8diggsdigg

1974Share

“Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” is NASA climate change scientist Dr. James Hansen’s first book. Dr. Hansen is arguably the most visible and well-respected climate change scientist in the world, and has headed the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Dr. Hansen greatly raised awareness of the threat of global warming during his Congressional testimony during the record hot summer of 1988, and issued one of the first-ever climate model predictions of global warming (see an analysis here to see how his 1988 prediction did.) In 2009, Dr. Hansen was awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his “outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.”

Storms of My Grandchildren focuses on the key concepts of the science of climate change, told through Hansen’s personal experiences as a key player in field’s scientific advancements and political dramas over the past 40 years. Dr. Hansen’s writing style is very straight-forward and understandable, and he clearly explains the scientific concepts involved in a friendly way that anyone with a high school level science education can understand. I did not find any scientific errors in his book. However, some of his explanations are too long-winded, and the book is probably too long, at 274 pages. Nevertheless, Storms of My Grandchildren is a must-read, due to the importance of the subject matter and who is writing it. Hansen is not a fancy writer. He comes across as a plain Iowan who happened to stumble into the field of climate change and discovered things he had to speak out about. And he does plenty of speaking out in his book.

James Hansen vs. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Hansen’s book opens with an interesting chapter on his participation in four meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney’s cabinet-level Climate Task Force in 2001. It seems that the Bush Administration was prepared to let Dr. Hansen’s views on climate change influence policy. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen, whom Hansen describes as “the dean of of global warming contrarians”, was also present at the meetings. Dr.Lindzen was able to confuse the task force members enough so that they never took Dr. Hansen’s views seriously. Hansen observes that “U.S. policies regarding carbon dioxide during the Bush-Cheney administration seem to have been based on, or at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzen’s perspective.” Hansen asserts that Lindzen was able to do this by acting more like a lawyer than a scientist: “He and other contrarians tend to act like lawyers defending a client, presenting only arguments that favor their client. This is in direct contradiction to…the scientific method.” Hansen also comments that he asked Lindzen what he thought of the link between smoking and cancer, since Lindzen had been a witness for the tobacco industry decades earlier. Lindzen “began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data.”

Alarmism
Global warming contrarians often dismiss scientists such a Dr. Hansen as “alarmists” who concoct fearsome stories about climate change in order to get research funding. Dr. Lindzen made this accusation at Cheney’s Climate Task Force in 2001. However, Dr. Hansen notes that “in 1981 I lost funding for research on the climate effects of carbon dioxide because the Energy Department was displeased with a paper, ‘Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide,’ I had published in Science magazine. The paper made a number of predictions for the 21st century, including ‘opening of the fabled Northwest Passage’, which the Energy Department considered to be alarmist but which have since proven to be accurate.” If you read Dr. Hansen’s book and listen to his lectures, it is clear that he is not an alarmist out to get more research funding by hyping the dangers of global warming. Hansen says in his book that “my basic nature nature is very placid, even comfortably stolid”, and that nature comes through very clearly in Storms of My Grandchildren. Hansen’s writings express a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change. He has surprisingly few angry words towards the politicians, lobbyists, and scientists intent on distorting the scientific truth.

The science of climate change
The bulk of Storms of My Grandchildren is devoted to explanations of the science of climate change. Hansen’s greatest concern is disintegration of the gerat ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica causing sea level rise: “Once the ice sheets begin to rapidly disintegrate, sea level would be continuously changing for centuries. Coastal cities would become impractical to maintain.” Hansen is concerned that evidence from past climate periods show that the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica can melt quickly, with large changes within a century. For example, sea level at the end of the most recent Ice Age, 13,000 – 14,000 years ago, rose at a rate of 3 – 5 meters (10 – 17 feet) per century for several centuries. Hansen is convinced that just a 1.7 2°C warming, which would likely result if we stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm, would be a “disaster scenario” that would trigger rapid disintegration of the ice sheets and disastrous rises in sea level. Hansen advocates stabilizing CO2 at 350 ppm (we are currently at 390 ppm, with a rate of increase of 2 ppm per year.)

Another of Hansen’s main concerns is the extinction of species. He notes that studies of more than 1,000 species of plants, animals, and insects have found an average migration rate towards the poles due to climate warming in the last half of the 20th century to be four miles per decade. “That is not fast enough. During the past thirty years the lines marking the regions in which a given average temperature prevails (isotherms) have been moving poleward at a rate of about thirtyfive miles per decade. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade.”

Hansen’s other main concern is the release of large amounts of methane gas stored in sea-floor sediments in the form of methane hydrates. If ocean temperatures warm according to predictions, the higher temperatures at the sea floor may be enough to destabilize the methane hydrate sediments and release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 – 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Solutions to the climate change problem
Dr. Hansen is a controversial figure, since he has stepped outside his field of expertise and become an activist in promoting solutions to the climate change problem. He devotes a chapter called “An Honest, Effective Path” in the book to this. His main theme is that we need to tax fossil fuels using a “fee-and-dividend” approach. All of the tax money collected would be distributed uniformly to the public. This carbon tax would gradually rise, giving people time to adjust their lifestyle, choice of vehicle, home insulation, etc. Those who do better at reducing their fossil fuel use will receive more in the dividend than they will pay in the added costs of the products they buy. The approach is straightforward and does not require a large bureaucracy, but currently has little political support. Hansen is vehemently opposed to the approach that has the most political support, “Cap-and-trade”: “Cap-and-trade is what governments and the people in alligator shoes (the lobbyists for special interests) are trying to foist on you. Whoops. As an objective scientist I should delete such personal opinions, to at least flag them. But I am sixty-eight years old, and I am fed up with the way things work in Washington.” Hansen also promotes an overlooked type of nuclear power, “fast” reactors with liquid metal coolant that produce far less nuclear waste and are much more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.

Quotes from the book
“Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger—unaware how close we may be to a situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise.”

“In order for a democracy to function well, the public needs to be honestly informed. But the undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public. Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened.”

“Of course by 2005 I was well aware that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had become an office of propaganda. In 2004, I learned that NASA press releases related to global warming were sent to the White House, where they were edited to appear less serious or discarded entirely.”

“If we let special interests rule, my grandchildren and yours will pay the price.”

“The role of money in our capitals is the biggest problem for democracy and for the planet.”

“The problem with asking people to pledge to reduce their fossil fuel use is that even if lots of people do, one effect is reduced demand for fossil fuel and thus a lower price—making it easier for someone else to burn…it is necessary for people to reduce their emissions, but it is not sufficient if the government does not adopt policies that cause much of the fossil fuels to be left in the ground permanently.”

“I have argued that it is time to ‘draw a line in the sand’ and demand no new coal plants.”

“The present situation is analogous to that faced by Lincoln with slavery and Churchill with Nazism—the time for compromises and appeasement is over.”

“Humans are beginning to hammer the climate system with a forcing more than an order of magnitude more powerful than the forcings that nature employed.”

“Once ice sheet disintegration begins in earnest, our grandchildren will live the rest of their lives in a chaotic transition period.”

“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”

“One suggestion I have for now: Support Bill McKibben and his organization 350.org. It is the most effective and responsible leadership in the public struggle for climate justice.”

Commentary
James Hansen understands the Earth’s climate as well as any person alive, and his concern about where our climate is headed makes Storms of My Grandchildren a must-read for everyone who cares about the world their grandchildren will inherit. Storms of My Grandchildren retails for $16.50 at Amazon.com. Dr. Hansen’s web site is http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/.

Jeff Masters

Comments (338)

Permalink | A A A

No waves no hurricanes, a silent day in tropical weather. Very nice of Jeff to come with some more knowledge about weather.

July 18, 2010 | 23 comments

Sea Level Rise Swamps Islands

The seas are already overlapping islands and coasts from Panama to India. David Biello reports

 

15diggsdigg

Listen to this podcast:

Download this podcast
Subscribe via: RSS | iTunes
More 60-Second Earth | All Podcasts

It’s a restful sound, waves, unless they happen to be submerging the island or coastal plain you call home. A combination of climate change and bad environmental practices like coral mining is now swamping some low-lying lands.

Take the islands off the coast of Panama. These Caribbean islands regularly find themselves inundated with seawater for days—and some indigenous inhabitants have begun to move to hillsides on the mainland.

0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:”“; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

New research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that climate change is already causing even greater sea level rise along the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra and Java—coastlines inhabited by hundreds of millions of people. The same climate change is also responsible for falling sea levels around the Seychelles and a potential weakening of the monsoons.

