Home/BlogI’ve been getting quite a few e-mails about the data on the UAH/NASA Discover website, which gives daily global average deep-layer average temperatures from the AMSU instruments on the NOAA-15 satellite and NASA’s Aqua satellite (as well as sea surface temperatures from the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua).
I have been advising users that, of all the AMSU channels listed there, to trust only the “ch. 5” (mid-tropospheric) temperatures, since all of the other channels at the Discover website are from the NOAA-15 satellite, which has diurnal drift issues. Hopefully later this week we will transition those other channels from NOAA-15 AMSU to Aqua AMSU, so there will be no long-term drift issues from changes in the satellite observation time. The downside will be that all of the data will only be available since Aqua data started flowing, in mid-2002. (Again, the sea surface temperature variations are very accurate, and come from a completely different instrument using different methods).
Since there is considerable interest in the subject of “global cooling”, I thought I would give a preview of some of the Aqua AMSU data for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, which are shown in the following plot…these are daily running 31-day averages, area averaged over the 30N to 60N latitude band (click on the image for the HUGE version):
There are several observations that can be made from the above plot:
1) there has been no significant long-term LINEAR trend in any of the channels;
2) the mid-troposphere and low-troposphere channels show warming early in the record, then cooling late in the record, as indicated by the 2nd order polynomial curved fits shown;
3) Late summer 2010 was, indeed, quite warm in the NH mid-latitudes.
Note that, in general, ch. 3 should not be relied upon to infer temperature changes, due to it’s sensitivity to a variety of non-temperature effects from the surface. This is especially true over the ocean, where low clouds produce an anomalous warm signature against the radiometrically cold ocean background (I will show an example later).
But since we are looking at a primarily land-covered latitude band, we only need to be concerned with a different non-temperature effect: snowcover. The particularly strong late-period cooling seen in the channel 3 data is likely the result of volume scattering by enhanced snow cover in 2010 and 2011. This is a known issue with passive microwave measurements, and is the basis for snow cover, snow depth, and snow water equivalent retrievals which are used by NASA and NOAA, primarily from the AMSR-E instrument.
Note that the polynomial fits I have applied to the data are only meant to show what happened during this period…I am not suggesting they have any forecast value for the future. I will let others discuss that. Nevertheless, I think the data are useful for getting some idea of what has happened over the last decade in the region where most people live. I think the bottom line from a global warming perspective is that there has been no obvious sign of warming in the last 9 years.
The Arctic Since 2002
Here are the results for the Arctic region, 60N to 85N, but without channel 7 which has a large stratospheric contamination in Arctic air masses:
The tropospheric temperatures show no trend, while the channel 3 data shows an upward trend. In the Arctic, the channel 3 data now also become sensitive to sea ice, which causes a warm signature compared to the cold ocean background. If you don’t believe ice can cause a “warm” signal, check out today’s NOAA-15 channel 3 imagery, which shows warm signatures in the Arctic ocean and in the sea ice area surrounding Antarctica:
This is because microwave radiometers measure brightness temperature, which is a product of the temperature of an object and its microwave emissivity (1 minus its reflectivity).
To make things even more difficult in the interpretation of ch. 3, more snow cover on sea ice will cause an anomalously cold signal, rather than warm signal, just as it does over land — unless the snow is melting, in which case it switches to an anomalously warm signal. The point is that it is difficult to interpret what the upward trend in the Arctic channel 3 data is due to. Stratifying the data by season would probably give some insight.
For now, though, I think the tropospheric (AMSU ch. 5) data are pretty clear: there are no signs of warming in the last nine years in those regions where the strongest warming in the last 30 to 40 years has occurred, that is, in the Northern Hemisphere mid- and high-latitudes. And, there might even be signs of recent cooling over the last few years in the mid-latitudes, but whether this will persist is anyone’s guess.
Why bother with a study that only involves the Northern Hemisphere if the issue is “global” cooling or warming?
