80% of the nation was enduring drought conditions, compared with about 55% today.

AP

As bad as the current drought is, the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s remains the worst. At its height in July 1934, almost 80% of the nation was enduring drought conditions, compared with about 55% today.

Sponsored Links

In fact, the global temperature trend line has been stable for more than a dozen years, while carbon dioxide has increased 7%. If CO2 was the driver, then why have global temperatures stopped increasing?

Keep in mind that CO2 represents 0.0395% of the Earth's atmosphere. Arguing that CO2 is driving the small temperature variations in our climate as opposed to the oceans, which cover 70% of the planet and have 1,000 times the heat capacity of air, or the output of our sun, is scientifically disturbing.

Weather is more publicized nowadays because of its impact on society and the constant push of the global warming agenda. Increases in population result in more people being in the path of Mother Nature's fury.

Global warming activists attribute every major weather event to man because they are either uninformed about history, or choose to ignore it. The latest claims resulting from this series of hot and dry summers ignores the fact that more state heat records were set in the 1930s than all other decades of the last century combined. Anyone remember the Dust Bowl?

Seven major hurricanes hit the East Coast from 1954 to 1960. Now that we are in a pattern similar to the 1950s, the East Coast is vulnerable once again, and attributing events like Hurricane Irene to global warming is incorrect.

USATODAY OPINION

About Editorials/Debate

Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.

Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view â€" a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.

All the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for our climate have proved to be wrong. Global temperatures have stopped increasing and are nowhere near estimates made a decade ago. The IPCC incorrectly predicted Arctic sea ice would disappear by now.

After Katrina in 2005, more and stronger hurricanes were forecast to be the future. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index for the globe has instead declined to the lowest level in 30 years.

This does not mean we will not see warm weather and land-falling hurricanes. We are in a pattern similar to the 1950s when U.S. heat and drought as well as East Coast land-falling hurricanes were quite prevalent.

The real facts about man-made global warming can be found at real-science.com, wattsupwiththat.com and climatedepot.com. Perhaps when the Atlantic flips cold, we will be hearing Ice Age scares again as we did in the 1970s.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
USA TODAY is now using Facebook Comments on our stories and blog posts to provide an enhanced user experience. To post a comment, log into Facebook and then "Add" your comment. To report spam or abuse, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find out more, read the FAQ and Conversation Guidelines. 

New News on Extreme Weather and Global Warming, This Game is Getting Old - Natural Resources Defense Council (blog)

You’re familiar with the game Connect the Dots; there’s a pattern of dots on a page and you draw a line linking each dot with the next and when you’re done you can clearly see the picture the pattern formed.

My seven year-old did this a few years back when he was in nursery school.  The first patterns he tried had the dots very close together so it was easier to connect them.

Well, we're seeing more and more dots connecting carbon pollution and extreme weather. The latest dots: Environment America today released a new comprehensive analysis of more than 80 million daily precipitation records from across the United States which found that intense rain and snowstorms have become more frequent and severe. And NRDC went live with our new website on extreme weather, This is What Global Warming Looks Like. More on that one further down. (See also my colleague Dan Lashof and his latest blog).

We already have more than enough dots to connect extreme weather, climate change and the amount of carbon pollution we’re dumping into the atmosphere. We need to act now to cut this dangerous pollution. The good news is that it can be done. The Obama Administration’s new clean car standards  will cut pollution in half, and the Environmental Protection Agency has issued new health safeguards that will also reduce global warming pollution. More solutions exist to cut this pollution and protect our health, but unless we put more of them in place right away, the extreme weather we are seeing this year will become the new normal.

According to the new Environment America study, When It Rains It Pours: Global Warming and Increase in Extreme Precipitation Between 1948 and 2011, extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often than they did on average in 1948.

That means large rain or snowstorms that used to happen once a year are now happening every nine months, on average. Why, because the air is warmer than it used to beâ€"thanks to the global warming pollution that vehicles, power plants and factories have been pumping outâ€"and warmer air holds more moisture. The moisture gets there mostly because when it’s hotter more water evaporates into the air. 

The average temperature in the United States has increased by 2° F over the last 50 years. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. In the last year, almost every state has seen at least one devastating storm, and these will be getting more frequent and more intense due to a warming climate. (More from NOAA here)

One of the Environment America report’s authors, Nathan Wilcox noted in the press release:

As the old saying goes, when it rains, it pours â€" especially in recent years as bigger storms have hit us more often. We need to heed scientists’ warnings that this dangerous trend is linked to global warming, and do everything we can to cut carbon pollution today.

The study goes on to point out the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions of the country experienced the largest increases in the frequency of extreme precipitation, seeing increases of 85 percent and 55 percent respectively.  That means that heavy downpours or snowstorms that happened once every 12 months on average in 1948 in New England now happen every six and a half months, on average. 

Next dot: today NRDC launched an extreme weather website.

There are sections for different impacts. These include and contain:

HEALTH

-A searchable map (by state and zip code) that shows specific health-related problems resulting from climate change.

-Details on "killer heat" - heat-related deaths - in the 40 biggest cities in the United States, and how some cities are adapting to this new normal.

-Links to reports showing how heat-related deaths are rising at alarming rates.

WEATHER DISASTERS

-A searchable map of extreme weather disasters across the United States last year.

-Links to statistics showing how the first six months of this year were the hottest six months ever recorded, and how 13 of the hottest years ever occurred in the past 15 years.

-How some states are taking steps to address the effects of climate change-related weather disasters - and how many more still need to act.

DROUGHT

-A searchable drought vulnerability map showing how dry conditions affected states and communities across the country from 2000-2009

-Links to statistics showing how more than 80 percent of the United States is currently in extreme dry or drought conditions.

-How one-third of all counties in the Lower 48 states (1,100 counties) face higher risks of drought by mid-century because of climate change, and how some are adapting.

FLOODING

-A  searchable flood vulnerability map that shows flood conditions in states and communities from 2000-2009.

-How climate change could impact stormwater controls and water supplies in 12 major U.S. cities, and how some are preparing and others are not.

-Links to studies showing how the frequency of major rains in the Midwest have more than doubled in the past 50 years.