Satellite images and historical photos in other research suggest that some Pacific islands have proven resilient to sea level rise of roughly 17 centimeters over the last century, largely thanks to corals continuing to provide a steady supply of island-building material.

But rising sea levels thanks to global warming is a problem we better be prepared for.

—David Biello

60-Second Earth is a weekly Podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

Read Comments (23) | Post a comment

I think David Biello menas the beautiful islands of the San Blas. Thake a look at how it was a few years ago, when we were there by sailboat.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=san%20blas&w=96176981%40N00

• Climate Monitoring
• State of the Climate
• Global Analysis
• Help

State of the Climate
Global Analysis
June 2010

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Climatic Data Center

Use the form below to access monthly reports.

« May 2010
Global Analysis Report

Contents of this Section:

• Introduction
• Temperatures
• Precipitation
• Sea Ice
• Troposphere
• Stratosphere
• References

Global Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20^th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.
• June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.
• The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20^th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F)—the warmest on record.
• It was the warmest April–June (three-month period) on record for the global land and ocean temperature and the land-only temperature. The three-month period was the second warmest for the world’s oceans, behind 1998.
• It was the warmest June and April–June on record for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and all land areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
• It was the warmest January–June on record for the global land and ocean temperature. The worldwide land on average had its second warmest January–June, behind 2007. The worldwide averaged ocean temperature was the second warmest January–June, behind 1998.
• Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease during June 2010. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010.

Please Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed. Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2. For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v2 and to access the most current data, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page.

Introduction

Temperature anomalies for June 2010 are shown on the dot maps below. The dot map on the left provides a spatial representation of anomalies calculated from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset of land surface stations using a 1961–1990 base period. The dot map on the right is a product of a merged land surface and sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly analysis developed by Smith et al. (2008). For the merged land surface and SST analysis, temperature anomalies with respect to the 1971–2000 average for land and ocean are analyzed separately and then merged to form the global analysis. For more information, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page.

June

June Land Surface Temperature
Anomalies in degrees Celsius

June Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

Warmer-than-average conditions dominated the globe during June 2010, with the most prominent warmth in Mexico, northern Africa, and most of Europe, Asia, South America, and the contiguous U.S. Cooler-than-average conditions were present across Scandinavia, southeastern China, and the northwestern contiguous U.S. The world land surface temperature June 2010 anomaly of 1.07°C (1.93°F) was the warmest on record, surpassing the previous June record set in 2005 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). The anomalous warm conditions that affected large portions of each inhabited continent also contributed to the warmest June worldwide land and ocean surface temperature since records began in 1880. The previous June record was set in 2005. Separately, the worldwide ocean surface temperatures during June 2010 were 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20^th century average—the fourth warmest June on record. Warmer-than-average conditions were present across most of the Atlantic, Indian, and the western Pacific oceans. Meanwhile, cooler-than-average conditions were present across the eastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean, the southern oceans, and a small region in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies were below average across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific, as temperatures continued to decrease during June 2010. SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region decreased to 0.43°C (-0.77°F), a cooling of 0.34°C (0.61°F) compared to May’s anomaly. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010 as SSTs continue to decrease across the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

The June 2010 average temperature across China was 20.5°C (68.9°F), which is 1.0°C (1.8°F) above the 1971–2000 average. According to the Agencia Estatal de Meteorología) reported that the country experienced normal-to-slightly above average temperatures during June 2010. Overall, Spain’s nationwide average temperature was 0.4°C (0.7°F) above the 1971–2000 average—the coolest June since 1997.

Three-month (April–June)

April–June Land Surface Temperature
Anomalies in degrees Celsius

April–June Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

June 2010 was the fourth consecutive month with reported warmest averaged global land and ocean temperature on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). When averaging the last three months, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature during April–June 2010 (three-month period) ranked as the warmest April–June on record, with an anomaly of 0.70°C (1.26°F) above the 20^th century average. The previous April–June record was set in 1998, which had an anomaly of 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20^th century average.

During this three-month period, warmer-than-average temperatures enveloped much of world’s land surface, with the most notable warm anomalies in Canada, the eastern half of the contiguous U.S., northern Africa, and western Asia. The worldwide land surface temperature during April–June 2010 was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20^th century average—the warmest on record. This value surpassed the previous record of 1.02°C (1.84°F) set in 2005. Meanwhile, warmer-than-average temperatures were present across much of the world’s oceans, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of the southern oceans, the northeastern and southeastern Pacific Ocean, and the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. The worldwide average ocean surface temperature had an anomaly of 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20^th century average—the second warmest April–June on record, behind 1998.

Year-to-date (January–June)

The

January–June 2010 map of temperature anomalies shows that for the first half of the year anomalous warm temperatures were present over much of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans, the northern Pacific Ocean, along the western South American coast, Mongolia, northeastern China, the south central and southeastern U.S., central Russia, and parts of Scandinavia. The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for January–June period was the warmest such period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20^th century average. Separately, the average worldwide land surface temperature ranked as the second warmest on record, behind 2007, while the worldwide average ocean surface temperature ranked as the second warmest January–June on record—behind 1998.

[ top ]

The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure (depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the

June 2010 map, respectively) are generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively. For other Global products, please see the Climate Monitoring Global Products page.

Images of sea surface temperature conditions are available for all weeks during 2009 from the weekly SST page.

