Quoted Text

Harsh winters force Mongolian horsemen to abandon nomadic life
By Hazel Southam
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 02/07/2008



The blockbuster movie, Mongol, depicts the skilled horsemen who helped their leader, Genghis Khan, build one of the greatest empires the world has seen.

Green Team to compete in the Mongol Rally
But the lifestyle of today's Mongolian horseman - and other nomadic herdsmen - is under threat. A succession of climactic disasters in the last 10 years has forced 500,000 of them abandon a nomadic lifestyle that has remained almost unchanged for centuries and to look instead for a new life in the cities.

Mongolia is one of the toughest places on earth to live and can boast the coldest capital - Ulaanbaatar - on the planet. Temperatures drop to at least -30C in winter. The country is frozen from November to March.

But four climactic disasters, known as 'dzuds', since 1999 have made life almost impossible for even the toughest of Mongolia's nomadic people who roam over a country three times the size of France. Three particularly harsh winters since 2000 have killed a third of the nation's livestock.

In 2001, the temperature dropped to a record-breaking -57C. Some 15,000 herders lost all of their animals through starvation and cold, and with them, their money and food. More than a quarter of the 2.6m population has left the vast rural areas, where herdsmen have lived since before Ghengis Khan's empire was established in the 13th century, and have fled in desperation to the cities.

Among them is Byambaa Nurdev (22) a former herder in the Gobi Desert. She and her husband Tumenbayar (31) had some 600-700 sheep and goats, making them relatively wealthy. But between 2002-5 they lost every single animal.

With nothing left, the couple and their young daughter, Odgerel (now 4), hitched a lift with a lorry driver along unmade tracks to the capital: a journey that took them three days.

"Before the disasters life was good," says Byambaa. "We had many animals and there was plenty of food. We just took care of the animals.

"It's difficult in the city. Some days we don't have food. There's no future here, but there's nothing to go back to. Being a herder was difficult, but it was a much better life."

Today the family, including seven-month-old Odonchimeg, live in a ger (a traditional felt tent) in a slum on the edge of Mongolia's capital, Ulaan Baatar. There is no running water or sanitation. Because they lack official paperwork, the couple can't find work and survive on hand outs from the Red Cross, which gives them flour, rice, sugar and oil every month. The rest they beg from neighbours.

Lacking the money for the traditional Mongolian diet of meat, yoghurt and milk, the family frequently goes without food. The children suffer from malnutrition. As a consequence, four-year-old Odgerel has only recently learned to walk. Baby Odonchimeg lies listlessly on a bed in semi-darkness. He is unable to sit up unaided.

However, last summer the family's future looked even more bleak as the Red Cross's funds for helping the displaced herders ran low. Now, Byambaa's children continue to be fed by the Red Cross, thanks to a £100,000 donation from British car firm Land Rover. Its three-week adventure sports and driving competition - the G4 Challenge - will be held in Mongolia next year. And Land Rover has linked up with the Red Cross, to support children like Odgerel and Odonchimeg.

"We wanted to give something back," says the event's spokesman, Andrew Roberts. "It's a courtesy to the places that we go to. The whole event is carbon neutral because of offsetting. The Challenge is a lot of fun, and it promotes Land Rover, but it also does something that is good for more people. For G4 it's about making the event mean more."

Out in the vast rural swathes of Mongolia, other herders are facing exactly the same problems as Byambaa's family. Batkhuu Naranbyamba (31) lives with her husband Altankhuyag (26) and two children in the very heart of the Gobi Desert. The hard winter of 2002 killed all of their 600 sheep, goats and horses. Today the family tends a herd for other people and Altankhuyag takes on extra work in construction.

The couple earn two goats for a month's work. One goat pays the fees for their elder child, Myagmarsuren (11), to attend school in the town of Dalanzadgad. But rises in food prices have meant that the couple also often go without meals, as the money earned from the remaining goat goes less far.

When we had our own herd it was easy," says Batkhuu. "We had enough meat and we could sell milk. Not anymore.