The dots already paint a picture that is way too clear. It’s time to call on our leaders to act.

Should Accountability for Global Warming Be Linked to Crimes Against Humanity? - Huffington Post (blog)

We define as having criminal intent any person who calculates that there is a definite possibility their actions will result in harm to others. Equally, we define as criminally negligent anyone who is aware that an individual is likely to harm others but who ignores the situation. In the not-too-distant future will politicians who intentionally ignore global climate change, or who obstruct action to implement conscientious policies to prevent deterioration of climate conditions, be deemed criminally negligent? The scale of death and destruction resulting from global warming may potentially exceed losses due to genocides and world wars. We need discussion of legal and moral accountability for gross negligence when it comes to destruction at this level.

Given the tools at our disposal to measure the adverse climate impact of human behavior and the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the causes of global warming any conscious choice to deny it and refuse to take action must be considered extremely risky behavior and, I believe, criminal negligence.

As record-breaking floods, fires, and drought affect more regions of the world, the risk of not just more loss of life but massive and sustained loss of life becomes statistically inevitable. How any one of us responds to the risk of harm to others defines whether we are morally clear or morally clouded. Here is a simple analogy about our moral and legal responsibility for taking risks:

You take little Jenny to school and you are met by the principal who says his electrician tells him the school's electrical wiring is old and faulty and there is significant chance it will overheat in places and cause a fire. The principal, who has no expertise in inspecting wiring, says the electrician doesn't know what he is talking about. Any school official or parent who knowingly sent their child into that school would be held criminally negligent if it caught fire.
The same is true for climate change; we have to make morally coherent choices based on the information currently available to us if we don't want to be held accountable as accessories to what may be the crime of the century.

The Pentagon, acting in a responsible way, has done its own scenario planning for very large-scale social and political chaos arising from climate change disruptions. The military knows you pay attention to risk. But our government and so many others have drifted into an immoral paralysis on this issue.

I write and teach about human rights and global peacebuilding and it's very clear when governments are responsible for crimes against humanity. It is becoming increasingly clear that climate disruptions are going to increase global conflicts over resources, food and water, and create climate refugees. Global warming will destroy any chances of global peace. In international law we have established an international criminal court and war crimes tribunals to try those found guilty of crimes against humanity. But who will be held accountable for inaction on global warming and how will they be brought to justice?

Follow James O'Dea on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesodea

Green group says recent storms sign of global warming - Baltimore Sun (blog)

The "derecho" that blacked out much of Maryland several weeks ago,'' back-to-back tropical storms last summer and "snowmaggeddon" two winters ago weren't just fluke weather events, according to a new report by Environment Maryland.  They're part of a growing trend of extreme weather events that climate experts have predicted will come with the planet's gradual warming.

Drawing on information from the National Climatic Data Center, the environmental group says heavy downpours and snowstorms in the region have increased in frequency 55 percent since 1948.  Where there used to be at least one heavy rain or snow every 12 months, on average, they're now hitting every 7.7 months, the group says.

The trend in Maryland isn't quite as clear. The increase in storm frequency  wasn't statistically significant, the group found, but there's been a 14 percent increase in the amount of precipitation dumped with the worst storms to hit the state.  Across the mid-Atlantic, the increase in storm severity was 23 percent, while nationwide there's been a 10 percent increase.

"Global warming is happening," Environment Maryland director Tommy Landers said at a Fells Point press conference to release the group's report, "When It Rains, It Pours." He noted that the past year - from July 2011 through June 2012 -had been the warmest on average across the contiguous United States since the 1890s, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Climate scientists  predict extreme storms are likely to become more frequent and severe in many areas of the world as the planet warms.  That's because warm temperatures cause more water to evaporate, so more moisture is in the air ready to fall when it rains, explained Ben Zaitchik, assistant professor of earth and planetary sciences at Johns Hopkins University.

"We're going to see more powerful storms," he said, but also more droughts like the one now gripping much of the country, especially intensely in the Midwest.

Droughts go hand in hand with more severe storms, Landers and Zaitchik said.  Much of the rain in cloudbursts runs off rather than soaks into the ground, and warmer temperatures dry out the soil faster between storms.

With scientists predicting more and more severe storms, Landers contended that local, state and federal leaders should be working now to limit warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  They should also be helping communities adapt to the unavoidable impacts of warming already under way, he said.

State Sen. James C. Rosapepe joined in the report's release to repeat his criticism of Pepco and Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. for not being more prepared for the "derecho" that swept across the mid-Atlantic at the end of June. The storm knocked out power in the Washington suburbs and in the Baltimore area, with some neighborhoods suffering without lights or air conditioning for more than a week. 

The Prince George's Democrat said the state's utilities shouldn't have been surprised by the storm given the trends, he said, and should be pressed to take steps now to avert extensive blackouts from future storms.  Burying significant portions of the grid, though costly, could reduce the costs and disruptions of future outages, he argued.

Rosapepe is calling on the Public Service Commission to levy heavy fines against the two utilities for not being more prepared.  The companies "need incentives to modernize for a climate-changed world," he argued.

Maryland legislators have passed a law requiring the state to reduce climate-altering emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. But Congress balked a few years ago at passing nationwide limits, and little action is likely anytime soon, with skeptical Republicans in charge of the House, according to Rep. John P. Sarbanes, D-Md,  who also came to the press conference.  Sarbanes praised the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency for acting to regulate carbon dioxide in the absence of any imminent prospects for congressional action.

Senator Bernie Sanders: Climate Change Is Real, Senator Inhofe Is 'Dead ... - Huffington Post

In a speech to the Senate on Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) addressed what he calls the "major environmental crisis of our time," and took aim at the "myths" of Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Ok.) and other legislators who ignore or actively deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

"The bottom line," Sanders said, "is that when Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, he is just dead wrong, according to the vast majority of climate scientists."

Sanders also expressed his concern that Inhofe's outsider view on climate change also influences his Republican colleagues. “For better or worse, when Sen. Inhofe speaks, the Republican Party follows," Sanders claimed. "And when the Republican Party follows, it is impossible to get real work done in the Congress." Inhofe is currently the most senior Republican on the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works.

