Mr Hand

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of

5,175 posts in this topic


10 States Blocking the Power of the Sun
Center for Biological Diversity | April 27, 2016 11:56 am | Comments
Don’t miss out. Stay Informed. Get EcoWatch’s Top News of the Day.
  • Email


Some of the sunniest states in the country are actively blocking rooftop-solar development through overtly lacking and destructive policy landscapes, according to a Center for Biological Diversity report released Tuesday.

solar_install_750.jpg“There’s room for improvement in solar policies across all 50 states, but it’s especially shameful to see the sunniest states fail to lead the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.” Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy

The 10 states highlighted in Throwing Shade: 10 Sunny States Blocking Distributed Solar DevelopmentAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin—account for more than 35 percent of the total rooftop-solar technical potential in the contiguous U.S., but less than 3 percent of total installed capacity.

“Thanks to weak and nonexistent policies, the distributed-solar markets in these states have never been given a chance to shine,” Greer Ryan, sustainability research associate with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the report, said. “There’s room for improvement in solar policies across all 50 states, but it’s especially shameful to see the sunniest states fail to lead the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.”


The report assigned a policy grade to all 50 states based on the presence and strength of key policies that have aided solar expansion in the country’s leading solar markets, as well as policy and regulatory barriers that are used to hinder the distributed-solar industries. These grades, along with the technical potential for distributed-solar expansion in each state (based on the latest findings from National Renewable Energy Laboratory), determined which states were the country’s worst offenders.

This analysis follows recent high-profile net-metering policy fights in Nevada and California, two leading solar states. More than half of all states with net-metering programs in place saw efforts to weaken or eliminate these programs in 2015, despite the fact that it was the hottest year on record.

“These solar-policy fights are becoming more common at a time when we should be expanding rooftop solar as quickly as possible,” said Ryan. “By blocking solar expansion, states threaten the swift transition to a just and fully renewable energy system that’s needed to stave off the worst impacts of climate change and protect the health of communities, wildlife and the planet.”

The Center for Biological Diversity advocates for a swift transition to a fully renewable, just and wildlife-friendly energy system through ending all new fossil fuel development on public lands and waters and maximizing distributed-solar potential.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morano was born in Washington, D.C. and raised in McLean, Virginia. He has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science.[1]

He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996.[4] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerryhad allegedly exaggerated his military service record.[3]

Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe. He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration. In 2007, Morano produced a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work, according to Morano, questions whether global warming is caused by human activity.[3][5]

In April 2009, despite having no formal education in the field of climate science, Morano founded and became executive editor of, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow(CFACT). In November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the Climatic Research Unit email controversy story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story was subsequently picked up by James Delingpole.[4] In 2016 Morano co-wrote and presented the CFACT-funded documentary Climate Hustle.


Climatologist Michael E. Mann has criticized Morano.[9] At the end of 2012, Media Matters for America, a politically progressive media watchdog, named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year."[10]

Morano has been criticized[by whom?] for publishing the email addresses of climate scientists on In March 2012, Morano posted an article and the email address of sociology professor Kari Norgaard, who had presented a paper on why it is difficult for societies to take action to respond to climate change. This story was later picked up by Rush Limbaugh, after which Norgaard received threatening emails.[11] Morano repeated this action again in 2013, when he posted the email address of Shaun Marcott in response to Marcott's having published a temperature reconstruction which resembled the hockey stick graph.[11]

Morano says that emails targeting climate scientists can be nasty in tone, but he defends the practice of posting their addresses by noting that he himself has received hate mail. He says that his goal is to "let the professors hear from the public" and that receiving nasty emails is "part of the process."[11]


Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms (PDF), Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano's blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming. [12][13][6][37]

Although he has no scientific expertise in the area, Morano has become a prominent climate change denier. He has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial”, the “King of the skeptics,” and a “central cell of the climate-denial machine.” He was also listed as one of 17 top “climate killers” by Rolling Stone Magazine. He has accused climate scientists of “fear mongering,” and has claimed that proponents of man-made global warming are “funded to the tune of $50 billion.” [15],[16]

