Global Warming Basics

* Global warming is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of Science as "an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere," either by "human industry and agriculture" or by natural causes like the Earth has "experienced numerous" times "through its history."[1]

* Some writers use the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" to mean temperature changes strictly caused by human activity.[2] [3] [4] Other writers use adjectives such as "man-made" to distinguish between human and non-human causes.[5]

* Just Facts adheres to Standards of Credibility requiring the use of language that is clear and precise. Hence, when human causes are stated or implied, we utilize terms such as man-made and human-induced.

* The greenhouse effect is a warming effect caused by certain gases that retain heat from sunlight.[6] Without such gases, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be below freezing, and as explained by the Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, "life, as we know it, would not exist."[7] The global warming debate is centered upon whether added greenhouse gases released by human activity will overheat the Earth and cause harmful effects.[8]

* The table below shows the primary greenhouse gas composition of Earth's atmosphere. Most figures are coarse approximations (see footnotes for more details):

Gas	Portion of atmosphere	Portion of gas in atmosphere attributed to human activity
water vapor	1 - 3%[9]	0%[10]
clouds	1 - 3%[9]	0%[10]
carbon dioxide	0.04%[11]	26%[12]
ozone	0.00001%[13]	?
methane	0.0002%[14]	60%[15]

* Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a generally "colorless, odorless, non-toxic, non-combustible gas."[16] [17] [18] It is also:

• the "most important" man-made greenhouse gas and "contributes more" to the greenhouse effect than "any other gas" released by human activity;[19] [20]

• "vital to life," and "almost all biochemicals found within living creatures derive directly or indirectly from" it;[21] [22] and

• "when any material containing carbon is burned," such as oil, coal, natural gas, or wood.[24] [25] [26]

* Human activities currently release about 37 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, which equates to about 5% of natural CO2 emissions. Natural processes absorb the equivalent of all natural emissions plus about 57% of man-made emissions, leaving an additional 16 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year.[27]

* Since the outset of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s,[28] the carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere has increased by about 34%,[29] most rapidly from about 1960 onward.[30]

* According to satellite data correlated and adjusted by the National Space Science and Technology Center, the average temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere increased by 0.52ºF (0.29ºC) between the 1980s and 2000s, mostly during 1998-2010:

* For reference, a temperature analysis of a borehole drilled on a glacier in Greenland found that the location was about 22ºF (12ºC) colder during the last ice age than it is now.[33]

* Sources of uncertainty in satellite-derived temperatures involve variations in satellite orbits, variations in measuring instruments, and variations in the calculations used to translate raw data into temperatures.[34] [35]

* According to temperature measurements taken near the Earth's surface that are correlated and adjusted by NASA, the earth's average temperature warmed by 1.4ºF (0.8ºC) between the 1880s and 2000s, mostly during 1907-1944 and 1976-2005:

* Sources of uncertainty in surface temperature data involve "very incomplete" temperature records in the earlier years,[38] "changes in measurement methods,"[39] "calculation and reporting errors,"[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] data adjustments that are performed when instruments are moved to different locations,[47] instrument precision,[48] instrument positioning,[49] and missing documentation/raw data.[50] [51]

* A 2006 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research that calculates uncertainties in surface temperature data states that a

* To reconstruct global temperatures in the era before instrumental measurements were made on a global scale, scientists use proxies that respond to changes in climate, such as the widths of tree rings, to estimate temperature variations in the past.[53] [54]

* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body established by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization. It is the "leading international body for the assessment of climate change," and its "work serves as the key basis for climate policy decisions made by governments throughout the world…."[55] [56] [57] The IPCC states:

* The fourth IPCC report (2007) contains the following graph of average temperature changes in Earth's Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,300 years. Data for the Earth as a whole is unavailable this far back in time because of a lack of data in the Southern Hemisphere. The graph shows the results of 12 proxy studies combined with modern instrumental measurements (the dark black line). It is called a "spaghetti graph":

• A 2011 paper in the Annals of Applied Statistics found that "the most comprehensive publicly available database" of "proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature."[60]

• "[T]he raw data are generally subjected to some form of statistical manipulation, through which only part of the original climate information can be retrieved (typically less than 50%)."[61]

• The margins of error depicted in graphs "do not reflect all of the uncertainties" in the data.[62]

• The authors of the IPCC report and the papers cited in it select which proxy data to include,[63] exclude,[64] and adjust.[65] [66] For example, the thick gray curve in the spaghetti graph above is from an analysis of borehole temperatures that ends 500 years ago. The data shown in the graph below is from another analysis of borehole temperatures that (1) covers the full timeframe of the spaghetti graph, (2) was not included in the spaghetti graph at the IPCC's discretion,[67] [68] and (3) contradicts the IPCC report by showing higher temperatures several hundred years ago than at present:

* In 2009, an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. The materials were authored by some of the world's leading climate scientists and accompanied by the following note:

* These emails (commonly referred to as the ClimateGate emails) show IPPC scientists and authors:

• proposing to conduct an "honest" study about the "uncertainties" of proxies and then to "publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address," because "what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show" that we "honestly know" little or nothing about Northern Hemisphere temperature variability over periods of more than a hundred years.[72] [73]

• writing, "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."[74]

• writing, "In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."[75]

• planning to have the editor of a scientific journal "ousted" if he exhibits skepticism of global warming.[76]

• instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.[77]

• planning to boycott scientific journals that require authors to release all data and calculations used in their published papers.[78]

• writing, "I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). … Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."[79]

* A 2008 survey of 660 Virginia residents found that the most common answer people give for believing or disbelieving in global warming is their personal experience of the climate.[80]

* A 2008 paper in the Journal Of Geophysical Research found that the area covered by sea ice in the Arctic was declining by about 4.0% per decade, while the area covered by sea ice in the Antarctic was increasing by about 1.7% per decade.[82] [83]

* A 2006 paper in Geophysical Research Letters found that since 1979, Antarctica has been growing colder in the summer and fall seasons but warmer in the winter and spring seasons, except for 50% of East Antarctica, which has also been cooling in the winter.[84]

* A 2006 paper in the Journal of Climate found that glaciers in the western Himalayan mountains thickened and expanded from 1961-2000, while glaciers in the eastern Himalayas decayed and retreated.[85]

* In 2007, the New York Times published a story by Andrew Revkin entitled: "Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice." The last paragraph of the story reads: "Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high."[86]

* In 2000, James J. McCarthy, a Harvard oceanographer and IPCC co-chair,[87] saw a mile-wide stretch of open ocean at the North Pole while serving as a guest lecturer on an Arctic tourist cruise. He informed the New York Times, which ran a front-page story stating that the "North Pole is melting," the "last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago," and this "is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate."[88] Other media outlets such as the Associated Press did likewise.[89] [90]

* A day after the New York Times article was published, the London Times quoted a Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge stating, "Claims that the North Pole is now ice-free for the first time in 50 million years [are] complete rubbish, absolute nonsense."[91] [92] Nine days later, the New York Times published a correction stating that the original article "misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice," a "clear spot has probably opened at the pole before," and 10% of the "high Arctic region" is "clear of ice in a typical summer."[93] [94]

* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:

* The natural variability of Earth's climate is such that a glacier formerly existed on Hawaii,[97] and glaciers once covered almost all of Canada, New England, and the northern central United States:

* In addition to carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels, other factors that have been implicated by scientists as primary causes of modern climate change include but are not limited to:

• A large reduction in the sun's output of cosmic rays during the 20th century, which lessens the amount of low-level clouds that "exert a strong cooling effect" on the surface of the Earth.[99] [100]

• The livestock industry, which is calculated to produce a greater greenhouse effect than "cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."[101] [102]

• The coupling of different natural climate phenomena, which is "associated with significant changes" in global temperatures.[103]

• Increased sulfur pollution from coal use in Asia, which creates "hazy clouds" that "reflect sunlight back into space" and thus cause a "cooling effect."[104] [105]

• Ocean circulation cycles that operate over decades and "affect how much cold water rises to the surface, which in turn affects how warm or cold the atmosphere is."[106] [107]

• The 11-year cycle of solar radiation, which is calculated to cause a global warming of 0.4ºF (0.2ºC).[108] [109]

* A central debate among scientists about man-made greenhouse gases involves how much natural processes reduce or amplify the effects of these gases. Positive feedbacks are those that amplify the effects, and negative feedbacks diminish them.[110]

* The climate models included in the 2007 IPCC report are programmed with positive feedbacks for water vapor that more than double the warming effect of CO2.[111] This is based upon the fact that warmer air evaporates more water, thus creating more water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas.[112] [113]

* A 2006 paper in the Journal Of Climate states that the feedbacks used in climate models are based upon "methods that … do not allow any observational assessment" because many variables are involved, and "it is not possible … to insure that only one variable is changing."[114]

* A 2009 paper in Theoretical and Applied Climatology found that during 1973-2007, humidity increased in the lowest part of Earth's atmosphere but decreased at higher altitudes, implying that the "long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify" the warming effect of CO2. A caveat of this finding is that it is based upon weather balloon data, which "must be treated with great caution, particularly at [higher] altitudes…."[115] [116]

* Other feedbacks that may have "a substantial impact on the magnitude, the pattern, or the timing of climate warming" include clouds,[117] [118] snow coverage, temperature gradients in Earth's atmosphere, aerosols, trace gases, soil moisture changes, and ocean processes.[119]

• meteorologists "are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,"

• "climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change," and

• "the longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."[120]

* Roughly 30 years later, Newsweek reported that China was undergoing "serious food shortages due to global warming,"[121] and "the potential nightmares of global warming" include "starvation due to drought…."[122]

* Per a 2003 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, between the mid-1970s and late 1990s, apparent food consumption per person increased by 15% worldwide, 25% in developing countries, and more than 36% in China. Over this same period, world population increased by 45%,[123] atmospheric CO2 increased by 10%,[124] and the average global surface temperature (as calculated by NASA) increased by 0.9ºF (0.5ºC).[125]

* A 2003 paper in the journal Science found that a principal measure of worldwide vegetation productivity increased by 6.2% between 1982 and 1999. The paper notes that this occurred during a period in which human population increased by 37%, the level of atmospheric CO2 increased by 9%, and the Earth "had two of the warmest decades in the instrumental record."[126] [127]

* A 2004 paper in the journal BioScience attributes this increased productivity to "higher temperatures, longer temperate growing seasons, more rainfall in some previously water-limited areas," and more sunlight. The following map shows these productivity changes, with green signifying higher vegetation productivity and red lower:

* Increased ocean temperatures cause average sea levels to rise because water expands as it becomes warmer. Per a 2006 paper in the journal Nature, this thermal expansion is calculated to have the largest current influence on average sea level changes. The second largest influence is calculated to be the melting of glaciers and mountain icecaps.[129]

* The average global sea level has been generally rising since 1860 or earlier, which is about 45 years before surface temperatures began to rise and 75 years before man-made emissions of CO2 reached 1% of natural emissions.[130] [131] [132]

* If the trend of the 20th century continues, the average worldwide sea level will rise by about 7 inches (18 cm) during the 21st century. The 2007 IPCC report uses certain models that project an acceleration of this trend, and the report predicts sea level increases ranging from 7 to 31 inches (18-79 cm) from 1990 to 2100.[133]

* A 2011 paper in the Journal of Coastal Research found "small decelerations" in global average sea level rises during the 20th century, which is "consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records."[134]

* An Inconvenient Truth is an Academy Award-winning documentary about "Al Gore's fervent crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it."[135] In this documentary, Al Gore shows the following computer simulation of what would happen to the shorelines of Florida and the San Francisco Bay if sea levels were to rise by twenty feet, while providing no timeframe for such an event to occur.[136]

* A 20-foot rise in sea level equals 8-34 times the full range of 110-year projections for sea-level rise in the 2007 IPCC report.[137]

About 10 million people in Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades. Where will they go? Whom will they displace? What political conflicts will result? That is only one example. According to some predictions, not long after Bangladesh feels the impact, up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated. Where will they go?[138]

* Between 1993 and 2011, the population of Bangladesh increased from 119 million to 159 million people (34%),[139] and between 1990 and 2006, the coastal population of Florida increased from 10.1 million to 13.8 million people (37%).[140] [141]

* In 2004, James McCarthy, professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University, stated: "As the world warms, we expect more and more intense tropical hurricanes and cyclones."[142]

* In a 2011 paper, Ryan Maue of the Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies at Florida State University compiled the worldwide number of tropical storms and hurricanes over the past 40 years. He also compiled the global "accumulated cyclone energy," which "approximates the collective intensity and duration of tropical storms and hurricanes...."[143]

* Scientists and government officials have proposed and/or implemented the following actions to reduce greenhouse gases:

• Imposing taxes on electricity,[146] gasoline,[147] crude oil,[148] meat and milk,[149] steel and aluminum,[150] flying and driving,[151] [152] or any activity that emits carbon dioxide[153]

• Establishing international treaties based upon "cap-and-trade" programs (see below)

• Prohibiting the construction of electricity-generating plants that run on coal[155]

• Instituting efficiency regulations for light bulbs that effectively ban the sale of standard incandescent lights[161] [162] [163] [164]

• Injecting pollutants into the atmosphere, such as sulfur dioxide, to shade the Earth from the sun[167]

• Allowing individuals and businesses to operate more freely in order to develop better alternative energy technologies[168] [169]

* The administrative body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states:

The costs of cutting [greenhouse gas] emissions tend to be immediate and specific—they can carry an economic sting, for example, for businesses, automobile owners, and electrical-generation facilities. … While useful technology may be bought and shared, in the end "no regrets" methods won't be enough to stabilize or reduce worldwide greenhouse-gas levels—governments, businesses, and people are going to have to make difficult choices and take painful steps.[170]

* In 1997, an international body established by a treaty called the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" adopted an addition to this treaty called the Kyoto Protocol (so named because it was adopted in Kyoto, Japan). In 2005, this protocol became legally binding on the countries that ratified it. It's central provision requires 37 developed nations (such as Germany and Japan) to reduce their combined greenhouse gas emissions to about 5% below 1990 levels by no later than 2008-2012. The agreement:

• assigns a "cap" on the greenhouse gases that individual countries may emit, ranging from 8% below to 10% above their 1990 emission levels;

• requires nations that exceed their cap to pay for this by giving money to nations that are below their cap; and

* Before the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the treaty conference, the United States Senate unanimously passed (by a vote of 95-0) a resolution stating that the U.S. should not be a party to any climate change agreement in Kyoto or thereafter that exempts developing nations from its provisions.[177] [178]

* The U.S. Constitution requires the approval of the president and a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty.[179]

* A year after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the treaty conference, President Bill Clinton approved the treaty, and his administration repeatedly stated that he would present the treaty to the Senate for ratification. He never did this.[180]

* In March 2001, fulfilling a campaign promise,[181] President George W. Bush announced that his administration would not pursue implementation of the Kyoto treaty.[182]

* With the exception of the United States, all the major developed nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol.[183]

* Between 1990 and 2000, combined CO2 emissions in developed nations decreased by about 3%. This was primarily due to Russia, which underwent an economic collapse in 1990 that reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by about 40%. The other developed countries increased their combined emissions by about 8%.[184] [185]

* Between 1997 (the year Kyoto was adopted) and 2008 (the start of its compliance period), the combined annual CO2 emissions of the developed countries that ratified the treaty increased by 1.3%. During the same period, the annual CO2 emissions of the United States decreased by 0.7%.[186] [187]

* In the decade following the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2007), Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by 5.3% or 19 parts per million, which is 35% more than the increase in the decade before the treaty.[188]

Global climate change is the planet's greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. … We will implement a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic change and we will set interim targets along the way to ensure that we meet our goal. We will invest in advanced energy technologies…. We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including establishing a grant program for early adopters and providing incentives for energy conservation.[189]

As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy. …

Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.[190]

* In 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would have capped most sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.[191]

* This bill passed the House by a vote of 219-212, with 82% of Democrats voting for it and 94% of Republicans voting against it (click for a record of how each Representative voted).[192] The bill was then forwarded to the Senate and never voted upon.[193]

* In 2009, the Obama administration EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." This finding allows the administration to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.[194] [195]

* In 2010, 41 U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution that would have overturned the Obama administration's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.[196] [197] A vote to advance the resolution failed 47 to 53, with all Republicans and 6 Democrats voting to advance it (click for a record of how each Senator voted).[198] [199]

• Miles O'Brien of CNN on whether "the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions": "The scientific debate is over."[200]

• Bill Blakemore of ABC on the "debate" over whether global warming is "man-made or natural": "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such debate."[201]

• Katie Couric of CBS on whether "the world faces a 'planetary emergency' over climate change": "The scientific consensus is clear … [that it does]."[202]

• Jeffrey Toobin of CNN on whether global warming is a "problem": "[I]t's like acknowledging gravity. It is a scientific fact."[203]

* As of August 2011, 9,029 Ph.D. scientists including 3,805 atmospheric, earth, or environmental scientists have signed a petition stating:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[204] [205] [206]

* Carbon dioxide is "vital to life" and nontoxic to humans up till 50 times the concentration found in Earth's atmosphere.[207] [208] [209] [210] Natural emissions of CO2 outweigh man-made emissions by a factor of twenty to one.[211]

* The New York Times,[212] Associated Press,[213] U.K. Guardian,[214] Washington Post,[215] and Reuters[216] have broadcast or published reports that refer to CO2 as a pollutant without distinguishing it from noxious substances and without mentioning that CO2 is a natural and vital part of Earth's ecosystem.