What “diurnal drift issues” are you referring to? Surface temperatures are what’s most important. We live at the surface. How much heat the GHGs returns to the surface is the only true way to measure global warming or cooling. Mid-tropospheric temperatures are practically irrelevant.
If your seeing no signs of warming in the past nine years, your source is completely unreliable. The new, iron breathing, micro, life forms that were discovered in Antarctica (after living within the ice for 1.5 million years) would not be spilling into the ocean now without warmer temperatures. The unprecedented, large number of extreme weather events, over such a short period of time would not be occurring without warmer temperatures to fuel them. The Inuit would not be undergoing severe lifestyle changes now without a significant warming trend. (no mention of anything like the current warming trend, anywhere in the 30,000 years of Inuit history)
Dragontide writes: “What ‘diurnal drift issues’ are you referring to?”
I am rather ignorant of the technicalities of data of this kind, but even I know what Dr Spencer is referring to here. The data are intended to show the temperature at prescribed times of the circadian clock cycle, diurnal warmer than nocturnal temperatures. This demands that the satellite motion should be synchronized with the circadian clock cycle. But its actual motion drifts with respect to that clock. So the data have ‘diurnal drift issues’, to which Dr Spencer is referring. Christopher Game
Dragontide also asks for “global” figures. Indeed these would be interesting if Dr Spencer has time and facilities to show them. For those who live in it, Southern hemisphere pictures would also be of interest. Christopher Game
Christopher Game:
That’s hardly a valid reason to put any trust into mid-tropospheric temperatures, rather than surface temperatures.
When using any satellite data, it only makes sense to compare it with weather monitoring stations on the surface. Otherwise you end up with misinformation.
Surface temperature is _irrelevant_. It is not even what earth-based classical urban-heat-biased thermometers measure – because they measure surface air temperature, not surface temperature per se. That’s why they are housed in big wooden white boxes. For the same air temperature, surface can be 20 C hotter under the sun, and much colder if it is shaded and wet.
Christopher Game says:
“Dragontide also asks for “global” figures. Indeed these would be interesting if Dr Spencer has time and facilities to show them.”
That excuse is about as valid measuring global warming/cooling by reading a backyard thermometer.
coturnix19 says:
“Surface temperature is _irrelevant_. It is not even what earth-based classical urban-heat-biased thermometers measure – because they measure surface air temperature, not surface temperature per se. That’s why they are housed in big wooden white boxes. For the same air temperature, surface can be 20 C hotter under the sun, and much colder if it is shaded and wet.”
NOAA factors in things like the urban island effect and moisture before they release their monthly “State of the Climate” reports.
Fine. Surface “air” temperatures then. They are also referred to as “surface temperatures”.
We’re still left with all the signs of a significant warming trend. Besides what I posted above (Antarctica, Inuit, etc…), ask some farmers about it. Early Spring, year after year now. Ask the wildlife federation of how our warmer world has been drastically affecting things like animal migration. Ask the World Health Organization of how our warmer world is affecting disease.
If you go by what’s transpiring only in the mid-troposphere and only in the Northern Hemisphere, you learn nothing about whether or not the world is warming or cooling.
Globe is cooling right now.
See
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
CO2 as principal driver of climate hypothesis has been falsified.
My guess for principal driver: sun, either directly as source of energy or indirectly through its effects on cosmic rays.
Not surprised then, by this news item, being ignored by the MSM.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/
Like previous commenters, I too wonder why one would offer advice to readers on which data to trust to evaluate any trends – warming, cooling, whatever – by thin-slicing the data. Not only does the analysis presented rely on limited spatial distribution, but the timeframe seems irrelevent. This post immediately follows a post on tornadoes in which a graph is presented showing a long term warming trend, including the years, 2002 through the present, with no hint of an imbedded cooling trend. The irrelevence of such short windows in defining trends is obvious; any event in any year – a La Nina or El Nino for example can overwhelm the data set and define the “trend”. This is seen most clearly in all the statements (e.g. “no warming since”) tied to 1998, an unusually warm year. When all “trends” are anchored by just that year, one can construct two factual statements that are opposite each other: (1) no warming “trend” since 1998, and (2) the average temperature of the decade following 1998 was higher (statistically signficant) than the average temperature of the decade preceding 1998 (so no warming “trend” after 1998, but the decade after was warmer?). That these two opposite statements can both be true just points to the silliness of these analyses over short time frames; or restricted geographic scope; or however else the data may be picked or constructed.