Temperature Rankings and Graphics

Current Month | Year-to-date

June	Anomaly	Rank (out of 131 years)	Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record
Global
Land	1.07°C (+1.93°F)	1st warmest	2005 (+0.95°C/1.71°F)
Ocean	0.54°C (+0.97°F)	4th warmest	1998 (+0.58°C/1.04°F)
Land and Ocean	0.68°C (+1.22°F)	1st warmest	2005 (+0.66°C/1.19°F)
June Global Land and Ocean plot June Global Hemisphere plot April – June Anomaly Rank (out of 131 years) Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record Global Land 1.12°C (+2.02°F) 1st warmest 2005 (+1.02°C/1.84°F) Ocean 0.54°C (+0.97°F) 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.56°C/1.01°F) Land and Ocean 0.70°C (+1.26°F) 1st warmest 1998 (+0.66°C/1.19°F) April–June Global Land and Ocean plot April–June Global Hemisphere plot January – June Anomaly Rank (out of 131 years) Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record Global Land 1.07°C (+1.93°F) 2nd warmest 2007 (+1.12°C/2.02°F) Ocean 0.54°C (+0.97°F) 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.56°C/1.01°F) Land and Ocean 0.68°C (+1.22°F) 1st warmest 1998 (+0.66°C/1.19°F) January-June Global Land and Ocean plot January-June Global Hemisphere plot The most current data may be accessed via the Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. [ top ] Precipitation The maps below represent anomaly values based on the GHCN dataset of land surface stations using a base period of 1961–1990. Precipitation anomalies on a month-to-month basis are often highly variable across the globe and even within regions. The areas with the wettest anomalies during June 2010 included southern India, southern China, southern Europe, the midwestern contiguous U.S., and parts of northwestern South America. The driest anomalies were present across northern India and across parts eastern Asia, northeastern South America, and Australia. June 2010 Precipitation Anomalies in Millimeters June 2010 Precipitation Percent Departures According to the Beijing Climate Center (BCC), the provinces of Guizhou, Fujian, and Qinghai had above-average precipitation during June 2010, ranking as the second wettest June since national records began in 1951. The BCC also reported that ten provinces in southern China were affected by storms that brought heavy rainfall across the area—resulting in record breaking daily rainfall in some places of Jiangxi and Fujian. The copious rainfall prompted floods that killed nearly 200 people. Meanwhile, the province of Jiangsu had its driest June on record, while Shanxi had its second driest on record. Overall, the monthly averaged precipitation in China during June 2010, 95.0 mm (3.7 inches), was near the 1971–2000 average. According to the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst), the monthly averaged precipitation across Germany was 48.8 mm (1.9 inches), which is 35.8 mm (1.4 inches) below average. The nationally-averaged precipitation value ranks as the seventh driest June since 1901. Most of Australia experienced below-average precipitation during June 2010, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). The monthly averaged precipitation for June 2010 was 11.2 mm (0.4 inch), which is 52 percent below the 1961–1990 average—the fourth driest June since national records began in 1900 and the driest June since 1984. The BoM reported that all states and territories experienced drier-than-average conditions, with less than five percent of the country receiving its mean monthly precipitation for June. According to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), June 2010 was a very wet month in most regions of the country, with Marlborough and parts of Waikato and Bay of Plenty receiving double their average June rainfall. NIWA reported that Whakatane and Blenheim had their wettest June since records began in 1952 and 1927, respectively. The first six months of 2010 were the second driest on record and the driest since 1929 for the United Kingdom as a whole, according to the United Kingdom Met Office. The average rainfall during January–June 2010 was 362.5 mm (14.3 inches), which is 86.8 mm (3.4 inches) above January–June 1929. The January–June long-term average is 511.7 mm (20.1 inches). Additional details on flooding and drought can also be found on the June 2010 Global Hazards page. [ top ] Sea Ice Extent June’s Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent plot Arctic sea ice continued its annual decline, typically reaching a September minimum. Similar to May 2010, the Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a record rapid rate—the fastest measured for June (more than 50 percent greater than average). The previous record for the fastest decline rate in June was set in 1999. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), June 2010 Arctic sea ice extent was 10.9 million square kilometers (10.6 percent or 1.29 million square kilometers below the 1979–2000 average), resulting in the lowest June sea ice extent since records began in 1979—the previous June record low was set in 2006. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent. It was reported that sea ice was below average everywhere with the exception of the East Greenland Sea, where sea ice extent was near average. June Arctic sea ice extent has decreased at an average rate of 3.5 percent per decade. Of note, the Arctic dipole (DA) anomaly—an atmospheric pressure pattern—was present during June 2010 (similar to 2007—which had record low September sea ice extent). According to the NSIDC, the DA contributed to the record low sea ice extent observed in September 2007. One of the DA’s characteristics is an unusual high pressure over the northern Beaufort Sea (located north of Alaska and northern Canada) and an unusual low pressure over Kara Sea (located north of Siberia). The imbalance in pressure causes winds to blow from the south along the Siberian coast, moving the ice away from the coast, favoring melt. Northerly winds in the Fram Strait region help move the ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the warmer ocean waters of the northern Atlantic. The DA may also favor the import of warm ocean waters from the northern Pacific that will accelerate ice melt. June’s Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent plot As the Arctic sea ice extent contracts (during the Northern Hemisphere warm season), the Antarctic sea ice extent expands (during the Southern Hemisphere cold season). During June 2010, the Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent reached its largest extent on record for June, 8.3 percent above the 1979–2000 average. This is the eighth consecutive June with above-average Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent. Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent for June has increased at an average rate of 1.4 percent per decade. For further information on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere snow and ice conditions, please visit the NSIDC News page, provided by NOAA’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). [ top ] Troposphere Temperatures above the Earth’s surface are measured within the lower troposphere, middle troposphere, and stratosphere using in-situ balloon-borne instruments (radiosondes) and polar-orbiting satellites (NOAA’s TIROS-N). The radiosonde and satellite records have been adjusted to remove time-dependent biases (artificialities caused by changes in radiosonde instruments and measurement practices as well as changes in satellite instruments and orbital features through time). Global averages from radiosonde data are available from 1958 to present, while satellite measurements date back to 1979. Lower Troposphere Current Month | Year-to-date These temperatures are for the lowest 8 km (5 miles) of the atmosphere. Information on the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) sources of troposphere data is available. June Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH low-trop 0.44°C/0.79°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.57°C/+1.03°F) 0.10°C/decade RSS low-trop January- June Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH low-trop RSS low-trop Report#current-month-midtrop” title=”June Mid-troposphere graphics”>Current Month | Year-to-date These temperatures are for the atmospheric layer centered in the mid-troposphere (approximately 3–10 km [2–6 miles] above the Earth’s surface), which also includes a portion of the lower stratosphere. (The Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] channel used to measure mid-tropospheric temperatures receives about 25 percent of its signal above 10 km [6 miles].) Because the stratosphere has cooled due to increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere and losses of ozone in the stratosphere, the stratospheric contribution to the tropospheric average, as measured from satellites, may create an artificial component of cooling to the mid-troposphere temperatures. The University of Washington (UW) versions of the UAH and RSS analyses attempt to remove the stratospheric influence from the mid-troposphere measurements, and as a result the UW versions tend to have a larger warming trend than either the UAH or RSS versions. For additional information, please see NCDC’s Microwave Sounding Unit page. The radiosonde data used in this global analysis were developed using the Lanzante, Klein, Seidel (2003) (“LKS”) bias-adjusted dataset and the First Difference Method (Free et al. 2004) (RATPAC). Additional details are available. Satellite data have been adjusted by the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). An independent analysis is also performed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and a third analysis has been performed by Dr. Qiang Fu of the University of Washington (UW) (Fu et al. 2004) to remove the influence of the stratosphere on the mid-troposphere value. Global averages from radiosonde data are available from 1958 to present, while satellite measurements began in 1979. RATPAC January-June plot Radiosonde measurements indicate that, for the January-June year-to-date period, temperatures in the mid-troposphere were 0.89°C (1.60°F) above average, resulting in the warmest January–June (out of 53 years) since global radiosonde measurements began in 1958. Meanwhile, satellite analyses of the January–June year-to-date period for the middle troposphere were second warmest in the 32-year satellite record, behind 1998. The global mid-troposphere temperatures were above average during June 2010. As shown in the table below, satellite measurements for June 2010 ranked second warmest on record for all sources. June Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH mid-trop 0.35°C/0.63°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.52°C/+0.94°F) 0.03°C/decade RSS mid-trop 0.45°C/0.80°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.64°C/+1.15°F) 0.08°C/decade 0.46°C/0.82°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.66°C/+1.19°F) 0.12°C/decade January– June Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH mid-trop RSS mid-trop 0.51°C/0.92°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.71°C/+1.28°F) 0.09°C/decade 0.57°C/1.03°F 2nd warmest 1998 (+0.73°C/+1.31°F) 0.15°C/decade RATPAC* Current Month The table below summarizes stratospheric conditions for June 2010. On average, the stratosphere is located approximately 16–23 km (10–14 miles) above the Earth’s surface. Over the last decade, stratospheric temperatures have been below average in part due to the depletion of ozone. The large positive anomaly in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and the sharp jump in temperature in 1991 was a result of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. In both cases the temperatures returned to pre-eruption levels within two years. June Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Coolest Year on Record UAH stratosphere 0.33°C (-0.59°F) 13th coolest 1996 (-0.69°C/1.24°F) RSS stratosphere 0.23°C (-0.41°F) 13th coolest 1996 (-0.61°C/1.10°F) [ top ] For additional details on precipitation and temperatures in June, see the Global Hazards page. References Christy, John R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. J. of Atmos. and Oceanic Technology, 17, 1153-1170. Free, M., D.J. Seidel, J.K. Angell, J. Lanzante, I. Durre and T.C. Peterson (2005) Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new dataset of large-area anomaly time series, J. Geophys. Res., 10.1029/2005JD006169. Free, M., J.K. Angell, I. Durre, J. Lanzante, T.C. Peterson and D.J. Seidel(2004), Using first differences to reduce inhomogeneity in radiosonde temperature datasets, J. Climate, 21, 4171-4179. Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429, 55-58. Lanzante, J.R., S.A. Klein, and D.J. Seidel (2003a), Temporal homogenization of monthly radiosonde temperature data. Part I: Methodology, J. Climate, 16, 224-240. Lanzante, J.R., S.A. Klein, and D.J. Seidel (2003b), Temporal homogenization of monthly radiosonde temperature data. Part II: trends, sensitivities, and MSU comparison, J. Climate, 16, 241 262. Mears, CA, FJ Wentz, 2009, Construction of the RSS V3.2 lower tropospheric dataset from the MSU and AMSU microwave sounders. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 26, 1493-1509. Mears, CA, FJ Wentz, 2009, Construction of the Remote Sensing Systems V3.2 atmopsheric temperature records from the MSU and AMSU microwave sounders. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 26, 1040-1056. Mears, Carl A., M.C. Schabel, F.J. Wentz, 2003: A Reanalysis of the MSU Channel 2 tropospheric Temperature Record. J. Clim, 16, 3650-3664. Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997: An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Database. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 2837-2849. Quayle, R.G., T.C. Peterson, A.N. Basist, and C. S. Godfrey, 1999: An operational near-real-time global temperature index. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 333-335. Smith, T.M., and R.W. Reynolds (2005), A global merged land air and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880-1997), J. Clim., 18, 2021-2036. [ top ] Questions? For questions on technical or scientific content of this report, please contact: Ahira Sánchez-Lugo: Ahira.Sanchez-Lugo@noaa.gov For general climate monitoring questions, please contact: CMB.Contact@noaa.gov For climate data orders, please contact the National Climatic Data Center’s Climate Services and Monitoring Division: NCDC.Orders@noaa.gov [ top ] Climate Monitoring State of the Climate Global Analysis Help via ncdc.noaa.gov The last report. Posted via email from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/07/19/state-of-the-climate-global-analysis-june-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/07/19/state-of-the-climate-global-analysis-may-2010/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/07/19/state-of-the-climate-global-analysis-may-2010/#comments Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:27:40 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/07/19/state-of-the-climate-global-analysis-may-2010/ Climate Monitoring State of the Climate Global Analysis Help State of the Climate Global Analysis May 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center Use the form below to access monthly reports. « April 2010 Global Analysis Report June 2010 » Global Analysis Report Contents of this Section: Introduction Temperatures Precipitation Sea Ice NH Snow Cover Troposphere Stratosphere References Global Highlights The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880. For March–May 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 14.4°C (58.0°F) — the warmest March-May on record. This value is 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average. The worldwide ocean surface temperature for May 2010 was the second warmest May on record, behind 1998, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F). The seasonal (March–May 2010) worldwide ocean surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (61.0°F). The global land surface temperatures for May and the March–May period were the warmest on record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) and 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average, respectively. In the Northern Hemisphere, both the May 2010 average temperature for land areas, and the hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest May on record. The Northern Hemisphere ocean temperature was the second warmest May on record. The average combined land and ocean surface temperature for the Northern Hemisphere was also record warmest for the March–May period. El Niño ended during May 2010. Sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean cooled below the El Niño threshold, signifying a return to ENSO-neutral conditions. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, sea surface cooling could result in a La Niña during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. Please Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed. Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2. For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v2 and to access the most current data, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. Introduction Temperature anomalies for May 2010 and March 2010 – May 2010 are shown on the dot maps below. The dot maps on the left provide a spatial representation of anomalies calculated from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset of land surface stations using a 1961-1990 base period. The dot maps on the right are a product of a merged land surface and sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly analysis developed by Smith et al. (2008). For the merged land surface and SST analysis, temperature anomalies with respect to the 1971-2000 average for land and ocean are analyzed separately and then merged to form the global analysis. For more information, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. May May 2010 Land Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius May 2010 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius Temperatures during May 2010 were warmer than average for much of the world’s land surface, with the warmest temperature anomalies occurring over eastern North America, eastern Brazil, Scandinavia, eastern Europe, equatorial and southern Africa, eastern Russia, and southern Asia. In eastern North America temperatures were 2°C (3.6°F) to 4°C (7.2°F) above normal. According to Environment Canada, some locations in Ontario had their warmest May on record. The warmth over southern Asia was also notable, with the Chinese Province of Yunan having its warmest May since 1951. Anomalously cool temperatures were present for western North America, northern Argentina, western Europe, and interior Asia. According to the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst), Germany experienced its coolest May since 1991 and its 12th coolest May on record. The worldwide land temperatures for May 2010 ranked was the warmest May on record, 1.04°C (1.87°F) above the 20th century average of 11.1°C (52°F). The global temperature dataset period of record dates back to 1880, with 131 years of May data. The worldwide ocean temperatures during May 2010 were 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average, and ranked as the second warmest May on record, behind 1998. The warmest sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were present in the tropical Atlantic, southern Pacific, and Indian Ocean. The warm SSTs which have been present for the year-to-date over the equatorial East Pacific decreased, signifying the end of El Niño and the return to ENSO-neutral conditions. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, the sea surface cooling could result in a La Niña during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. Below-average SSTs during May occurred across the southern oceans, the southeast and northeast Pacific, and the central North Atlantic. The global combined land and ocean surface temperature average for May was the warmest on record. The globally averaged temperature for both land and ocean surfaces was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). The May 2010 average temperature for the Northern Hemisphere (land and ocean surface combined) was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average and was the warmest May on record for the hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was also record warm, at 1.14°C (2.05°F) above the 20th century average. Meanwhile, the ocean surface temperature ranked as second warmest May, behind 2005, with a temperature of 0.54°C (0.97) above the 20th century average. The India Meteorological Department (IMD) reported that Delhi, India was anomalously warm during the month. The average daily maximum temperature for May was 41.5°C (106.7°F), which is 1.9°C (3.4°F) above the long-term average. The highest temperature experienced during the month was 45.4°C (113.7°F); the all-time maximum May temperature for Dehli is 47.2°C (116.9°F) which occurred on May 29th 1944. Minimum daytime temperatures during the month were also very warm, averaging 27.8°C (82.0°F), which is 1.9°C (3.4°F) above the long-term mean. According to the Pakistani Meteorological Service, a record-breaking heatwave affected portions of that country during the last week of May. Temperatures on May 26th soared to over 53.0°C (127.4°F) in several locations, which the highest temperature of 53.5°C (128.3°F) measured in MahenjuDaro. The average temperature for the Southern Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined) was 0.61°C (1.10°F) above the 20th century average, and tied for second warmest May on record with 2002 and behind 1998. The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures during May 2010 were the second warmest May on record, behind 1998, with an anomaly of 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average. The May 2010 Southern Hemisphere land temperatures were 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average — the fourth warmest May on record. According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), May 2010 had above-normal temperatures for most of the country. The monthly national average of daily maximum temperatures were 0.23°C (0.4°F) above normal, with the warmest anomalies occurring in Western Australia, the far northern tropics, northwestern Victoria, and parts of South Australia. The coolest maximum temperatures occurred in the central Northern Territory and northeastern West Australia. During the month, daily minimum temperatures averaged 0.2°C (0.4°F) above normal with warm temperature anomalies as high as 4°C (7.2°F) occurring in the Northern Territory. Cool anomalies of up to 2°C (3.6°F) occurred along the east and west coasts of Australia. New Zealand experienced above normal temperatures during May 2010. According to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the nationally averaged temperature for the month was 0.6°C (1.1°F) above the 1971–2000 reference period. Some locations had monthly warm anomalies up to 1.2°C (2.2°F) above average, while other locations had below-averge to near-normal temperatures for the month. Season (March–May) March 2010 – May 2010 Land Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius March 2010 – May 2010 