From 2006 to 2009, Morano was the communications director for Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the majority chair of the EPWcommittee. In the 2002 election cycle, Senator Inhofe received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. Sen. Inhofe is known for his infamous quote that the threat of catastrophic global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and as his communications director, Mornano has spent his recent years propagating this message. [3]

According to Marc Morano's profile at the Heartland Institute, “Morano joined the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as the majority Communications Director in June 2006 after a decade and a half as a working journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host, and national television correspondent.” Apart from being a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, Morano is also listed on their website as a “global warming expert.” [2][17]

Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from ExxonMobil. From 1992 to 1996, Morano also worked as a producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show and was known as “Limbaugh's man in Washington.” Morano often appears on Fox news to promote his ideas regarding climate change.  [4]

Stance on Climate Change

“The bottom line is, not only do we not face a climate crisis, but if we face a climate crisis what Congress is proposing, what the United Nations is proposing, is scientifically meaningless. It would have no detectable impact. So we'd all be doomed if we had to rely on them for a solution. [5]

Key Quotes

: “The Pope has picked a contentious scientific issue which – now going on almost two decades of no global warming, sea ice recovering, sea level rise actually decelerating, On every metric from polar bears on down, the global warming narrative has weakened. And to now have the Pope jump on that bandwagon would sow confusion among Catholics.” 

“I am jealous of the leadership of Canada 
 Australia. It is so sad being in America – The rest of the world is abandoning carbon pricing as the 
 is jumping right in.” 

Marc Morano appeared at the COP19 United Nations climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, alongside the executive director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Craig Rucker:

“Coal is the moral choice, particularly for the developing world… The model for the world right now should be Australia. Australia gets it. Scientifically they get it, politically they get it and particularly when it comes to the United Nations, they get it. They are pulling out of this, they are repealing their carbon tax and Canada seems to be intrigued by what Australia is doing.” 

In reference to the IPCC's AR5 leaked climate report, on August 20, 2013, just three months before the UNIPCC's COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Morano says on

“All of these fatuous figures are pulled out of the air to support the 
 ideologies and not based upon any statistical analysis or science.” 

 summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The 
 is all about politics.” 

“The goal [of Climate Depot] is to expand on key elements from the award-winning Senate 
 website and quite simply revolutionize climate and environmental news dissemination. Unlike much of the establishment media,
's news outlet will provide the public with links to all sides of the climate and environmental debate, with links to Gore's blog, environmental groups, the United Nations, as well as skeptical voices. It is very hard to get accurate information on global warming and environmental issues. Much of what the media reports is simply a regurgitation of the rhetoric from partisan and ideologically driven environmental groups, foundations, and the United Nations, which are spinning data to promote a cause.” 
 (Note, the 
 is also 
 Press Blog).

“Even in the Senate, I’d put up any of the stories we did against any pablum Time or Newsweek has put out on global warming. We’d link to the other side; we’d present their arguments. They do one-sided screeds.” 

In response to a quote by New York Times Journalist Andrew Revkin, which describes Climate Depot as “divisive and toxic,”Morano responded:

“'Toxic'? If by 'divisive and toxic' you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!” 

With reference to scientists involved in the “climategate” controversy (all of which were since publicly exonerated), Morano has said:

“I seriously believe we should kick them while they're down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.” 

Addressing the 9th Annual National Freedom21 Conference in 2008, Morano said: 

“I like to joke that Inhofe is as far left as I'll go for an employer.” 


Marc Morano, the executive director of, is one of climate denial's most prolific media-heads. In 2012, Morano was named the Climate Change Misinformer of the Year by conservative watchdog group Media Matters for America. 

ClimateDepot, who's sole purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank which has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and foundations which challenge climate science.

Morano is considered a central player in orchestrating the Climategate scandal. Weeks before the 2009 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a hacker stole a large amount of files, including private data and emails, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data was then shared with climate skeptics, including Morano. These skeptics went on to cherry-pick information and sound bites from the emails in an effort to indict climate scientists for deliberately manipulating data and misleading the public.

