The south west of WA is drying up - climate change everywhere

Gerry Georgatos

This summer the south west of Western Australia has experienced a record series of heatwaves - eight, and climate trends during the last four decades show a rise in temperatures and a drying climate. According too the Weather Bureau and CSIRO WA's south west is drying faster than other part of the country and scientists say it will have a transforming effect on agriculture and the habitats, and there will be an increased risk of bushfires.

Related: CSIRO - State of the Climate 2012 | Climate Commission - Climate change impacts for Western Australia and report (PDF) |
Warrup forest, UN Year of the Forests, climate change, Inter-governmental panel

The government agency, the Climate Commission, said that significant changes in the pattern of rainfall over Western Australia have occurred over the past 40 years. A spokesman said, "There has been a strong rise in average temperature across the state by about 0.8 degrees over the past century."

"The south west corner of the state has become markedly drier, with a 15% reduction in rainfall since the mid-1970s."

The decline in annual rainfall has been raised as a major issue by the Bridgetown-Greenbushes Friends of the Forests and by the Conservation Council in the classification of forests in reference to logging, and the Forest Products Commissions acknowledges there may have to be a reclassification - A 900 mm annual rainfall in the 1950s for Warrup forest is now heading to 650 mm annually.

The Weather Bureau and CSIRO will release a report that confirms the rising land and sea temperatures and that rainfall is shifting from the south to more northern latitudes. The report will include the dramatic trends that average temperatures will increase by up to 1.5 celsius by 2030 and by between another 1.0 to 5.0 celsius by 2070 with the brunt of the harshest effects felt in the south west and including Perth.

2010 was considered the driest year to date however trends indicate that most years of this decade will exceed the dryness of 2010.

Rising greenhouses in the atmosphere and rising acidification of our Australian oceans and seas were reported to have been caused by humans. CSIRO chief executive officer, Megan Clark said the report speaks for itself and is not politically motivated, the organisation is demarcated from political influences. "This is something we do every two years, and we will continue to do it every two years," said Dr Clark.

WA Farmers president-elect Dale Park acknowledges the challenges from climate change and that farmers are feeling the effects however they are trying to find ways to deal with lower rainfall and the dryness.

The Climate Commission inclines an urge for strategies to be considered to meet the drying future and that state governments, shires, agricultural and farming cooperatives should plan from now - and which should include further improving yield produce with new technology and management practices, the installation of desalination plants, educating community and in terms of consumption, and government agencies need to ensure practices that diminish the rates of soil erosion and the drying of forests, and this may mean less logging, and ensuring forests are preserved as carbon stores.

For south west residents and the children of the next generation, facing up to a drying climate, one which may impact tourism and health, the Climate Commission said now is the time act, "This is the critical decade for action. The choices we make between now and 2020 will shape our future. To minimise climate change risks we must begin to de-carbonise our economy and move to cleaner energy sources this decade. The longer we wait the more difficult and costly it will be. Western Australia has abundant potential for expanding renewable energy generation, with some of the best wind and solar resources in Australia."

Image: Red tingle forests are threatened by Climate change. Photo by Takver from Wikipedia. Creative Commons.



When will the governments understand what matters?

A drier and warmer climate in the south west is certainly something we need to think about. However, the suggestion that there may need to be "less logging" needs to be challenged. Already, there have been examples of regrowth jarrah trees dying in our Northern Jarrah forests (ie close to Perth) due to lack of water. The heavy stocking of these trees means there is just not enough water to go around. One solution is to thin these forests to ensure the best trees can flourish, and that there will be some water flowing into streams, and hopefully into our water supply dams. To do nothing would be lazy and damaging to our environment. People need to understand that logging is a tool that can assist our forests in a drying climate.