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius The combined global land and ocean surface temperature during March–May 2010 was 14.4°C (58.0°F) and ranked as the warmest such period on record. The three-month average temperature was 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century mean of 13.7°C (56.7°F). Warmer-than-average temperatures were present over most of the globe’s land surface areas. The global land surfaces were also record warm for the period, with average temperatures 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest anomalies occurred over eastern and northern North America, eastern Brazil, northern Africa, eastern Europe, and southern Asia. Meanwhile, anomalously cool conditions were present over eastern Asia and the western United States. Global ocean temperatures were 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average and ranked as second warmest March–May, behind 1998. Very warm SSTs occurred across the tropical Atlantic Ocean, with above average temperatures present in the Indian Ocean, and the southern and northwest Pacific Ocean. Cooler-than-normal ocean temperatures were present in the non-equatorial eastern Pacific, the central North Atlantic, and the Southern Oceans. The Northern Hemisphere combined temperature (land and ocean surface) for March–May 2010 was record warm, with temperatures 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average. The Northern Hemisphere oceans were also record warm for March–May with temperatures 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the long-term mean. The extraordinary warmth in the North Atlantic contributed to the seasonal record. Land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were the warmest March–May on record, with an anomaly of 1.35°C (2.4.°F) above the 20th century average. During the March–May period, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada were very warm. According to the dot map analysis above, temperature anomalies were as high as 5°C (9°F) above average for the region. For the spring period, the northeastern U.S. experienced its warmest such period in the 116 year record. According to the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, temperatures across the United Kingdom (U.K.) were near normal for the March–May period with the average temperature of 7.6°C (45.7°F) only 0.2°C (0.4°F) above the 1971-2000 average. Spring temperature conditions across the Irish Republic were similar to those of the U.K., with average temperatures slightly above normal. However, according to the Irish Meteorological Service, their spring was the coolest March–May period since 2001 after a string of warm springs. The Southern Hemisphere combined land and ocean temperature for March–May 2010 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average, and ranked as second warmest March–May, behind 1998. The ocean surface temperature for the hemisphere also ranked as second warmest, behind 1998, with an average temperature 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average. The land surface temperature for the period ranked as third warmest, with temperatures 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average. According to New Zealand’s NIWA office, the average autumn temperature for the nation was 13.8°C (56.8°F), which is 0.5 (0.9°F) above the March–May average. The South Island and the coastal regions of the North Island experienced warm temperature anomalies as high as 1.2°C (2.2°F). Temperatures were generally near average for the rest of New Zealand. The Australian BoM reported that the autumn (March–May) temperatures for the country were genereally warm with the average daily maximum temperatures for the period being 0.36°C (0.6°F) above normal. The Northern Territory and Queensland had below-average autumn temperatures, but above-average temperatures occurred everywhere else. Tasmania and Western Australia were particularly warm, with March–May temperatures in Tasmania tying with 1998 as record warmest. The average daily minimum March–May temperatures were 0.72°C (1.3°F) above average for Australia, and ranked as the 11th warmest March–May on record. Some locations in the Northern Territory had average daily minimum temperatures of 3°C (5.4°F) above normal during Autumn. Year-to-date (January-May) The January-May 2010 map of temperature anomalies shows above-average temperatures over most of the globe’s surface area. The warmest surface temperature anomalies for the year-to-date period occurred over Canada, the northern U.S., southern Greenland, northern Africa, southwest Asia, Siberia, southern Australia, the tropical North Atlantic, and the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Cool temperature anomalies were present for the southeastern U.S., central Asia, western Europe, non-equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans. The global land and ocean surface combined temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest such period on record with temperatures 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average. Global ocean surface temperatures were second warmest January–May on record, behind 1998, with temperatures 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average. The average global land surface temperature for the period was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century reference period and ranked third warmest January–May on record. The Northern Hemisphere combined temperatures (land and ocean surface) were 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average and ranked as third warmest January–May. The land surface temperature for the hemisphere ranked as fourth warmest with temperatures 1.11°C (2.0°F) above average, and the ocean surface ranked as warmest January–May with temperatures 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 20th century mean. The Southern Hemisphere combined temperatures (land and ocean surfaces), and ocean surface temperatures, ranked as second warmest with temperatures 0.61°C (1.10°F) and 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average, respectively. The average Southern Hemisphere land surface temperature for January-May 2010 was the warmest January–May on record with temperature anomalies of 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average. [ top ] The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure (depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the May 2010 map and March 2010 – May 2010, respectively) are generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively. For other Global products, please see the Climate Monitoring Global Products page. Images of sea surface temperature conditions are available for all weeks during 2010 from the weekly SST page. Temperature Rankings and Graphics Current Month | Seasonal | Year-to-date May Anomaly Rank (out of 131 years) Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record Global Land 1.04°C ( 1.87°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.90°C/1.62°F) Ocean 0.55°C ( 0.99°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.56°C/1.01°F) Land and Ocean 0.69°C ( 1.24°F) 1st warmest 1998 ( 0.63°C/1.13°F) Northern Hemisphere Land 1.14°C ( 2.05°F) 1st warmest 2007 ( 1.08°C/1.94°F) Ocean 0.54°C ( 0.97°F) 2nd warmest 2005 ( 0.57°C/1.03°F) Land and Ocean 0.77°C ( 1.39°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.70°C/1.26°F) Southern Hemisphere Land 0.78°C ( 1.40°F) 4th warmest 2002 ( 0.94°C/1.69°F) Ocean 0.58°C ( 1.04°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.62°C/1.12°F) Land and Ocean 0.61°C ( 1.10°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.65°C/1.17°F) May Global Land and Ocean plot May Global Hemisphere plot March – May Anomaly Rank (out of 131 years) Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record Global Land 1.22°C ( 2.20°F) 1st warmest 2007 ( 1.13°C/2.03°F) Ocean 0.55°C ( 0.99°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.56°C/1.01°F) Land and Ocean 0.73°C ( 1.31°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.65°C/1.17°F) Northern Hemisphere Land 1.35°C ( 2.43°F) 1st warmest 2008 ( 1.34°C/2.41°F) Ocean 0.55°C ( 0.99°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.50°C/0.90°F) Land and Ocean 0.86°C ( 1.55°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.76°C/1.37°F) Southern Hemisphere Land 0.88°C ( 1.58°F) 3rd warmest 2005 ( 0.93°C/1.67°F) Ocean 0.57°C ( 1.03°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.61°C/1.10°F) Land and Ocean 0.62°C ( 1.12°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.65°C/1.17°F) March–May Global Land and Ocean plot March–May Global Hemisphere plot January – May Anomaly Rank (out of 131 years) Warmest/Next Warmest Year on Record Global Land 1.05°C ( 1.89°F) 3rd warmest 2007 ( 1.23°C/2.21°F) Ocean 0.54°C ( 0.97°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.56°C/1.01°F) Land and Ocean 0.68°C ( 1.22°F) 1st warmest 1998 ( 0.67°C/1.21°F) Northern Hemisphere Land 1.11°C ( 2.00°F) 4th warmest 2007 ( 1.44°C/2.59°F) Ocean 0.53°C ( 0.95°F) 1st warmest 1998 ( 0.52°C/0.94°F) Land and Ocean 0.75°C ( 1.35°F) 3rd warmest 2007 ( 0.82°C/1.48°F) Southern Hemisphere Land 0.89°C ( 1.60°F) 1st warmest 2005 ( 0.87°C/1.57°F) Ocean 0.57°C ( 1.03°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.60°C/1.08°F) Land and Ocean 0.61°C ( 1.10°F) 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.63°C/1.13°F) January-May Global Land and Ocean plot January-May Global Hemisphere plot The most current data may be accessed via the Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. [ top ] Precipitation The maps below represent anomaly values based on the GHCN dataset of land surface stations using a base period of 1961-1990. During the March–May 2010 period, above-average precipitation fell over areas that included Bangladesh, eastern Asia, central South America, eastern Europe, and the U.S. Florida peninsula. The driest anomalies during March–May 2010 were observed across southeast Asia, the Hawaiian islands, eastern Brazil, southern Chile, the southern Pacific Islands, eastern Australia, and South Africa. During May 2010, above-average precipitation fell over areas that included eastern and central Europe, southeast China, the southern Caribbean, northern Argentina, parts of the U.S., and New Zealand. The areas with the driest anomalies during May 2010 were observed across the southern U.S., eastern Brazil, southern Chile, Thailand, and the western equatorial Pacific Islands. May 2010 Precipitation Anomalies in Millimeters March–May 2010 Precipitation Anomalies in Millimeters According to the Beijing Climate Center, May 2010 average precipitation over China was 107.8 mm (4.2 inches), which was 15.2 mm (0.6 inches) higher than the 1971-2000 average. The northern provinces of Inner Mongolia and Jilin experienced their wettest May on record, which extends back to 1951. Liaoning province had its second wettest May since 1951. According to New Zealand’s NIWA office, New Zealand had a dry March–May period, with rainfall values typically 50 to 80 percent below the Southern Hemisphere autumn (March–May) normal. However, the southern portions of the South Island was exceptionally wet with precipitation more than 150 percent of normal. Conversely, May brought wet conditions to most of the eastern portions of the country. Most of the autumn rainfall for New Zealand fell during May. Rainfall totals of more than double the May average were widespread for the eastern coasts of both the North and South Islands. Conversely, the west coasts of both islands were dry, with less than half of the typical rainfall amounts. The Irish Republic was dry on both the monthly (May) and seasonal (March–May) time