In less than 48 hours, Climategate became the top story in international news. During the scandal, Morano said, "I seriously believe we should kick them [climate scientists] while they're down. They deserve to be publicly flogged." Multiple independent investigations have found no fraudulent activity, and all of the scientists have since been exonerated. Climategate helped seed doubt in public opinion leading up to the biggest climate negotiations in world history.

Prior to running ClimateDepot, Morano served as the communications director for Senator James Inhofe from 2006 to 2009.  During his tenure, Morano helped author the infamous report "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims."  The report was debunked. Research found the list contained at least 84 signees had taken industry money, 49 retirees, 20 economists, and 70 with no expertise in climate science.

Despite having no credentials in climate science -- Morano holds a B.A. in political science -- he is touted as a climate change expert and makes frequent public appearances on conservative media outlets such as Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show. The Heartland Institute listsMorano as an expert, and he frequently speaks at their annual climate change conference.

Over the years, he has filled the airways with extraordinary and unfounded claims. Most recently, Morano said climate change predictions were failing, comparing them to "medieval witchcraft, where we used to blame witches for controlling the weather."

Media Matters has a stellar compendium of his most grievous accusations against climate science.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was 1) 5 years old, and 2) false, upon closer inspection.
Is that the best you got?


The fire in Canada looks a lot like climate change -- and that should scare you
By John D. Sutter, CNN
(CNN)The fire raging in Fort McMurray, Canada sounds like something from the apocalypse.
"It was like driving through hell," Michel Chamberland told CNN of his escape from the area. "Those flames, they were bright, they were big ... It's unreal. It's almost like a dream or something."
The fire, which has burned at least 325 square miles, forcing the evacuation of some 88,000 people, is so hot and so intense that's it's formed its own weather. The thundercloud produced by the blaze actually is creating its own lightning, and consequently spreading the fire's rage, setting more trees alight.
True, there have been fires in Canada's boreal forest for ages. But scientists and researchers say this fire looks a whole lot like climate change. And that should be alarming for all of us.
Is Global Warming Fueling Increased Wildfire Risks?
The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season.
As the climate warms, moisture and precipitation levels are changing, with wet areas becoming wetter and dry areas becoming drier.
Higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snow-melt typically cause soils to be drier for longer, increasing the likelihood of drought and a longer wildfire season, particularly in the western United States.
These hot, dry conditions also increase the likelihood that, once wildfires are started by lightning strikes or human error, they will be more intense and long-burning.
The costs of wildfires, in terms of risks to human life and health, property damage, and state and federal dollars, are devastating, and they are only likely to increase unless we better address the risks of wildfires and reduce our activities that lead to further climate change.
Wildfires are already on the rise
Wildfires in the western United States have been increasing in frequency and duration since the mid-1980s, occurring nearly four times more often, burning more than six times the land area, and lasting almost five times as long (comparisons are between 1970-1986 and 1986-2003).
Natural cycles, human activities—such as land-use (clearing, development, mining) and fire exclusion—as well as climate change can influence the likelihood of wildfires. However, many of the areas that have seen these increases—such as Yosemite National Park and the Northern Rockies—are protected from or relatively unaffected by human land-use and behaviors. This suggests that climate change is a major factor driving the increase in wildfires.
What is the relationship between precipitation patterns, global warming, and wildfires?
While severe wildfires have been observed to occur more frequently and this trend is projected to continue throughout the 21st century, it is worth noting that not every year has an equal likelihood of experiencing droughts or wildfires.
Natural, cyclical weather occurrences, such as El Niño events, also affect the likelihood of wildfires by affecting levels of precipitation and moisture and lead to year-by-year variability in the potential for drought and wildfires regionally.
Nonetheless, because temperatures and precipitation levels are projected to alter further over the course of this century, the overall potential for wildfires in the United States, especially the southern states, is likely to increase as well.
As the world warms, we can expect more wildfires
Wildfire seasons (seasons with higher wildfire potential) in the United States are projected to lengthen, with the southwest’s season of fire potential lengthening from seven months to all year long. Additionally, wildfires themselves are likely to be more severe.
Researchers and modelers project that moist, forested areas are the most likely to face greater threats from wildfires as conditions grow drier and hotter.
Surprisingly, some dry grassland areas may be less at risk, but not because they would be flourishing—the intense aridity is likely to prevent these grasses from growing at all, leaving these areas so barren that they are likely to lack even the fodder for wildfire.
A conflagration of costs
The economic costs of wildfires can be crippling. Between 2000 and 2009, the property damages from wildfires averaged $665 million per year.
In addition to the property damage they wreak, wildfires cost states and the federal government millions in fire-suppression management; the U.S. Forest Service’s yearly fire-suppression costs have exceeded $1 billion dollars at least twice since FY 2000.
The risk to property owners at the “wildland-urban interface” in California (more than 5 million homes in southern coastal California, the Bay Area, and north of Sacramento) is projected to increase with the increase in wildfires near these areas.
The environmental and health costs of wildfires are also considerable: not only do wildfiresthreaten lives directly, but they have the potential to increase local air pollution— exacerbating lung diseases and causing breathing difficulties even in healthy individuals.
Additionally, a counterintuitive aspect of wildfires—especially in the semi-arid southwest United States—is that when the rains do come, mountain forest wildfires increase flash flood risk in lower-lying areas in the days and months following the fire due to loss of vegetation and the inability of burned soil to absorb moisture (PDF). For example, residents in Arizona living along usually dry stream beds have lost property and life following such tragic and unexpected post-wildfire flash floods.
What can we do to address the threat of wildfires?
The global temperature is increasing and the climate is changing due to the greenhouse-gas emissions we have already produced, leading to a likely rise in the incidence of wildfires.
But it is not too late. What we do now has the power to influence the frequency and severity of these fires and their effects on us.
By engaging in mitigation efforts—creating buffer zones between human habitation and susceptible forests, and meeting home and city fire-safety standards—and by taking steps to reduce our impact on the climate, we can help to keep our forests, our homes, and our health safe.
Edited by davidmalmolevine