Dragontide,
yes, NOAA factors in a number of things when they adjust the data. Have you read the papers those adjustments are based on? Do you think studies of a few stations over such short periods can really be extrapolated to the highly varied environments we have around the world?? Do you really think that those adjustments can be applied by algorithm to these varied stations with little hard site data to provide guidance?
Sorry, even the new study by the esteemed scientist at Berkeley and his team will not settle these issues as they are doing no new research, just another in a long line of reanalyses of questionable data.
kuhnkat:
NOAAs system has been working just fine for a long time. When they say it’s getting warmer, more ice melts, flowers & crops bloom earlier, migrations change, etc… When Spencer and other posters here say the earth has been cooling, there is no such forensic evidence to back it up.
Warming/cooling in the troposphere determines what happens on the surface.
From NASA – Scientists are working to understand why the lower atmosphere isn’t heating up as fast as some global warming models predict.
July 21, 2000 — The question sounds like a Zen koan: How could the globe be warming and not warming at the same time?
That’s the riddle posed to climatologists by satellite and radiosonde data which show that while the Earth’s surface has been warming over the past decades, the lowest layer of the atmosphere shows a weaker warming trend.
The measurements are surprising, because computer simulations of the world’s climate predict that the two lowest layers of the atmosphere — which together form the “troposphere” — should be warming faster than the Earth’s surface.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast21jul_1m/
Since CO2 accumulates in the troposphere increased warming must occur first in the troposphere if added CO2 is the cause. If a pause or a cooling occurs in the Troposhere and surface temps are still increasing then something is wrong. If the Troposphere stops warming while CO2 accumulates something is wrong. I’m not certain what length of tme is needed for a trend to be considered significant, but the MET Office considered 15 years of little or no temperature rise as being the time needed to falsify climate models at the 95% level.
I’m not sure why people are requesting NH trends since 2002 either.
Sundance:
Your link (from eleven years ago) was posted back when Spencer was at NASA.
“Since CO2 accumulates in the troposphere increased warming must occur first in the troposphere if added CO2 is the cause. If a pause or a cooling occurs in the Troposhere and surface temps are still increasing then something is wrong. If the Troposphere stops warming while CO2 accumulates something is wrong.”
No. Nothing is wrong. The Co2 absorbs the heat. The molecules within, release that heat when they collide with each other. (in all directions, including down) Once that heat makes it back to the surface, there are more things to absorb the heat. (water, asphalt, steel, etc…) Decrease the amount of Co2 (and methane, nitrous oxide, etc…) and you decrease the number of molecular collisions in the troposphere. (less heat coming back down to be absorbed at the surface) With an excess of GHGs, it’s always going to be warmer near the surface than in any other part of the troposphere.
Dragontide, your dismissal of tropospheric temperature measurements is just weird…
Anyway, both HadCrut and GISS are quite flat for the last 9 years as well, the former trends slightly down, the latter slightly up, but both trends are probably statistically not different from a flat line:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.33/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002.33/plot/gistemp/from:2002.33/trend/plot/rss/from:2002.33/trend
(I also added the RSS 9 year trend there, so you can see that “the other” satellite temperature set agrees well with HadCrut in the slope of the trend)
9 years is a short time, but given the short time frame in which – according to CAGW theory – warming is supposed to accelerate (according to AR4, the next two decades would see 0.2 C/decade), and the relatively short duration of the period of strong warming (about 22 years – 1976 to 1998, or, if you like, 27 years (to 2003)), I think that 9 years with a warming speed of zero cannot simply be ignored.
This is the latest variation of how to use statistically insignificant methods to falsely measure long terms trends.