"I don't have any hope of it changing. The situation is just going to stay the same. The only way that we can rebuild our herd is for our daughter to become a teacher and then she can earn enough for her brother to have a herd.

"Even then, there's not so much rain these days and that means there's less grazing for our cattle."

Mungun Hulug (21) and his family keep 60 horses in the Gobi Desert. But he says, his might be the last generation to do so.

"I love riding across the plains," he says, "but I'm worried. If the conditions get really tough, then I will have to go to town and find a job. Keeping animals you're dependent on the weather and the price of meat. I'm not sure how it's going to go. Town would the be last option, but if need be, I will go."

Mongolia's foreign minister, HE Mr Erikhbold Nyamaa told the UN last year that, "Mongolia is severely affected by the negative consequences of climate change".

Mongolia's image as a land of nomadic herdsmen may be about to change for good as harsh weather conditions threaten their traditional way of life and bring more herdsmen off the land into an uncertain urban future.

Quoted Text

Cooler Temps Aid California Firefighters
Immediate Danger Passes For Wine Country Homes, But Western State Fire Risk Is Still High

(CBS/ AP) Cooler weather on Monday helped firefighters gain ground on hundreds of wildfires that charred bone-dry terrain across the heart of wine country and remote forests in Northern California.

One fire had spread across nearly 6 square miles in Napa County and quickly moved into a mostly rural area of Solano County. The fire threatened more than 100 buildings as it fed on grassy woodland about 40 miles southwest of Sacramento, said Roger Archey, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire.

It was 40 percent contained Monday morning and had destroyed one home, officials said. Evacuations were ordered for some residents, said agency spokeswoman Nancy Carniglia.

CBS News affiliate KPIX-TV reports that while cooler temperatures have helped, high winds and lightning have created additional challenges for the fire fighting efforts.

"Because of the rough terrain up there, it's very difficult to establish a very solid line," California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection Battalion Chief David Shew told the station. "Unfortunately as everyone knows, we have lightning strikes that have affected all of Northern California right now, so our resources are at a very thin level."

Firefighters in southern New Mexico, meanwhile, were trying to stop a 43,000-acre wildfire that's destroying grazing allotments since starting in the Lincoln National Forest, a U.S. Forest Service fire information officer said.

Two other lightning-sparked wildfires also have burned nearly 30,000 acres. One was burning west of Roswell in southern New Mexico, and the other was west of Raton in the northern part of the state.

Wildfires have destroyed more than 175 homes in Northern California so far this year. Blazes started popping up in the region just as California's unofficial fire season began in mid-May, following the state's driest two-month period on record.

Two blazes about 25 miles south of San Jose also forced several residents from their homes. The fires covered about 2 square miles.

Officials said one fire was 90 percent contained Monday and the other 50 percent contained. Many residents were being let back into their homes.

Thunderstorms were responsible for as many as 75 fires in Shasta-Trinity National Forest, about 160 miles north of Sacramento. They ranged in size from less than an acre to more than a square mile. None immediately threatened homes, said Forest Service spokesman Michael Odle.

Mendocino County had as many as 90 fires, charring a total of 5,000 acres, Cal Fire officials said.

South of San Francisco, a fire that started Friday in Santa Cruz County and destroyed homes and closed a stretch of highway was contained after charring just less than a square mile. Evacuation orders were lifted Saturday, a day after roughly 2,000 people fled their homes.

It was the third major blaze to hit Santa Cruz County in the past month. A 520-acre blaze destroyed 11 buildings in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and a fire near Corralitos covered more than 4,200 acres and destroyed about 100 buildings.

Meanwhile, residents in Brisbane, a small city just south of San Francisco, were being allowed back into their homes after a grass fire scorched several hundred acres on San Bruno Mountain.


© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Quoted Text

Smoke is normal - for 1800s
By Chris Bowman - cbowman@sacbee.com
Last Updated 12:13 am PDT Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

No one in Colfax or Auburn will breathe a whit easier knowing this, but the heavy wildfire smoke that gave their towns a carbon black eye on the Air Quality Index on Monday is historically the norm for the foothills, studies show.