Western Australia in 2011: Wettest year on record.Summer 2010-11 saw the second wettest summer on record for WA, and was followed by very much above average autumn rainfall.Averaged rainfall data showed that in the Lower Southwest (southwest of a line from Jurien Bay to Bremer Bay), annual rainfall was in the near average range, whilst in the Southwest Land Division (SWLD), annual rainfall in 2011 was above average.
Lets have a look at the rest of Australia in 2011/12!
JUNE 9, 2011 Brisbane’s Coldest Day Since 1916
Sydney It's the coldest summer in 50 years.
MOTHER Nature missed her cue as Melbourne yesterday shivered through its coldest start to summer in 15 years.
Canberra's coldest summer in 16 years

According to the Bureau of Meteorology special climate statement, the total rainfall for 2011 was 705mm, making it the second wettest year on record, behind 1974 with 760mm, and ahead of 2010 (third wettest) with 703mm.
Read more:

Australia in Summer (December-February) 2011-12.Maximum temperatures averaged across Australia were 0.55°C below normal, 11th coolest in 62 years of record

The mean February maximum temperature recorded at the Adelaide (Kent Town) for February 2012 was 28.2°C which is 1.2°C below the long-term mean maximum temperature of 29.4°C. In comparison, February 2011 saw average maximum temperatures of 29.1°C at Adelaide (Kent Town). The record highest February mean maximum in Adelaide is 33.0°C set more than 100 years ago in 1906 at the West Terrace site.
Wow what made it hot in 1906?The aeroplane was three years old and the motor car was 20 years old???????

Gerry any one can cherry pick data to suit their argument, while climate change may be happening you still got a long way to go before you prove it is man made

Right on Jimbo

That's right don't even listen to your own reports from your governments, that's right forget the Climate Commission, genious you are mate

Old man Col

Old Man Col should we listen to the Government reports that put N.T intervention into place?Or do we pick and choose the one's we like you can't have it both ways Col LOL

Jimbo I looked up all the sites you list and much to my surprise what you quote is true.
I think this is a money making scam for the Scientists that get funding,the Governments that charge a tax and the banks that have turned it into a commodity that is made out of nothing.

so the temperature averages each year rising are a scam and what we feel hotter is hypnosis?

Old man Col

Col I am in Melbourne and this summer was cold where do you live that you thought it was hotter than years gone by?I feel colder any one else feel the same way?

Yes Dale I live in QLD we did not have a summer

Maybe you are getting old Col

I just looked up average temperatures with the Bureau of Statistics and they are going up in WA and in the south west so you are wrong

I looked up annual rainfall with the Bureau and the south west has gone down and I checked thelinks to the Climate Commission a government mob and they have pages of research on the south west getting dryer

REad around properly

Old man Col

Yes the southwest is drying a fair bit recently, but by the biggest contributor to the reduction in inflows of water to the South West dams is the regrowth of logged areas in the catchment areas.

A research paper I have read cited that surface water runoff could be reduced by as much as 50%, 30 years after the forest is cleared due to the increased water requirements of the regrowth. But after 200 years the vegetation would have returned to its natural state and run off will return to its pre forest clearing level.

But there is no easy answer to this. Thinning vegetation in thousands of sq km of forests around our water reservoirs may increase water run off a little, but will not return it to normal levels as young growing trees in a regrowth forest still require significantly more water than a mature tree in an old growth forest. Also thinning the forests is not going to be cheap or easy. It may be cheaper to keep building desalination plants..

I agree with you mate that's what the research says and Gerry wrote that in the article that desal plants are needed

Old man Col

JIMBO, you appear to have cherry picked data and not GERRY. you say that WA had it's wettest year etc etc, however this article is primarily looking at the SWLD NOT the whole of WA and why are you telling us about various temperature anomalies over east ?? The southwest is the crux of the issue here. You can't support your argument with small sets of data i.e 'one off temperature anomalies'. The article is looking at "climate change" in the SWLD and not so much the cause, yet you provide us with your irrelevant data.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, this can't be ignored but I guess you know better than everyone else don't you Jimbo ?? You'll still be denying climate change even after half the forests are dead and farmers can hardly grow a crop. Grow a brain mate

Hello John. You say " JIMBO, you appear to have cherry picked data and not GERRY. you say that WA had it's wettest year etc etc, however this article is primarily looking at the SWLD NOT the whole of WA and why are you telling us about various temperature anomalies over east ??"Well John if the article is about SWLD not the whole of W.A, tell me that is not cherry picking! Then you talk about "small sets of Data" what do you call singling out the SWLD?if you read some of the Data I posted you will see Western Australia in 2011 had it's Wettest year on record.Summer 2010-11 saw the second wettest summer on record for WA and the Southwest Land Division (SWLD), annual rainfall in 2011 was above average, that does not mean it is getting dryer John? and I would have thought that blows Gerry's case wide open because this shows the SWLD is not drying up.