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Climate Scandal called ‘worse than Climategate’ – New Emails Released! ‘Clear conspiracy to avoid FOIA, use public money’ – Top UN Scientist, U.S. Senator entangled


Meteorologist Antony Watts on new climate scandal RICO20: 





Read more:

Edited by Mr. Hand.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
NASA: Last Month Was Warmest April Ever Recorded, Marking Seven Months of New Highs
Climate Nexus | May 16, 2016 10:02 am | Comments
Don’t miss out. Stay Informed. Get EcoWatch’s Top News of the Day.
  • Email


Last month was 1.11 C above the 1951-1980 average, making it the warmest April on record, according to new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It was also the seventh consecutive month to have broken global temperature records.

NASA_April_750.jpgPhoto credit: NASA

Scientists are now nearly certain that 2016 will become the hottest year on record. Meanwhile, CO2 levels in the southern hemisphere exceeded the symbolic 400 parts per million for the first time, as confirmed by measuring stations in Tasmania and Cape Grim, which climate scientists say “highlights the problem of rising emissions.”



For a deeper dive: MashableThinkProgressGuardianCNNIB TimesHuffington PostSydney Morning Herald

For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.


Tens of Thousands Take Part in Global Actions Targeting World’s Most Dangerous Fossil Fuel Projects

Frequency and Intensity of Wildfires Across the Globe Fueled by Climate Change

One in Five of World’s Plant Species at Risk of Extinction

5 Islands in the South Pacific ‘Completely Lost to Rising Seas’


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
India records its hottest temperature ever amid heat wave
Prolonged heat wave this year has already killed hundreds, destroyed crops
The Associated Press
May 20, 2016

A man uses a cloth to protect himself from the sun during a hot summer day in Jammu, India, Friday. The prolonged heat wave this year has already killed hundreds and destroyed crops in more than 13 states, impacting hundreds of millions of Indians. (Channi Anand/Associated Press)




A city in western India has suffered through the country's highest temperature in history — a scorching 51 degrees Celsius.