scale, according to the Irish Meteorological Service. Most of the precipitation to affect Ireland during spring fell during March and April and was in the form of snow and ice. Seasonal precipitation values were around three quarters of the seasonal average at nearly all locations. During May, it rained between 8 and 10 days during the month, with most stations receiving less than the half of their normal May precipitation amounts. On average, Ireland receives rainfall on 12 to 16 days during May. According to the Indian Meteorological Department, the Indian state of Delhi received a total of 5.4 mm (0.2 inches) during May, compared to the May average of 17.9 mm (0.7 inches). The weather pattern during the month was dominated by high pressure, with only a few westerly disturbances bringing precipitation. The U.K. meteorological office reported below-average rainfall for the Northern Hemisphere spring (March–May). It was the driest spring since 1984 and 12th driest in the U.K. since 1910. April and May were particularly dry months, with less than 50 percent of the monthly average rainfall recorded over much of England and Wales. May brought below-average rainfall across almost all of the U.K. with precipitation totals less than 50 percent of normal. Parts of western Scotland, central southern England and a broad swath from East Anglia to Cumbria were exceptionally dry. It was the driest May across the U.K. since 1998. According to the Australian BoM, the May national rainfall was six percent above the long-term average. It was a wet month over most tropical areas of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. In these regions, for which May is normally the first month of the dry season, rainfall was well above normal. Most other areas were drier than average, particularly in Queensland, where statewide rainfall was 48 percent below normal. Large parts of inland New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and western West Australia were also drier than normal. The autumn season (March–May) as a whole was wet for Australia, with the nationally averaged precipitation 11 percent above the long-term mean, with above-normal precipitation amounts covering large parts of the eastern two-thirds of the country, especially in the southern tropics and subtropics. New South Wales and Victoria both had their wettest autumns in at least 10 years. Additional details on flooding and drought events around the world can also be found on the May 2010 Global Hazards page. [ top ] NH Snow Cover Extent Data were provided by the Global Snow Laboratory, Rutgers University. Period of record is 1967-2010 (44 years). May’s Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent plot The average Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during May 2010 was 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) below average, resulting in the smallest May snow cover extent on record. The average Northern Hemisphere May snow cover extent for the 1967-2010 period of record is 19.5 million square kilometers (7.5 million square miles). Snow cover extent during March–May 2010 was 2.1 million square kilometers (0.8 million square miles) below the 1967-2010 average and the fourth smallest Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover extent on record. The 44-year average spring snow cover extent for the period of record is 19.6 million square kilometers (7.6 million square miles). May’s North America Snow Cover Extent plot Across North America, snow cover for May 2010 was 1.6 million square kilometers (0.6 million square miles) below average—the lowest May snow cover extent since satellite records began in 1967. The small snow extent can be attributed to the anomalously warm conditions that engulfed much of North America during May and the previous month of April. The average North American May snow cover extent is 9.44 million square kilometers (3.6 million square miles) for the 1967-2010 period of record. North American snow cover extent averaged for spring was also at a record low extent — 1.5 million square kilometers (0.6 million square miles) below the 1967-2010 average. May’s Eurasia Snow Cover Extent plot Anomalously warm temperatures were present over much of Eurasia during May, especially in the higher latitudes. The warm temperatures during the month contributed to Eurasia having the lowest May snow cover extent in the 1967-2010 period of record. Snow covered 2.7 million square kilometers (1.0 million square miles) less than the 1967-2010 average snow cover extent of 10.1 million square kilometers (3.9 million square miles). Above-average snow cover in March, near-average in April, and much below-average in May caused Eurasia to have a spring snow cover extent anomaly of 0.6 million square kilometers below average— the 14th smallest spring snow cover extent on record. The 44-year Eurasian spring snow cover extent average is 17.4 million square kilometers (6.7 million square miles). [ top ] Sea Ice Extent May’s Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent plot Arctic sea ice continued its annual retreat during May. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Arctic sea ice extent retreated at a rapid pace — 50 percent faster than the average May melting rate. The Arctic ice had a late-growth spurt during March, which resulted in large areas of thin ice. Above average temperatures across most of the Arctic during May melted the late growth ice quickly. The average May 2010 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 13.10 million square kilometers (5.1 million square miles) or 3.68 percent (0.5 million square kilometers[0.2 million square miles]) below the 1971-2000 average, resulting in the ninth lowest May Arctic sea ice extent in the period of record. Much of the May melting occurred in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhostk. The average May Arctic sea ice extent has decreased at an average rate of 2.4 percent per decade since 1979. May’s Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent plot During May, the Southern Hemisphere ice continued its annual growth cycle, with May 2010 ice extent 7.3 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This marks the fourth largest May Southern Hemisphere ice extent on record. Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent for May has increased at an average rate of 2.4 percent per decade. For further information on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere snow and ice conditions, please visit the NSIDC News page, provided by NOAA’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). [ top ] Troposphere Temperatures above the Earth’s surface are measured within the lower troposphere, middle troposphere, and stratosphere using in-situ balloon-borne instruments (radiosondes) and polar-orbiting satellites (NOAA’s TIROS-N). The radiosonde and satellite records have been adjusted to remove time-dependent biases (artificialities caused by changes in radiosonde instruments and measurement practices as well as changes in satellite instruments and orbital features through time). Global averages from radiosonde data are available from 1958 to present, while satellite measurements date back to 1979. Lower Troposphere Current Month | Seasonal | Year-to-date These temperatures are for the lowest 8 km (5 miles) of the atmosphere. Information on the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) sources of troposphere data is available. May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH low-trop 0.54°C/ 0.97°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.65°C/ 1.17°F) 0.11°C/decade RSS low-trop 0.59°C/ 1.06°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.67°C/ 1.20°F) 0.14°C/decade Version 5.3 March–May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH low-trop 0.57°C/ 1.02°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.65°C/ 1.16°F) 0.13°C/decade RSS low-trop 0.60°C/ 1.07°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.70°C/ 1.27°F) 0.16°C/decade Version 5.3 January– May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest Year on Record Trend UAH low-trop 0.59°C/ 1.06°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.66°C/ 1.19°F) 0.14°C/decade RSS low-trop 0.60°C/ 1.08°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.63°C/ 1.13°F) 0.10°C/decade Version 5.3 Mid-troposphere Current Month | Seasonal | Year-to-date These temperatures are for the atmospheric layer centered in the mid-troposphere (approximately 3–10 km [2–6 miles] above the Earth’s surface), which also includes a portion of the lower stratosphere. (The Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] channel used to measure mid-tropospheric temperatures receives about 25 percent of its signal above 10 km [6 miles].) Because the stratosphere has cooled due to increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere and losses of ozone in the stratosphere, the stratospheric contribution to the tropospheric average, as measured from satellites, may create an artificial component of cooling to the mid-troposphere temperatures. The University of Washington (UW) versions of the UAH and RSS analyses attempt to remove the stratospheric influence from the mid-troposphere measurements, and as a result the UW versions tend to have a larger warming trend than either the UAH or RSS versions. For additional information, please see NCDC’s Microwave Sounding Unit page. The radiosonde data used in this global analysis were developed using the Lanzante, Klein, Seidel (2003) (“LKS”) bias-adjusted dataset and the First Difference Method (Free et al. 2004) (RATPAC). Additional details are available. Satellite data have been adjusted by the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). An independent analysis is also performed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and a third analysis has been performed by Dr. Qiang Fu of the University of Washington (UW) (Fu et al. 2004)** to remove the influence of the stratosphere on the mid-troposphere value. Global averages from radiosonde data are available from 1958 to present, while satellite measurements began in 1979. RATPAC January–May plot RATPAC March–May plot Radiosonde measurements indicate that, for the January–May year-to-date period, temperatures in the mid-troposphere were 0.84°C (1.51°F) above average, resulting in the second warmest January–May period (out of 53 years), behind 1998 which had mid-tropospheric temperatures 0.87°C (1.56°F) above average. Satellite analyses of the January–May year-to-date period for the middle troposphere were second warmest in the 32-year satellite record. Radiosonde measurements indicate that mid-tropospheric temperatures were 0.93°C (1.67°F) above average during the Northern Hemisphere spring season, giving March–May a rank of warmest on record. The table below shows that satellite measurements for the season were second warmest on record. The global mid-troposphere temperatures were well above average during May 2010. As shown in the table below, satellite measurements for May 2010 ranked second warmest on record. May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest Year on Record Trend UAH mid-trop 0.45°C/ 0.81°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.61°C/ 1.10°F) 0.04°C/decade RSS mid-trop 0.48°C/ 0.87°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.64°C/ 1.15°F) 0.08°C/decade UW-UAH mid-trop 0.56°C/ 1.00°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.74°C/ 1.32°F) 0.09°C/decade UW-RSS mid-trop 0.58°C/ 1.04°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.75°C/ 1.35°F) 0.12°C/decade Version 5.3 March–May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH mid-trop 