I thought man made climate change (which replaced Global warming) was a global thing and I just pointed out that Australia in Summer (December-February) 2011-12.Maximum temperatures averaged across Australia were 0.55°C below normal, 11th coolest in 62 years of record so we are not heating up are we?But that data is "irrelevant data" right?Is that because it does not support the Alarmist theory?

Then you say "Regardless of the cause of climate change, this can't be ignored but I guess you know better than everyone else don't you Jimbo ??"John you may as well ignore it because there is nothing man can do to change a climate that has been changing for millions of years.

John you ask me to "grow a brain", since you are so smart can you tell me why the IPCC would lie about the climate for example in their hockey stick graph they completly delete the medieval warm period why would they do that John?Why would people like Gerry say the SWLD is drying up when it is not?Look at the data.You want me to follow people like Al Gore Who make money hand over fist out of this scam,The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri repeatedly publicly claims that UN IPCC reports rely on 100% peer-reviewed science yet the 2007 report cited and relied on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed, including hikers' anecdotes, newspaper stories and political activists' campaign material. That's another blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body.People that lie are hiding something and that something is the truth.Follow the money trail John money can not stop the sun heating and cooling the Planet and Taxing Plant food (CO2)and the air we breath out will not reduce Global warming or climate change or what ever you call it.Did you know that in the past the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both several degrees warmer than today's temperature. The world then cooled at least four degrees from 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that have been in retreat until recently). These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces.

Here is a few more people that need to grow a brain
The new scientific report “directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” - Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”

“I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” - Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.

“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.

“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” - Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.

“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” - Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.”

“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.

Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”

“The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

“If global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust .” - Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.

“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” - Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.

“The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” - Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.

“I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers

“It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” - Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.

“My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end... The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” - Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department

“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.

The list of comments like these go on and on John I don't need to insult you as you did me I just ask for you look into what I have put in front of you and think for yourself we must all stand up to this fraud put on us all

Great collection of sceptic quotes Jimbo. But none of them specifically address the climate changes happening to South West Australia. And you haven't detailed how many of them have published climate research in peer reviewed journals.

All those quotes come from a blog entry by Marc Morano US Senate Committee on Environment and Public works December 22, 2008. Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works up to 2009 and was particularly close to US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). According to Sourcewatch "Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications."

Now we are getting some of the hidden agenda...Inhofe, the Republicans and Free marketers trying to muddy the ground just like what big tobacco did for decades in hiding the health risks of smoking.

Takver good to hear from you again,I thought you had see the light and dropped your Alarmist rubbish that has been going on for years. (and we are all still here) Over the last century major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis 4 different times warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895 the panic was over an ice age occuring, in the late 1920s when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree the media jumped on a new threat global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."

Some 1855 to 1980 New York Times reports of changing climate

March 27th, 2007 by Warwick Hughes
Some perspective on media reporting of complaints that the climate is not perfect, assembled by John Shotsky.

January 5, 1855, Wednesday

As the climate of every country has an inseparable relation with the physical character of its inhabitants, the attention of the Government was directed, some few years since, to the collection of correct meteorological statistics throughout the whole of the United States.

June 23, 1890, Wednesday

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate Summers and open Winters through several years, culminating last Winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.
Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says

May 30, 1947, Friday


LOS ANGELES, May 29 — A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today.
A WARMER EARTH EVIDENT AT POLES; Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures

February 15, 1959, Sunday

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The theory that the world is growing slightly warmer is receiving added confirmation from temperature data.
A WARMER EARTH EVIDENT AT POLES; Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures

February 15, 1959, Sunday

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The theory that the world is growing slightly warmer is receiving added confirmation from temperature data
EARTH’S WEATHER GROWING COLDER; U.S. Among the Exceptions, Rome Symposium Hears