The record was set Thursday in the city of Phalodi, in the western state of Rajasthan. India's meteorological department said the previous high was 50.6 Celsius (123 F), reached in 1956 in the city of Alwar, also in Rajasthan.

Authorities have issued a severe heat wave alert for the next two days in the western states of Gujarat, Rajasthan and parts of the central state of Madhya Pradesh. That means the areas can expect temperatures as high as 47 degrees Celsius (116.6 Fahrenheit) or more.

The main summer months — April, May and June — are always excruciatingly hot across most parts of India before monsoon rains and cool temperatures arrive.


A NASA satellite image shows the land surface temperature in Thailand, center, and surrounding countries between April 15 to April 23, 2016. Yellow shows the warmest temperatures. This year's scorching weather has set a record for the longest heat wave in Thailand in at least 65 years. Globally, April was the 7th month in a row to break temperature records. (Reto Stockli/NASA Earth Observatory Team/MODIS Land Science Team via Associated Press)

The monsoon hits southern India in the first week of June and covers the rest of the country within a month.

This year — as temperatures hit new highs — the monsoon is especially eagerly awaited as several parts of the country are reeling under a drought brought on by two years of weak rains.

The prolonged heat wave this year has already killed hundreds and destroyed crops in more than 13 states, impacting hundreds of millions of Indians.

Hundreds of farmers are reported to have killed themselves across the country and tens of thousands of small farmers have been forced to abandon their farmland and live in squalor in urban slums in order to earn a living.

Rivers, lakes and dams have dried up in many parts of the western states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat, and overall officials say that groundwater reservoirs are severely depleted.

In some areas, the situation is so bad the government has sent in water by train for emergency relief.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

FLASHBACK: ABC News Warns NYC Will Be Under Water by 2015 Due to Global Warming and Polar Bears Will Fall From Sky
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015. 

One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.”



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?


2 days ago July 2, 2016






Guest essay by Eric Worrall


The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change

The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up.

AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today, as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.


North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.


… Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …


Read more:

Naturally most of the climate scientists who make such predictions expect the cooling to occur over a relatively short timescale, before the ice melt forcing which causes the predicted cooling is overwhelmed by our continued sinful emissions of CO2. But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, but it seems a little warm today here in K-town. About 28 Deg. On the other hand, it hasn't rained in about two weeks.

Should I be concerned??


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons to be concerned - not just about the local weather, but all of humanity:



The Syrian civil war followed four huge and consecutive droughts. These uprooted 1.5 million farmers, who fled to the cities. They formed a tinder box. And the chaos sown by the US invasion in neighbouring Iraq provided a spark.

Currently, Baghdad suffers eight extreme heat days a year. In the best case scenario, where the average global temperatures is controlled to within two degrees, this will jump to 90 extreme heat days. In other words, this makes Baghdad uninhabitable for humans for a third of the year.


In 30 years, the grounds of Mar-a-Lago could be under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding along the intracoastal water way, with the water rising past some of the cottages and bungalows, the analysis by Coastal Risk Consulting found.

Trump’s insouciance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change – even lapping up on his own doorstep – makes him something of an outlier in south Florida, where mayors are actively preparing for a future under climate change.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So will they go back to calling it Global warming again? Does it go full circle David? Can we go back and do global cooling again?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

After 146 years, Rockefeller family is exiting the oil business


A portrait of John D. Rockefeller, taken in the mid 1930's in Ormond, Florida.


Heirs to the oil fortune created by John D. Rockefeller, who founded Standard Oil in 1870, are exiting the family business.

The Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity that supports causes related to the environment, economic justice and other issues, is liquidating its investments in fossil fuel companies, including Exxon Mobil (XOM).

"While the global community works to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, it makes little sense -- financially or ethically -- to continue holding investments in these companies," the fund said on Wednesday in a statement. "There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons."

The fund, which manages roughly $130 million, said it would immediately divest holdings of Exxon, as well as sell its investments in coal companies and tar sands-based oil producers.