Analysis of tree rings and oral histories of American Indians and Euro-American surveyors suggests that the cobalt blue skies typifying the Sierra today were more the exception up through the 19th century.

The skies likely were smoky much of the summer and fall in the mountains and other remote and parched regions of California, where fires were largely ignored.

The Chumash Indian name for what is now the Los Angeles area translates to "the valley of smoke," according to Gordon J. MacDonald, a geophysicist and professor formerly with the University of California, San Diego.

The chronic pall of dense smoke frustrated mapmakers. As C.H. Merriam, chief of the federal Division of Biological Survey, noted in 1898:

"Of the hundreds of persons who visit the Pacific slope in California every summer to see the mountains, few see more than the immediate foreground and a haze of smoke which even the strongest glass is unable to penetrate."

Wildland firefighting didn't occur until the turn of the 20th century, after the federal government set aside land as parks and created the Forest Service.

"Fire suppression became its reason for being," Yosemite-based U.S. Geological Survey scientist Jan W. van Wagentdonk wrote of the Forest Service in an article last year for the journal Fire Ecology.

"It was the only policy for all federal land managers until the late 1960s when (National Park Service) officials recognized fire as a natural process."

The amount of land burned in today's far more urbanized and farmed California pales against the acreage consumed historically, before Euro-American settlements, according to University of California, Berkeley, environmental researchers.

The scientists estimated that an average 4.4 million acres burned annually in California before 1800, compared with an average 250,000 acres a year in the last five decades, 1950 through 2000.

That's nearly as much land as wildfire consumed in the entire United States during a whole decade, 1994-2004, which fire officials deemed "extreme," said the study, which was published last year in the journal Forest Ecology and Management.

"The idea that a U.S. wildfire area of approximately (4.4 million acres) annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective," the researchers concluded.

To calculate the extent of historic wildfires, scientists led by UC Berkeley's Scott Stephens calculated the extent of pre-1800 fires from published data on fire rotation - the length of time necessary to burn an area.

They also determined fire frequency based on the years between fire scars on tree rings and the burning practices of American Indians, found in oral histories. The amounts of smoke particles emitted are overwhelming by today's standards.

Looking at the estimated burned acreage, researchers found that wildfires spewed an average 1.3 million tons a year of tiny smoke particles in prehistoric California compared with about 78,000 tons in 2006, the most recent year for which the data in available.

Quoted Text

South America First Half of 2008 and Perito Moreno Glacier
By Alexandre Aguiar, MetSul Weather Center (Brazil)
2008 so far has been a very interesting year. All the months in the first half of the year ended with below normal temperature, a situation not observed since 1962. Our fall was very cold and performed like winter. June was really cold. The frost ruined 1.3 million tons of corn in the state of Parana, a damage not seen in 8 years. July has been very mild and the forecast models do not indicate any cold incursion in the next 10 days. It is quite unusual to not have very cold days in the first 15 days of July. Usually, the lowest temperatures of the year occur between July 5 and July 15th in our region. It seems the nature is compensating a very cold and early winter with mild temperatures in the peak of the climatic winter.
Regarding the Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina, which the BBC claimed had a huge ice dam on Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is about to break apart for the first time during the southern hemisphere winter, there is an interesting quote in the Argentinean press today:
Victor Jorge Leis, operational director of the National Weather Service of Argentina, expressed doubt about global warming as the cause of the rupture of the glacier. “It is too difficult to establish a connection with the greenhouse effect because temperature has not been much above normal in the region in the last few months. Besides, temperature is just one factor in the ice behavior and wind and oceans tide should not be ignored”, he told. Other experts mentioned that the glacier tip is 400 years old, what justifies its fragility”.
The last time it ruptured in July was in 1951 (coming off a strong La Nina).
There is a news report quoting one of the most important experts in the glacier that has the following headline: “The Perito Moreno rupture is not consequence of greenhouse effect: “Ricardo Villalba, director of the Argentinean Institute of Glaciology, Snow and Enviromental Sciences (Ianigla) tells Los Andes newspaper that the position of the ice and the tides can be blamed for this unusual breakup in the winter.”