October 8, 1961, Sunday

ROME, Oct. 7 — The earth, with few regional exceptions, is undergoing “a persistent cold wave” that began in the Nineteen Forties, a United States weather man told a symposium on climate this week.
Weathermen Try to Explain the Why of Spring That Never Was in 1967

May 31, 1967, Wednesday


In the year 1816 the year without summer, they called it snow fell in New England and parts of New York in June, July and August. Crops failed. People were impoverished and mystified.
Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea; Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap

February 20, 1969, Thursday


Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.
U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; U.S. and Soviet Press Arctic Studies

July 18, 1970, Saturday


The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.
Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues

January 27, 1972, Thursday

PROVIDENCE, R. I., Jan. 26 — After invading Nebraska and Colorado, the armadillos, faced with increasingly frigid weather, are in retreat from those states toward their ancestral home south of the Mexican border. The winter snow accumulation on Baffin Island has increased 35 per cent in the last decade.
Record of a Little Ice Age Is Discovered

February 5, 1972, Saturday


From a study of ice extracted from deep within the Greenland ice sheet it appears that 89,500 years ago something catastrophic changed the climate from being warmer than today’s to that of a full-fledged ice age.
Scientist Fears Equable Climate Around World Could Be Ending

October 31, 1972, Tuesday


The current 12,000-year-old era of comfortable climates around the world may be coming to an end, closing another chapter in what a University of Miami scientist believes has been a history of frequent and relatively short-lived ice ages and warm ages.
CLIMATE CHANGES CALLED OMINOUS; Scientists Warn Predictions Must Be Made Precise to Avoid Catastrophe

January 19, 1975, Sunday

By HAROLD M. SCHMECK Jr. Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 Changes in the earth’s climate are inevitable and mankind must learn to predict these variations to avoid potential catastrophe, a group of prominent scientists has concluded after a two-year study.
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable

May 21, 1975, Wednesday


DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH – The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due

August 14, 1975, Thursday


Articles in two scientific journals have questioned widely publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely affecting food production and, perhaps, initiating a new ice age.
Experts Fear Great Peril If SST Fumes Cool Earth

December 21, 1975, Sunday


A federally sponsored inquiry into the effects of possible climate changes caused by heavy supersonic traffic in the stratosphere has concluded that even a slight cooling could cost the world from $200 billion to 500 times that much in damage done to agriculture, public health and other effects.
2 Climate Experts Decry Predictions of Disasters; Drought in Africa

February 22, 1976, Sunday

By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times

BOSTON, Feb. 21–Two authorities on climate change have termed irresponsible recent predictions of an impending ice age or other climatic disaster. The also said that any global effects of man-made air pollution on the climate to date remained obscure.
International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere

January 5, 1978, Thursday


An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Climate Specialists, in Poll, Foresee No Catastrophic Weather Changes in Rest of Century; Warning About Carbon Dioxide

February 18, 1978, Saturday

By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17–A poll of climate specialists in seven countries has found a consensus that there will be no catastrophic changes in the climate by the end of the century. But the specialists were almost equally divided on whether there would be a warming, a cooling or no change at all.
Scientists at World Parley Doubt Climate Variations Are Ominous; Forgetting the Past Major Shifts in Past

February 16, 1979, Friday

By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times

GENEVA, Feb. 15 This winter Chicago was paralyzed by snow. Last winter it was Boston. European Russia has just suffered its coldest December in a century. In Britain and Western Europe, the summer of 1976 was the hottest in 250 years.
A Vast ‘Interdisciplinary Effort’ To Predict Climate Trend Urged; Neutralization Needed

February 24, 1979, Saturday

By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times

GENEVA, Feb. 23–After exchanging views here for two weeks, the people who know more about climate than anyone else in the world have concluded that climate’s future trends can be predicted in a meaningful way only after “an interdisciplinary effort of unprecedented scope.”
Scientists Reviving Speculation on Climate and Slipping Antarctic Ice; Theory of Linked Events Evidence in Bones Volcanic Dust Theory In Less Than a Century

March 9, 1980, Sunday


Scientists are reviving the controversial notion that millions of cubic miles of Antarctic ice can sometimes abruptly slip off the continent into the sea, resulting in extreme increases in global ocean levels and precipitating a dramatic chilling of the world’s climate.