Exxon, the world's second-biggest company, is a descendant of Standard Oil, which was famously broken up in 1911 as part of President Theodore Roosevelt's "trustbusting" campaign.

In announcing its decision, the Rockefeller fund attacked Exxon for what it called the company's "morally reprehensible conduct," alluding to allegations that the company has hidden evidence that fossil fuels contribute to climate change.

"Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change's march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change's destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic's ice receded," the fund said.

Rockefeller family members have long accused Exxon of working to deny the existence of global warming. Former Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, in 2006 urged Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to stop funding groups that denied climate change.

In a February op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, an economist and great-grandaughter of John D. Rockefeller, said that in the 1980s the company "began to finance think tanks and researchers who cast doubt on the reliability of climate science."

Exxon denies that it misrepresented the dangers of climate change.

"It's not surprising that they're divesting from the company since they're already funding a conspiracy against us," Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon, said in an emailed statement to CBS MoneyWatch about the Rockfeller fund's announcement.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is said to have launched aninvestigation last fall into whether Exxon misled the public and investors about its internal research regarding climate risks. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is also reportedly looking into whether Exxon lied about climate change.

The probes followed a report by InsideClimate News, a non-profit news organization, claiming that Exxon sought to undermine scientific evidence that pointed to the growing threat of climate change.

Jeffers said the Rockefeller Family Fund provided financial support to InsideClimate News, which he said "produced inaccurate and deliberately misleading stories" about the company's climate research.

"The stories wrongly suggested that we had reached definitive conclusions about the risks of climate change decades before the world's experts and while climate science was in an early stage of development," he said. "ExxonMobil believes the risk of climate change is clear and warrants action."

Exxon critics praised the Rockefeller Family Fund's move to divest its fossil fuel holdings.

"Just like with Big Tobacco before it, the turning point in the movement to end the fossil fuel industry's abuses has come: Influential institutions and people are withholding their investments, and there is a burgeoning movement of attorneys general launching investigations into Exxon to expose the truth and hold it accountable for its lies," said Katherine Sawyer of watchdog group Corporate Accountability International.

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Tesla made more money last quarter than the entire US oil industry made last year

While there are nuances to the claim made in this headline, it is technically true since Tesla announced that it turned a profit of $22 million last quarter while the US oil industry managed to lose $67 billion last year due to its inability to stomach lower gas prices, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

I think it’s something to consider in this new political climate following the election of Donald Trump.

Notwithstanding any potential ulterior motives to favor fossil fuels or the fact that Trump doesn’t believe in man-made climate change, it’s important for the upcoming new Trump administration and GOP-controlled Washington to start looking at Tesla and other upcoming cleantech ventures as important middle-class American job creators and sustainable businesses.

One of Trump’s main actions to create American jobs is to “lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal,” according to his own “contract with American voters” and as part of his plan for his first 100 days in office.

Again, we are not going into the impact it will have on the climate in part because of how scary it is. Try to get the amount of CO2 that those fossil-fuel reserves will release in the atmosphere out of your head (if you can) and focus on the jobs. That’s supposedly how he won the election in the rust belt and coal country after all.

While Trump’s deregulation of the oil and gas industry could certainly recreate jobs, we have to keep in mind that more investments don’t represent a guarantee that the companies will be able to handle price slumps like the one we saw last year and continues now without more government subsidies.

Coal and Natural Gas are rapidly becoming less cost competitive to Wind and Solar power.

But deregulation is not all Trump plans to do for the oil and gas industry – again with the goal of creating jobs. He also plans to slow down the competition from renewable energy by slashing federal research and development, subsidies for solar and wind, and any other climate programs. He also plans to gut the EPA and head it with a climate science denier.

When the US oil industry lost $67 billion in 2015, it also slashed close to 100,000 jobs during the same period. All the while, more Americans now work in the solar industry than the extraction of oil, gas, or coal.

One of the main examples Trump has been using is Ford moving jobs from Michigan to Mexico in order to be more competitive. Since his election, GM also announced job cuts.

On the other hand, Tesla has been adding jobs with now over 18,000 employees worldwide and the majority are in the US. At the Fremont factory alone, Tesla employs over 6,000 people and it plans to bring that number up to 9,000 to support its latest expansion plans.