0.42°C/ 0.75°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.61°C/ 1.09°F) 0.04°C/decade RSS mid-trop 0.47°C/ 0.85°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.64°C/ 1.15°F) 0.09°C/decade UW-*UAH mid-trop 0.52°C/ 0.94°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.73°C/ 1.32°F) 0.10°C/decade UW-RSS mid-trop 0.57°C/ 1.03°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.75°C/ 1.36°F) 0.14°C/decade RATPAC 0.84°C/ 1.51°F 2ndwarmest 1998 ( 0.87°C/ 1.56°F) 0.15°C/decade Version 5.3 January– May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Warmest (or Next Warmest) Year on Record Trend UAH mid-trop 0.41°C/ 0.74°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.60°C/ 1.08°F) 0.04°C/decade RSS mid-trop 0.48°C/ 0.86°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.63°C/ 1.13°F) 0.10°C/decade UW-*UAH mid-trop 0.52°C/ 0.94°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.73°C/ 1.31°F) 0.10°C/decade UW-RSS mid-trop 0.59°C/ 1.06°F 2nd warmest 1998 ( 0.75°C/ 1.35°F) 0.15°C/decade RATPAC 0.93°C/ 1.67°F warmest 1998 ( 0.80°C/ 1.44°F) 0.15°C/decade Version 5.3 Note: RATPAC’s rank is based on records that began in 1958 (53 years). [ top ] Stratosphere Current Month | Seasonal The table below summarizes stratospheric conditions for May 2010. On average, the stratosphere is located approximately 16–23 km (10–14 miles) above the Earth’s surface. Over the last decade, stratospheric temperatures have been below average in part due to the depletion of ozone. The large positive anomaly in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and the sharp jump in temperature in 1991 was a result of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. In both cases the temperatures returned to pre-eruption levels within two years. May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Coolest Year on Record UAH stratosphere 0.28°C (-0.50°F) 15th coolest 2008 (-0.65°C/1.17°F) RSS stratosphere 0.20°C (-0.36°F) 17th coolest 1996 (-0.54°C/0.97°F) Version 5.3 March–May Anomaly Rank (out of 32 years) Coolest Year on Record UAH stratosphere 0.34°C (-0.61°F) 14th coolest 1999 (-0.61°C/1.12°F) *RSS stratosphere Posted via email from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/07/19/state-of-the-climate-global-analysis-may-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/19/chesterfield-reagan/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/19/chesterfield-reagan/#comments Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:53:53 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/19/chesterfield-reagan/ via 3quarksdaily.com From the best RSS-feed. It is 3Quarks Daily. . Very diverse…http://www.3quarksdaily.com/ Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/19/chesterfield-reagan/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/15/solar-lightbulb-to-shine-on-developing-world-crave-cnet/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/15/solar-lightbulb-to-shine-on-developing-world-crave-cnet/#comments Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:37:03 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/15/solar-lightbulb-to-shine-on-developing-world-crave-cnet/ Here’s a bright idea for the planet. A Hong Kong-based company has introduced what it bills as the world’s only solar-powered lightbulb with the hope of reaching millions of people with little or no access to electricity. Nokero’s N100 solar LED lightbulb (Credit: Nokero) The Nokero N100 solar LED lightbulb is meant to replace kerosene lamps as a lighting source in the developing world. The company says 1.6 billion people still lack sufficient access to electricity, and many burn fossil fuels for light, which can be dangerous and expensive. The N100 solar bulb is about the size of a standard incandescent bulb and has four small solar panels in its rainproof plastic housing. Five LEDs and a replaceable NiMH battery inside provide up to four hours of light when the device is fully charged. People hang it outside during the day and then turn it on at night. Weather, seasons, and latitude can affect charging times. Nokero asserts that one day of charging in the sun can provide about two hours of light, though charging near the equator can provide more. So on a cloudy winter day in northern latitudes, the bulb would probably not be able to replace a kerosene lamp, but on a clear summer day near the equator it would. The LEDs are meant to last 50,000 to 100,000 hours, and the solar panels are rated to last 10 years. The life of the N100 is basically 5 to 10 years, according to Nokero representative Tom Boyd. The cost? A single bulb is $15; a case of 48 costs $480. The company offers a “significant” discount when buying a thousand or more. It adds that the bulb pays for itself within months when used in place of a kerosene lantern. NGOs are considered to likely be the main buyers. In addition to eliminating indoor air pollution and burn risks, consumers can cut 550 pounds of CO2 emissions over one year when lighting with the N100 instead of kerosene, Nokero says. Though the device’s lumen rating is unclear, the company says the N100 is five times brighter than kerosene lamps and uses only 1/200th the energy. In the developed world, the solar bulb could also be used in areas deprived of electricity due to natural disasters, as well as campgrounds and home patios. via news.cnet.com Hope these ones are better then those garden-solar-lights. Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/06/15/solar-lightbulb-to-shine-on-developing-world-crave-cnet/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/26/science-maps-explore-new-ways-of-displaying-information-slide-show-scientific-american-slideshows/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/26/science-maps-explore-new-ways-of-displaying-information-slide-show-scientific-american-slideshows/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 22:00:58 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/26/science-maps-explore-new-ways-of-displaying-information-slide-show-scientific-american-slideshows/ via scientificamerican.com Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/26/science-maps-explore-new-ways-of-displaying-information-slide-show-scientific-american-slideshows/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/20/living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth-opinion-19-may-2010-new-scientist/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/20/living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth-opinion-19-may-2010-new-scientist/#comments Thu, 20 May 2010 13:43:35 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/20/living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth-opinion-19-may-2010-new-scientist/ HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn’t provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles. This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There’s a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines – and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial? Here’s a hypothesis: denial is largely a product of the way normal people think. Most denialists are simply ordinary people doing what they believe is right. If this seems discouraging, take heart. There are good reasons for thinking that denialism can be tackled by condemning it a little less and understanding it a little more. Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see “How to be a denialist”). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism. All denialists see themselves as underdogs fighting a corrupt elite This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases – diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien. Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed “somebody’s got to stand up to experts”. It is this sense of loss of control that really matters. In such situations, many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence (see “Giving life to a lie”). All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous. This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control. Anecdote and emotion Greg Poland, head of vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, often speaks out against vaccine denial. He calls his opponents “the innumerate” because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion. “People use mental short cuts – ‘My kid got autism after he got his shots, so the vaccine must have caused it,’” he says. One emotive story about a vaccine’s alleged harm trumps endless safety statistics. Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, understands this better than most: he spent a year infiltrating HIV denialist groups. Many of the people he met were ordinary and sincere. “Denialism fills some need,” he says. “For people with HIV, it is a coping strategy,” albeit a maladaptive one. Kalichman, however, feels that everyday reasoning alone is not enough to make someone a denialist. “There is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds,” he says. “Most of us don’t believe what they say, even if we want to. Understanding why some do may help us find solutions.” He believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. “They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder“, he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. “Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory.” Neither the ringleaders nor rank-and-file denialists are lying in the conventional sense, Kalichman says: they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call “suspicious thinking”. “The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere,” he says. “All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.” It is not only similar tactics and psychology that unite denial in its many guises: there are also formal connections between the various movements. Many denialist movements originate as cynical efforts by corporations to cast doubt on findings that threaten their bottom line. Big Tobacco started it in the 1970s, recruiting scientists willing to produce favourable data and bankrolling ostensibly independent think tanks and bogus grass-roots movements (see “Manufacturing doubt”). One such think tank was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), set up in 1993 by tobacco company Philip Morris (American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, p 1749). TASSC didn’t confine itself to tobacco for long. After getting funds from Exxon, it started casting doubt on climate science. Such links between denial movements are not unusual. A number of think tanks in the US and elsewhere have been funded by both the oil and tobacco industries and have taken denialist positions on smoking and warming. TASSC folded when its true identity became widely known, but its successor, JunkScience, still rubbishes tobacco and climate research and warns people not to believe any scientist who says something “might be” true or uses statistics – which pretty much covers all scientists. Perhaps it is no surprise that some industries are prepared to distort reality to protect their markets. But the tentacles of organised denial reach beyond narrow financial interests. For example, some prominent backers of climate denial also deny evolution. Prominent creationists return the favour both in the US and elsewhere. Recent legislative efforts to get creationism taught in US schools have been joined by calls to “teach the controversy” on warming as well. These positions align neatly with the concerns of the US political and religious right, and denial is often driven by an overtly political agenda. Some creationists have explicitly argued that the science of both climate and evolution involve “a left-wing ideology