Quoted from Shadow

Kevin, Al Gore isn't going to like you posting articles like that and debunking his ideas.

Quoted Text

THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin) June 25th 2008, 7:29 PM BST

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first six articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s seventh and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he threads together all of the main articles to achieve a credible rival to "The Green House Effect". The following work titled "The Hot Water Bottle Effect" considers that the "Green House Effect" was flawed and that his own theory will help people understand how the Earth's climate works in conjunction with The Sun.

THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT - by Stephen Wilde

Preface

This article attempts to consider the combined effect of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and oceanic oscillations. As far as I know no one has previously attempted to describe both phenomena as part of a single global temperature control system. It was prompted by an answer I gave to a meteorologist about my article entitled “The Death Blow to AGW”. That meteorologist had difficulty understanding how a period of steady solar irradiance could nevertheless heat up the Earth. My reply was as follows:

"An electric bar fire with a constant level of output in a room will cumulatively raise the room temperature for as long as the heat flowing from the fire exceeds the heat outflow from the room. Thus a net warming effect from the sun, even if it is in the form of a steady flow of energy from the sun over a few decades will cumulatively warm the Earth until the radiation of heat from the Earth rises to match the excess heat being received. As a result of oceanic time lags that could take some time. There is the mechanism.”

That exchange led to this article via my attempt to find a more accurate analogy than that of the greenhouse effect. I soon realised that the oceans were more significant than the atmosphere since they hold solar heat in greater quantity and for much longer than the atmosphere. My conclusion was that we owe our existence not to an atmospheric greenhouse or blanket but instead to an oceanic hot water bottle. It is what I hope will become widely known as The Hot Water Bottle Effect (THWBE) in place of The Greenhouse Effect.

The recent global warming spell was never a result of any greenhouse effect. It was entirely a result of THWBE whereby heat already stored in the oceans and released by a positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation supplemented a historically high level of solar irradiation. With the Pacific Decadal Oscillation now in decline and solar irradiation now falling we are already in very different times.

Ideally this article should be read with certain of my previous articles with this article being regarded as part 4 of a new theory as to how global climate really works. As far as I can see the theory fits the known facts and ongoing observations of the real world as opposed to the speculations of climate modelling.

For those unfamiliar with my work the order in which to read is as follows:


Global Warming and Cooling-The Reality
The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature
The Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming
The Hot Water Bottle Effect

Introduction

Previously the time scale of the oceanic changes has been considered to be too long to be relevant to decadal climate change.

This article makes use of recent findings about the relatively short decadal or multi decadal (20 to 30 years) oceanic oscillations that, the writer contends, are short enough to bring the time scales involved in oceanic changes into line with the solar cycles of 11 years or so. It seems to the writer that spreading global oceanic cycles of up to 30 years in length across 3 solar cycles results in a close enough match to fit temperature observations over the past few hundred years and especially since 1961.

Sometimes the solar cycles operate in conjunction with the oceanic oscillations but at other times they work against each other.

For an illustration of the importance to weather and climate changes of the main ocean oscillation in the Pacific see this link. There are similar oscillations in each ocean.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prednino/overview.php

As an example of the oversimplified description of the greenhouse effect and the alarmism that can arise from it see this animated teaching aid.

Greenhouse Effect - animated diagram

The importance of that link is to show that the greenhouse effect is always considered in isolation with no consideration given to any real world link to, or similarity with, the vastly greater potential heat source stored in the oceans.

1. Greenhouses and the planetary ‘greenhouse’ effect

I think we have all heard enough about this subject but I’ve got to deal with it first before I go on to explain how misleading I believe the concept to have been ever since it was first used in connection with planetary climates.

It’s quite clear that overall planetary temperatures are a fine balance between solar energy coming in and that same energy being radiated away into space. Planets with atmospheres stabilise their surface temperatures at a level dependent upon the density of the atmosphere leaving the main variation in planetary temperature dependent on variations in the energy coming in from the local star. I have seen a suggestion that it is density of an atmosphere that matters, not composition, so CO2 may be an irrelevance unless it affects overall density but being such a small proportion of our atmosphere it could not do so. The density proposition certainly fits the observed surface temperature differences between Venus, Earth and Mars.