According to the Burlington Free Press, Senator Inhofe has said, "It has become something of a religion to say that the world is coming to an end. The world is not coming to an end. We're going through a cycle. We've had these cycles before. It gets colder and warmer and colder and warmer. God is still up there."

Inhofe, who has represented Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate since 1994, is known for receiving significant campaign contributions from oil, gas and electric utility companies. Between 2007 and 2012 Inhofe received just over $500,00 from oil and gas companies -- including $44,600 from Koch Industries -- and nearly $200,000 from electric utilities, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Richard Muller, a University of California, Berkeley professor known for his Charles G. Koch-backed Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project and skepticism toward climate change's human origin, recently penned an op-ed for The New York Times entitled "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic." Following an "intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists," he wrote, Muller now accepts that climate change is "real" and "humans are almost entirely the cause."

Despite decisive acknowledgment from the world's premier scientific academies that climate change is in fact happening, Inhofe remains resolute. Earlier this year, he authored a book entitled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future," which was published by the conservative news site WorldNetDaily. In a review which says Inhofe "claims he is winning in his fight to debunk global warming," American Geophysical Union member and retired chemistry professor J.C. Moore, says "Inhofe's greatest adversary is nature itself."

While promoting his book in March, Inhofe denied the possibility of human-induced climate change, saying on a Christian radio program, "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Author and environmentalist Bill McKibben recently wrote for Rolling Stone, "When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math."

Also on HuffPost:

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Meteorologist: Global Warming Not As Bad As Advertised - Atlanta Black Star

While environmentalists continue to monitor the symptoms of global warming, skeptics have turned their eyes towards the way weather data is recorded. While there’s not disagreement left about the global climate getting warmer, the accuracy of the weather stations comprising the U.S. Historical Climatology Network has come into question. The network has been in place for 120 years, and as former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts reports, the poor position of some of the oldest stations could be the source of inaccurate data.

“The best stations get adjusted up to the level of the worst stations,” Watts told FoxNews.com. “It’s like making a temperature smoothie. You put all these different fruits in to represent different qualities of stations and you run it through a blender and you get a milk shake.”

Watts’ analogy refers to the balancing of readings, creating an average using numbers that may be inaccurate from poorly sited stations. Factors that lead to poor readings can be linked to “encroaching urbanity,” as sites that are located near airports, air conditioner exhausts, asphalt are directly influenced by their surroundings. Conducting a survey of what he believed to be the “well-sited” stations, Watts’ analysis showed the planet warming at just 0.155 degrees Celsius per decade, almost half of the 0.309 figure released by the government.

“I believe global warming is real. No doubt about it. Not a bit of doubt,” Watts said. “However, I don’t think it’s catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.”

Firm believers in the acceleration of global warming have come to their own findings, however. Richard Muller, a professor at University of California-Berkeley, who used to be one of the world’s most prominent climate-change deniers, released his own study over the weekend, with results that completely contradicted Watts. After analyzing 250 year of temperature records, Muller found that the temperature had increased by around 1.5 degrees Celsius over that time span and about 0.9 degrees in the last 50 years. He went on to blame the actions of man for the steep increase.

“Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real,” Muller announced via an op-ed in the New York Times. “Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

Neither Watts’ nor Muller’s have undergone peer review since their release, but neither of them denies the presence of global warming. Regardless of the rate of temperature increase, further studies will be necessary to determine how human impact on the environment can be reduced.

Report: Global warming to blame for bigger, more frequent rainstorms - Daily Democrat

Click photo to enlarge

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

The size of rainstorms hitting Los Angeles has been getting bigger over the past 60 years, according to a new report released today by the Environment California Research and Policy Center.

The environmental advocacy group measured rainfall in the Los Angeles metro area since 1948 and found that a storm large enough to occur only once a year decades ago is now happening every 8.8 months.

Similar trends were seen throughout much of California and nationwide. Overall, California experienced a 13 percent increase in extreme rainstorms and snowstorms between 1948 and 2011, one of 43 states to see statistically significant increases.

The report "When It Rains, It Pours" attributed the nationwide rise in extreme storms

to global warming, although some experts are still hesitant to link climate change to relatively short-term weather patterns. It's also unclear what an increase in extreme storms means for Los Angeles' water supply.

Travis Madsen, one of the report's lead authors and a policy analyst at the Frontier Group, an environmental think tank, called extreme rainfall frequency "one of the clearest ways in which we can see the impact of the change in climate."

He said that while attributing extreme rainfall to global warming "sounds counterintuitive," higher temperatures cause more evaporation and allow the atmosphere to store more water vapor, leading to bigger storms.

Over the last few years, scientists have increasingly

attributed extreme weather events to global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading climate scientists from around the world, released a report in November saying that global warming will cause stronger storms, harsher droughts and heavier rainfall.

"It's a significant trend, and it's the kind of thing that we can expect more of in the future if we continue to emit lots of global warming pollution," Madsen said.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca&ntildeada Flintridge, called the report a comprehensive study that correctly identifies an increase in extreme storms in California.

But Patzert questioned whether that trend has been caused by global warming.

Data for Los Angeles and Sacramento going back to 1878, Patzert said, shows that the overall amount of rainfall in California has stayed roughly flat. To look for global warming trends, he said, "you need a much longer record."

"If you only use 50 years of data, which they did, they're right. The rainfall is increasing, both in LA and Sacramento," he said. "But that's because from 1948 to 1975, it was generally dry in California, and the `80s and `90s were generally wet. And that had nothing to do with global warming."

Blaming extreme weather events on global warming, Patzert added, is a "huge stretch that's definitely leapfrogging good science."

"Does my intuition tell me that's going to be a preview of coming attractions? Yes it does," Patzert said. "But is the science airtight at this point? I don't think so."

Regardless of what's driving the increase in extreme storms, the trend could have serious consequences for Los Angeles' water supply and economy.

Madsen noted that strong storms can damage infrastructure and cause landslides and flooding, adding that rainwater from extreme storms is harder to

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

capture.

But David Pettijohn, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's manager of water resources, noted the increased rainfall could also benefit Los Angeles. The city has invested in more efficient stormwater capture, and more rain will help recharge groundwater supplies in the San Fernando Valley, he said.