* The Washington Post,[217] Associated Press,[218] Los Angeles Times,[219] U.K. Guardian,[220] and ABC News[221] have broadcast or published reports that refer to CO2 as "carbon pollution" without distinguishing it from highly toxic forms of carbon like carbon monoxide ("an intense poison"[222]) and black carbon combustion residue (which causes cancer[223] [224]).

• is "an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things."[225] [226]

• "does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans."[227]

* In a 2007 New York Times/CBS poll, 32% of Americans said "recent weather had been stranger than usual" and global warming was the cause. Ten years earlier, this view has held by 5% of Americans.[228]

* Along with the IPCC,[229] the following journalists or people given a platform by the media have linked warm or snow-free winter weather to global warming:

• Multiple reporters of the CBS Early Show: Bryant Gumbel: "We never get any snow." Mark McEwen: "Do you think it's global warming?" Bryant Gumbel: "Yes, yes." Mark McEwen: "Do you, Jane?" Jane Clayson: "Yeah." Mark McEwen: "We're unanimous, we all think it's global warming."[230]

• Reporter Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News: "Just before we left the United States for Italy we learned that January was the warmest January ever in all the recorded history of the U.S. And suddenly now, in this region, global warming is a hot issue as well."[231]

• Environmental lawyer and professor Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the Los Angeles Times: "Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers."[232]

* The following journalists or people given a platform by the media have linked cold or snowy winter weather to global warming:

• Atmospheric scientist Judah Cohen in the New York Times: "The reality is, we're freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it."[233]

• Political strategist Robert Creamer in the Huffington Post: "What's more, it turns out that global warming does in fact cause more frequent, more intense storms of all sorts -- including snow storms."[234]

• Agence France-Presse: "Counterintuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming."[235]

* The following journalists or people given a platform by the media have cited cold or snowy weather as evidence that global warming is not happening:

• Commentator Eric Bolling on Fox News: "Sixty-three percent of the country is now covered in snow, and it's breaking Al Gore's heart because the snow is also burying his global warming theory."[236]

• Geophysicist David Deming in the Washington Times: "Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards."[237]

• Reporter Katie Rook in the National Post, quoting a fisherman: "We've had such cold weather, -40C, -35C. That's not normal cold for us. We listen to the people calling for that global warming and they said there was going to be no ice and our seals were going to drown and all this stuff."[238]

* The following journalists or people given a platform by the media have linked warm summer weather to global warming:

• Environmental scientist Stephen Schneider on ABC's Good Morning America: "While this heat wave, like all other heat waves, is made by Mother Nature, we've been fooling around by turning the knob and making it a little bit hotter."[239]

• Commentator Kate Shephard in the U.K. Guardian: "[I]f you care to listen to climate scientists, we're in for a whole lot more days of skyrocketing heat in the future, not to mention heat-related deaths. So maybe this should serve as a good reminder that climate change has deadly consequences."[240]

• Reporter Mark Rice-Oxley in the Christian Science Monitor, quoting weatherman Paul Mott: "Global warming could well be contributing to this current hot spell."[241]

* The following journalists or people given a platform by the media have stated that global warming isn't evidenced by hot or cold spells:

• Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer in the Washington Times, quoting geography professor Charles H.V. Ebert: "Patterns of relatively wet, dry, hot or cold weather usually run in six- to-eight-year cycles. But media attention, combined with our poor memories of past weather, tend to generate unjustified alarm for our climatic future."[242]

• Agence France-Presse: "[E]stablishing a link between climate change and extreme weather is a controversial matter. … [S]cientists caution there is not enough evidence to blame global warming for recent extreme weather, and there are those who say there is no proof that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent."[243]

• Reporter Randolph E. Schmid of the Associated Press, quoting meteorologist Alexander E. MacDonald: "People can get deceived. Every time there is a warm spell doesn't mean global warming is here, and every time you get a cold spell doesn't mean it's disproven. There are changes over daily or monthly or yearly or even decadal time scales that have always been occurring. So if you want to understand what's happening with climate, you have to put it in the context of normal variabilities."[244]

[1] Entry: "global warming." American Heritage Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin, 2005. Page 268:

"An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. …"

"Global warming - The theory that the world's average temperature is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels and other forms of energy resulting in higher atmospheric concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide."

[3] Report: " Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support." World Bank, Independent Evaluation Group, 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...

Glossary (page liii): "Climate Change Change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

"Climate Change A term used to describe short and long-term affects [sic] on the Earth's climate as a result of human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and vegetation clearing and burning."

Page 3: "The most general distinction between the causes of the current climatic changes is thus between 'natural' on the one hand, and 'anthropogenic' ('human-induced', 'man-made'), on the other. A paradigm of natural climate variations are the ice-age cycles of geological time scales, some of which prove to be closely correlated with anomalies in the terrestrial orbit.5 Yet there are other natural causes which can lead to changes in regional and global climates."

NOTE: "Oxford Climate Policy was registered in April 2005 for the general purpose of capacity building in the context of the UN climate change negotiations, and is charged in particular with managing the Oxford Fellowship Programme of the European Capacity Building Initiative…."

[6] Entry: "greenhouse effect." American Heritage Dictionary of Science. Edited by Robert K. Barnhart. Houghton Mifflin, 1986.

1 The absorption and retention of the sun's radiation in the earth's atmosphere, resulting in an increase in the temperature of the earth's surface. The greenhouse effect is due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere, which allows shortwave solar radiation to reach the earth's surface but prevents reradiated longer infrared wavelengths from leaving the earth's atmosphere, thus trapping heat. The carbon dioxide reduces the amount of heat energy lost to outer space. The phenomenon has been called the "greenhouse effect," although the analogy is inexact because a real greenhouse achieves its results less from the fact that the glass blocks reradiation in the infrared than from the fact that it cuts down the convective transfer of heat (S. Fred Singer).

[7] Book: Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Edited by David E. Alexander and others. Kluwer, 1999. Topic: "Greenhouse Effect." By Richard A. Houghton.

Page 303: "The natural greenhouse effect is not only real; it is a blessing. As a result of this effect, the Earth is about 33ºC warmer than it would be without it. Without it, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be below 0ºC, and life, as we know it, would not exist."

[8] Book: Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Edited by David E. Alexander and others. Kluwer, 1999. Topic: "Greenhouse Effect." By Richard A. Houghton.

Page 303: "Concern about the greenhouse effect is, strictly speaking, a concern about the enhanced greenhouse effect expected as a result of [human] emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

[9] Book: Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. By John C. Kotz and others. Thompson Brooks/Cole, 2006.

Page 1004: "Composition of the Atmosphere … Air may also contain 0.1% to 5% water by volume, with a normal range of 1% to 3%.

What is the global warming potential of water vapor? Are the anthropogenic water vapor emissions significant?

Water vapor is a very important part of the earth's natural greenhouse gas effect and the chemical species that exerts the largest heat trapping effect. Water has the biggest heat trapping effect because of its large concentration compared to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%. Clouds absorb a portion of the energy incident sunlight and water vapor absorbs reflected heat as well.

Combustion of fossils fuels produces water vapor in addition to carbon dioxide, but it is generally accepted that human activities have not increased the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. However an article written in 1995 indicates that water vapor concentrations are increasing. [S.J. Oltmans and D.J. Hoffman, Nature 374 (1995):146-149] Some researchers argue there is a positive correlation between water vapor in the air and global temperature. As with many climate issues, this one is still evolving.

[11] Book: Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Edited by Vivien Gornitz. Springer, 2009. Chapter: "Atmospheric Evolution, Venus." By Bruce Fegley, Jr.

Page 78: "Oxygen makes up about 21% of dry air in Earth's atmosphere, with the balance being mainly N2 (78%), Ar (9340 ppmv [parts per million by volume]), and CO2 (387 ppmv)."

What percentage of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been produced by human activities?

The answer to that question is complicated by the fact that human activity is not the only factor affecting the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants, both on land and in the oceans, continually absorb and release large amounts of carbon dioxide. Plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow and release carbon dioxide as they decay. Forest fires, volcanoes, droughts and other natural phenomena can affect the natural rate of carbon dioxide uptake and release. Separating out the impact of human activity from all the other factors is difficult.

However, if you consider that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was stable at 288 ppm [parts per million] for a long time before the industrial revolution and has since increased 367 ppm, one might assume that all the difference between 288 ppm and 370 ppm is attributable to human activity. This would be a high end estimate of the human impact. Under that assumption human activity accounts for 22%† of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

† Per the footnote above, an updated figure for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is 387 ppm. Thus, per the logic and methodology described in this footnote,

(387 ppm current CO2 abundance – 288 ppb pre-industrial CO2 abundance) / 387 ppm current CO2 abundance = 26% human contribution.

[13] Book: Climate Process & Change. By Edward Bryant. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Page 22: "Table 2.2 Present gaseous composition of the Earth's atmosphere. … Ozone O3 > 100.0 ppbv [parts per billion by volume] in stratosphere† … 10-100.0 ppbv in troposphere.‡ … About 90% of ozone is located in the stratosphere…."

† The stratosphere is the "upper portion of the atmosphere, a nearly isothermal layer (layer of constant temperature) that is located above the troposphere. The stratosphere extends from its lower boundary of about 6 to 17 km (4 to 11 miles) altitude to its upper boundary (the stratopause) at about 50 km (30 miles)." [Article: "stratosphere." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.]

‡ The troposphere "is the layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. People live in the troposphere, and nearly all of Earth's weather-including most clouds, rain, and snow-occurs there. The troposphere contains about 80 percent of the atmosphere's mass and about 99 percent of its water." [Article: "troposphere." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.]

[14] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 2: "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing." By Piers Forster and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Page 140: "In 2005, the global average abundance of CH4 [methane] measured at the network of 40 surface air flask sampling sites operated by NOAA/GMD in both hemispheres was 1,774.62 ± 1.22 ppb [parts per billion].[8] This is the most geographically extensive network of sites operated by any laboratory and it is important to note that the calibration scale it uses has changed since the TAR [IPCC's Third Annual Report] (Dlugokencky et al., 2005)."

[15] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 2: "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing." By Piers Forster and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Page 143: "Based on ice core measurements of CH4 (Etheridge et al., 1998), the pre-industrial global value for CH4 from 1700 to 1800 was 715 ± 4 ppb (it was also 715 ± 4 ppb in 1750), thus providing the reference level for the RF calculation. This takes into account the inter-polar difference in CH4 as measured from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores."

(1,775 ppb current methane abundance – 715 ppb pre-industrial methane abundance) / 1,775 ppb current methane abundance = 60% human contribution.

[16] Book: Dictionary of Environment and Development: People, Places, Ideas and Organizations. By Andy Crump. MIT Press, 1993.

[17] Book: The Science of Air: Concepts And Applications (Second edition). By Frank R. Spellman. CRC Press, 2009.

Page 21: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas (although it is felt by some persons to have a slight pungent odor and biting taste), is slightly soluble in water and denser than air (one and half times heavier than air), and is slightly acidic. Carbon dioxide gas is relatively nonreactive and nontoxic."

[18] Book: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 1. Edited by David C. Thomas. Elsevier, 2005. Chapter 25: "Lessons Learned from Industrial and Natural Analogs for Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide." By Sally M. Benson.

Page 1133: "Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. … Ambient concentrations of CO2 are currently about 370 ppm [parts per million]. Humans can tolerate increased concentrations with no physiological effects for exposures up to 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm) [7]. For concentrations up to 3%, physiological adaption occurs without adverse consequences."

[19] Synthesis Report: "Climate Change 2007." Based on a draft prepared by Lenny Bernstein and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Page 36: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual [anthropogenic] emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1)."

[20] Book: Dictionary of Environment and Development: People, Places, Ideas and Organizations. By Andy Crump. MIT Press, 1993.

Page 42: "It is known that carbon dioxide contributes more than any other gas to the greenhouse effect…."

[21] Book: Understanding Environmental Pollution (Third edition). By Marquita K. Hill. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Page 187: "CO2 is … vital to life. Trees, plants, phytoplankton, and photosynthetic bacteria, capture CO2 from air and through photosynthesis make carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and other biochemicals. Almost all biochemicals found within living creatures derive directly or indirectly from atmospheric CO2."

[22] Book: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 1. Edited by David C. Thomas. Elsevier, 2005. Chapter 25: "Lessons Learned from Industrial and Natural Analogs for Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide." By Sally M. Benson.

Page 1133: "Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things. It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans. Carbon dioxide is a physiologically active gas that is integral to both respiration and acid-base balance in all life."

"At very small concentrations, carbon dioxide is a natural and essential part of the atmosphere, and is required for the photosynthesis of all plants."

[24] Book: Understanding Environmental Pollution (Third edition). By Marquita K. Hill. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Page 187: "Moreover, CO2 is a waste gas respired by animals, plants, and many bacteria."

[25] Book: Climate and Climate Change. Edited by John P. Rafferty. Britannica Educational Publishing, 2011. Page 238:

Natural sources of atmospheric CO2 include outgassing from volcanoes, the combustion and natural decay of organic matter, and respiration by aerobic (oxygen-using) organisms. …

[Human] activities increase atmospheric CO2 levels primarily through the burning of fossil fuels (principally oil and coal, and secondarily natural gas, for use in transportation, heating, and the generation of electrical power) and through the production of cement. Other anthropogenic source include the burning of forests and the clearing of land.

[26] Book: Dictionary of Environment and Development: People, Places, Ideas and Organizations. By Andy Crump. MIT Press, 1993.

Page 42: "[CO2] is produced when any material containing carbon is burned. It is also released by natural combustion processes such as volcanic eruptions."

Page 1: "Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) [gigatons of carbon] emitted annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities [Boden et al., 2009†; Houghton, 2008†], only around 40% [Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota [animal and plant life] to about equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]." Page 3: "Remember that f represents the airborne fraction in 2000." Page 2: "The simplest model of the atmospheric growth rate is one of a constant AF [airborne fraction] and yields f = 0.43 when fitted to all data."

† NOTE: Just Facts double-checked these two sources. The first (updated to 2010) provides CO2 emissions from "fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring." The second provides CO2 emissions from changes in land use such as deforestation. Totaling these sources yields 10.216 billion metric tons (8.749 + 1.467).

b) Web page: "Frequently Asked Global Change Questions." U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Accessed July 18, 2011 at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q9

"Why do some estimates of CO2 emissions seem to be about 3 1/2 times as large as others? When looking at CO2 emissions estimates, it is important to look at the units in which they are expressed. The numbers are sometimes expressed as mass of CO2 but are listed in all of our estimates only in terms of the mass of the C (carbon). Because C cycles through the atmosphere, oceans, plants, fuels, etc. and changes the ways in which it is combined with other elements, it is often easier to keep track only of the flows of carbon. Emissions expressed in units of C can be easily converted to emissions in CO2 units by adjusting for the mass of the attached oxygen atoms, that is by multiplying by the ratios of the molecular weights, 44/12, or 3.67."

c) Book: Zeolites and Mesoporous Materials at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Edited by A. Galarneau and others. Elsevier, 2001. Paper: "Evolution of refining and petrochemicals. What is the place of zeolites?" By C. Marcilly. Page 49: "The … [anthropogenic CO2 figure] does indeed appear low compared with the 770 Gt/year of natural CO2 emissions…. But unlike natural emissions which are part of the natural carbon cycle and are offset over one year by the same volume of CO2 that is absorbed or transformed, these … [anthropogenic emissions] would be considered as an excess volume of emissions, not offset in the yearly cycle (this still has to be ascertained)."