The question currently concerning us all is whether additional CO2 being added by man to the Earth’s atmosphere is sufficient to destabilise the system and introduce a dangerous level of extra warming.

I’ve made comments on the issues of scale and causation in relation to Earth’s CO2 levels in previous articles but in this article I will consider entirely different and somewhat novel issues.

A planet’s atmosphere is entirely different from a greenhouse. The latter accumulates heat inside by physically preventing escape of hot air thereby concentrating it in a confined space. The atmosphere is nothing like that because there is nothing to prevent hot air rising via convection from the ground to a substantial height.

The role of convection and the subsequent condensation out of water vapour into clouds and then rainfall is currently incapable of quantification as a means of slowing or offsetting any atmospheric greenhouse effect but it certainly does those things.

In general, the warmer the Earth’s atmosphere gets at the lower levels the more vigorous and widespread convection will become because the temperature differential between the surface and space increases thereby invigorating the global convective process. This is why it is often said that a warmer Earth may have more violent storms. However, that is a two edged scenario. If convection increases in an attempt to regain the previous equilibrium then it will stabilise the temperature increase and reduce it back to what it was before. Convection is therefore a negative feedback process that could well be capable of preventing dangerous warming from proportionately miniscule extra anthropogenic CO2.

Extra convection would occur immediately in response to extra warmth (you can see from your local weather how quickly it starts every day as a result of changing solar power as each day progresses) and if the speed of response is quick enough and global it could well prevent any significant warming at all from any warming influences other than the main solar/oceanic driver.

The extra convection would not necessarily result in significantly more damaging storms because it would be spread across the globe and the increase in temperature between the surface and space would not need to become large before the process begins to take effect. We might even not be able to notice or measure it.

2. Blankets

I prefer the idea of the atmosphere being a ‘blanket’ rather than a ‘greenhouse’ but the same principles apply. A blanket does not allow convection, whereas a planetary atmosphere does, so whichever analogy is used it is rendered inadequate by the processes involved in convection.

3. Hot Water Bottles

This is where I have some novel suggestions to make.

The Earth is known as the watery planet with 71% of the surface covered by water and in many places to a substantial depth. That water is also (in addition to the atmosphere) involved in maintaining the Earth’s temperature at a higher level than it otherwise would be.

Importantly both the atmosphere AND the oceans delay the incoming solar heat from being radiated out to space. Neither ADD new heat, both receive and store heat from the sun before it leaves the planet again. In both cases water whether in atmosphere or ocean is by far the main component in delaying the passage of heat back to space. In the atmosphere water vapour dwarfs CO2 and anything else as the main greenhouse gas. The oceans are, again, water but in a far denser form. Heat from the oceans has to be processed through the atmosphere before it can leave the planet.

Now, consider the respective heat storing capacities of water vapour in the atmosphere and the water in all those oceans.

The truth is that those oceans by virtue of the density and volume of the water have a heat storage capacity many magnitudes the size of the heat that can be stored by the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. My contention is that man made CO2 and other man made trace gases are not only a miniscule proportion of the naturally occurring CO2 and trace gases but in turn CO2 and other trace gases have only a miniscule proportion of the heat storing capacity of the water vapour in the atmosphere AND ADDITIONALLY the atmosphere stores only a miniscule proportion of the heat stored by the oceans. The heat stored by the atmospheric greenhouse effect is far less in quantity and far less long lasting than the heat stored by the oceans.

Man made CO2 is but a tiny part of a tiny part of a tiny part of the whole.

So why do we only ever hear about the heat retaining properties of the atmosphere when the true cause of the Earth having the atmospheric temperature it has is not the atmosphere at all but the oceans?

The truth may well that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is minimal and quickly reduced by convection, condensation into clouds and rainfall and the real thermostat is the oceans.