Beginning in 2002 the global temperature was much higher than any year in the satellite era for 5 years running except for the extreme El Nino year 1998. The yearly averages for those years were about 0.2 degrees higher than average for 5 straight years. They were about 0.3 degrees higher than the average of the decade before. This made the decade 2001-2010 the hottest ever. Even considering the long term trend of 0.14 per decade that Dr. Spencer’s own data gives, it was significantly warmer than expected for 5 straight years 2002-2007.
So what should one do if you want to mask the obvious fact that it was alarmingly warm for 5 straight years? Easy. Just wait until the temperatures are down due to La Nina and take a linear regression from 2002 until the present.
Presto! We have global cooling since 2002!
Why don’t we do linear regressions from 2000 to 2010?
Those are nice round numbers. Surely that must prove that there was cooling from 2000-2010 (or not!)
I predict that Dr. Spencer will stop showing global temperature time series on this page soon. It is going
to look bad when the 13 month running average stays above the 30 year average for the duration of a strong La Nina (for the first time ever). Instead we will get a steady diet of cherry picked data like this.
CJ
CatrunJ: I wonder why you are still talking about cherry picking by Mr.Spencer. Firstly, note that the satelite measurements he reports here began in 2002. Secondly, the global average temperature 2000-2010 shows no significant trend, too. It seems there’s just no accelerated warming happened in the last ten years despite all hockey stick models.
Measuring surface temperatures is difficult.
There is an interesting article about this topic at http://www.klimaatgek.nl/cms/ (klimaatgek=climatefool) which deals with the location of the KNMI in de Bild in the Netherlands, which has one of the longest records in the world. This side is mainly in Dutch but you can have it in any language by selecting your language in the upper right corner.
SUMMER CANCELLED in N.H.!
I just did a 10 day linear regression on hourly temperatures from my local weather station and the trend is NEGATIVE! It is supposed to warming up for summer, but clearly, summer isn’t coming this year. The trend suggests temperatures will return to winter averages by September. My kids were disappointed when I told them I cancelled our summer vacation, but they perked up a bit when I told them I booked a ski chalet at St. Moritz for September. By the way, the prices are fantastic, so book now.
This happened before in 1816, so we shouldn’t be surprised. The earth’s climate has all sorts of natural variations we don’t understand.
Cristoph
Dr Spencer just reported some data from a new data source and there seem to be many complaints about that. Perhaps it would have been more comfortable for him just not to have reported the data? Christopher Game
CatrunJ, I see you’re hip and follow the new warmist trend: Downplay the fact that it hasn’t warmed for several years and concentrate on the very unsurprising fact that it has stayed warm since the temperature went up! Did you guys forget about the ING part of Global Warming?
It may very well be that warming resumes again and that we will see the +0.4C for 2000-2020 that IPCC and Hansen promised, but the fact that the previous decade was the “hottest ever” is NOT a valid argument for further warming – it’s just a natural consequence of the warming in the 80s and 90s.
From Dr. Spencer: “I have been advising users that, of all the AMSU channels listed there, to trust only the ‘ch. 5’ (mid-tropospheric) temperatures.”
However, I would caution readers that ch. 5 reported on the webpage is apparently contaminated with influences from the stratosphere. It is NOT mid-troposheric temperatures, and that is why the monthly anomaly officiallly reported does not match the average of the daily webpage numbers for the month.
@Cristoph Schulz
You must be joking. 10 day´s trend of cooling? We have damn hot weather since mid may, I predict that autumn never comes again.
Anyway, you amused me.
A key indicator is the .14C degrees/decade cummulative UAH decadal temperature anomaly since 1979. It has been dropping in the 21st century. It is now significantly below the amomaly of the .2C-.3C degrees/decade projected by the Hansen model. Instead of the model projected .6C-.9C for a 30 year temperature rise we only have .4C degrees of rise.
I have been calling for this since the sun entered it’s prolong minimum state back in late 2005.
Climatic Extremes/Geological activity have been on the increase sine late 2005.