This strategy and others "will reduce L.A.'s reliance on more expensive imported water and protect our customers from higher costs in the future," Pettijohn said in a statement.

The report did not identify a specific number of inches of precipitation defining an extreme rain event, but characterized it as among the largest storms since 1948 for any given weather station.

The report found that overall rainfall in California regions south of the Bay Area increased by 11 percent since 1948.

Additionally, the report found that the most extreme storms each year have been getting bigger, with the largest annual storm, in California regions south of the Bay Area, increasing by 7 percent since 1948. Madsen said there was not enough data to determine whether that trend has been seen in Los Angeles specifically.

sammy.roth@dailynews.com

818-713-3719

Global Warming Has Opened A Huge Mining Opportunity In Greenland - Business Insider

Europe is looking to open a new frontier in the ever more urgent quest for new natural resources â€" the pristine icy wastes of Greenland.

Oil and gas have been the focus of exploitation so far â€" but the EU sees just as much potential in a massive opening up of mining operations across the world's biggest island, according to Antonio Tajani, the European commission's vice-president and one of the most powerful politicians in the union. He called the move "raw material diplomacy".

Latest satellite data reveal that 97% of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet underwent surface melting over four exceptionally warm days in July, indicating natural resources will become more available for extraction in the coming decades.

The potential gold rush is being welcomed by some in Greenland, but has raised fears of environmental damage, pollution and despoliation across the Arctic that could destroy one of the world's last wildernesses.

Tajani said: "Greenland is hugely important in terms of natural resources, it has vast opportunities. We are currently working very hard with the prime minister of Greenland on this â€" we are working on our own agreement with Greenland on raw materials."

He said: "This is raw material diplomacy. We have allies working on this worldwide."

Greenland's government is keen to exploit the island's natural wealth in order to alleviate some of the serious poverty and social problems that blight the indigenous population.

Henrik Stendal, of the Greenland government's mineral extraction department, told the Guardian: "The government would like to have another source of income â€" currently there is just fishing, and a little from tourism, so this is a big opportunity for us. These explorations can be done sensitively, we believe."

Only one company is currently operating a productive mine in Greenland, producing gold. But at least five are in the advanced stages of setting up new mines, and more than 120 sites are being explored. Greenland is thought to contain vast mineral wealth, including rare earth metals, gemstones and iron ore.

As competition from developing world pushes up price of energy, metals, minerals and other raw materials, finding new sources of supply is at a premium â€" putting densely populated Europe at a disadvantage, with little opportunity to expand its oil and gas supplies or mining operations.

But Greenland â€" with strong historical ties to the EU through Denmark, though the island now has home rule â€" represents a vast and largely untapped resource. Drilling for oil in Greenland's waters is now at the exploratory stage, having been impractical until recent advances in deep sea drilling. Mining has also been all but impossible across most of the country, which is covered in a 150m thick sheet of ice except for a few coastal strips, but melting ice and new techniques are likely to bring more of the region's potential mineral resources within reach in the coming years.

But Europe may face competition. China is already ahead; one of the most advanced metals mining projects in Greenland is nominally owned by London Mining, a UK company, but most of the finance and direction comes from China. Other countries are also eyeing the prize â€" although Greenland's historical ties are mainly with Europe, it is geographically close to the US and Canada.

Tajani's aggressive push into the Arctic puts him on a potential collision course with Greenpeace, the global environmental pressure group. Greenpeace recently opened up a new campaign focusing on the threats to the Arctic â€" one of the last places on earth where the industrial revolution and exploitation of natural resources have yet to penetrate. As part of the campaign they closed 74 UK Shell petrol stations in protest at the company's moves to drill for oil in the Arctic.

Jon Burgwald, an Arctic expert at Greenpeace, said that mining operations can bring pollution and destruction: "There could be some very harsh environmental consequences."

Mikkel Myrup, chair of the Greenlandic environmental campaigning group Akavaq, said that dealing with waste and "tailings" from the mines would be a key concern, as well as handling the toxic chemicals that are used in some forms of mining. "Mining does not have the same risks as oil drilling, but mining can be very hazardous to the environment. It's a real worry, and we don't think that the Greenlandic government has the capabilities to regulate this in the way that's needed â€" they can't stand up to these multinational companies. The public haven't been given the full picture," he said from his office in Nuuk, Greenland's only town of any size, with 15,000 inhabitants.

Burgwald also warned of the potential social consequences. "What happens when you have [scores of] Chinese workers living next to a small town of indigenous people?"

Greenpeace has already succeeded in delaying attempts by Cairn Energy to establish oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic seas. Activists have more such protests in their sights. Burgwald said that if there was damage or prospective damage from mines in Greenland, they too would attract similar actions. "We would certainly oppose it if it wasn't being done right."

He did not rule out mining in Greenland altogether, if done in a sustainable manner, but said that current plans were unclear and Greenland's government would need substantial help in order to set up the right standards that would avoid the dangerous consequences. There was little sign of such help being forthcoming yet, he said.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Report: Global warming to blame for bigger, more frequent rainstorms - Contra Costa Times

Click photo to enlarge

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

The size of rainstorms hitting Los Angeles has been getting bigger over the past 60 years, according to a new report released today by the Environment California Research and Policy Center.

The environmental advocacy group measured rainfall in the Los Angeles metro area since 1948 and found that a storm large enough to occur only once a year decades ago is now happening every 8.8 months.

Similar trends were seen throughout much of California and nationwide. Overall, California experienced a 13 percent increase in extreme rainstorms and snowstorms between 1948 and 2011, one of 43 states to see statistically significant increases.

The report "When It Rains, It Pours" attributed the nationwide rise in extreme storms

to global warming, although some experts are still hesitant to link climate change to relatively short-term weather patterns. It's also unclear what an increase in extreme storms means for Los Angeles' water supply.

Travis Madsen, one of the report's lead authors and a policy analyst at the Frontier Group, an environmental think tank, called extreme rainfall frequency "one of the clearest ways in which we can see the impact of the change in climate."

He said that while attributing extreme rainfall to global warming "sounds counterintuitive," higher temperatures cause more evaporation and allow the atmosphere to store more water vapor, leading to bigger storms.