The electric automaker is also investing in the Gigafactory in Nevada, where it plans to employ over 6,000 workers.

If job creation (and not just rewarding fossil fuel political donors) is really the true goal of the new US political leadership, maybe they should think twice about introducing new policies that could slow the momentum of clean technologies in favor of fossil fuels. Instead, they should focus on introducing a level playing field.

We could argue about the best way to do that (and please let’s do it in the comment section below), but in my opinion, the most simple one is to put an end to all subsidies, including the trillions of dollars worth of subsidies going to the fossil fuel industry.

Hat tip to William LeGate for the headline.

If you are interested in solar and energy storage, we suggest you get quotes from more than one installer to make sure you get the best energy solution for your house or business. UnderstandSolar is a great free service to link you to top-rated solar installers in your region for personalized solar estimates for free.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


ExxonMobil has lost a key battle in an investigation into whether the oil giant misled the public about the dangers of climate change.

A Massachusetts judge ordered Exxon (XOM) on Wednesday to hand over more than four decades of the company's climate change research.

The court rejected Exxon's emergency motion to kill the demand from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who is investigating allegations the company ignored internal scientific research going back to the 1970s.

The ruling came on the same day that longtime Exxon boss Rex Tillerson was being grilled by Congress about the company's climate change tactics at his secretary of state hearing. Tillerson, who stepped down last month as CEO after a decade in charge, repeatedly ducked questions about the issue from U.S. Senators.

Asked if he lacks the knowledge to respond or is simply refusing to answer, Tillerson said, "A little of both."

Last April, Massachusetts demanded Exxon turn over documents going back to 1976 related to the company's study of carbon emissions and the effects of those emissions on the climate.

This week Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Heidi Brieger upheld the attorney general's demand.

"Exxon must now end its obstructive tactics and come clean about whether it misled Massachusetts consumers and investors about what it knew about climate change, its causes and effects," the Massachusetts attorney general's office said in a statement.

However, Exxon didn't immediately signal whether it's going to comply with the order.

"We are reviewing the ruling to determine next steps," Exxon said in a statement.

Related: Tillerson ducks Exxon climate change allegations

Exxon is still awaiting a ruling in Texas, where the company has filed a complaint arguing that the Massachusetts demand for documents violates its federal constitutional rights.

In Wednesday's ruling, the Massachusetts court declined to put the proceeding on hold until the Texas court rules.

Exxon tried to kill the demand for documents by arguing the investigation is politically motivated. The company cited a March speech from Healey where she said, "We can all see today the troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew, and what the company and industry chose to share."

But the Massachusetts judge said the remarks are not evidence of "any actionable bias" and that it "seems logical" for the attorney general to inform the public about the basis of the investigation.

Climate change activists pounced on the ruling -- quickly linked it to Tillerson.

"The prospect of a sitting secretary of state becoming entangled in a lawsuit for his role in misleading the public about climate change is as real as it is alarming," said David Turnbull, campaign director for Oil Change International, an advocacy group focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels.

Related: Despite paper trail, Tillerson denies Exxon lobbied against sanctions

Exxon's climate change history became a flashpoint in Tillerson's confirmation hearing.

At one point, Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's 2016 running mate, read from a 1982 letter uncovered by Inside Climate News that was written by an Exxon scientist.

"Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2," Roger Cohen, Exxon's former director of theoretical and mathematical sciences laboratory, wrote in the letter.

Cohen wrote that the "consensus is that a doubling of" carbon emissions from pre-industrial revolution levels would cause a rise in temperatures that would "bring about significant changes in the earth's climate."

Exxon also faces a climate change investigation from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. A New York State court ordered Exxon to comply with two subpoenas last fall.

Exxon has denied allegations of funding climate change denial.

Exxon said it rejects "long-discredited conspiracy theories that attempt to portray legitimate scientific observations and differences on policy approaches as climate denial."

CNNMoney (New York)First published January 12, 2017: 10:53 AM ET

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now