GEOLOGICAL EVENTS VERY RECENT
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY CHILE(PUYEHUE VOLCANO),ICELAND(GRIMSVOTN VOLCANO),INDONESIA(DIENG VOLCANO) ,most very recent,not to forget all the activity prior to this such as activity in RUSSIA and the previous ICELANDIC,volcanic eruption to name a few.
RECENT CLIMATIC EXTREMES
1. Floods due to extreme rain ,snow pack levels in Pacific NW. MISSOURI AND MISS. RIVERS RECORD FLOOD STAGE.
2. Extreme tornado outbreaks in number and intensity.
3. Severe drought centered in TEXAS.
4 .Possible early tropical activity.
5. Very cold,with record rain along West Coast.
6. Australian record floods last year along with record tropical activity .
7. Record Russian heat wave last year.
8. Record floods in AFGHANISTAN. last year.
9. Record snow amounts in many U.S.A cites last few winters.
10. South America ,record snows.
11. Record warmth around HUDSON BAY, GREENLAND, last early winter,contrasted with record cold in ENGLAND, SCANDINAVIA.
12. Above normal sea ice S.H contrasted with below normal sea ice N.H.
The above only since year 2010. Previous to 2005 or so ,the climate was much more stable. I challenge anyone to list as many extreme events as I have listed in a period of two years prior to year 2005,going back to say 1950.
The above I think can be correlated to a more meridional atmospheric circulation,verus a more zonal atm. circulation,not to froget the cold PDO/LA NINA LINK,along with general overall upper atmospheric cooling.
The more meridional atmospheric circulation , I think is correlated with the prolong solar minimum, with spurts of activity from time to time, which have the effect of changing the distribution of ozone, due to UV light emission changes,along with charged particles coming via CME’S/SPE events,the latter, that serve to heat the atmosphere when they occur, which then all conspire to cause the atmospheric heat distribution to change, which in turn impacts the atmospheric circulation. In this case, tending toward a more blocking pattern, which promotes more extreme climatic conditions. These charged particles ,along with the strength of LUNI SOLAR TIDES, impact earth’s electrical circuit ,geomagnetic field ,ocean basins ,which in turn effect the intensity of storms, and earth’s various layers of rotational rates ,and earth’s rotational rate itself, leading to more geological activity, while the ocean basin effects may influence the PDO/AMO oceanic circulation temp. phases.
In conclusion ,this period is looking very similar to the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1840, and I predict as long as the sun continues to behave like it has ,since 2005 ,that these trends, of more climatic extremes ,increase of geological activity, and an overall atmospheric cooling will continue to proceed. Not in a straight line ,but with zigs and zags, but overall trending the way I have mentioned.
take care
MODELS NEVER WILL PREDICT CLIMATE
Why? Read the statement below, and my thoughts that follow.
The variable output of the sun ,the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth(and the moon)and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun,regulate earth’s climate. The proceses by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales ; each process is STOCHASTIC and immensely COMPLEX. The system consisting of the totality of the processes is even more COMPLEX.
This climatic system does NOT have a stable underlying structure ,even if some of it’s subsystems do. The total climatic system is NON ERGODIC, meaning it will always and forever feature INCONSISTENCY ,over time.
I say good luck to anyone that thinks a slight increase in CO2 of 100 ppm , is going to somehow counteract the above statement, and make the complex climatic system conform to it, because of some silly asinine models ,which don’t have the proper or full ,complete data to begin with say so. Yet that is what many ,I hate to use the word (they are clueless)climate scientist, believe.
I say never in a hundred million years!!
I think the material I am presenting is the material that needs to be studied and accounts for ALL climatic temperatures the earth has undergone throughout it’s history.
CO2 ,has a small place in the scheme of things, that I won’t deny, but to think ,this SMALL increase in CO2, caused by man is going to somehow turn the climate system up side down is CRAZY. It makes no sense.
I had forgot to mention all the earthquake of late, take note of the up tick in mag. 6.0 earthqukes— May31-June 05,which was forecasted ,due to recent late MAY solar activity.