Over the last few years, scientists have increasingly

attributed extreme weather events to global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading climate scientists from around the world, released a report in November saying that global warming will cause stronger storms, harsher droughts and heavier rainfall.

"It's a significant trend, and it's the kind of thing that we can expect more of in the future if we continue to emit lots of global warming pollution," Madsen said.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca&ntildeada Flintridge, called the report a comprehensive study that correctly identifies an increase in extreme storms in California.

But Patzert questioned whether that trend has been caused by global warming.

Data for Los Angeles and Sacramento going back to 1878, Patzert said, shows that the overall amount of rainfall in California has stayed roughly flat. To look for global warming trends, he said, "you need a much longer record."

"If you only use 50 years of data, which they did, they're right. The rainfall is increasing, both in LA and Sacramento," he said. "But that's because from 1948 to 1975, it was generally dry in California, and the `80s and `90s were generally wet. And that had nothing to do with global warming."

Blaming extreme weather events on global warming, Patzert added, is a "huge stretch that's definitely leapfrogging good science."

"Does my intuition tell me that's going to be a preview of coming attractions? Yes it does," Patzert said. "But is the science airtight at this point? I don't think so."

Regardless of what's driving the increase in extreme storms, the trend could have serious consequences for Los Angeles' water supply and economy.

Madsen noted that strong storms can damage infrastructure and cause landslides and flooding, adding that rainwater from extreme storms is harder to

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

capture.

But David Pettijohn, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's manager of water resources, noted the increased rainfall could also benefit Los Angeles. The city has invested in more efficient stormwater capture, and more rain will help recharge groundwater supplies in the San Fernando Valley, he said.

This strategy and others "will reduce L.A.'s reliance on more expensive imported water and protect our customers from higher costs in the future," Pettijohn said in a statement.

The report did not identify a specific number of inches of precipitation defining an extreme rain event, but characterized it as among the largest storms since 1948 for any given weather station.

The report found that overall rainfall in California regions south of the Bay Area increased by 11 percent since 1948.

Additionally, the report found that the most extreme storms each year have been getting bigger, with the largest annual storm, in California regions south of the Bay Area, increasing by 7 percent since 1948. Madsen said there was not enough data to determine whether that trend has been seen in Los Angeles specifically.

sammy.roth@dailynews.com

818-713-3719

Report: Global warming to blame for bigger, more frequent rainstorms - Los Angeles Daily News

Click photo to enlarge

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

The size of rainstorms hitting Los Angeles has been getting bigger over the past 60 years, according to a new report released today by the Environment California Research and Policy Center.

The environmental advocacy group measured rainfall in the Los Angeles metro area since 1948 and found that a storm large enough to occur only once a year decades ago is now happening every 8.8 months.

Similar trends were seen throughout much of California and nationwide. Overall, California experienced a 13 percent increase in extreme rainstorms and snowstorms between 1948 and 2011, one of 43 states to see statistically significant increases.

The report "When It Rains, It Pours" attributed the nationwide rise in extreme storms

to global warming, although some experts are still hesitant to link climate change to relatively short-term weather patterns. It's also unclear what an increase in extreme storms means for Los Angeles' water supply.

Travis Madsen, one of the report's lead authors and a policy analyst at the Frontier Group, an environmental think tank, called extreme rainfall frequency "one of the clearest ways in which we can see the impact of the change in climate."

He said that while attributing extreme rainfall to global warming "sounds counterintuitive," higher temperatures cause more evaporation and allow the atmosphere to store more water vapor, leading to bigger storms.

Over the last few years, scientists have increasingly

attributed extreme weather events to global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading climate scientists from around the world, released a report in November saying that global warming will cause stronger storms, harsher droughts and heavier rainfall.

"It's a significant trend, and it's the kind of thing that we can expect more of in the future if we continue to emit lots of global warming pollution," Madsen said.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca&ntildeada Flintridge, called the report a comprehensive study that correctly identifies an increase in extreme storms in California.

But Patzert questioned whether that trend has been caused by global warming.

Data for Los Angeles and Sacramento going back to 1878, Patzert said, shows that the overall amount of rainfall in California has stayed roughly flat. To look for global warming trends, he said, "you need a much longer record."

"If you only use 50 years of data, which they did, they're right. The rainfall is increasing, both in LA and Sacramento," he said. "But that's because from 1948 to 1975, it was generally dry in California, and the `80s and `90s were generally wet. And that had nothing to do with global warming."

Blaming extreme weather events on global warming, Patzert added, is a "huge stretch that's definitely leapfrogging good science."

"Does my intuition tell me that's going to be a preview of coming attractions? Yes it does," Patzert said. "But is the science airtight at this point? I don't think so."

Regardless of what's driving the increase in extreme storms, the trend could have serious consequences for Los Angeles' water supply and economy.

Madsen noted that strong storms can damage infrastructure and cause landslides and flooding, adding that rainwater from extreme storms is harder to

Lightning strikes the Needles California area early this morning as monsoon moisture invades the Mojave deserts areas. July 30,2012. Photo by Gene Blevins/LA Daily News

capture.

But David Pettijohn, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's manager of water resources, noted the increased rainfall could also benefit Los Angeles. The city has invested in more efficient stormwater capture, and more rain will help recharge groundwater supplies in the San Fernando Valley, he said.

This strategy and others "will reduce L.A.'s reliance on more expensive imported water and protect our customers from higher costs in the future," Pettijohn said in a statement.

The report did not identify a specific number of inches of precipitation defining an extreme rain event, but characterized it as among the largest storms since 1948 for any given weather station.

The report found that overall rainfall in California regions south of the Bay Area increased by 11 percent since 1948.

Additionally, the report found that the most extreme storms each year have been getting bigger, with the largest annual storm, in California regions south of the Bay Area, increasing by 7 percent since 1948. Madsen said there was not enough data to determine whether that trend has been seen in Los Angeles specifically.

sammy.roth@dailynews.com

818-713-3719

Monday, July 30, 2012

UC climate-change skeptic changes views - San Francisco Chronicle

The hot issue of global warming got hotter Monday when a UC Berkeley physicist, once a loud skeptic of human-caused climate change, agreed that the Earth is not only heating up but that people are the cause of it all.