Regardless of the existence of a heat retaining capacity in the atmosphere there is nevertheless always a net outward flow from surface to space and that will always be so. Greenhouse warming of the atmosphere can only ever be on the basis of a slowing down of the net heat flow from surface to space. The heat always gets out given a little time for the greenhouse style bouncing back and forth between the surface and the molecules of the atmosphere.

It is bizarre to suggest that a significant net slowdown of heat loss in the face of the compensating negative forcings of increased convection and the increased outward radiative flow caused by a greater surface to space differential could be induced by mankind’s tiny contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

After all CO2 is itself only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases so that it cannot have any significant long term effect when the water vapour primarily affecting atmospheric heat retention is in turn itself but a tiny proportion of global heat retaining capacity when one adds in the vastly greater oceanic heat retaining effect.

For one thing the two negative forcings cancel out much or most of the additional warming from the atmospheric CO2 and for another the atmospheric warming effect is miniscule in relation to the oceanic warming effect. The significance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect seems to have been grossly overstated by ignoring the negative convective and radiative factors and leaving the oceans out of the equation.

I know many clever scientists have produced figures calculating the heat budget of the atmospheric greenhouse effect but the value to be fixed to the convective process as a negative forcing has not been adequately quantified as far as I know. In any event what significance can calculations limited to the atmospheric effect have in the real world where the oceanic effect is so much greater?

4. Conclusion

The sun is the primary temperature driver and warms the oceans in which huge quantities of heat are stored and released into the atmosphere over long multi decadal periods of time usually operating via the oscillations in each ocean. Those oscillations sometimes work together and sometimes offset one another until any time lags are worked through. Additionally at different times they can work with or against the primary solar driver. Each oceanic oscillation has a warming and a cooling mode and they regularly switch between them.

Heat loss from the atmosphere is rapid in relation to heat loss from the oceans despite any atmospheric greenhouse effect whether it be natural or anthropogenic. It is fastest over land where heat received by day is all lost by radiation to space at night although there are seasonal variations around the globe.

As a result, the maintenance of global atmospheric temperature is dependent upon the heat released from the oceans approximately matching any deficit of heat lost by the whole atmosphere to space daily. There is always a net loss of heat on a daily basis from atmosphere to space regardless of any atmospheric greenhouse effect. The bigger the land area the harder the oceans have to work to maintain a specific temperature. To establish the truth of that one has only to imagine the temperature extremes of water free worlds. Such worlds, lacking the moderating effects of oceans bake by day and freeze by night with the only moderating factor being the density of the atmosphere. That is why Venus has a hot surface (dense atmosphere) and Mars a cold surface (thin atmosphere)

So, if for any reason the rate of heat flow from the oceans changes then that will quickly affect atmospheric temperatures.

That brings me back nicely to my overarching theories about the interplay between incoming solar energy and the various decadal or multi decadal oceanic oscillations.

A change in the heat coming from the sun may not have an immediate effect unless it is in phase with the overall average state of the various oceanic oscillations.

Thus a decline in solar energy will have an immediate effect if it occurs at a time when the overall balance of all the oceanic oscillations is negative as now (2007 to date) when the end of solar cycle 23 is significantly delayed and the late start of cycle 24 suggests a weaker cycle than we have had for some time.

A cooling effect of such a solar decline will be delayed if it occurs at a time when the overall balance of all the oceanic oscillations is positive (1998 to 2007) when solar cycle 23 started showing it’s weakness in relation to previous solar cycles but the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was still positive.

An increase in solar energy will have a delayed effect if it occurs at a time when the overall balance of the oceanic oscillations is negative (1961 to 1975) when solar cycles 18 and 19 were historically intense but the effect was masked by the negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The warming effect will be immediate if it occurs at a time when the overall balance of the oceanic oscillations is positive (1975 to 1998) during the historically active cycles 21 and 22.

Remember that there is a variable lag between the initial solar effect of warming or cooling on the Pacific Ocean and that effect then working through all the other oceanic oscillations so it is difficult to establish the overall balance of the oceanic oscillations at any given time. In fact it is more likely that observed changes in the trend of global temperature will be the first and simplest indication as to when a global shift from solar/oceanic warming mode to solar/oceanic cooling mode and vice versa has occurred.