Major Earthquake activity last year and especially this year is running way abouve normal means.
Just google normal earthquake activity.
I can back up everything I say with data and past data.
I am looking forward ,not backwords. We have not had similar solar conditions to what we have now,a prolong solar minimum , since 1790-1840. Therefore any studies of earth-solar-climatic relationships between 1850-2005 are not going to show much in the way of significance, apart from the general warming trend, due to the EXTREME solar activity,along with consistency(normal more or less 11 year sunspot cycles) ,throughout that time period. Greatest in last 8000 years!
The news which people don’t get, is things have CHANGED since 2005, and once the lag times and other cross currents get sorted out, temperatures will follow. I expect lag times are on the order of +5 years ,for significant temperature impacts, with some other effects from the sun shorter in time.
Some think it is the HALE 22 yr. magnetic cycle, which temperatures will correlate more strongly to ,which if true, will make lag times even longer, for a sigificant response.
Time will tell and most likely temperatures will be much cooler at the end of this decade versus the start of this decade.
Again this is very very complex, with may counter trends within trends ,and only time will sort it out.
Past history confirms each and everytime the sun enters this kind of a pattern ,temperatures with various amounts of lag times follow ,in a down trend. This time will be no different.
Middle/Upper Troposheric Temp.- 30 to 60 degrees north verus 60 to 85 degrees north
It is indicating a temperature contrast in the mid/upper troposphere in the middle latitudes ,compared to the higher latitudes,is lessening. It shows the middle latitudes tropospheric temperatures in the past few years are trending cooler ,more then the higher latitudes troposheric temperatures , which in turn ,is lending to a greater -AO pattern.
LESSER TEMP .CONTRAST ,WEAKER PRESSURE GRADIENT BETWEEN LOWER/HIGHER LATITUDES, EQUALS A LESS ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.
Which I have called for ,which the global warming models have NOT ,called for.
Upon looking at this closer it seems more or less neutral in all respects with some slight cooling the past year.
It is hard to get any definite trends up to this point, that I do agree with.
Espen,
I agree.
I don’t understand why “warmists” can’t grasp the fact that just because the last decade is the warmest on record, that doesn’t mean it is still getting warmer.
If you climb some stairs and reach a landing, that is obviously higher than the steps, but it doesn’t mean you are still going up. There may be another flight of stairs, but that remains to be seen.
Dragontide,
“The unprecedented, large number of extreme weather events, over such a short period of time would not be occurring without warmer temperatures to fuel them.”
Have you any examples and evidence to support the above statement?
Extreme weather events have always occurred but we hear about them more now because of better communications.
If they cause more damage it is because there is more stuff to damage.
If they kill more people, it is because there are more people to kill.
As I look at the data this is what I finally see.
1. OVERALL TEMPERAUTRES ESSENTIALLY NEUTRAL.
2. TEMP. CORRELATED TO SOI
3. BUT TEMP. COOLING IN THE MID . LATITUDES RELATIVE TO THE HIGHER /POLAR REGIONS DURING LAST FEW YEARS ,WHICH AGAIN MAKES FOR A LESS ZONAL ATM. CIRCULATION AND A MORE -AO.
I THINK I HAVR IT DOWN NOW.
RAY- I think you mean me.
You have it back words, extreme weather events come as a result of a more meridional circulation which correlates to colder conditions.
Less extreme weather conditions come about as a result of a more zonal atm. circulation, which correlates to warming.
I say show me two years prior to 2005 , that have had more geological activity and more extreme climatic events then 2010 through May of 2011.
We have past data ,that is the evidence.
Past data also shows the climate was much more extreme ,and it shows this each and everytime when the earth enters a cold period such as the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum, which substanciates that cold conditions bring about more extremes in climate, not warmer conditions. There was not much news back then ,yet we know how extreme the climate was during those times, of low solar activity /cold temp./high geological activity.
Even the tornado data going back to 1950 through present correlates with increase tornadic activty during cold periods as oppossed to warmer periods.
Climatic condtions prior to 2005 were much more stable then they have been since 2010,much more.