Richard Muller converted only a year ago to the idea that the world has been warming for decades. Before then he had argued that global warming data - even figures compiled by U.N. experts - were badly flawed.

Now Muller is going further, blaming the warming almost entirely on human emission of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide - a conclusion that almost all climate scientists reached long ago.

Muller argued that the evidence from more than 36,000 temperature stations worldwide shows that the global thermometer has risen by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years. The warm-up began with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, Muller said, and has accelerated in recent years.

Fierce debate

Muller released five scientific papers Monday supporting conclusions reached by his organization Berkeley Earth with detailed evidence. They immediately set the blogosphere afire, with experts and not-so experts jousting over the conclusions.

Scientists who entered the fray criticized Muller on two fronts:

-- Of the five papers, only one has been submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that one hasn't been published yet.

-- His organization has been heavily financed by the Charles Koch Foundation, best known for supporting the most prominent "deniers" of global warming as well as conservative political organizations. That indictment came from climate scientists when Muller was among the deniers, but some bloggers remained suspicious of him even now.

Koch and his brother, David Koch, made their fortune in the oil refining and chemical business. Charles Koch's foundation has given Muller a $150,000 grant to conduct his research, the Berkeley physicist said.

"All he wants is the science, and we have unfettered use of his money," Muller said.

Started in 1700s

Muller said detailed analysis by Robert Rhode, a physicist and statistical analyst on his team, shows that global land surface temperatures have been rising along with emissions of carbon dioxide ever since the mid-18th century.

"That carbon dioxide evidence just hit me like a brick wall," Muller said. "To me it was a shocker."

The greenhouse gas evidence, he said, came from analyzing air samples trapped in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, where the cores hold air bubbles and particles going back tens of thousands of years.

His group's records show that "global cooling periods" during the century before 1850 were caused by ash clouds from three tremendous volcanic eruptions - but that even by then, global warming had begun.

Invitation to critics

Muller said he has released most of his group's findings without going through peer review so scientific opponents could air their criticisms without waiting a year or more for the papers to be published.

Climate scientist Richard Lindzen of Harvard, one of the most influential critics of global warming adherents, promptly took Muller up on the offer.

"There has never been much argument that the global mean temperature anomaly has increased a small amount since the Little Ice Age," Lindzen said in an e-mail, referring to a global period of colder weather that some theorists say may have ended roughly 450 years ago. "There is no reason to believe that Muller's estimate is any better than anyone else's."

And asked about Muller's carbon dioxide evidence, Lindzen said, "Muller's argument is naive and even silly. Given the triviality of his results and their lack of importance, it is hard to understand what he is doing."

Source of conversion

Muller is a professor of physics at UC Berkeley and a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He is the popular author of "Physics for Future Presidents," and his newest book is called "Energy for Future Presidents."

Asked what prompted him to change his mind on global warming, Muller said Rhode's analyses of temperature data covering hundreds of years and from thousands of newfound climate stations - including records by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin - were too powerful to ignore.

"I didn't expect to get such clear data," Muller said. "It has cleared up a lot of Augean Stables, and I hope it opens up the discussion rationally."

Read up

The scientific papers and data from UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller and his group can be read at Berkeleyearth.org

Weather station temperature claims are overheated, report claims - Fox News

The temperature record from stations across the U.S. has been systematically overinflated due to faulty data manipulation and “encroaching urbanity” -- locations near asphalt, air conditioning and airports -- according to a new study. And if correct, it calls into question just how hot our planet is getting.

Global warming believer-turned-skeptic Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist, posted a new report online questioning the reliability of weather stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, a 120-year-old weather system that forms one tent pole of climate measurements. As the country has evolved, building urban metropolises and airports and pouring parking lots, the weather stations haven’t moved -- and poorly cited stations are spoiling the data.

“The best stations get adjusted up to the level of the worst stations,” Watts told FoxNews.com. “It’s like making a temperature smoothie. You put all these different fruits in to represent different qualities of stations and you run it through a blender and you get a milk shake.”

That problem of poorly cited stations is well established. A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station next to an air conditioner exhaust and a cell tower. One in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

Watts cherry-picked the well-sited stations and studied their data; his results show the planet warming at just 0.155 degrees Celsius per decade, rather than the 0.309 C per decade cited by the government.

“I believe global warming is real. No doubt about it. Not a bit of doubt,” Watts told FoxNews.com. “However, I don’t think it’s catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.”

'I believe global warming is real. No doubt about it. However, I don’t think it’s catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.'

- Anthony Watts

Skeptic-turned-believer Richard Muller -- a University of California-Berkeley professor -- posted a new study online Saturday with equally sweeping conclusions. Muller’s Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study also say the planet is warming -- and concludes it’s solely because of man’s actions.

On the basic fact of warming, the two scientists seem to agree. On the details? Not so much.

“Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real,” Mueller announced via an op-ed in the New York Times. “Humans are almost entirely the cause,” he wrote.

Muller’s study analyzed 250 years of temperature records. It concludes that the rise in average world land temperature is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years, a far steeper rate of change than Watts cites.

“Solar activity was not a major contributor, but there was a match to carbon dioxide,” he told FoxNews.com.

Muller’s team has completely re-analyzed the data from the surface station network. His analysis highlights several cold snaps that coincide directly with volcanic activity, further proof that his study is accurate, he said.

“I never imagined we would see [volcanoes] so clearly,” he said. “The fact that we can go back to the 1700s and see it so clearly gives us added confidence” in the temperature record.

Many skeptics take issue with what they call systemic data manipulation. For example, climate blogger Steve Goddard told FoxNews.com that “adjustments” made in the past to climate data have merely conflated the problem Watts uncovered.

“They started making what they called corrections after the year 2000, which turned the U.S. temperature trend from completely flat to fairly steep warming. That's what Anthony was questioning. The corrections were changing the temperature record,” Goddard said.

Several large adjustments hadn’t been documented at all, boosting readings by as much as 1.5 degrees over older measurements.

“It’s hard to tell exactly what they’re doing at this point,” he said.