100% - 43% of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere = 57% absorbed by the oceans and the land biota (i.e., natural processes)

10.216 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon emitted annually as CO2 × 3.67 molecular weight of CO2/carbon = 37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year

37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year / 770 billion tons of natural CO2 emitted per year = 4.9%

37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year × 43% of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere = 16.1 additional tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year

NOTE: Not all of the sources specify whether metric or short tons (i.e., American tons = 2,000 pounds) are being cited. Metric tons seems to be the common standard, so Just Facts assumes this is the case with all sources. However, if this is not the case, the figures would not be significantly different because one metric ton equals 1.102 short tons.

[28] Article: "Industrial Revolution." Contributor: Margaret C. Jacob (Ph.D., Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

During the late 1700's and early 1800's, great changes took place in the lives and work of people in several parts of the Western world. These changes resulted from the development of industrialization. …

The Industrial Revolution began in Britain (a country now known as the United Kingdom) during the late 1700's. It started spreading to other parts of Europe and to North America in the early 1800's. By the mid-1800's, industrialization was widespread in western Europe and the northeastern United States.

The introduction of power-driven machinery and the development of factory organization during the Industrial Revolution created an enormous increase in the production of goods. Before the revolution, manufacturing was done by hand, or by using animal power or simple machines. … The Industrial Revolution eventually took manufacturing out of the home and workshop. Power-driven machines replaced handwork, and factories developed as the most economical way of bringing together the machines and the workers to operate them.

"[T]he atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was stable at 288 ppm [parts per million] for a long time before the industrial revolution and has since increased [to] 367 ppm†…."

† NOTE: Per the footnote above, an updated figure for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is 387 ppm. Thus, (387 - 288) / 288 = 34.4%.

Data provided in "Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change" by the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html

b) Dataset: "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from the South Pole." By R.F. Keeling and others, 2008. Data provided in "Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change" by the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.html

[31] Calculated with the dataset: "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Polar-Orbiting Satellites, Microwave Sounding Unit, Lower Troposphere (T_2LT)." National Space Science and Technology Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville and National Climatic Data Center of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. May 18, 2011. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

- The temperature increase of 0.52ºF between the 1980s and 2000s is arrived at by subtracting the average of the 1980's from the average of the 2000s.

[32] Paper: "The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures." By John R. Christy and others. International Journal of Remote Sensing, February 2011. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963955

Page 2: "[T]he first satellite to carry the MSU [Microwave Sounding Unit] … became operational in November 1978."

The temperature distribution through the Greenland ice sheet at the Dye 3 borehole is a record of the past climatic changes in the Arctic. The numerical model of the temperature distribution now presented reproduces the observed temperature distribution within 0.03 K, and shows that the basal ice is still cooled 5 K by the cold ice-age climate. The results suggest a mean ice-age temperature of -32 ± 2°C, which is 12 K [22ºF] colder than the present temperature, and a precipitation rate 50 ± 25% of the present rate. Calculations of a more detailed temperature history through the present inter-glacial period reveal evidence of the AD 1920−50 maximum, the little ice age, and the Atlantic period.

[34] Paper: "Difficulties in Obtaining Reliable Temperature Trends: Reconciling the Surface and Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit Records." By James W. Hurrell and Kevin E. Trenberth. Journal of Climate, May 1998. Pages 945-967. http://journals.ametsoc.org/...

"A chronic difficulty in obtaining reliable climate records from satellites has been changes in instruments, platforms, equator-crossing times, and algorithms."

[35] Paper: "The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures." By John R. Christy and others. International Journal of Remote Sensing, February 2011. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963955

Page 2: "At present, there are four key problems that must be quantified and removed from the raw data: (1) the slow drifting of the spacecraft through the diurnal cycle, convolving observed diurnal temperature changes into the climate signal; (2) inter-satellite biases; (3) the slow loss of altitude due to atmospheric friction, especially during solar maxima (for all but the NASA AQUA spacecraft, which has on-board propulsion); and (4) calibration changes related to the variational heating and shadowing effects on the instrument itself."

Page 3: "[M]uch effort has been devoted to understanding the errors and uncertainties that affect the trends, especially how one deals with each of the four satellite problems noted above."

[36] Calculated with the dataset: "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)." NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

- The temperature increase of 1.4ºF between the 1880s and 2000s is arrived at by subtracting the average of the 1880's from the average of the 2000s.

[37] Web page: "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)." NASA Official: James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Accessed June 11, 2011 at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.

Page 4: "Sampling Error the uncertainty in a gridbox mean caused by estimating the mean from a small number of point values"

Page 17: "However, global coverage is not complete even in the years with the most observations, and it is very incomplete early in the record."

Page 4: "Bias Error the uncertainty in large-scale temperatures caused by systematic changes in measurement methods."

Page 19: "The bias uncertainties are largest in the early 20th century for two reasons: Firstly the bias uncertainties in the marine data are largest then: because the uninsulated canvas buckets used in that period produced larger temperature biases than the wooden buckets used earlier (see [Rayner et al., 2006] for details). And also because the land temperature bias uncertainties (present before 1950) are larger in the tropics than the extra-tropics, so for these simple global averages, the bias uncertainty depends on the ratio of station coverage in the tropics to that in the extra-tropics, and this ratio is smaller in the 1850s than in the 1920s."

Pages 22, 24: "But even after removing the constant offset produced by the climatology change, there are still differences between the old and new SST [sea surface temperature] series that are larger than the assessed random and sampling errors. These differences suggest the presence of additional error components in the marine data. At the moment, the nature of these error components is not known for certain, but the main difference between the old and new datasets is the use of different sets of observations [Rayner et al., 2006]. It seems likely that different groups of observations may be measuring SST in different ways even in recent decades, and therefore there may be unresolved bias uncertainties in the modern data. Quantifying such effects will be a priority in future work on marine data."

Page 9: "Calculation and reporting errors can be large (changing the sign of a number and scaling it by a factor of 10 are both typical transcription errors; as are reporting errors of 10 C (e.g. putting 29.1 for 19.1)) but almost all such errors will be found during quality control of the data. Those errors that remain after quality control will be small,† and because they are also uncorrelated both in time and in space their effect on any large scale average will be negligible."

† As detailed in the next five footnotes, NASA published a data error that affected the worldwide temperature average.

[41] Op-ed: "The world has never seen such freezing heat." By Christopher Booker. London Telegraph, November 16, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) … announced that last month was the hottest October on record. …

… GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre … GISS began hastily revising its figures.

… Many stations had exactly the same monthly temperatures in October as in September. Here are the last three years for the Russian station, Olenek….

This exact match of October 2008 to September 2008 was repeated at many other Russian stations. … Almaty, Omsk, Salehard, Semipalatinsk, Turuhansk, Tobol'sk, Verhojansk, Viljujsk, Vilnius, Vologda … Hatanga, Suntora, GMO ImEKF. Not all stations were affected - Dzerszan, Ostrov Kotal, Jakutsk, Cokurdah appear to have correct results.

"Update 2: The faulty results have been (mostly) backed out of the GISS website. The rest should be done following the federal holiday. GISS says they will update the analysis once they confirm with NOAA that the software problems have been corrected."

[44] Blog post: "Gavin Schmidt: 'The processing algorithm worked fine'." By Steve McIntyre. Climate Audit, November 12, 2008. http://climateaudit.org/...

In the last few days, NASA has been forced to withdraw erroneous October temperature data. The NASA GISS site is down, but NASA spokesman Gavin Schmidt said at their blog outlet that "The processing algorithm worked fine." …

Although NASA blamed the error on their supplier (GHCN), in previous publications by Hansen et al, NASA had asserted that their supplier carried out "extensive quality control":

The GHCN data have undergone extensive quality control, as described by Peterson et al. [1998c].

and that NASA (GISS) carried out their own quality control and verification of near real-time data….

At Verhojansk station, which I selected at random from the problem Russian statements, average October 2008 temperature was reported by NASA as 0.0 degrees. This was nearly 8 deg C higher than the previous October record (-7.9 deg). Contrary to the NASA spokesman's claims, their quality control algorithm did not work "fine".

Are you like me and a little puzzled as to exactly how the GHCN-GISS problem happened? GISS blamed their supplier (NOAA GHCN). Unfortunately NOAA's been stone silent on the matter. I checked the Russian data at meteo.ru and there was nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything wrong at GHCN-Daily for stations reporting there. So it's something at GHCN-Monthly, a data set that I've been severely critical of in the past….

I downloaded the most recent GHCN v2.mean data, unzipped it and looked at the 2008 values in the GHCN-Monthly data base. I bolded the March 2008 and April 2008 values, which are identical. …

… I'm perplexed as to how the problem occurs in the first place, given that the error doesn't occur in original data.

[46] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

As noted earlier, CRU compiles the world's premier temperature datasets, which the IPCC utilizes throughout its Assessment Reports. CRU's datasets include the "HadCRUT3" dataset64, which contains combined global historical land and marine surface temperatures; the CRUTEM3 dataset, which contains global historical land surface temperature anomalies; and the CRU TS datasets, which contain up to nine different variables of global historical meteorological data (i.e. temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, etc.) that, among other uses, are utilized by environmental researchers for climate modeling.

Among CRU's exposed documents is the so-called "HARRY_READ_ME" file, which served as a detailed note keeping file from 2006 through 2009 for CRU researcher and programmer Ian "Harry" Harris. As he worked to update and modify CRU TS2.1 to create the new CRU TS3.1dataset, the HARRY_READ_ME.txt details Harris's frustration with the dubious nature of CRU's meteorological datasets. As demonstrated through a handful of excerpts below, the 93,000-word HARRY_READ_ME file raises several serious questions as to the reliability and integrity of CRU's data compilation and quality assurance protocols.

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING- so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

You can't imagine what this has cost me to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

So the 'duplicated' figure is slightly lower.. but what's this error with the '.ann' file?! Never seen before. Oh GOD if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite!!

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

Page 6: "The distribution of known adjustments is not symmetric — adjustments are more likely to be negative than positive. The most common reason for a station needing adjustment is a site move in the 1940-60 period. The earlier site tends to have been warmer than the later one — as the move is often to an out of town airport. So the adjustments are mainly negative, because the earlier record (in the town/city) needs to be reduced [Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986]. Although a real effect, this asymmetry is small compared with the typical adjustment, and is difficult to quantify; so the homogenisation adjustment uncertainties are treated as being symmetric about zero.

[49] Paper: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology: Network temperatures and temperature trends." By Anthony Watts and others. Accepted on May 3, 2011 for publication in the Journal Of Geophysical Research. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

Page 3: "As attested by a number of studies, near-surface temperature records are often affected by time varying biases. Among the causes of such biases are station moves or relocations, changes in instrumentation, changes in observation practices, and evolution of the environment surrounding the station such as land use/cover change."

[50] Article: " Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws." By Fred Pearce. U.K. Guardian, February 1, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities. …

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Page 4: "A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made Rumsfeld, 2004]."

Page 13: "As with the land data, the uncertainty estimates cannot be definitive: where there are known sources of uncertainty, estimates of the size of those uncertainties have been made. There may be additional sources of uncertainty as yet unquantified (see section 6.3)."

[53] Paper: "Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries." By Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. Nature, April 23, 1998. Pages 779-787. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann1998.pdf

Page 1: "Annual climate estimates, however, require proxies such as tree rings, varved sediments, ice cores, and corals (combined with any available instrumental or historical records), which record seasonal/annual variations. Studies based on such "multiproxy" data networks … have allowed the 20th century climate to be placed in a longer-term perspective, thus allowing for improved estimates of the influence of climate forcings … and validation of the low-frequency behavior exhibited by climate models…."

Page 753: "The term 'proxy' denotes some physical data or measurement that can potentially serve as an indirect record of local temperature conditions, including tree ring widths and densities, coral dO18, dC13 and calcification rates, ice core dO18, melt percentages and so forth."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. were awarded of the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as an effort by the United Nations to provide the governments of the world with a clear scientific view of what is happening to the world's climate. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in the UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; social and economic impact of climate change, possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is also, as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

[57] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

The IPCC's work serves as the key basis for climate policy decisions made by governments throughout the world, including here in the United States. A notable example is the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases from mobile sources under the Clean Air Act, issued in December.¹⁵ As the finding states, "it is EPA's view that the scientific assessments" of the IPCC "represent the best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues before the agency in making an endangerment decision."¹⁶ In the finding's Technical Support Document (TSD), in the section on "attribution," EPA claims that climate changes are the result of anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas emissions and not natural forces. In this section, EPA has 67 citations, 47 of which refer to the IPCC.¹⁷

[58] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Edited by J.T. Houghton and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Chapter 2: "Observed Climate Variability and Change." By C.K. Folland and others. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf

Page 130: "To determine whether 20th century warming is unusual, it is essential to place it in the context of longer-term climate variability. Owing to the sparseness of instrumental climate records prior to the 20th century (especially prior to the mid-19th century), estimates of global climate variability during past centuries must often rely upon indirect "proxy'' indicators - natural or human documentary archives that record past climate variations, but must be calibrated against instrumental data for a meaningful climate interpretation (Bradley, 1999, gives a review)."

[59] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Page 469: "There are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth (Figure 6.11). There are very few long records with high temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH [Southern Hemisphere]."

[60] Paper: "A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?" By Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner. Annals of Applied Statistics, April 20, 2011. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.4002v1.pdf

In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.

Pages 6-7: "[H]enceforth and for the remainder of the paper, we work entirely with the data from Mann et al. (2008). … This is by far the most comprehensive publicly available database of temperatures and proxies collected to date."

Page 18: "In other words, our model performs better when using highly autocorrelated noise rather than proxies to 'predict' temperature. The real proxies are less predictive than our 'fake' data."

[61] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change." Edited by J.T. Houghton and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Chapter 3: "Observed Climate Variability and Change." By N. Nicholls and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Page 419: "In order to produce a reconstruction, the raw data are generally subjected to some form of statistical manipulation, through which only part of the original climate information can be retrieved (typically less than 50%)."

[62] Report: "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years." By Gerald R. North and others. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press, 2006. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

Page 15: "FIGURE O-4 Multiproxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature variations over the past millennium (blue), along with 50-year average (black), a measure of the statistical uncertainty associated with the reconstruction (grey), and instrumental surface temperature data for the last 150 years (red), based on the work by Mann et al. (1999). This figure has sometimes been referred to as the "hockey stick." SOURCE: IPCC (2001)."

Page 16: "Despite the wide error bars, Figure O-4 was misinterpreted by some as indicating the existence of one 'definitive' reconstruction with small century-to-century variability prior to the mid-19th century. It should also be emphasized that the error bars in this particular figure, and others like it, do not reflect all of the uncertainties inherent in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions based on proxy data."

[63] "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction." By Edward J. Wegman and others. Prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 12, 2006. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

Page 2: "This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report."

Page 6: "Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers."

[64] Rejoinder to comments on "A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?" By Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner. Annals of Applied Statistics, May 12, 2011. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.2433v1.pdf

The process by which the complete set of 95/93 proxies is reduced to 59/57/55 is only suggestively described in an online supplement to Mann et al. (2008).³ As statisticians we can only be skeptical of such improvisation, especially since the instrumental calibration period contains very few independent degrees of freedom. Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable. …

³The Mann et al. (2008) Supplementary Information contains the following note: "Tree- ring data included 926 tree-ring series extracted from the International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB, version 5.03: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html). All ITRDB tree- ring proxy series were required to pass a series of minimum standards to be included in the network: (i) series must cover at least the interval 1750 to 1970, (ii) correlation between individual cores for a given site must be 0.50 for this period, (iii) there must be at least eight samples during the screened period 1800–1960 and for every year used."