?????????????
@Salvatore del Prete
“Past data also shows the climate was much more extreme ,and it shows this each and everytime when the earth enters a cold period such as the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum, which substanciates that cold conditions bring about more extremes in climate, not warmer conditions.”
That´s only half of the thing, other big extreme events, such as the dust bowl, occured in times of warming. And check the past hurricane stats (not the hockey team, though :-D)
No correlation with temp. decrease in 30´s and 40´s warming period.
CRISTOPH SCHULZ- that could happen especially if LA NINA ,comes on strong again which I think it will.
For now the SOI is exerting much control over the temp. this however is part of my natural phase in items that control the climate. That is why I keep saying it is the natural phase in of itmes that control earth’s climate, that determine earth’s climate.
Those being again:
1. solar
2. volcanic
3. pdo/amo and other oceanic circulations
4. soi oscillation
5. various atmospheric circulations like the aao,nao,ao
How those phase in as far as degree of magnitude and duration is what is going to determine future temp. trends.
What causes them to phase , I say it is solar activity, what casues solar activity to phase from active to inactive ,I say it’s the positions of the planets relative to the sun and the angular momentum they exert or don’t exert on the sun.
Why?? Because past history shows that evey 160-210 years or so when the planets have a similar relationship to the sun, as far as exerting agular momnetum, that each time this happens , the sun starts to retrogade in it’s orbit about the center of the solar system, and each time this happens, solar activity enters a prolong solar minimum. This time being no exception, started in 1996 by the way,although quiet conditons did not come about until 2005.
Each time solar activity is in a prolong solar minimum , we have colder temperatures, an increase in gelogical activity ,and more extreme climatic condtions.
PAST HISTORY SHOWS THIS TO BE THE CASE. ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON WHAT PAST HISTORY/DATA SHOWS.
Again I say show me otherwise, show me for example a warm period on earth, when solar activity was high. Show me. You can’t because it has not happened.
That is my argument, along with how changes in the sun when it is in a prolong solar state, tranlate into causing the items that control our climate to phase into either a cold,neutral , or warm mode.
As I have said prove me wrong. Until then ,I think I am correct and time will tell. I am very confident as of today. That of course could always change, if future data should go against me.
CatrunJ, here is the cherry picked start and endpoints you suggested. For UAH the slope of the trend is under 0.08C/decade when you start from the La Nina trough and end at the El Nino peak. The same points using RSS shows a negative slope.
Salvatore,
“RAY- I think you mean me.”
No, I was quoting Dragontide.
“You have it back words, extreme weather events come as a result of a more meridional circulation which correlates to colder conditions.
Less extreme weather conditions come about as a result of a more zonal atm. circulation, which correlates to warming.”
I don’t have it either way, I don’t believe that there has been any change in “extreme weather events” for either reason, only our perception of those events.
“I say show me two years prior to 2005 , that have had more geological activity and more extreme climatic events then 2010 through May of 2011.”
That would be pointless, since I don’t accept the premise. In any case, geological activity is not weather, but I would guess that there was probably quite a lot of geological activity around at the time of the San Fransisco Earthquake in 1906, or when Krakatoa erupted in 1883, or when Pompeii was destroyed in AD79 or when the island of Thera was destroyed by a volcanic eruption in the second millenium BC, which may have given rise to the legend of Atlantis.
“This is the latest variation of how to use statistically insignificant methods to falsely measure long terms trends.”
This statement is foolish. The title of the post is “Recent Cooling of Northern Hemisphere Mid-Latitudes Viewed from Aqua.” The title says “recent” not “long-term” trends. It also says,”of Northern Hemisphere Mid-Latitudes”. If you want to look at long-term trends reported by Dr. Spencer then I suggest you look for a graph that is titled “long-term” trends or at least look at a graphic that shows the trends since 1979 when the satellite record begins. If you want global temperatures, then look for a graphic that contains in its title the words, “global temperatures”. If you spend a few minutes looking at this website, you can find what you are looking for. You will find that the long-term trends from Satellite observations shown by Dr. Spencer during the period they exist are quite similar to the long-term trends shown by the ground-based measurements, although they are a little different to be sure.