Sometimes you have to look backwards to see where you are heading….this may be such a time.


John Shotsky

So you see takver we have been bullsitted to by Alarmist scientist for years so they can have a job and keep the grants comming to pay their wages,But we are still here

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."
Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."
China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. & (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists.
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century"
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears"
Takver You wanted peer reviewed you got it, and if you need more quotes from scientists saying man made global warming is crap let me know I can post about 40,000 of them and that number is growing

Right on Jimbo

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville.

A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.

Yet despite those green-sounding credentials, Christy is not calling for draconian cuts in carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. Christy is actually the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.

Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps.

His most controversial argument is that the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says.

The only way to control for such surface distortions is by measuring atmospheric temperatures. And when Christy and his co-researcher Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist now teaching at UA-Huntsville, began analyzing temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface. Christy and Spencer also found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings - which makes sense if bricks and pavement are in fact retaining heat that would otherwise be dispersed.

In testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in February, Christy displayed a chart showing central California temperature trends for both the developed San Joaquin Valley and the largely undeveloped Sierra foothills. "The daytime temperatures of both regions show virtually no change over the past 100 years, while the nighttime temperatures indicate the developed Valley has warmed significantly while the undeveloped Sierra foothills have not," Christy told the committee.

I recently spoke with Christy about his controversial research.

Why did you help write the 2001 IPCC report and the 2003 AGU statement on climate change if you disagreed with their fundamental conclusions?

With the 2001 IPCC report, the material in there over which I had control was satisfactory to me. I wouldn't say I agreed with other parts. As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get.

When you testified before Ways and Means, did you have any sense that committee members on either side were open to having their minds changed? Or are views set in stone at this point?

Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely.

In laymen's terms, what's wrong with the surface temperature readings that are widely used to make the case for global warming?

First is the placement of the temperature stations. They're placed in convenient locations that might be in a parking lot or near a house and thus get extra heating from these human structures. Over time, there's been the development of areas into farms or buildings or parking lots. Also, a number of these weather stations have become electronic, and many of them were moved to a place where there is electricity, which is usually right outside a building. As a result, there's a natural warming tendency, especially in the nighttime temperatures, that has been misinterpreted as greenhouse warming.

Are there any negative consequences to this localized warming?

It's a small impact, but there is an indication that major thunderstorms are more likely to form downwind of major cities like St. Louis and Atlanta. The extra heating of the city causes the air to rise with a little more punch.

Have you been able to confirm your satellite temperature readings by other means?

Weather balloons. We take satellite shots at the same place where the balloon is released so we're looking at the same column of air. Our satellite data compares exceptionally well to the balloon data.

During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)

I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?

Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.

What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right?

The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.

Jimbo, why is it OK for the media and the public to be "alarmed" about an alleged global financial crisis, yet when it comes to the environment or climate change if you don't like all the fuss about it, it's "alarmist" .Well Jimbo I bet you were alarmed when your shares or stocks crashed ??

Your hypocrisy is predictable. You say that Algore is making money out of this?? Sure he probably did make a lot of money but you speak as if this is the first deception in history put upon the people, if it is in fact a deception?? People have been deceiving people for centuries mate, just look at capitalism, sure there are many benefits but people are fed a lot of bullshit too. Is it OK for oil companies to make billions and convince the world it's all good while they pump toxic sludge through the amazon jungle ??

In regards to the medievil warming period often used by skeptics; this was a localised warming over western europe and not the whole world. so that is not a good rebuttal, moreover the data is often manipulated or exaggerated to support this flawed argument. And if you look at the graph the sharpest rise in temperature is during the last 100 years.

Of course the climate has been drastically different over the life of the planet, most people know this. The issue that people such as you self conveniently ignore Jimbo is the rate of change we are experiencing. The climate is changing very rapidly. This is not natural. Climates do not change rapidly unless they have a reason, such as changes in the earths axis or super volcanoes going off and yet none of this has occurred.

Believe what you want Jimbo. I'm not saying scientists don't lie and/or have vested interests also but what is the average scientist getting out of trying to raise awareness of this issue??