[65] "What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About?" By Ross McKitrick. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Group, Conference on "Managing Climate Change—Practicalities and Realities in a Post-Kyoto Future," Canberra Australia, April 4, 2005. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Page 14: "MBH99 [Mann Bradley, Hughes, 1999] acknowledged that the bristlecone series are flawed and need an adjustment to remove the CO2 fertilization effect. But they only applied the correction to the pre-1400 portion of the series. When we apply the correction to the full series length the hockey stick shape disappears regardless of how many PCs [principal components] are retained."

[66] Paper: "The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications." By Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Energy & Environment, January 2005. Pages 69-100. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf

Page 69: "In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series."

[67] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Edited by J.T. Houghton and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Chapter 2: "Observed Climate Variability and Change." By C.K. Folland and others. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf

Borehole measurements attempt to relate profiles of temperature with depth to the history of temperature change at the ground surface. The present global database of more than 600 borehole temperature-depth profiles has the densest geographic coverage in North America and Europe, but sparser data are available in other regions (e.g., Australia, Asia, Africa and South America). The depths of the temperature profiles range from about 200 to greater than 1,000 m, allowing palaeo-temperature reconstructions back several hundred to a thousand years. Although large-scale temperature reconstructions have been made to more than a millennium ago (Huang et al., 1997‡), they show substantial sensitivity to assumptions that are needed to convert the temperature profiles to ground surface temperature changes. Borehole data are probably most useful for climate reconstructions over the last five centuries (Pollack et al., 1998).

† This paper presents the data shown in this graph. The IPCC report gives no indication that this data shows higher temperature in the medieval period than at present.

‡ This paper cites another paper (by the same authors) as its reason to "choose five centuries as the practical interval over which to develop climate reconstructions."§ The cited paper uses this time period but does not specify a reason to limit the reconstruction to this time period.# As shown in the following two footnotes, other papers, including one by the same authors, provide reconstructions that extend much farther back in time.

§ Paper: "Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective." By Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang, and Po-Yu Shen. Science, October 9, 1998. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5387/279.full

# Paper: "Deriving century-long trends of surface temperature change from borehole temperatures." By Shaopeng Huang, Henry N. Pollack, and Po-Yu Shen. Geophysical Research Letters, February 1, 1996. Pages 257-260. http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/96GL00020.pdf

Paper: "Deriving century-long trends of surface temperature change from borehole temperatures." By Shaopeng Huang, Henry N. Pollack, and Po-Yu Shen. Geophysical Research Letters, February 1, 1996. Pages 257-260. http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/96GL00020.pdf

Page 257: "Synthetic experiments show that the FPE [few-parameter estimation] technique can separate reasonably well information on century-long trends of surface temperature change from borehole temperatures within a wide range of noise levels."

Page 260: "[C]entury-long trends are easily tabulated quantities that make borehole results readily available for use by meteorologists, climate modellers and those estimating temperature trends by proxy methods."

General merits of the geothermal method are that (1) it is based on simple physical assumptions and theory and the GST [ground surface temperature] changes are directly determined from temperature logs, so they are free from the uncertainties of many proxy methods, and (2) due to the nature of thermal conduction the earth's rock acts as a high-frequency filter; the long-term signal of major events is preserved, and the high-frequency component is not. …

In previous work of the present authors (Bodri and Cermak, 1995, 1997) temperature logs from almost a hundred holes on the territory of the Czech Republic have been inverted into GST histories, and the spatial pattern of the climatic changes for this area has been reconstructed for the last two millennia. … The present work is focussed on discussion of the possibility to reconstruct more remote climatic changes from geothermal data.

Page 49: "A 100 year long event that occurred 300-500 years ago can be resolved with the relative variance of l0-15%. For as early as 2000-3000 years ago, it is only possible to resolve a 500 year interval with the same reliability, and the corresponding duration of event is 1000 years if it occurred 7000-9000 years ago. In other words, the further we go back into the past the less details can be resolved and the smoother trend of the real temperature conditions on the earth's surface can be obtained."

Page 49: "Compared to the majority of proxy climatic-reconstruction methods, the resolving power of the geothermal method is lower for the recent 100-200 years and is comparable with other paleoclimatic reconstructions when detecting more remote climatic events."

Page 56: " Except for some less pronounced oscillations, the GST history diagram quantitatively reproduces the generalized climate trend derived from the data of height changes of the upper tree line in the Alps and other temperate mountain regions over the last 15,000 years (Fig. 11)."

[69] Paper: "Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements." By Shaopeng Huang and Henry N. Pollack. Geophysical Research Letters, August 1, 1997. Pages 1947-1950. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/index.html

Page 1947: "Analysis of more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements as a function of depth has yielded a reconstruction of a global average ground surface temperature history over the last 20,000 years."

Page 1947: "[P]resent-day rock temperatures and heat flow at shallow depths of the crust preserve a record of the past variation of surface temperature … although the resolution of past events becomes murkier with time because of the diffusive nature of heat conduction and the obscuring effect of noise…."

Page 1948: "Figure 2.† Surface temperature histories over the last 20,000 years shown as deviations from the present-day temperature. The null hypothesis, in which it is assumed that there has been no climatic perturbation, is shown by the dashed line. The three curves labeled a, b, and c represent reconstructions resulting from progressively greater weight given to the data…."

Page 1949: "We believe [the] three reconstructions shown in Figure 2 represent the range of permissible outcomes that can be achieved, when sufficient weight is given to the observations to permit a deviation from the null hypothesis if the data push in that direction, yet not with so much confidence in the data to require the outcome to reflect every detail of the heat flow versus depth profile. Reconstructions that deviate from the null hypothesis even less than 2a are indeed possible, but they require a more forceful adherence to the null hypothesis and a weaker assessment of the observations than we feel is merited."

† Just Facts wrote to Shaopeng Huang to obtain the data shown in Figure 2, but he informed us that he would be out of the country for a few months and thus unable to provide it. Hence, we obtained the data from Ross McKitrick (on 6/22/11), who had obtained it from Huang at an earlier date. The curves produced by this data visually match the curves in Figure 2 of the paper.

"As well as more than 1,000 e-mails, the hack took 3,000 documents. The overall size of data amounted to 160MB."

[71] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

Page 1: "The emails were written by the world's top climate scientists, who work at the most prestigious and influential climate research institutions in the world."

On October 12, 2009, email correspondence and other information belonging to the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were given to a reporter with the BBC network.⁴ In mid-November, additional emails and documents were posted on a number of file servers, making it available to the broader public.⁵ A message accompanying the material read, "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."⁶

After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up talk on how everybody but him has f**ked up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the tentative title:

"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest Uncertainties?"

Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann (infinite?)

I am afraid the Mike [Mann] and Phil [Jones] are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in

Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work

this is the key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don't start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than any other.

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f**k-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f**k-all).

Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed temperatures.

I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.

If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that too.

† Cook is a contributing author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report and is cited by name 15 times in this chapter. [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Contributing Authors … E. Cook (USA) …"]

‡ Briffa is the Deputy Director of the CRU and a lead author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Web page: "Professor Keith Briffa." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/briffak. "I am currently Deputy Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K., where I have worked since 1977."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Lead Authors: Keith R. Briffa (UK) …"]

Mike your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words. I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties. Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 [Fourth Assessment Report (2007)] reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes Keith

† Briffa is the Deputy Director of the CRU and a lead author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Web page: "Professor Keith Briffa." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/briffak. "I am currently Deputy Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K., where I have worked since 1977."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Lead Authors: Keith R. Briffa (UK) …"]

‡ Mann is the lead author of the hockey stick graph. He is cited by name 29 times in the chapter about proxies in the 2001 IPCC report. [Paper: "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium." By Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Edited by J.T. Houghton and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Chapter 2: "Observed Climate Variability and Change." By C.K. Folland and others. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf]

The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. …

† "Dr. Thomas Wigley … Served as a Contributing Author of the IPCC Fourth and Third Assessment Reports as well as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of the IPCC Second Assessment Report." [Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/.... Page 37.]

[76] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

This is truly awful. GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.

[77] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

On May 29, 2008, Phil Jones† went beyond "hiding behind" data by encouraging colleagues to delete emails related to work produced for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR 4). In an email to Dr. Michael Mann‡, Jones wrote:

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa§] re AR 4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene [Wahl#] and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann#] to do likewise."

† Jones is the Director of the CRU and is cited five times in the 2007 IPCC "spaghetti graph." [Web page: "Professor Phil Jones." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp. "I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. Page 469: "Records of Northern Hemisphere temperature shown in Figure 6.10. … Jones and Moberg, 2003 … Jones and Moberg, 2003 … Jones et al., 2003 … Jones et al., 1998 … Mann and Jones, 2003"]

§ Briffa is the Deputy Director of the CRU and a lead author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Web page: "Professor Keith Briffa." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/briffak. "I am currently Deputy Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K., where I have worked since 1977."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Lead Authors: Keith R. Briffa (UK) …"]

# Wahl and Ammann are the authors of a paper defending the hockey stick graph, which was cited twice in the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. They have coauthored papers with the authors of the hockey stick graph, and Ammann is a former student of the hockey stick graph authors. [Paper: "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence." By Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann. Climatic Change, August 31, 2007. Pages 33-69. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/...] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf] [Blog: "11 Ammann Mentions in Mann's Barton Letter." By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, January 13, 2006. http://climateaudit.org/.... "Ammann's c.v. … shows that he studied under Ray Bradley [hockey stick graph coauthor] for over 5 years at the University of Massachusetts…. His c.v. lists his experience as including associations with Bradley and Mann as follows: Experience: Research Assistant Univ. of Massachusetts, Department of Geosciences with Raymond S. Bradley: Modeling of climate impact of explosive Volcanism. Further interaction with: M.E. Mann (Paleoclimate Reconstruction) …. Previous coauthorships between Ammann and Mann and/or Bradley include the following [5 examples listed]…."]

[78] Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/...

In an exchange on March 19, 2009, [Phil] Jones† and Ben Santer‡ expressed outrage over the requirement imposed by the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) that authors of its journals publicize their data. Santer wrote:

"If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."

"I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS."

‡ "Dr. Benjamin Santer … Served as a Contributing Author in both the IPCC Fourth and Third Assessment Reports as well as Convening Lead Author, Technical Summary and Contributing Author of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. [Report: " 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Minority Staff, February 2010. http://epw.senate.gov/.... Page 36.]

To: Chapter 10 LAs [Lead Authors] -- Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Whetton <phw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth. …

† Curriculum Vitae: Filippo Giorgi, October 2010. http://www.ictp.it/media/55110/fgvita.pdf. " Vice-Chair: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I, The physical science of climate change, April 2002–September 2008. … Lead Author of Chapter 6 ("Climate Models - Projections of Future Climate") of the IPCC Working Group I Second Assessment Report on the Science of Climate Change (1996). … Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 10 ("Regional Climate Information - Evaluation and Projections") of the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change (2001). … Lead Author of Chapter 21 ("Regional Context") of the IPCC Working Group II Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the Impacts of Climate Change and Adaptation."

The survey asked Virginians to identify the primary factor underlying their beliefs about climate change. Among the 75 percent of Virginians who do believe the earth is warming, one in four cited personal experience as the top reason. The next most popular reasons were melting glaciers and polar ice (21 percent), media coverage (14 percent) and changing weather patterns or strong storms (13 percent) — another type of personal experience of the weather.

Among the 13 percent of Virginians who do not believe the Earth is warming, the top reason given was also personal experience of the weather, suggesting that weather is in the eye of the beholder.

Tied for the top answer among Virginia's global warming disbelievers was the notion that natural patterns explain any fluctuations in temperature.

look at the instrumental record! there are huge differences between different regions - Alaska has warmed substantially while eastern North America cooled after the 1950s. locking onto local records, no matter how beautiful, can lead to serious errors. …

† Crowley was a reviewer of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Curriculum Vitae: Thomas John Crowley, January 2009. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley.

"Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Chapter on Paleoclimatology (April, 2005)"]

[82] Paper: "Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data." By Josefino C. Comiso and Fumihiko Nishio. Journal Of Geophysical Research, February 22, 2008. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004257.shtml

Arguably, the most remarkable manifestation of change in the polar regions is the rapid decline in the Arctic perennial ice cover. Changes in the global sea ice cover, however, have been more modest, being only slightly negative in the Northern Hemisphere and even slightly positive in the Southern Hemisphere, the significance of which has not been adequately assessed because of unknown errors in the satellite historical data. … When updated to 2006, the trends in ice extent and area in the Arctic are now slightly more negative at −3.4 ± 0.2 and −4.0 ± 0.2% per decade, respectively, while the corresponding trends in the Antarctic remains slight but positive at 0.9 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3% per decade.

"While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth's surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere."

Page 1: "We show good agreement between satellite-inferred temperature trends and radiosonde observations. It is illustrated that the Antarctic troposphere has cooled in the summer and fall seasons since 1979, in agreement with Thompson and Solomon (2002). It is shown that significant tropospheric warming prevails during Antarctic winters and springs, but we also find significant winter cooling over half of East Antarctica."

Temperature data for seven instrumental records in the Karakoram and Hindu Kush Mountains of the Upper Indus Basin (UIB) have been analyzed for seasonal and annual trends over the period 1961–2000 and compared with neighboring mountain regions and the Indian subcontinent. …

… The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.

NOTE: Credit for bring this story to our attention belongs to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. ["Turning the World Upside-Down." September 21, 2007. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010637]

James J. McCarthy is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography and from 1982 until 2002 he was the Director of Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ). …

For the past two decades McCarthy has worked as an author, reviewer, and as a co-chair with the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For the Third IPCC Assessment, he headed Working Group II, which had responsibilities for assessing impacts of and vulnerabilities to global climate change. He was also one of the lead authors on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and a Vice-Chair of the 2007 Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment.

The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate.

The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago. …

Dr. McCarthy was a lecturer on a tourist cruise in the Arctic aboard a Russian icebreaker earlier this month.

"For the first time in 50 million years, visitors to the North Pole can see something extraordinary: water."

[91] Article: "Experts are poles apart over ice cap." By Nick Nuttall. London Times, August 21, 2000. http://www.thetimes.co.uk

"Dr Peter Wadhams, director of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, said yesterday: 'Claims that the North Pole is now ice-free for the first time in 50 million years is complete rubbish, absolute nonsense . . . What is happening is of concern but it is gradual, not sudden or stupendous.' "

From 1970-74 he studied for a PhD at the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge on "The effect of a sea ice cover on ocean surface waves". His PhD was awarded in April 1974. From 1974-75 Peter was a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Victoria, B.C., Canada, working on sea ice structure and dynamics in the Beaufort Sea and the impact of oil spills.

In January 1976 Peter returned to Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, initially as a Senior Research Associate (Principal Investigator for Office of Naval Research). From 1981 he was an Assistant Director of Research; from 1987 to 1992 Peter was Director of the Institute. From 1992 he was a Reader in Polar Studies, and in 1994 was awarded a ScD (Cantab) for published work. Since 2001 he has been Professor of Ocean Physics.

Correction: August 29, 2000, Tuesday A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming. New studies of the polar icepack and its recent changes are reported today in Science Times on Page F3.

[94] Article: " Open Water at Pole Is Not Surprising, Experts Say." By John Noble Wilford. New York Times, August 29, 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/...

"The ice covering most of the Arctic Ocean, several researchers said, is broken by long, wide cracks and gaping holes in many places, sometimes even at the pole, and especially in the summer. During a typical summer, 90 percent of the high Arctic region is covered with ice, with the remaining 10 percent open water. This has probably been true for centuries, they said, the result of motions in the ice sheet caused by winds and the force of ocean currents, as well as warming temperatures."

[95] Web page: "Submarine Photo Archive – USS Skate (SSN-578)." NavSource Naval History. Accessed July 7, 2011 at

NOTE: Credit for bring this picture to our attention belongs to Anthony Watts: "Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick." Watts Up With That, April 26, 2009. http://wattsupwiththat.com/...