that promotes statism, nanny-state moralism and… materialism”. People who buy into one denialism may support others for this reason. Dan Kahan at Yale Law School has found that people’s views on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage predict their position on climate science too. This, he argues, is because social conservatives tend to be pro-business and resist the idea that it is damaging the planet (Nature, vol 436, p 296). But other denialisms suggest psychology, not just ideology, is crucial. There is no obvious connection between conservatism and vaccine or AIDS denial, and flu denial was promulgated by a left-leaning group suspicious of the vaccine industry. Common ground Nevertheless, some connections exist that hint at a wider agenda. For example, there is considerable overlap in membership between the vaccine and HIV deniers, says John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Both movements have massive but mysterious funding. Consider, too, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a lobbying group for private medicine. It showcases nearly all denialist causes. In the past two years it has published articles claiming that HIV tests do not detect HIV, second-hand smoke does little harm, smoking bans do not reduce heart attacks, global warming presents little health threat and proposals for a US vaccination registry are “not really about vaccines but about establishing a computer infrastructure… that can be used for other purposes later”. It repeatedly published discredited assertions that vaccines cause autism. It is tempting to wonder if activists sympathetic to climate and evolution denial might be grasping opportunities to discredit science in general by spreading vaccine and HIV denialism. The conservative character of much denial may also explain its success at winning hearts and minds. George Lakoff, a cognitive psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that conservatives have been better than progressives at exploiting anecdote and emotion to win arguments. Progressives tend to think that giving people the facts and figures will inevitably lead them to the right conclusions. They see anecdotes as inadmissible evidence, and appeals to emotion as wrong. The same is true of scientists. But against emotion and anecdote, dry statements of evidence have little power. To make matters worse, scientists usually react to denial with anger and disdain, which makes them seem even more arrogant. Poland has reached a similar conclusion. He has experimented a few times with using anecdote and appeals to emotion when speaking to lay audiences. “I get very positive responses – except from numerates, who see it as emotionally manipulative,” he says. There are lessons here for other scientists who engage with denial. They can only win by learning to speak to the “innumerates”, who are otherwise likely prey for denialists. The stakes are high – and sometimes even personal. Like many vaccine developers, Poland has received death threats. “I get phone messages saying ‘I hope your kids are safe’,” he says. So has Faye Flam, a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who has written in support of climate science. I get phone messages saying ‘I hope your kids are safe’ Denialism has already killed. AIDS denial has killed an estimated 330,000 South Africans. Tobacco denial delayed action to prevent smoking-related deaths. Vaccine denial has given a new lease of life to killer diseases like measles and polio. Meanwhile, climate change denial delays action to prevent warming. The backlash against efforts to fight the flu pandemic could discourage preparations for the next, potentially a more deadly one. If science is the best way to understand the world and its dangers, and acting on that understanding requires popular support, then denial movements threaten us all. Read more: Special report: Living in denial Bibliography On Rumors by Cass Sunstein Requiem for a Species by Clive Hamilton Denying AIDS by Nicoli Nattrass and Seth Kalichman Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore How to be a denialist Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. “I’m not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings,” he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2). 1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence. 2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut. 3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited. 4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts. 5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man. 6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected. Debora MacKenzie is New Scientist’s correspondent in Brussels, Belgium Like what you’ve just read? Don’t miss out on the latest content from New Scientist. Get New Scientist magazine delivered to your door, plus unlimited access to the entire content of New Scientist online. Subscribe now and save If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to. Have your say Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in. read all 10 comments Comments 1 | 2 Admit Uncertainty Thu May 13 11:27:04 BST 2010 by Bee http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ People deny because there’s today little if any culture for uncertainty and lack of knowledge. There’s no room for not knowing. One either buys the news or one denies it, but one ought to have SOME opinion and preferable a strong one, reasonable or not. I think the problem could be greatly alleviated if there was a better awareness for the limits of our understanding generally and what uncertainty there is and that uncertainty is just part of life as much as of science. I have noticed that it happens people learn that something about a scientific theory is unclear even to the experts and they take this as reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, (not even the experts know!) henceforth ignoring (denying) any evidence in favor of the previously discarded theory (not able to admit their own lack of knowledge, trying to erase uncertainty). I think that’s a cultural problem login and reply report this comment Who Decides What Is Truth? Thu May 13 18:38:14 BST 2010 by Mark S. Oller http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/mypost/index.html?newspaperUserId=markoller When only a single point of view is tolerated, and anyone who disagrees is portrayed as a blithering idiot, one has to be suspicious. What are the powerful trying to hide? Why can’t they refute blithering idocy? login and reply report this comment Who Decides What Is Truth? Wed May 19 15:15:21 BST 2010 by Matt http://rockbotics.com They don’t have to refute anything. They have facts for that. Blithering idiots can yell and scream all they want, when they ignore facts nobody has to bother refuting them. login and reply report this comment Who Decides What Is Truth? Wed May 19 16:04:27 BST 2010 by Mark S. Oller http://www.propeller.com/story/2007/11/22/pearl-harbor-mother-of-all-conspiracies/ What are these facts? I have never heard anything but condescending ad-hominems from conspiracy deniers. login and reply report this comment Who Decides What Is Truth? Wed May 19 17:14:54 BST 2010 by Preposterous I think the problem with the swine flu scare as with bird flu etc. is that they did not turn into anything so people figure that there was some ulterior motive for the scare. I think that the World Health Organization and other’s like it are paranoid that when the next fast moving epidemic springs up they will be blamed. They are also very afraid that if it does – it will be very difficult to control. Unfortunately, they are right on both counts. There is nothing that is going to be good about the next big flu, but there is a minor concern that people will become inured to the dire threats and warnings we have been getting from these organizations and ignore new ones for too long when there really is a dangerous threat moving through our population. login and reply report this comment view thread This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed. read all 10 comments Comments 1 | 2 All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the “Report” link in that comment to report it to us. If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support. via newscientist.com Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/05/20/living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth-opinion-19-may-2010-new-scientist/feed/ 0 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/04/02/pedouins-on-quint-bicycle-to-alaska/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/04/02/pedouins-on-quint-bicycle-to-alaska/#comments Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:09:06 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/04/02/pedouins-on-quint-bicycle-to-alaska/ via pedouins.org How nice… Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/04/02/pedouins-on-quint-bicycle-to-alaska/feed/ 1 http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/03/29/on-tripadvisor-reviews-mixed-for-schrute-farms/ http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/03/29/on-tripadvisor-reviews-mixed-for-schrute-farms/#comments Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:38:22 +0000 Paul http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/03/29/on-tripadvisor-reviews-mixed-for-schrute-farms/ The farm “belongs” to Dwight Schrute of the NBC series “The Office” (and his eccentric cousin Mose). In September 2007, the show asked to use TripAdvisor, a travel Web site, in an episode in which Dwight turns his beet farm into a bed and breakfast. Christine Petersen, the chief marketing officer for TripAdvisor, was thrilled. “We don’t have a big marketing budget and don’t do TV ads,” she said. “This was the big time.” TripAdvisor set up a review page, thinking it would be good for a quick laugh or two. Paul Lieberstein, who wrote the episode, called “Money,” never even went back to the site afterward. “We thought it would be fun, but then we didn’t think about it anymore,” he said in an interview. But Schrute Farms is still doing big business — for TripAdvisor. Reruns and DVDs keep inspiring new visits to the site and there are now over 600 reviews (more than for many major Manhattan hotels, Ms. Petersen said). Many reviewers add their own funny flourishes, enhancing the show’s mythology: Mandy Pyszka from Milwaukee, who stumbled upon the TripAdvisor site while searching Google for Dwight Schrute quotes, raved about the beet pudding. Carla Harrington of Fredricksburg, Va., was surprised to find 82 percent of reviews recommended Schrute Farms. “I thought about what it would feel like not to know them as TV characters but to really go to this B & B,” she said in an interview. Her one-star slam called Dwight “an overbearing survivalist who appears to have escaped from the local mental asylum.” Mr. Lieberstein, who also plays Toby Flenderson, a human resources staff member, on the show, said that “The Office” might someday revisit the farm. TripAdvisor executives said they would love that. “We’ve started many a meeting with Dwight’s quote that TripAdvisor is ‘the lifeblood of agrotourism,’ ” Ms. Petersen said. She has contemplated adding the Bates Motel and “The Shining’s” Overlook Hotel. But not everyone gets the joke. Recently, TripAdvisor added a caveat explaining that Schrute Farms was fictional, Ms. Petersen said. “We had a complaint from someone who had wanted to go there.”  via nytimes.com Just wait a year and you can come and visit Huerta 11 in Lipingue, Chile. Posted via web from Lipingue ]]> http://www.sponsoredbythewind.com/2010/03/29/on-tripadvisor-reviews-mixed-for-schrute-farms/feed/ 0