Hello again John I will answer your questions even though you have no answers for my questions.
Jimbo, why is it OK for the media and the public to be "alarmed" about an alleged global financial crisis, yet when it comes to the environment or climate change if you don't like all the fuss about it.Well John the GFC is real and man made climate change is a lie.
Jimbo I bet you were alarmed when your shares or stocks crashed ??No John I took my money out of shares in 2006 and invested in gold I will do the same again in 2026 this will be the next crash it's all part of a cycle a bit like the weather has cycles.

In regards to the medievil warming period often used by skeptics; this was a localised warming over western europe and not the whole world. so that is not a good rebuttal, moreover the data is often manipulated or exaggerated to support this flawed argument. And if you look at the graph the sharpest rise in temperature is during the last 100 years.
SWLD is that localised drying over south west of Western Australia not the whole world so why are we talking about that?other than it suits the alarmist lie.Data is often manipulated or exaggerated to support the IPCC lie they have been caught doing it many times John where have you been?
Climategate: On Nov 20, 2009 someone hacked a Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server and obtained emails between several prominent climate researchers (Mann, Jones, Briffa, etc.) and someone put the emails in a searchable database: []. The following series of emails clearly show that the “unprecedented” warming was far from certain and that the CRU climatologists tried to hide any data that indicated the actual uncertainty (bold emphasis added in emails below).

Email: Keith Briffa to Mann, Jones and others, Sep 22, 1999, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions” [

“I know there is pressure to present a
nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite
so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
background variability of our climate.”

Email: Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Nov 16, 1999, (Subject: “Diagram for WMO Statement”).

“I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”

Email: Raymond Bradley to Frank Oldfield, Jul 10, 2000, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions”

“the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration
period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it
unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary
period as the 1990s with much success
Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don't have the
long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. …
Whether we have the 1000
year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on
whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been
"warm", to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up
the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is
comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs
the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is
firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).
Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in
the long-term data set used -- maybe the envelope is really much larger,
due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves....again this
would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap.”

Email: Chick Keller to Mann, Jones, Briffa, and others, Mar 2, 2001, (Subject: “Some thoughts on climate change proxy temperatures in the last 1,000 yrs” [

“Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature
amplitude for many individual records/sites over the past 1000 years or
so is often larger than 1°C. They thus recognize that natural
variability is unlikely to generate such large changes unless the sun
is having more effect than direct forcing, or there is some fortuitous
but detectable combination of forcings. And they see this as evidence
that the 0.8°C or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all
that special.

The community, however, in making ensemble averages gets a much smaller
amplitude ~0.5°C. which they say shows that reasonable combinations of
solar direct plus volcanos and internal variability with the help of
THC can indeed explain this AND the 20th century warming is unique. …

We must address the question: what forcings
can generate large amplitude temperature variations over hundreds of
years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different
times in different regions due to shifting heat inertia patterns)? If
we can't do this, then there might be something wrong with our
rationale that the average is low amplitude even though many regions
see high amplitude. This may be the nubbin of the disagreement, and
until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is
still unsettled and that indeed climate in the past may well have
varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.

One way would be to note that the temperature amplitude (1000 - 1950)
for each [proxy record] is ~1.5°C. Thus you could conclude that hemispheric/global
climate varied ay over a degree Celcius (although with regional differences)
Another way would be to average the records. The resulting temperature
amplitude would be smaller because extremes would cancel since
variability is large and each region's extremes occur at different

Thus, if people simply looked at several records they would get the
impression that temperature variations were large, ~1.5°C. Imagine
their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
have much smaller amplitude.

(Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors
of +-50 years or so. What is the possibility that records are
cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred year frame due
simply to timing errors? as in hitting or missing C&L's triple warming
peak 1000-1200 AD)”

Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: “Hockey Stick” [

Cook to Mann: “My statement that the MWP appeared to be comparable to the
20th century does not imply, nor was it meant to imply, that somehow the
20th century temperature is not truly anomalous and being driven by
greenhouse gases. To quote from my email, "I would not claim (and nor would
Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not
have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet." Note the use
of the word "precision". This clearly relates to the issue of error
variance and confidence intervals, a point that you clearly emphasize in
describing your series. Also note the emphasis on "late 20th century". I
think that most researchers in global change research would agree that the
emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred
since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that
there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative
contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past
20-30 years at least.”