[96] Web page: "Submarine Photo Archive – USS Skate (SSN-578)." NavSource Naval History. Accessed July 7, 2011 at

"Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962."

NOTE: Credit for bring this picture to our attention belongs to Anthony Watts: "Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick." By Anthony Watts. Watts Up With That, April 26, 2009. http://wattsupwiththat.com/...

[97] Book: Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution." By Alan C. Ziegler. University of Hawaii Press, 2002. Pages 94-95:

At the opposite extreme from superheated bodies of water are glaciers formerly present in the Hawaiian Islands. On the higher mountains of the islands of Hawai'i and, occasionally, Maui, winter precipitation usually takes the form of snow (Plate 7.1). During past glacial epochs this snowfall was apparently greater (and/or annual temperatures slightly lower) than at present, so that a portion of the winter snowpack persisted from year to year. …. Continued accumulation of snow, and its pressure transformation into ice, led to the formation of a prehistoric glacier on at least Mauna Kea [a volcano on the big island of Hawaii]. In fact, up to four successive glaciers, probably ranging in thickness from 100 to 170 m (330 to 560 feet), are thought to have existed on the upper 300-600 m (990 to 1980 feet) or so of the summit….

… Because a glacier picks up material from the rock or other substrate over which it flows, melting of the lowest-elevation ice results in deposition of an easily identified accumulation of lithic debris or soil, called a terminal moraine. Another indication of prior glaciation is the presence of distinctive parallel grooves or striations on bedrock of an area, caused by the flow of the thick rock-laden ice over its surface.

[98] Publication: "Our Changing Continent." By John S. Schlee. U.S. Geological Survey, 1991. Last updated February 15, 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/

Before the 1830's, geologists were uncertain about the origin of deposits of boulders crudely mixed with sand, silt, and clay which cover large portions of Europe and North America. Associated with these deposits were large, striated boulders (some as large as a house) and scratched and grooved bedrock surfaces. …

In 1836 the famous naturalist Louis Agassiz spent a summer in the Swiss Alps, where he had an opportunity to examine the glaciers and glacial deposits of the area. From his observations, Agassiz concluded that this blanket of boulders, sand, and clay had been spread across much of Europe by large continental glaciers during a prehistoric Ice Age.

Much of what Agassiz saw could be explained only by glacial action. Because a glacier is a solid mass of ice, it moves very slowly, and as it moves, it picks up all sizes of debris, ranging from huge boulders to fine silts and clays. As the ice melts, all the debris is left behind as a layer of poorly sorted material.

From the nature and distribution of glacial deposits, geologists have formed a picture of what the Earth looked like during a glacial event. …

During the Great Ice Age … large portions of Canada and the Northern United States were blanketed by the continental ice sheet, as shown on the map. Much of the rich soil of the Midwest is glacial in origin, and the drainage patterns of the Ohio River and the position of the Great Lakes were influenced by the ice. The effects of the glaciers can be seen in the stony soil of some areas, the hilly land surfaces dotted with lakes, the scratched and grooved bedrock surfaces, and the long, low ridges composed of sand and gravel which formed at the front of the ice sheet.

[99] Article: "Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges." By Henrik Svensmark. Astronomy & Geophysics, February, 2007. http://www.space.dtu.dk/...

Page 1.19: "By 2005 we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds (Svensmark et al. 2007). The data revealed that electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as catalysts. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei."

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth and exert a strong cooling effect at the surface. (For clouds at higher altitudes there is a complicated trade-off between cooling and warming.) …

… As seen in figure 5, the various methods agree that there was a pronounced reduction in cosmic rays in the 20th century, such that the maximal fluxes towards the end of the century were similar to the minima seen around 1900. This was in keeping with the discovery that the Sun's coronal magnetic field doubled in strength during the 20th century (Lockwood et al. 1999).

Here is prima facie evidence for suspecting that much of the warming of the world during the 20th century was due to a reduction in cosmic rays and in low-cloud cover. But distinguishing between coincidence and causal action has always been a problem in climate science. The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule.

The experiment indicates that ions play a role in nucleating new particles in the atmosphere and that the rate of production is sensitive to the ion density. … Marsh & Svensmark (2000) found that the correlation between cosmic ray ionization and clouds is mainly in low-level clouds and not as might have been expected, in high clouds where ionization variations are large.

This feature seems to be consistent with the present work. In the lower atmosphere, the limiting factor is the density of ions and, since the ion density (under conditions of low background aerosol) is proportional to … the sensitivity of ion density to variations in the production rate increases for decreasing values of …. In contrast, at higher altitudes in the atmosphere, the ion production rate can be 10 times larger than at the surface. In these regions, it has been suggested that the role of ions saturates and the nucleation process is no longer sensitive to changes in ionization (Yu & Turco 2001). A response limited to regions where low-level clouds form is perhaps not surprising, especially when considering that high clouds usually consist of ice-particles, which involve nucleation processes not covered by the present work.

[101] Report: "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options." By Henning Steinfeld and others. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes especially deforestation caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

"The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

[103] Paper: "A New Dynamical Mechanism for Major Climate Shifts." By Anastasios A. Tsonis and others. Geophysical Research Letters, July 12, 2007. http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/...

Page 1: "We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. … These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend…."

Page 1: "First we construct a network from four major climate indices. … The indices represent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO)…. These indices represent regional but dominant modes of climate variability, with time scales ranging from months to decades. …. Together these four modes capture the essence of climate variability in the northern hemisphere."

Page 4: "The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network's synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state."

[104] Article: "Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study." By Gerard Wynn. Reuters, July 4, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/...

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show. …

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. …

Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change —a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular.

Page 3: "The 1998-2008 hiatus is not the first period in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions on radiative forcing largely cancel. In-sample simulations indicate that temperature does not rise between the 1940's and 1970's because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases."

[N]oted hurricane forecaster William Gray said that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming….

Gray … [is] a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the U.S. Atlantic coast….

Gray said ocean circulation patterns are behind a decades-long warming cycle. He has argued previously that the strength of these patterns can affect how much cold water rises to the surface, which in turn affects how warm or cold the atmosphere is.

[107] Report: Extended Range Forecast of Atlantic Seasonal Hurricane Activity and Landfall Strike Probability for 2011. By Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray. Colorado State University, Department of Atmospheric Science, April, 6, 2011. http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2011/april2011/apr2011.pdf

Page 32: "The amount of North Atlantic water that sinks is proportional to the water's density which is determined by its salinity content as well as its temperature. Salty water is denser than fresh water especially at water temperatures near freezing. There is a strong association between North Atlantic SSTA [Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly] and North Atlantic salinity (Figure 20). High salinity implies higher rates of North Atlantic deep water formation (or subsidence) and thus a stronger flow of upper level warm water from lower latitudes as replacement."

By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2 K [.36ºF] attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. …

Because of the variations of sunspots and faculae on the sun's surface, the total solar irradiance (TSI), also called the solar constant, varies on a roughly 11-year cycle by about 0.07%, which has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978…. There have been thousands of reports over two hundred years of regional climate responses to the 11-year variations of solar radiation, ranging from cycles of Nile River flows, African droughts, to temperature measurements at various selected stations, but a coherent global signal at the surface has not yet been established statistically….

The surface pattern in Figure 2 shows clearly the polar amplification of warming, predicted also by models for the global-warming problem, with largest warming in the Arctic (3 times that of the global mean), followed by that of the Antarctic (2 times). …

Consistent with the zonal mean pattern shown in Figure 2, the largest warming in Figure 3 occurs over the two polar regions. Warming of about 0.7 K [1.26ºF] occurs near seasonal sea-ice edges around the Antarctic continent and the Arctic Ocean….

[109] Paper: "Resonant Interactions between Solar Activity and Climate." By S. M. Tobias and N. O. Weiss. Journal of the American Meteorological Society, November 1, 2000. http://journals.ametsoc.org/...

Paper: "Resonant Interactions between Solar Activity and Climate." By S. M. Tobias and N. O. Weiss. Journal of the American Meteorological Society, November 1, 2000. Pages 3745-3759. http://journals.ametsoc.org/...

Page 3746: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (Houghton et al. 1996) dismissed any significant link between solar variability and climate on the grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an attitude can no longer be sustained (Mann et al. 1998; Wigley et al. 1998; Tett et al. 1999) but the mechanism that allows small alterations in irradiance to be so effective still remains unclear. Some process of amplification is required."

What can we learn from this idealized calculation about solar forcing of climatic change? We have shown that a weak but resonant solar input can have a profound effect. It is well known that periodic forcing can control the behavior of either periodically or chaotically oscillating systems if the frequencies are in resonance. We have confirmed that strong resonant coupling persists when both systems are chaotic. …

… Our main conclusion, however, is that solar forcing could indeed be more significant than has previously been supposed.

"Climate Feedback An interaction mechanism between processes in the climate system is called a climate feedback, when the result of an initial process triggers changes in a second process that in turn influences the initial one. A positive feedback intensifies the original process, and a negative feedback reduces it."

[111] Paper: "How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes?" By Sandrine Bony and others. Journal Of Climate, August 1, 2006. Pages 3445- 3482. ftp://luna.atmos.washington.edu/...

Pages 3446-3447: "The water vapor feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback … for coupled GCMs [general circulation models used for climate change projections] participating in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report [2007]…. These results indicate that in GCMs, the water vapor feedback amplifies the earth's global mean temperature response … by a factor of 2 or more…."

Page 3460: "Indeed, the global warming associated with a carbon dioxide doubling is amplified by nearly a factor of 2 by the water vapor feedback considered in isolation from other feedbacks … and possibly by as much as a factor of 3 or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered…."

"On longer time scales, water vapor changes are thought to contribute to an important positive feedback mechanism for climate change, as follows. Warming of the surface, particularly the sea surface, leads to enhanced evaporation. Since warmer air requires more moisture to reach saturation, atmospheric temperature increases allow for increases in atmospheric water vapor. Due to the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, enhanced water vapor in the lower troposphere results in further warming, allowing a higher water vapor concentration, thereby creating a positive feedback."

[113] Paper: "How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes?" By Sandrine Bony and others. Journal Of Climate, August 1, 2006. Pages 3445- 3482. ftp://luna.atmos.washington.edu/...

Page 3446: "Water vapor constitutes a powerful greenhouse gas, and therefore an increase of water vapor with temperature will oppose the increase in radiative cooling due to increasing temperature, and so constitute a positive feedback."

[114] Paper: "How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes?" By Sandrine Bony and others. Journal Of Climate, August 1, 2006. Pages 3445- 3482. ftp://luna.atmos.washington.edu/...

Page 3447: "First, climate feedback studies have long been focused on the derivation of global estimates of the feedbacks using diagnostic methods that are not directly applicable to observations and so do not allow any observational assessment (see Stephens 2005 for an extensive discussion of these aspects). Indeed, climate feedbacks are defined as partial derivatives [Eq. (A2)]. Although partial derivatives can be readily computed in models, it is not possible to compute them rigorously from observations because we cannot statistically manipulate the observations in such a way as to insure that only one variable is changing."

[115] Paper: "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data." By Garth Paltridge and others. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, February 26, 2009. Pages 351-359. http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived [weather balloon] humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. … Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their … [increasing specific humidity†] … in the mid-to-upper troposphere‡ as the planet warms. Negative trends in … [specific humidity] as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.

† Specific humidity "is the mass of water vapor (given in grams) per mass of air (given in kilograms)." In contrast, relative humidity is "the ratio between the amount of water vapor in air of a given temperature and the maximum amount of vapor that the air could hold at that temperature." Relative humidity is the measure that "we commonly encounter in newspaper, television, and radio weather reports…." [Book: Fundamentals of Physical Geography. By James F. Petersen and others. Brooks/Cole, 2011. Page 104.]

‡ The troposphere is "the layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. People live in the troposphere, and nearly all of Earth's weather-including most clouds, rain, and snow-occurs there. The troposphere contains about 80 percent of the atmosphere's mass and about 99 percent of its water." [Article: "troposphere." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.]

Page 355: "[W]hile the specific humidity … has increased at the lowest levels of the troposphere over the last three or four decades … it has decreased in the middle and upper levels."

Page 358: "[I]ncreases in total column water vapor in response to global warming do not necessarily indicate positive water vapor feedback, since very small decreases of water vapor in the mid-to-upper troposphere can negate the effect of large increases in the boundary layer."

Page 359: "[I]t is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be 'written off' simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant satellite measurements. There are still many problems associated with satellite retrieval of the humidity information pertaining to a particular level of the atmosphere— particularly in the upper troposphere."

[116] Paper: "The Thermodynamic Relationship Between Surface Temperature and Water Vapor Concentration in the Troposphere." By William C. Gilbert. Energy & Environment, August 2010. http://www.friendsofscience.org/...

Page 274: "The theoretical and empirical physics/thermodynamics outlined in this paper predict that systems having higher surface temperatures will show higher humidity levels at lower elevations but lower humidity levels at higher elevations. This is demonstrated in the empirical decadal observational data outlined in the Introduction, in the daily radiosonde [weather balloon] data analysis discussed above and explained by classical thermodynamics / meteorology relationships."

[117] Paper: "Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations." By Roy W. Spencer and others. Geophysical Research Letters, August 9, 2007. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/...

Page 1: "The precipitation systems also produce clouds that both warm the atmosphere through longwave 'greenhouse' warming, and cool the surface through shortwave (solar) shading."

[118] Article: "Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges." By Henrik Svensmark. Astronomy & Geophysics, February, 2007. http://www.space.dtu.dk/...

Page 1.20: "Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth and exert a strong cooling effect at the surface. (For clouds at higher altitudes there is a complicated trade-off between cooling and warming.)"

[119] Paper: "How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes?" By Sandrine Bony and others. Journal Of Climate, August 1, 2006. Pages 3445- 3482. ftp://luna.atmos.washington.edu/...

Page 3446: "Every climate variable that responds to a change in global mean surface temperature through physical or chemical processes and that directly or indirectly affects the earth's radiation budget has the potential to constitute a climate change feedback. … [W]e will not consider the feedbacks associated with the response to temperature of the carbon cycle or of aerosols and trace gases, nor those associated with soil moisture changes or ocean processes, although these processes might have a substantial impact on the magnitude, the pattern, or the timing of climate warming (NRC 2003)."

Page 3446: "The temperature lapse rate in the troposphere (i.e., the rate of decrease of atmospheric temperature with height) affects the atmospheric emission of longwave (LW) radiation to space, and thus the earth's greenhouse effect."

Page 3469: "The main simulated feedback associated with snow is an increase in absorbed solar radiation resulting from a retreat of highly reflective snow in a warmer climate. This process, known as snow albedo feedback, enhances simulated warming and contributes to poleward amplification of climate change. … In spite of these advances, Northern Hemisphere snow albedo feedback remains subject to considerable uncertainty and is therefore a likely source of divergence and errors in models."

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. …

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. …

… Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. …

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

"Similarly, China's toxic rivers, smog, mass migrations and serious food shortages due to global warming all suggest that Asia's 'grow first, clean up later' mentality is out of step with the gravity of the environmental challenge the region as a whole now faces."

"Likewise, to avoid the potential nightmares of global warming, such as mass migrations from flooded cities and starvation due to drought, the scientific consensus is we need to cut carbon emissions by at least 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."

Food consumption, in terms of kcal/person/day,† is the key variable used for measuring and evaluating the evolution of the world food situation.¹ The world has made significant progress in raising food consumption per person. It increased from an average of 2360 kcal/person/day in the mid-1960s to 2800 kcal/person/day currently (Table 2.1). This growth was accompanied by significant structural change. Diets shifted towards more livestock products, vegetable oils, etc. and away from staples such as roots and tubers (Tables 2.7, 2.8). The increase in world average kcal/person/ day would have been even higher but for the declines in the transition economies in the 1990s.

¹ The more correct term for this variable would be "national average apparent food consumption", since the data come from the national food balance sheets rather than from consumption surveys. The term "food consumption" is used in this sense here and in other chapters.