Indeed on the basis of my previous article about weather being the key it may be possible to get even earlier warning of changes in global temperature trend from observation of the preferred positions of the jet streams and the main high pressure systems.

My comments can be assessed by reference to the actual observations of the real world since 1961 (mentioned above) which is when the Earth embarked on the highest period of solar activity in the 400 year historical record.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

I leave it to others to check whether my comments can be seen to fit real world events prior to 1961.
Forget the greenhouse effect. Embrace the hot water bottle effect.

What is the proper scientific attitude toward new ideas? Here’s what philosopher of science Karl Popper had to say:
Karl Popper:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.

By Stephen wilde,
U.K. Private Client Solicitor and lifelong Weather and Climate enthusiast.

Joined Royal Meteorological Society 1968.

Copyright © 2008 Stephen Wilde - All Rights Reserved

Quoted Text

Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study
By Rupert Neate
Last Updated: 9:55PM BST 09/07/2008
Scientists are examining cow farts and burps in a novel bid to combat global warming.


Argentine scientists are strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows

Experts said the slow digestive system of cows makes them a key producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide.

In a bid to understand the impact of the wind produced by cows on global warming, scientists collected gas from their stomachs in plastic tanks attached to their backs.

The Argentine researchers discovered methane from cows accounts for more than 30 per cent of the country's total greenhouse emissions.

As one of the world's biggest beef producers, Argentina has more than 55 million cows grazing in its famed Pampas grasslands.

Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, said every cow produces between 8000 to 1,000 litres of emissions every day.

Methane, which is also released from landfills, coal mines and leaking gas pipes, is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Scientists are now carrying out trials of new diets designed to improve cows's digestion and hopefully reduce global warming. Silvia Valtorta, of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations, said that by feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain "you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent".

Quoted Text

Scientists are now carrying out trials of new diets designed to improve cows's digestion and hopefully reduce global warming. Silvia Valtorta, of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations, said that by feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain "you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent".

Quoted Text

Gore’s plan sounds crazy, but could work

    Former Vice President Al Gore can be annoyingly self-righteous in his adopted role as spokesman for Earth, but he does serve to keep the environment in the public conscience.
    Two weeks ago Gore challenged the United States to do away with all carbon-emitting forms of electricity production within 10 years — replacing them with alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal power, conservation and “clean-coal technology” (which captures and stores all carbon emissions). Renewable sources account for only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity.
    That 10-year timetable is ambitious bordering on absurd, but as Gore noted the nation went from blowing up rockets on launch pads to putting a man on the moon within that span in the 1960s.
    He acknowledged that his plan would initially drive energy prices higher but proposed a payroll tax cut to offset those costs.
    “I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year,” Gore said.
    If the next president does that, Gore’s 10-year timetable will become a lot more realistic.
    --Press & Sun-Bulletin,
    Binghamton, N.Y.

Quoted Text

Fight global warming by eating less meat
First published: Saturday, August 2, 2008

In a recent major address in the nation's capital, former Vice President Al Gore called for a 10-year plan to move the nation's entire energy supply to solar, wind, and other renewable sources. What he failed to address is the massive role of meat production in the global climate crisis.
     
An authoritative 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found that animal agriculture accounts for fully 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. That's more than automobiles. (http://www.CoolYourDiet.org) It is also a major cause of land and water degradation.

Carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is emitted by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to operate feed growing tractors, factory farm and slaughterhouse machinery, trucks, and refrigeration equipment. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.

The good news is that each of us can do our part to reduce global warming without waiting 10 years. Our local supermarket stocks a rich variety of soy-based lunch meats, hotdogs, veggie burgers, dairy products, and ready-to-eat frozen dinners. Did I mention the cornucopia of fruits and vegetables that have always been readily available to us? More details are at http://www.tryveg.com.

SHEMIRAH BRACHAH
Johnstown