Muller’s study attempts to correct for the quality of the data, in a transparent, repeatable fashion scientists should appreciate. Much of that data should be simply thrown out, Watts said.

“This affects the raw data, and there is no adjustment procedure in place to fix this,” he said. “BEST tries to solve it, and I applaud them for the attempt. But without knowing the history of the station, even their methodology doesn’t deal with it,” he told FoxNews.com.

There’s no “hockey stick” shape in Muller’s new graph, though it does ape that shape. But noted Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann said he agreed with it anyway.

“[It] demonstrates what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations,” Mann wrote on his Facebook page.

Indeed, both studies conclude that the planet is warming. But the degree and cause of that warming remains a volatile issue.

“I think we would like to at least settle the scientific issues so we can move on to the more continuous political issues,” Muller told FoxNews.com.

Bernie Sanders challenges global-warming skeptic - BurlingtonFreePress.com

Enter your email and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Close
It's possible that your browser cookies are turned off. Read our FAQ page to find out how to enable cookies in your browser.

We're sorry, your shared access privileges have been removed by the subscriber. You can still look at a limited number of articles per month.

Subscribe now

We're sorry, this account no longer has full access. You can still look at a limited number of articles per month.

Senator Inhofe 'Dead Wrong' on Global Warming, Sanders Says - eNews Park Forest

WASHINGTON--(ENEWSPF)--July 30 - In a summer of record heat, severe drought, extreme storms, melting glaciers and raging wildfires, Sen. Bernie Sanders today challenged claims by a leading Republican senator who dismisses global warming as a "hoax."

Sanders (I-Vt.), in a  speech prepared for delivery to the Senate later today, rebutted what he called "myths" espoused by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Many who take climate science seriously dismiss Sen. Inhofe. I believe that is a huge mistake," Sanders said of the Senate panel's former chairman. "For better or worse, when Sen. Inhofe speaks, the Republican Party follows.  And when the Republican Party follows, it is impossible to get real work done in the Congress."

Inhofe's No. 1 myth, according to Sanders, is that "real scientists" say global warming is a hoax. In fact, the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced," according to the United States Global Change Research Program, which is made up of scientists at NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of defense, agriculture, energy, state, health, transportation, commerce, and interior.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and academies in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom all say "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." Moreover, 18 scientific professional societies including the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and others say "climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

"The bottom line,' Sanders said, "is that when Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, he is just dead wrong according to the vast majority of climate scientists."

Another Inhofe myth is that the planet actually is cooling. Studies by NASA, based on records dating back a century, found that nine of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. Numerous other studies back up that conclusion.

Sanders said strong action to cut emissions would generate substantial energy savings, create good-paying jobs and help the economy grow. The cost of doing nothing, Sanders added, is already mounting. According to the insurance industry, property damage from extreme weather increased in the United States from $3 billion a year in the 1980's to $20 billion a year today.

"Unlike Sen. Inhofe, most Americans are seeing the evidence of global warming with their own eyes," Sanders said. So far this year, 2.1 million acres in the western United States have burned in wildfires, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, extreme summer storms have flooded parts of the Midwest and Atlantic seaboard, and the last 12 months were the warmest 12-month period on record in the United States. Since last Jan 1, cities and regions in the United States have set 40,000 records for high temperatures, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"The bad news is if we do nothing, the science is clear that temperatures will continue to increase, sea levels will continue to rise, and extreme weather will become more frequent and devastating," Sanders said. "The good news is we have the technology to cut emissions today through efficiency and solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

"It is time for Congress to get serious about global warming, and to work to transform our energy system. That starts by making sure that in this, the so-called greatest deliberative body, we deliberate with facts not myths," Sanders concluded.

Source: commondreams.org

Inhofe 'dead wrong' on global warming, Sanders says - vtdigger.org

For immediate release
July 30, 2012

Contact:
Michael Briggs
Sen. Bernie Sanders office
(202) 224-5141

WASHINGTON, July 30 â€" In a summer of record heat, severe drought, extreme storms, melting glaciers and raging wildfires, Sen. Bernie Sanders today challenged claims by a leading Republican senator who dismisses global warming as a “hoax.”

Sanders (I-Vt.), in a speech prepared for delivery to the Senate later today, rebutted what he called “myths” espoused by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Many who take climate science seriously dismiss Sen. Inhofe. I believe that is a huge mistake,” Sanders said of the Senate panel’s former chairman. “For better or worse, when Sen. Inhofe speaks, the Republican Party follows. And when the Republican Party follows, it is impossible to get real work done in the Congress.”

Inhofe’s No. 1 myth, according to Sanders, is that “real scientists” say global warming is a hoax. In fact, the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced,” according to the United States Global Change Research Program, which is made up of scientists at NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of defense, agriculture, energy, state, health, transportation, commerce, and interior.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and academies in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom all say “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.” Moreover, 18 scientific professional societies including the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and others say “climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

“The bottom line,’ Sanders said, “is that when Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, he is just dead wrong according to the vast majority of climate scientists.”

Another Inhofe myth is that the planet actually is cooling. Studies by NASA, based on records dating back a century, found that nine of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. Numerous other studies back up that conclusion.

Sanders said strong action to cut emissions would generate substantial energy savings, create good-paying jobs and help the economy grow. The cost of doing nothing, Sanders added, is already mounting. According to the insurance industry, property damage from extreme weather increased in the United States from $3 billion a year in the 1980’s to $20 billion a year today.

“Unlike Sen. Inhofe, most Americans are seeing the evidence of global warming with their own eyes,” Sanders said. So far this year, 2.1 million acres in the western United States have burned in wildfires, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, extreme summer storms have flooded parts of the Midwest and Atlantic seaboard, and the last 12 months were the warmest 12-month period on record in the United States. Since last Jan 1, cities and regions in the United States have set 40,000 records for high temperatures, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“The bad news is if we do nothing, the science is clear that temperatures will continue to increase, sea levels will continue to rise, and extreme weather will become more frequent and devastating,” Sanders said. “The good news is we have the technology to cut emissions today through efficiency and solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

“It is time for Congress to get serious about global warming, and to work to transform our energy system. That starts by making sure that in this, the so-called greatest deliberative body, we deliberate with facts not myths,” Sanders concluded.