NOTE: † What is commonly referred to as a calorie is actually 1,000 calories or a kilocalorie (kcal).

Pages 30, 31: Data extracted from "Table 2.1 Per capita food consumption (kcal/person/day)" and "Table 2.2 Population living in countries with given per capita food consumption":

[124] Calculated with the dataset: "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from the South Pole." By R.F. Keeling and others, 2008. Data provided in "Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change" by the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.html

- Because regional CO2 concentrations vary by less than 10 parts per million over the globe, local records (such as the one used to make this calculation) are globally representative.

[125] Calculated with the dataset: "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)." NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculation is available upon request.

We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. …

Between 1980 and 2000, Earth experienced dramatic environmental changes (1). It had two of the warmest decades in the instrumental record (1980s and 1990s), had three intense and persistent El Niño events (1982 to 1983, 1987 to 1988, and 1997 to 1998), and saw noteworthy changes in tropical cloudiness (2) and monsoon dynamics (3). Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 9% [337 to 369 parts per million (ppm)] and human population increased by 37% (4.45 × 109 to 6.08 × 109).

Page 1561: "Globally, NPP [see next footnote for definition] increased (Fig. 3) by 6.17%, 3.42 PgC over 18 years (P < 0.001), between 1982 and 1999. Ecosystems in all tropical regions and those in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere accounted for 80% of the increase."

[127] Book: The Dictionary of Physical Geography (Third edition). Edited by David S.G. Thomas and Andrew Goudie. Blackwell Publishing, 2000. Pages 51-52:

biological productivity The rate at which organic matter accumulates over time within a given area. … NPP [net primary productivity] is the net rate of organic matter accumulating after allowance is made for the fact that the green plants themselves need to utilize some of the assimilated energy in order to exist and that some energy is lost to the system by the death or herbivory of the photosynthesizing plants. Human populations are dependent for their existence on biological productivity, albeit often in an artificial and manipulated form as agricultural production. Humans, as consumers, rely on both net primary productivity of agricultural crops and the secondary productivity of herbivores.

[128] Paper: "A Continuous Satellite-Derived Measure of Global Terrestrial Primary Production." By Steven W. Running and others. BioScience, June 2004. Pages 547-560. http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/...

… Nemani and colleagues (2003) evaluated recent trends in global NPP from 1982 through 1999. The somewhat surprising result is that overall global NPP increased by 6.2% during this period, with 25% of global vegetated area showing significant increases and only 7% showing decreasing trends. The complex geographic pattern of these trends (figure 3) illustrates that the Amazon basin accounted for 42% of the increase in global NPP. These trends in NPP are a biospheric response to recent changes in global climate, including higher temperatures, longer temperate growing seasons, more rainfall in some previously water-limited areas, and increased radiation (a result of reduced cloudiness) in regions such as the Amazon basin. …

Figure 3. Trends in global net primary production (NPP) anomalies from 1981 through 1999, computed from the historical AVHRR-NDVI (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer–normalized difference vegetation index) data set. Data are from Nemani and colleagues (2003).

[129] Paper: "Low sea level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming." By Sarah C. B. Raper and Roger J. Braithwaite. Nature, January 16, 2006. http://www.nature.com/...

"The largest contributions to sea level rise are estimated to come from thermal expansion (0.288 m) and the melting of mountain glaciers and icecaps (0.106 m), with smaller inputs from Greenland (0.024 m) and Antarctica (- 0.074 m)[1]."

[130] Year sea level began to rise determined with data from the paper: "Recent Global Sea Level Acceleration Started over 200 Years Ago?" By S. Jevrejeva and others. Geophysical Research Letters, April 30, 2008. http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/slr/Jevrejeva_et_al_2008.pdf

Page 1: "We present a reconstruction of global sea level (GSL) since 1700 calculated from tide gauge records and analyse the evolution of global sea level acceleration during the past 300 years. We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present … appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century. … All data sets were corrected for local datum changes and glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) of the solid Earth [Peltier, 2001]."

Page 2: "We calculate an acceleration … by fitting a second order polynomial fit to the extended GSL (Figure 1) for the period 1700–2003. The sea level acceleration … appears to have started at the end of the 18th century, although a significant increase does not occur until much later in the 19th century."

- Credit for bringing this dataset to attention belongs to Joanne Nova [Blog: "It wasn't CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800." JoNova, July 26th, 2011. http://joannenova.com.au/...].

- In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, we are "giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints" and "using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data." Thus, we use a 10-year moving average trend line to visually determine the start of the sea level rise (≈ 1860) instead of a second order polynomial fit as the authors did. Applying the date given by the authors (≈ 1800), the sea level rise began more than 100 years before surface temperatures began to rise in 1907 (see next footnote).

[131] Year surface temperatures began to rise determined with the dataset: "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)." NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

- This data is graphed below. Visually, 1907 marks the start of the temperature increase, although one could also argue that the increase began in earnest in 1917, in which case, the sea level increase began about 55 years before surface temperatures began to rise.

- The CRU data extends back a little further in time to 1850, and like the NASA data, it shows no increasing trend until about 1910.

CALCULATION: 1907 (year surface temperatures began to rise) - 1860 (year sea level began to rise) = 47 years

[132] Year man-made emissions of CO2 reached 1% of natural emissions calculated with data from:

a) Book: Zeolites and Mesoporous Materials at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Edited by A. Galarneau and others. Elsevier, 2001. Paper: "Evolution of refining and petrochemicals. What is the place of zeolites?" By C. Marcilly. Page 49: "The … [anthropogenic CO2 figure] does indeed appear low compared with the 770 Gt/year of natural CO2 emissions…."

Page 1: "Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) [gigatons of carbon] emitted annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008]…."

d) Dataset: "Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2006." By T. A. Boden and others. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2009. Accessed August 2, 2011 at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems

e) Dataset: "Carbon flux to the atmosphere from land-use changes." By R. A. Houghton and others. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2008. Accessed August 2, 2011 at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html

770 billion tons of natural CO2 emitted per year / 3.67 molecular weight of CO2/carbon = 210 billion metric tons of carbon

Adding sources (d) and (e), the first year man-made emissions of CO2 = 2,100 million metric tons of carbon was 1937 (an Excel file containing the data and calculation is available upon request).

1937 (the first year man-made emissions of CO2 reached 1% of natural emissions) – 1860 (year sea level began to rise) = 77 years

[133] Paper: "Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses." By J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean. Journal of Coastal Research, February 23, 2011. Pages 409-417. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m† from 2010 to 2100….

In the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) [2007] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bindoff et al. (2007) project a global sea-level rise relative to 1990 of 18–59 cm [7-23 in.] by 2100 and add as much as 0.20 cm [0.08 in.] to the upper limit if melting of ice sheets increases in proportion to global average surface temperature increases (Meehl et al., 2007).

NOTE: † This unit was transcribed improperly and should be meters instead of centimeters. Just Facts has notified the authors of the paper about the error.

CALCULATIONS:
(100 years × 1.7 mm/year trend of the 20th century) = 170 mm [6.7 in] sea level rise over the 21st century

59 cm upper bound of projections + (0.2 m added ice sheet melting × 100 cm/m) = 79 cm [31.1 in]

[134] Paper: "Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses." By J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean. Journal of Coastal Research, February 23, 2011. Pages 409-417. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Page 414: "We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from 1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of −0.0014 and −0.0123 mm/y², respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church and White (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas's (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years."

Page 416: "Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records."

From director Davis Guggenheim, An Inconvenient Truth is a passionate and inspirational look at former Vice President Al Gore's fervent crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it. …

After having its U.S. debut at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and international premiere at Cannes, An Inconvenient Truth opened to rave reviews and enthusiastic audiences everywhere. A smash hit, the film went on to win Academy Awards® for Best Documentary feature and Best Song.

NOTE: The sea level rise simulation occurs in a section of the documentary that begins 57 minutes into the film. It is reproduced under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law for "purposes such as criticism" and "comment" (17 U.S.C. §107).

[137] Calculated with data from the Paper: "Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses." By J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean. Journal of Coastal Research, February 23, 2011. Pages 409-417. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m [5.9 in.] from 2010 to 2100….

In the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) [2007] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bindoff et al. (2007) project a global sea-level rise relative to 1990 of 18–59 cm [7-23 in.] by 2100 and add as much as 0.20 cm† to the upper limit if melting of ice sheets increases in proportion to global average surface temperature increases (Meehl et al., 2007).

NOTE: † This unit was transcribed improperly and should be meters instead of centimeters. Just Facts has notified the authors of the paper about the error.

CALCULATIONS:
20 feet × (12 inches/foot) / 7.1 inches lower bound of 110-year predictions from the 2007 IPCC report = 33.8 times

20 feet × (12 inches/foot) / 31.1 inches upper bound of 110-year predictions from the 2007 IPCC report = 7.7 times

[138] Book: Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. By Al Gore. Houghton Mifflin, 1992. Page 73.

Page 1: "Bangladesh is the tenth most populous country in the world. Its current estimated population of 119 million is almost one-half the population size of the United States. But its area of 51,703 square miles is only 1.5 percent as large as the area of the United States. Bangladesh has the highest population density (2,310 persons per square mile) among all countries in the world that are not small island nations or city states."

[140] "Florida State of the Coast Report: Preparing for a Sustainable Future." Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management Program, September 1996. http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FSOC/fsoc96.pdf

Page 6: "In 1990, about 111 million people lived in coastal areas nationwide and Florida accounted for 10.1 million (9%) of those residents."

[141] "Phase II: Florida's Ocean and Coastal Economies Report." By Judith Kildow and others. National Ocean Economics Program, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, June 2008. http://www.cues.fau.edu/...

Page 22: "Table 4.15 Coastal States Coastal Population and Density, 2006 … Florida … 13,786,323"

[143] Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 3: " Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change." By Kevin E. Trenberth and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

Traditional measures of tropical cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons have varied in different regions of the globe, and typically have required thresholds of estimated wind speed to be crossed for the system to be called a tropical storm, named storm, cyclone, hurricane or typhoon, or major hurricane or super typhoon. Many other measures or terms exist, such as 'named storm days', 'hurricane days', 'intense hurricanes', 'net tropical cyclone activity', and so on.

The ACE index (see Box 3.5), is essentially a wind energy index, defined as the sum of the squares of the estimated six-hour maximum sustained wind speed (knots) for all named systems while they are at least tropical storm strength. Since this index represents a continuous spectrum of both system duration and intensity, it does not suffer as much from the discontinuities inherent in more widely used measures of activity such as the number of tropical storms, hurricanes or major hurricanes. However, the ACE values reported here are not adjusted for known inhomogeneities in the record (discussed below). … Prior to about 1970, there was no satellite imagery to help estimate the intensity and size of tropical storms, so the estimates of ACE are less reliable, and values are not given prior to about the mid- or late 1970s in the Indian Ocean, South Pacific or Australian regions.

While attention has often been focussed simply on the frequency or number of storms, the intensity, size and duration likely matter more. NOAA's Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index (Levinson and Waple, 2004) approximates the collective intensity and duration of tropical storms and hurricanes during a given season and is proportional to maximum surface sustained winds squared. The power dissipation of a storm is proportional to the wind speed cubed (Emanuel, 2005a), as the main dissipation is from surface friction and wind stress effects, and is measured by a Power Dissipation Index (PDI). Consequently, the effects of these storms are highly nonlinear and one big storm may have much greater impacts on the environment and climate system than several smaller storms.

[144] Calculated with data from the paper: "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity, Revision 1: 2011GL047711R." By Ryan N. Maue (Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University). http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/2011GL047711-pip.pdf

[145] Calculated with data from the paper: "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity, Revision 1: 2011GL047711R." By Ryan N. Maue (Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University). http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/2011GL047711-pip.pdf

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners. …

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion: …

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas. …

A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels.

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

[148] Article: "$750 billion 'green' investment could revive economy: U.N." By Alister Doyle. Reuters, March 19, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/...

"The opportunity must not be lost," Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), told Reuters of a UNEP study….

Steiner also said that the world urgently needed funds to jump start a U.N. deal to fight global warming….

He floated the possibility of taxing oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to help a new pact become the cornerstone of a greener economy.

"If, for argument's sake, you were to put a five-year levy in OECD countries of $5 a barrel, you would generate $100 billion per annum.

[149] Article: "To fix global warming, how about a meat tax?" By Tim Wall. Discovery News, January 31, 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

A tax on meat and milk would likely mean we'd buy less of the foods that contribute to climate change. And that's good for the environment, said a study published in the journal Climate Change. …

Tacking about $82 onto the cost of beef for every "ton of carbon dioxide equivalent" would reduce Europe's beef consumption by 15 percent. By taxing all meats and milk, Europe's greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by about 7 percent, according to the study.

"Today we have taxes on petrol and a trading scheme for industrial plants and power generation, but no policy instruments at all for food-related greenhouse gas emissions. This means that we do not pay for the climate costs of our food," another author of the study, Fredrik Hedenus of Chalmers University, said in the press release.

[150] Article: "Australia unveils sweeping carbon plan in climate fight." By Rob Taylor. Reuters, July 10, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/...

Australia unveiled its most sweeping economic reform in decades on Sunday with a plan to tax carbon emissions from the nation's worst polluters, reviving hopes of stronger global climate action with the largest emissions trade scheme outside Europe.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said 500 companies including steel and aluminum manufacturers would pay a A$23 ($24.70) per tonne carbon tax from next year, rising by 2.5 percent a year, moving to a market-based trading scheme in 2015. …

Australia's scheme will cover 60 percent of carbon pollution apart from exempted agricultural and light vehicle emissions, with Treasury models showing it would boost the consumer price index by 0.7 percent in its first year, in 2012-13 (July-June).

Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, leading scientist and IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri warns of radical charges and regulation if global disaster is to be avoided. …

Pachauri also proposed that governments use taxes on aviation to provide heavy subsidies for other forms of transport. "We should make sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking the train," he said. Despite the fact that there is often little benefit in time and convenience in short-haul flights, he said people were still making the "irrational" choice to fly. Taxation should be used to discourage them. …

He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles.

[152] Report: "Oregon's Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program." By James M. Whitty. Oregon Department of Transportation, Novmeber 2007. http://www.oregon.gov/...

The 2001 Oregon Legislature established the Road User Fee Task Force "to develop a design for revenue collection for Oregon's roads and highways that could replace the current system for revenue collection." After considering 28 different funding ideas, the task force recommended that the Oregon Department of Transportation conduct a pilot program to study two strategies called the Oregon Mileage Fee Concept:

(1) Study the feasibility of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based fee based on miles driven in Oregon and collected at fueling stations; and

Figure 3-1 summarizes in graphic format the technology tested in the pilot program. ODOT installed on-vehicle devices onto 285 vehicles. The devices allocated the miles driven by participant vehicles in various zones over the period of the field test. The on-vehicle devices sent this data to wireless readers installed at the participating service stations using 2.45 GHz radio frequency (RF) communications signals. A wireless gateway provided vehicle to pump associations and mileage data to the station's point-of-sale system (POS). Existing data communications wiring provided fuel volume sales data from the pump to the POS system. The POS system provided this data to a central computer system via commercial Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology. The central computer calculated and returned the appropriate mileage fee for that vehicle. The POS then deducted the gas tax from the sale and displayed the mileage fee amount on the customer's receipt along with the gas tax deduction and fuel sales amount.

A GPS receiver allows the on-vehicle device to determine in which pre-defined zone a participant operates the vehicle. Specific point-to- point trip data about the vehicle's whereabouts are not transmitted nor stored on the on-vehicle device or any other external data repository (that is, database). The only information collected is the total number of miles driven by zone. The on-vehicle device allocates the mileage readings from the odometer to the appropriate zone. In basic form, the minimum zones include the area within state boundaries and an out-of-Oregon zone. In the field test, an additional zone outlining metropolitan Portland was also tested.

Among the legitimate policies to consider when creating a mileage fee rate structure include energy use, air quality control, climate change response, resource conservation, growth management and traffic demand management, and, of course, fairness in paying for road capacity expansion. The electronic platform developed for the Oregon Concept allows an almost limitless variation of potential rate structures to accommodate whichever policies a legislature desires. The point is that whether a legislature adopts a flat fee rate or a structured rate of some variation will depend on the policies considered at the time.