Cook to Crowley: “These chronologies are not good at
preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of
sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are
probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than
averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm
Period - Little Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong
decadal fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH …
the Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period - Little
Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the
hockey stick. …
I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global
event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”

Email exchange between: Michael Mann and John Christy, May 23, 2001, (Subject: “IPCC” [ Mann expressed disappointment that Christy went on John Stossel’s TV show).

Mann to Christy: “I'll be very disturbed
if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your
co-authors on chapter 2 [of the IPCC TAR], and your colleagues in general. This wouldn't
have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected
more from you”

Christy to Mann: “In one of the pre-interviews they asked about the "Hockey Stick". I
told them of my doubts about the intercentury precision of the record,
especially the early part, and that other records suggested the period
1000 years ago was warmer. …
I've been very disappointed with what has gone
on even with respect to some of the IPCC elders and their pronouncements
for forthcoming disasters. …
the dose of climate change disasters that have been
dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and
could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I've got a good story
about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago that
proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and
influence government.)
Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC TAR is good, but it is not perfect nor
sacred and is open to criticism as any document should be. …
Some of the story lines used to generate
high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.”

Email from Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and others, Apr 15, 2002, (Subject: “Your Letter to Science” [

“We can maintain an honest difference about how well those points were
conveyed in the Science piece (for example, you can imagine how the statement in your piece
"This record has a smaller amplitude of century-to-century variability, and is consistently
at or near the upper limit of alternate records produced by other researchers" might indeed
have been interpreted as setting MBH99 apart as, in your words, an "outlier").”

Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” []).

“it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”

Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [

Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp).
I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.”

Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”

Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [

Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp).
I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.”

Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”

Email between Phil Jones and John Christy, Jul 5, 2005, (Subject: “This and that”

Jones to Christy: “I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn't being political, it is being selfish.”

Jones appended to the email, text from Joe Barton (Chairman of the US House of Representatives) to Rajendra Pachauri (Chairman of the IPCC): “in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature
histories - and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented -
cannot be supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14
Journal and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these
studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to
reach the conclusions.”

Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics, in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present.An e-mail is legendary, which was sent to a U.S. climate researcher David Deming in 1995. An important person working in the field of climate change and global warming sent him an astonishing email with the words: ‘We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’. “ Look that one up john LOL.

The research results are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Furthermore Willerslev found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles. But when was that? According to most scientific theories to date, all of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.

In Brahic et al. (2007), Mann's ''hockey stick'' does not indicate a Little Ice Age, but the proxy graph based on glacier lengths by J. Oerlemans (2005) does, with a low temperature in 1580 that is 0.98 lower than that of 1950. This is a good time to address the pronounced melting of glaciers in recent times. From 1700–1825, 5 to 12 glaciers gained in mean length. From 1825–1975, 12 to 169 glaciers became shorter, then shortening diminished until 1998, then a 730 J. M. Kauffman divergence between Alps and non-Alps glaciers appeared. The non-Alps glaciers increased in length after 1998. Fully half of the glacier length retreats took place between 1825 and 1906, before CO2 levels were supposed to have increased.

John I could on and on about the lies research it yourself and use your own brain

good article, stuff here i learned for the first time
we should be worried about rising temperatures shouldn't we?

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

Straight away you can see there's no slope--either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level--statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA's web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger's colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there's no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2--it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It's a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA's David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

"Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?"

"No, no," replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of "misleading" people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU's Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were "destroyed" or "lost", meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.


@ Col Riley: what do you mean? I'm not sure if you are being ironic or if you are frustrated.

@ Woodsman: Good point, it is a bit scary how we try to re-engineer nature. If we are damaging it, we should stop and think about the way we nurture a relationship with our environment. We shouldn't simply try to fix it with a plaster.

  • Investing binary solutions is rather preferred between traders since it is quite straightforward and might produce superior returns to put it briefly time. Contrary to classical buying and selling exactly where just about every point features a selected value that's proportional towards the volume traded, in binary options you only really have to predict the proper movements for just a certain time period of time.