Latest around the region - The Missoulian

2012-07-30T08:00:00Z GEORGE OCHENSKI: It’s getting harder to deny global warming missoulian.com

Those who would deny the reality of global warming are having a lot tougher time these days as the impacts stack up. No longer are we talking about remote island nations being submerged under rising sea levels. Nope, the global warming chickens have come home to roost here in the Land of Coal and they’re not likely to leave anytime soon â€" especially when our clueless politicians continue to pollute like there’s no tomorrow.

Right now, an estimated two-thirds of the nation is officially in what’s being called the worst drought since the 1950s and it is rapidly worsening. Across the Midwest the corn crop is toast â€" no pun intended. Withered stalks stand ignored in fields that used to be filled with waves of green, well-watered from the sky. But now the parched, cracked soil looks heavenward where nary a drop of lifegiving moisture falls from the clouds.

It’s estimated that corn and its byproducts constitute a huge percentage of our food supply in all its forms, from corn syrup to flour. But corn also feeds our livestock, including chicken and pigs as well as beef and dairy cattle. Plus, under a misguided federal policy, significant amounts of corn have been diverted from food to fuel for ethanol production.

Now consider these startling statistics: The USDA has already declared “natural disasters” in 29 states due to drought. The federal government estimates 88 percent of the corn crop is “drought affected,” pushing prices to a record $8 per bushel on the commodities market and sending the futures market soaring.

The results of those crop shortages and price increases are expected to hit consumers in the form of 3 percent to 4 percent higher prices on eggs, dairy and pork and 4 percent to 5 percent on beef and veal. For most people, whose pocketbooks already are squeezed by recessionary pressures, the face of global warming means even more money now will be required just to eat.

This year’s fire season is yet another facet of global warming’s effects, with large conflagrations running not just through parched forests where trees contain less moisture than kiln-dried lumber, but across vast acreages of grassland, sage and brush.

The result is a double-whammy for the cattle industry, as hay and grazing lands disappear in walls of wind-driven flames while corn and soybeans wilt in the fields. Predictions now, with months of hot weather yet to come, are that livestock herds will be significantly reduced by sell-offs as ranchers face the reality of drought-ravaged feedstock for their herds.

Nor will we escape the impacts here in Montana, even though we sit at the headwaters of the mighty streams and rivers that drain the Rockies. Already, Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has declared “hoot-owl” fishing restrictions on the Dearborn, Sun and Smith rivers due to drought impacts. The water temperature in the Lower Madison River, below Ennis Lake, was at 73 degrees last week. At that temperature, Montana’s world-famous trout fisheries face life-threatening stress.

Trout, after all, are not tropical fish. They require clean, cold water to survive and become torpid whenever the water temperature nears 70 degrees. Toss in increased irrigation demand, also due to drought, and one of Montana’s premier assets is on the ropes due to higher temperatures and lower water flows. The result? Expect widespread fish kills in August unless significant natural precipitation breaks the drought.

It seems a no-brainer in the face of the evidence to realize that we are now exceeding our planet’s capabilities to sustain life as we know it due to our consumption and pollution. In common terms, that’s called “fouling our nest.” But we’re entangled in feedback loops that only make the problems worse.

Our politicians have no desire to tell the American people to consume and pollute less. Quite the opposite, unfortunately. When triple-digit temperatures become the norm across much of the nation, people crank up their air conditioning just to survive the oppressive heat. The more power they use, the more coal and natural gas utilities burn to supply the power and the more politicians call for increased energy production. Instead of calming the flames of global warming, we are tossing logs on the fire and suffering the inevitable consequences.

It would be great to say there was some relief on the horizon. But there is not. In this election year, the ostriches who call themselves “leaders” have their heads deeply buried in the sand while their tailfeathers scorch in the heat.

George Ochenski writes a column for the Missoulian’s Monday Opinion page. He can be reached via email at oped@missoulian.com.

Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong (+video) - Christian Science Monitor

Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.

The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.

Skip to next paragraph
Richard Muller is not a climatologist, yet he is one of the most controversial figures in climate science. Climate Watch Senior Editor sat down with Muller to talk about his upcoming book, "Energy for Future Presidents," his view of global warming as "secular religion." Posted June 15, 2012.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes:

“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

He calls his current stance “a total turnaround.”

Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research.

“Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings,” Mullins said in an email. “In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy.”

Some leading climate scientists said Muller’s comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.

Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said Muller’s conversion might help shape the thinking of the “reasonable middle” of the population “who are genuinely confused and have been honestly taken in” by attacks on climate science.

On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers â€" the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet â€" demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”

Find economic solutions for global warming - Fredericksburg.com

Once again, we see a "sky is falling" story in the wake of a major storm to promote government policies to fix global warming [" Fossil Fuels Create Pollution And Global Warming," July 24].

Most reasonable people are not debating that the climate is getting warmer and do not have their heads in the sand.

What most reasonable people do understand is that the Earth has gone through many climate changes throughout time and well before man's burning of fossil fuels.

Most reasonable people recognize that fossil fuels are not the cleanest, but they are not going away anytime soon. Yes, the government subsidizes oil, but it subsidizes green energy projects, too. Solyndra comes to mind.

The real problem is money. The government has overspent its revenues and now finds itself in such a debt crisis that there is no possibility of providing additional funds for clean energy innovations.

While we may know how to harness the sun and wind, clearly these technologies are not as cost-efficient as Jeremy Symons implies, as their usage would be far greater.

Regrettably this means more subsidies from money that we the taxpayers cannot hope to provide in this economic climate.

We must fix the economy, allowing businesses to create jobs that will increase the tax revenue to the government.

The environmental groups need to sit down with policymakers and not just complain about global warming but determine how best to increase the private economy and eventually have a budget surplus.

If I were a politician, I would force all groups competing for taxpayer funds to provide economic solutions to create a surplus. Then I would commit 25 percent of the surpluses to subsidizing clean energy, 50 percent to pay existing debt, and the remaining 25 percent for existing programs. No surplus, no money for your cause.

Stephen Despres

King George