Page 70: "DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communications. A short to medium range wireless protocol specifically designed for automotive use. It offers communication between the vehicle and roadside equipment. It is a sub-set of the RFID-technology."

Page 71: "RFID Radio-Frequency Identification. An automatic identification method, relying on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders. An RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radio waves. Some tags can be read from several miles away and beyond the line of sight of the reader."

An expert panel asked by Congress to recommend ways to deal with global warming said Thursday that the U.S. should not wait to substantially reduce the pollution responsible and any efforts to delay action would be shortsighted. …

The report released Thursday from a 22-member panel assembled by the National Research Council strongly suggests that the U.S. should be heading in a different direction. …

The best and most economical way to address global warming, the panel concludes, is to put a price on carbon pollution through a tax or a market-based system.

[154] Article: "Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage." By Amanda DeBard. Washington Times, June 25, 2009. http://washingtontimes.com/...

"The provision, called "offsets," has been attacked by both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at home, while the purported ecological benefits would be difficult to quantify."

[155] Article: "Power Plant Rejected Over Carbon Dioxide For First Time." By Steven Mufson. Washington Post, October 19, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment."

[156] Article: " 'Kill a camel' to cut pollution concept in Australia." Agence France-Presse, June 9, 2011. http://www.breitbart.com/...

Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate change.

The suggestion is included in Canberra's "Carbon Farming Initiative", a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, seen Thursday. …

Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of greenhouse gases.

[157] Article: "Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world." By Louise Gray. London Telegraph, November 29, 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5ul45RnTn

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world's most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough. …

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. …

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last "time of crisis" in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

[158] Blog post: "Rationing, Cap and Trade and Taxes." By Michael Tuckson (PhD in stratigraphy-palaeoecology). Stop Global Warming – New Strategies. Revised January 28, 2010. http://www.stopglobalwarming-newstrategies.net/...

Most of the early action to reduce emissions will have to be behavioural as it will hardly be possible to change technology fast enough. In order to change behaviour a range of government policies, globally coordinated, will be necessary.

If you understand the certainty of ongoing irreversible temperature rise and sea intrusion, and in addition the danger of sudden climate breakdown, the sort of action change required is equivalent to that which took place in many nations in 1939 at the start of the world war, which was observed to a lesser extent during the oil embargo, and in some progressive factories in the ongoing work recession.

All able adults were mobilized, given critical tasks and training where necessary. Men mainly joined the armed forces, and women took on many of the civilian jobs. Most foods and consumer goods were severely rationed. …

Note that rationing is much fairer than taxes, although possibly more difficult to implement. …

Probably a combination of auctioned cap and trade and carbon taxes with research and development and support (RDS), selected standards and rationing for particular cases would be best. …

… Taxes and rationing can easily be introduced slowly and ratcheted up as people get used to them and can predict their future.

A proposed subsidy for green central heating will lead to a sharp rise in energy bills, threaten the manufacturing recovery and drive companies abroad, consumer watchdogs and business groups say.

The renewable heat incentive, due to be introduced next April, will benefit anyone who installs renewable heating devices such as biomass boilers, solar-thermal water heaters or ground-source heat pumps. …

These include the carbon reduction commitment, which affects 5,000 businesses, and feed-in tariffs, which save £986 a year in households that produce their own renewable electricity.

[160] Article: "Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel – study." By Pete Harrison. Reuters, November 7, 2010. http://uk.reuters.com/...

European plans to promote biofuels will drive farmers to convert 69,000 square km of wild land into fields and plantations, depriving the poor of food and accelerating climate change, a report warned on Monday.

As a result, the extra biofuels that Europe will use over the next decade will generate between 81 and 167 percent more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, says the report.

[161] Article: "The New Light Bulbs Lose a Little Shine: Compact Fluorescent Lamps Burn Out Faster Than Expected, Limiting Energy Savings in California's Efficiency Program." By Rebecca Smith. Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/...

The United Nations says 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions are linked to lighting, and that adoption of compact fluorescent lights could cut pollution. …

No state has done more to promote compact fluorescent lamps than California. On Jan. 1, the state began phasing out sales of incandescent bulbs, one year ahead of the rest of the nation. A federal law that takes effect in January 2012 requires a 28% improvement in lighting efficiency for conventional bulbs in standard wattages. Compact fluorescent lamps are the logical substitute for traditional incandescent light bulbs, which won't be available in stores after 2014.

NOTE: Numerous stories have appeared in the press claiming that there is not a federal law effectively banning standard incandescent bulbs. These stories are inaccurate in that they (1) conflate standard incandescent bulbs with other bulbs (such as Halogen and LED), (2) ignore or understate the costs and drawbacks of these other bulbs, (3) conflate standard incandescent bulbs with the specialty incandescent bulbs that are exempted under the act, and (4) fail to mention the stricter regulation that the law requires no later than 2020. The next three footnotes detail this law and the fact that it creates an effective ban. For more detail, listen to the Just Facts Radio episode on this issue at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/...

[162] Public Law 110-140: "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007." 110th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. http://www.gpo.gov/...

(i) IN GENERAL.—The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—

(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and

(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.

(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term 'general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2014, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking procedure to determine whether—

(I) standards in effect for general service lamps should be amended to establish more stringent standards than the standards specified in paragraph (1)(A) …

(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT.—If the Secretary fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) or if the final rule does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

[163] Report: "Scoping Study to Evaluate Feasibility of National Databases for EM&V Documents and Measure Savings Appendices." By Tina Jayaweera and others. State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network, June 2011. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/...

Federal legislation stemming from the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007² will require all general-purpose light bulbs between 40 W and 100 W to be approximately 30% more energy efficient than current incandescent bulbs, in essence beginning the phase out of standard incandescent bulbs. In 2012, 100 W incandescent bulbs will no longer be manufactured, followed by restrictions on 75 W in 2013 and 60 W in 2014. …

² A provision in EISA 2007 requires that by January 1, 2020, all lamps meet efficiency criteria of at least 45 lumens per watt, in essence making CFLs [compact fluorescent lamps] the baseline. …

Between 2012 and 2014, standard A-line 40- and 100-watt incandescent light bulbs must use 30% less energy, but produce the same light output as the incandescent bulbs most of us use today.

While you won't be required to throw out your existing bulbs, you may be surprised when trying to find the same replacements at the store. After 2012, you'll find that these bulbs will have to be replaced with energy-efficient options, such as Halogen, CFL and LED light bulbs.

Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

Chapter: "Changing Lifestyles and Rules": "Mass transit is much less wasteful of fossil fuels than automobile use, but if the public hasn't demanded mass transit and the necessary train lines and subway systems and bus routes haven't been built, then they aren't quickly available when and if people change their minds."

[167] Article: "Scientists: Pollution could combat global warming." Associated Press, November 16, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/

Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Reaction to the proposal here at the annual U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them….

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

[168] Debate: Scott Denning (Professor and Scientist, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University) and Roy Spencer (Climatologist and Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center). Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, June 30, 2011. http://www.livestream.com/heartlandinstitute/...

Spencer (40:00 minutes): "Since R&D and energy development requires extra wealth to be generated, one can argue from an economic point of view we should be burning fossil fuels like gangbusters to generate as much wealth as we can, divert some of that into alternative energy research, and we might get to those alternative energies faster than if we starve poor people, ruin the world's economies and reduce CO2 emissions."

Page 69: "When federal or state governments mandate that some percentage of all generated electricity should come from renewable sources, they are bypassing market forces and making energy more expensive. While this does not present too much of a problem for more prosperous citizens, it can be devastating for the poor."

If the market was allowed to operate more freely, with less taxation and government regulation, then the increase in wealth would naturally allow charitable donations to increase.

Rather than increasing taxes to help the poor, as politicians routinely call for, we should actually be reducing taxes to help the poor. As the graphs in Chapter 2 showed, those countries with the greatest economic freedom for individuals and businesses tend to have the greatest overall well being of their citizens.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. …

Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. …

Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. The Kyoto mechanisms are:

The maximum amount of emissions (measured as the equivalent in carbon dioxide) that a Party may emit over the commitment period in order to comply with its emissions target is known as a Party's assigned amount. The individual targets for Annex I Parties are listed in the Kyoto Protocol's Annex B. …

Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and their emissions targets

Country	Target (1990 - 2008/2012)**
EU-15*, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland	-8%
US***	-7%
Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland	-6%
Croatia	-5%
New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine	0
Norway	+1%
Australia	+8%
Iceland	+10%

* The 15 States who were EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, took on that 8% target that will be redistributed among themselves, taking advantage of a scheme under the Protocol known as a "bubble", whereby countries have different individual targets, but which combined make an overall target for that group of countries. The EU has already reached agreement on how its targets will be redistributed.

Note: Although they are listed in the Convention's Annex I, Belarus and Turkey are not included in the Protocol's Annex B as they were not Parties to the Convention when the Protocol was adopted.

[173] Web page: "Emissions Trading." Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed August 8, 2011 at http://unfccc.int/...

Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties) have accepted targets for limiting or reducing emissions. These targets are expressed as levels of allowed emissions, or "assigned amounts," over the 2008-2012 commitment period. The allowed emissions are divided into "assigned amount units" (AAUs).

Emissions trading, as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have emission units to spare - emissions permitted them but not "used" - to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets.

Thus, a new commodity was created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Since carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak simply of trading in carbon. Carbon is now tracked and traded like any other commodity. This is known as the "carbon market."

[174] Web page: "Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)." Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed August 8, 2011 at http://unfccc.int/...

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 of the Protocol, allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.

The mechanism is seen by many as a trailblazer. It is the first global, environmental investment and credit scheme of its kind, providing a standardized emissions offset instrument, CERs.

A CDM project activity might involve, for example, a rural electrification project using solar panels or the installation of more energy-efficient boilers.

[175] Web page: " Joint Implementation (JI)." Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed August 8, 2011 at http://unfccc.int/...

The mechanism known as "joint implementation," defined in Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows a country with an emission reduction or limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to earn emission reduction units (ERUs) from an emission-reduction or emission removal project in another Annex B Party, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting its Kyoto target.

Joint implementation offers Parties a flexible and cost-efficient means of fulfilling a part of their Kyoto commitments, while the host Party benefits from foreign investment and technology transfer.

The Kyoto Protocol became a legally binding treaty on 16 February 2005. It could only come into force after two conditions had been fulfilled:

• It had been ratified by nations accounting for at least 55% of emissions from what the Treaty calls "Annex 1" countries - 38 industrialised countries given targets for reducing emissions, plus Belarus, Turkey and now Kazakhstan.

The first target was met in 2002. But following the decision of the United States and Australia† not to ratify, Russia's position became crucial for the fulfilment of the second condition. It finally did ratify on 18 November 2004, and the Kyoto Protocol came into force 90 days later - on 16 February 2005.

The targets for reducing emissions then become binding on all the Annex 1 countries which have ratified the Protocol. …

Emissions trading works by allowing countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances of greenhouse gas emissions.

† Australia ratified the treaty in 2007. [Article: "Australia ratifies Kyoto global warming treaty: U.S. alone among wealthy countries in shunning the Kyoto Protocol." Associated Press. Updated December 3, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...]

"The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005."

[178] Record Vote No. 205, Senate Resolution 98: "A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." U.S. Senate, July 25, 1997. http://www.thomas.gov/...

Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-0. …

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

Calls for any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification to be accompanied by: (1) a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement it; and (2) an analysis of the detailed financial costs which would be incurred by, and other impacts on, the U.S. economy.

Article II, Section 2: "The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…."

On November 12, 1998, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol had been concluded a year earlier (on December 10, 1997) by delegates from 161 nations and sets binding targets for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases by developed nations. It is not yet in effect internationally and cannot be legally binding on the U.S. unless and until the Senate gives its advice and consent. Nonetheless, signature by the U.S. does impose an obligation on the U.S. to refrain from actions that would undermine the Protocol's object and purpose. …

… the Clinton Administration signed it and indicated its intent eventually to seek its ratification. But the Protocol has not as yet been ratified by the U.S. or even submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent….

The Clinton Administration, it might be noted, repeatedly stated that it intended to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent (although it did not do so before the end of its tenure).

Bush: "I tell you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air like Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as evidently 99 senators -- I think it was 99 senators supported that position."

President George W. Bush … stood firm on his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. …

He had said earlier: "I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt our workers." …

Christie Whitman, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Tuesday the administration has no plans to implement the accord because Congress would never ratify it.

[183] Article: "Australia ratifies Kyoto global warming treaty: U.S. alone among wealthy countries in shunning the Kyoto Protocol." Associated Press. Updated December 3, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

However, Russia will be able to make a lot of money selling credits when emissions trading (see below) gets under way, because its economy collapsed after 1990. The protocol does not require Russia to decrease its emissions from their 1990 level at all, but its output of greenhouse gases has shrunk by nearly 40%. …

Industrialised countries cut their overall emissions by about 3% from 1990 to 2000. But this was largely because a sharp decrease in emissions from the collapsing economies of former Soviet countries masked an 8% rise among rich countries.

One of the EU's main criticisms of Kyoto is the vast amount of spare carbon credits, known as assigned amount units (AAUs), which became available as industry shrank after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Those credits can be sold to countries that want to avoid the cost of cutting their own domestic emissions.

Russia, for example, is on track to undercut its Kyoto target by about 1.4 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually -- equivalent to the entire emissions of Japan, the world's fifth biggest carbon emitter -- U.N. data show.

[186] Calculated with the dataset: "Carbon dioxide emissions by country, thousand metric tons of CO2, 1990-2008." Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Accessed August 9, 2011 at http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx

"The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005."

[188] Calculated with the dataset: "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from the South Pole." By R.F. Keeling and others, 2008. Data provided in "Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change" by the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.html

- Because regional CO2 concentrations vary by less than 10 parts per million over the globe, local records (such as the one used to make this calculation) are globally representative.

We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, conflict, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. That could also mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern– this is a national security crisis. …

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries preserve biodiversity, curb deforestation, and leapfrog the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development.

We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. China has replaced America as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.

This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers. ..

Global climate change is the planet's greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. Despite the efforts of our current Administration to deny the science of climate change and the need to act, we still believe that America can be earth's best hope. We will implement a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic change and we will set interim targets along the way to ensure that we meet our goal. We will invest in advanced energy technologies, to build the clean energy economy and create millions of new, good "Green Collar" American jobs. Because the environment is a truly global concern, the United States must be a leader in combating climate change around the world, including exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries. We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including establishing a grant program for early adopters and providing incentives for energy conservation. We will encourage local initiatives, sustainable communities, personal responsibility, and environmental stewardship and education nationwide.

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.

Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.

Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.

Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.

A robust economy will be essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children. This perspective serves not only the people of the United States but also the world's poorest peoples, who would suffer terribly if climate change is severe – just as they would if the world economy itself were to be crippled. We must not allow either outcome.

[191] Report: "Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Summary and Analysis of H.R. 2454 as Passed by the House of Representatives." By Mark Holt and Gene Whitney. Congressional Research Service, July 27, 2009. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R40643-1.pdf

Page 6: "As passed, Title III of H.R. 2454 would amend the Clean Air Act to set up a cap-and-trade system that is designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from covered entities 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Covered entities are phased into the program over a four-year period from 2012 to 2016. When the phase-in schedule is complete, the cap will apply to entities that account for 84.5% of U.S. total GHG emissions."

Page 83: "When the phase-in schedule concludes (in 2016), and all of the covered entities are subject to the cap, approximately 85% of the U.S. GHG emissions would be covered. Although this section does not specifically exclude specific emission sources, certain sources do not meet any of the definitions or thresholds. … These uncapped sources include: agricultural emissions, residential emissions, commercial buildings, and stationary sources that emit less than 25,000 tons/year."

Party	Voted YES	Voted NO	Not Voting
Republican	8 (4%)	168 (94%)	2 (1%)
Democrat	211 (82%)	44 (17%)	1 (0%)

[193] Bill Summary and Status for H.R.2454: "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." 111th Congress. Accessed August 10, 2011 at http://thomas.loc.gov/

On passage Passed by recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 477). (text: CR H7471-7619)

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 97.

[194] Web page: "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." United States Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated on April 14, 2011. http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which EPA proposed in a joint proposal including the Department of Transportation's proposed CAFE standards on September 15, 2009.

"The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources."

[196] Bill Summary & Status: "Senate Joint Resolution 26 – Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." 111th U.S. Congress, Senate. Accessed August 10, 2011 at http://thomas.loc.gov

[197] Senate Joint Resolution 26: "Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." 111th U.S. Congress, Senate, June 7, 2010. http://thomas.loc.gov

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

[198] Vote number 477: "On the Motion to Proceed Senate Joint Resolution 26 – Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." 111th U.S. Congress, Senate, June 10, 2010. http://www.senate.gov/...

[199] Article: "Obama's Greenhouse Gas Rules Survive Senate Vote." Associated Press, June 11, 2010. http://www.usnews.com/...

"Republicans, and the six Democrats who voted with them to advance the resolution, said Congress, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of writing climate change policy."

O'BRIEN: … Joining me now are two political analysts who join us here frequently. Paul Begala is a Democratic strategist, J.C. Watts a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma. …

WATTS: … But I'm not so sure that he [McCain] believes that it's because the Earth is melting, and which is the Al Gore position. …

NOTE: Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to Brad Wilmouth of NewsBusters [Commentary: "CNN's O'Brien Insists Global Warming Debate Is Over." July 23, 2007. http://newsbusters.org/...].

President Bush, however, continues to cast doubt on the consensus in the scientific community that man-made emissions cause global warming.

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's debate over whether it's man-made or naturally caused...," the president told reporters in June, hours after an extreme thunderstorm felled an elm tree to the ground just outside his White House door.

The president expressed similar sentiments last March: "The globe is warming. The fundamental debate is, is it man-made or natural -- but put that aside."

But today it was a triumphant return [for Al Gore] … to declare that the world faces a "planetary emergency" over climate change. …

The scientific consensus is clear, and Gore urged Congress to listen to scientists, not special interests. He pushed for an immediate freeze on greenhouse gases, as well as cleaner power plants, more efficient cars, and stronger conservation efforts. …

Here's hoping Congress puts partisanship aside, and comes together to act boldly on global warming.

BLITZER: He makes it clear he believes there is this problem, Jeffrey, called global warming, in marked contrast to a lot of other Republicans out there who aren't yet convinced that this is a serious problem.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Well, you know, this story illustrates just how low the bar is for Republicans on the environment. (LAUGHTER)

TOOBIN: You know, the fact that he acknowledges global warming is seen as a big advantage for him, but it's like acknowledging gravity. It is a scientific fact. (LAUGHTER)

TOOBIN: Now, the real issue is not whether it exists. The question is what to do about it.

And, in that area, he's not as far as to the right as Bush is, but he's pretty close. So, the substance is -- is a little weak, but I think it's a smart political move for McCain, and he's going to do it.

NOTE: Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to Matthew Balan of NewsBusters [Commentary: "CNN's Toobin: McCain's Global Warming Stump 'Like Acknowledging Gravity'." May 13, 2008. http://www.newsbusters.org/...]

NOTE: PolitiFact has attempted to dismiss this project by declaring that the "petition has been criticized for not checking the credentials of its signatories or proving that the signatories exist." However, PolitiFact provides no substantiation of this claim. [Fact check: "The weight of the evidence (on global warming) is that most of it, maybe all of it, is because of natural causes ... it’s fair to say the science is in dispute." PolitiFact. Accessed August 18, 2011 at http://www.politifact.com/...]

Just Facts has found a few cases of mistaken identity or duplicate names on this petition in the past, but these have been corrected, and as explained by the scientists who administer the petition: "Petition project volunteers evaluate each signer's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list." Further details about the petition are contained in the following two footnotes.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. …

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment. …

The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,487 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

[207] Book: Dictionary of Environment and Development: People, Places, Ideas and Organizations. By Andy Crump. MIT Press, 1993.

[208] Book: The Science of Air: Concepts And Applications (Second edition). By Frank R. Spellman. CRC Press, 2009.

Page 21: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas (although it is felt by some persons to have a slight pungent odor and biting taste), is slightly soluble in water and denser than air (one and half times heavier than air), and is slightly acidic. Carbon dioxide gas is relatively nonreactive and nontoxic."

[209] Book: Understanding Environmental Pollution (Third edition). By Marquita K. Hill. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[210] Calculated with data from:

a) Book: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 1. Edited by David C. Thomas. Elsevier, 2005. Chapter 25: "Lessons Learned from Industrial and Natural Analogs for Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide." By Sally M. Benson. Page 1133:

Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things. It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans. Carbon dioxide is a physiologically active gas that is integral to both respiration and acid-base balance in all life. …

Ambient concentrations of CO2 are currently about 370 ppm [parts per million]. Humans can tolerate increased concentrations with no physiological effects for exposures up to 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm) [7]. For concentrations up to 3%, physiological adaption occurs without adverse consequences.

b) Book: Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants. By the Subcommittee on Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants, Committee on Toxicology, National Research Council. National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11170&page=46

Page 49: "Thus, the bulk of the data indicate a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for CO2 of about 28,000 ppm on the basis of the findings on dyspnea [shortness of breath] and intercostal [between the ribs] pain."

Page 50: "Thus, 20,000 ppm is an appropriate subchronic [duration of more than a year but less than a lifetime] NOAEL for headaches."

Page 51: "In summary, it takes an exposure concentration of at least 10,000 ppm to increase minute-volume after a plateau in the hyperventilatory response [fast respiration] has been reached, usually after a few hours. It is not clear from the data whether the hyperventilatory response diminishes with time, although in a study at 10,000 ppm, it resolved completely after 8 days of a 44-day exposure…. There is no indication in the literature that hyperventilation constitutes an adverse response."

NOTE: There are many conflicting claims regarding the concentrations of CO2 that can cause adverse health effects. In 2007, the National Academies Press published a detailed review of this subject, which is cited directly above. Based upon the excerpts quoted above (which are supported by numerous studies detailed in this report), it is safe to say that carbon dioxide causes no adverse effects on humans until concentrations exceed 20,000 ppm.

CALCULATION: 20,000 ppm CO2 that humans can tolerate without adverse consequences / 370 ppm ambient CO2 = 54

100% - 43% of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere = 57% absorbed by the oceans and the land biota (i.e., natural processes)

10.216 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon emitted annually as CO2 × 3.67 molecular weight of CO2/carbon = 37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year

37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year / 770 billion tons of natural CO2 emitted per year = 4.9%

"President Obama vowed as a candidate that he would put the United States on a path to addressing climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants."

[213] Article: "U.N.: 2001 Temperatures to be High." Associated Press, December 18, 2001.

At a two-week conference in Morocco last month, negotiators from 165 countries agreed on rules for implementing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls on about 40 industrialized nations to limit carbon emissions or cut them to below 1990 levels.

The United States, the world's largest polluter, has rejected the accord. It argues that the treaty would harm the U.S. economy and says it is unfair because it excuses heavily polluting developing countries like India and China from any obligations.

[214] Editorial: "Poor must have the burden of global warming lifted: As the major polluters, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help developing countries survive extreme events." U.K. Guardian, June 5, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

A couple of things are certain about the latest round of UN climate change talks that begin tomorrow in Bonn. The first is that any advance toward implementing a proper commitment on reducing carbon dioxide emissions will again be what used to be known as glacial. ...

That the most polluting countries still have a responsibility to at least honour the Kyoto accord on emissions goes without saying.

"This legislation, supported by every major environmental group in the state, calls for serious action against four major pollutants -- mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide."

The state of Texas is suing the EPA to prevent the agency from forcing it to issue greenhouse gas permits for the biggest polluters when national carbon rules take effect in early January.

Until there is a ruling on the case, Texas asked the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to block the EPA's mandate that the state expand its pollution regulations to include greenhouse gases. The court denied the request.

The EPA issued a finding last year that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.

[217] Article: "Senators Ready a Bill on Greenhouse Gases; Cuts Deeper Than House's, Carbon Offsets Cheaper." By Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post, September 30, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"The bill, which is still being revised, would make it easier for businesses to compensate for their carbon pollution by expanding the available pool of domestic offsets by 40 percent compared with the House-passed climate bill authored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)."

"The best and most economical way to address global warming, the panel concludes, is to put a price on carbon pollution through a tax or a market-based system."

[219] Article: "Justices likely to toss climate lawsuit." By David G. Savage. Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2011. http://lexisnexis.com

"In a setback for environmentalists, the Supreme Court signaled Tuesday that it would throw out a huge global warming lawsuit brought by California and five other states that seeks limits on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants in the South and Midwest."

"Plans to make Britain the first country in the world to set legally binding limits on its carbon pollution were announced yesterday when ministers unveiled their draft climate change bill."

[221] Article: "Macarthur Coal takeover bid shows carbon tax not deterring investors." By Sue Lannin. ABC News (Australia), July 12, 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/...

"The Federal Government's sales pitch on its carbon pollution policy is getting a boost from an unlikely source, the world's biggest privately owned coal miner. Peabody Energy is joining the steel giant, ArcelorMittal, in an almost $5 billion bid for Macarthur Coal."

[222] Book: Encyclopedia of Materials, Parts and Finishes. By Mel M. Schwartz. CRC Press, 2002.

Page 94: "CO is an intense poison when inhaled and is extremely toxic even in the small amounts from the exhausts of internal-combustion engines."

[223] Book: Analytical Chemistry of Aerosols. By Kvetoslav Rudolf Spurny. CRC Press, 1999.

Page 30: "EC [elemental carbon], also designated as black or free carbon … is a reside of incomplete combustion and, therefore, is an unambiguous indicator of emissions. According to the particle formation mechanism during combustion, the EC—combustion soot—is often heavily 'contaminated' with organic compounds which belong to the important toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic substances."

[224] Paper: "Air Pollution Combustion Emissions: Characterization of Causative Agents and Mechanisms Associated with Cancer, Reproductive, and Cardiovascular Effects." By Joellen Lewtas. Mutation Research, August 17, 2007. http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/CRA/lbw/Lewtas_Review_2007.pdf

The airborne particles less than 2.5 mm (PM2.5), often called fine or respirable particles, may be referred to in older literature as soot since most fine particles from combustion have a high content of black elemental carbon. The particulate organic matter (POM) or organic extractable matter associated with PM2.5 includes thousands of chemical ranging from alkanes and aromatic compounds to polar substituted aromatics and carboxylic acids. ...

… The organic extractable mass from carbonaceous soot particles emitted from several well-studied combustion sources (coal, diesel, and tobacco) induce tumors in animals, mutations in cells, and have been clearly implicated in epidemiologic studies as human carcinogens [3–6]. Incomplete combustion products, however, also contain gaseous chemicals that are carcinogenic, such as benzene, aldehydes, and alkenes (e.g., 1,3-butadiene) and the volatile and semi-volatile PAH (e.g., pyrene) and other smaller aromatic molecules that partition between the gas and particle phase [14,23].

[225] Book: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 1. Edited by David C. Thomas. Elsevier, 2005. Chapter 25: "Lessons Learned from Industrial and Natural Analogs for Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide." By Sally M. Benson.

Page 1133: "Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things."

[226] Book: Understanding Environmental Pollution (Third edition). By Marquita K. Hill. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Page 187: "Trees, plants, phytoplankton, and photosynthetic bacteria, capture CO2 from air and through photosynthesis make carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and other biochemicals. Almost all biochemicals found within living creatures derive directly or indirectly from atmospheric CO2."

[227] Book: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 1. Edited by David C. Thomas. Elsevier, 2005. Chapter 25: "Lessons Learned from Industrial and Natural Analogs for Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide." By Sally M. Benson.

Page 1133: "Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. … It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans."

[228] Article: "Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming." By John M. Broder and Marjorie Connelly. New York Times, April 26, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/...

A big majority, 75 percent, said recent weather had been stranger than usual, an increase of almost 10 percentage points from 1997. Of those who said the weather had turned weird, 43 percent attributed it to global warming and 15 percent to pollution or other environmental damage. Four percent cited the coming end of the world or biblical prophecy, and 2 percent blamed space junk.

Ten years ago, 5 percent of respondents blamed global warming for changes in the weather.

75% said recent weather had been stranger than usual × 43% of these people attributed it to global warming = 32.2% of Americans said recent weather had been stranger than usual and global warming was the cause

[229] Report of Working Group II: "Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability." Edited by James J. McCarthy and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Chapter 15: "North America." By Stewart Cohen and others. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap15.pdf

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.

NOTE: Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to James Taylor [Op-ed: "Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall." By James Taylor. Forbes, March 2, 2011. http://blogs.forbes.com/...]

[230] Transcript: "Weather report." By Bryant Gumbel, Jane Clayson, and Mark McEwen. CBS Early Show, February 6, 2002. http://lexisnexis.com

McEwen, reporting: "Up and down the East coast, it's coming our way but we will probably see just rain in the big cities."

[231] Transcript: "Global warming affecting Winter Games and extreme measures being taken to protect snow on mountain tops." By Brian Williams and Jim Maceda, NBC Nightly News, February 9, 2006. http://lexisnexis.com

[232] Article: "Palin's Big Oil infatuation." By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Los Angeles Times, September 24, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/...

"In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers."

That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.

Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.

It's all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we're freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.

[237] Commentary: "Year of Global Cooling." By David Deming. Washington Times, December 19, 2007. http://lexisnexis.com

Alvin Cassell, a fisherman from St. Anthony's … "We've had such cold weather, -40C, -35C. That's not normal cold for us. We listen to the people calling for that global warming and they said there was going to be no ice and our seals were going to drown and all this stuff. … My blame is going to on scientists saying this global warming. It's nonsense. All they're looking for is an increase in pay."

[239] Transcript: "Impact of Weekend Weather; Heat, High Water, Tornadoes." By Diane Sawyer, Robin Roberts, Sam Champion, and Barbara Pinto. ABC's Good Morning America, June 2008. http://lexisnexis.com

(Voiceover) And residents in many parts of the country are suffering. In Raleigh, North Carolina, so much heat, the outdoor Special Olympics were canceled.

While this heat wave, like all other heat waves, is made by Mother Nature, we've been fooling around by turning the knob and making it a little bit hotter.

NOTE: Credit for bringing this fact to our attention belongs to Scott Whitlock of NewsBusters ["ABC's Sam Champion Nixes Idea That Cold Winter Discounts Global Warming, Touted Prof Who Blamed Heat Wave on Climate Change." March 2, 2010. http://newsbusters.org/...]

We've had a pretty hot summer, to say the least. I'm supposed to include the obligatory line that any given day or weather event can't be directly attributed to climate change, that it's the long-term trends that matter, blah blah blah. But if you care to listen to climate scientists, we're in for a whole lot more days of skyrocketing heat in the future, not to mention heat-related deaths. So maybe this should serve as a good reminder that climate change has deadly consequences—even if the law-making residents of DC haven't been feeling particularly inspired to deal with that subject of late.

" 'The last 10 years have seen some of the hottest summers in the past century,' says weatherman Paul Mott. 'Global warming could well be contributing to this current hot spell.' "

[242] Article: "Going to Extremes on Weather Information." By Fred Singer. Washington Times, September 24, 1999. http://lexisnexis.com

His opinions are echoed by academic meteorologists. For example, researchers at the University of Buffalo reported that this year's heat and drought are part of a normal climate patterns, not global warming. "Drought occurs in almost every region on Earth on a somewhat regular basis," said Charles H.V. Ebert, State University of New York Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geography. "Patterns of relatively wet, dry, hot or cold weather usually run in six- to-eight-year cycles. But media attention, combined with our poor memories of past weather, tend to generate unjustified alarm for our climatic future." According to Mr. Ebert, hot spells have been occurring for thousands of years and each one is followed by a cooling period. People just don't remember, because "our memories are short."

[243] Article: "Extreme weather? Sure. Blame global warming? Not so fast." Agence France-Presse, August 10, 2007. http://www.breitbart.com/...

[244] Article: "Federal CSI investigates climate." By Randolph E. Schmid. Associated Press, May 10, 2010. http://www.nctimes.com/...