It is a mystery to me why anyone would complain that Dr. Spencer is presenting misleading information when Dr. Spencer presents information in a graph that is exactly what he says is it. Geesh!
RAY, nothing is 100% in climate that is why it is so hard to determine things.
Remember this statement – THE TOTAL CLIMATIC SYSTEM IS NON ERGODIC ,meaning it will always and forever feature INCONSISTENCY ,over time.
That is why it is very hard to predict future climate conditions ,other then through the use of past history.
Exceptions however will always be the rule, what I am saying is more extreme weather conditions more geological activity ,colder temp. over the long haul will result. Another words, I am saying the period 2010-2050(expected solar minimum period duration) will have more extremes in climate then any period from 1850-2005.
Of course exceptions will always be present, such as the volcanic activity of the early 1990’s ,Mt SAINT HELENS 1980, when solar activity was high,or the extreme weather in the winter of 1980,or the dust bowl which you pointed out, and the 1888 blizzard in New England,tornado activity in the 1970’s, to name a few, and there are many more.
I am saying over the long haul however, the trend for extreme climatic conditions will be greater in the period 2010-2050, just as it was from 1790-1840, in contrast to 1840-2005, which was the last cold ,prolong solar minimum period, known as the Dalton Minimum.
RAY – as they say time will tell. I would say so far ,I have reason to be confident.
FURTHER ,GEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY THROUGH INCREASE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY PLAYS A VERY BIG ROLE IN CLIMATE . MUCH, MUCH MORE THEN CO2
Again the exceptions you point out, prove my point, about why the climate models will never ever work.
INCONSISTEMCY OVER TIME WHEN IT COMES TO EARTH’S CLIMATIC SYSTEM, THE KEY AND WHY THIS IS SO COMPLEX, AND SO HARD TO REALLY GET A HOLD ,AS TO HOW ONE CHANGE, CAUSES THIS CHANGE, WHICH CAUSES THAT CHANGE TO CHANGE THIS,WHICH CHANGES THAT — ETC ETC ETC.
Past history and how things were then, is the best I have to go with. Maybe someone has something better.
If one wants to compare Dr. Spencer’s graphic with the short-term global trends reported by the major land-based temperature measurements since 2001, one could look here. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/giss-feb-reported-trend-since-jan-2001-still-negative/. The graph shows the global temperature anomolies reported by GISS and Hadcrut3 for the years 2001 to 2009. Both of these major land-based records show a negative trend for this period.
I am not sure what the existing land-based records would show if one updated them to 2011, but I suspect that anyone with a few minutes and access to google could find out. My guess is that they might show a very slight, statistically insignificant positive trend caused by the recent el nino.
Question: “Does the negative trend for the period 2001 to 2009 reflect the “long-term” trend? Answer: “no, it shows a short-term trend.” Question: “is it misleading to report short-term trends that are labeled as such? Answer: no
““The unprecedented, large number of extreme weather events, over such a short period of time would not be occurring without warmer temperatures to fuel them.”
I also would like to see some citation for this assertion. With a quick glance at peer-reviewed literature, I found this: BALLING Jr and RANDALL S. CERVENY, “Compilation and Discussion of Trends in Severe Storms in the United States: Popular Perception v. Climate Reality”, Natural Hazards 29: 103–112, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers accessed at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Ballingetal03.pdf
The abstract states:
“Abstract. The ongoing greenhouse gas buildup and increase in near-surface air temperatures may have an impact on severe weather events in the United States. Output from some numerical modeling simulations suggests that the atmosphere over mid-latitude land areas could become more unstable in the future thereby supporting an increase in convective activity. However, despite the numerical
simulation results, empiricists have been unable generally to identify significant increases in overall
severe storm activity as measured in the magnitude and/or frequency of thunderstorms, hail events,
tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storm activity across the United States. There is evidence that heavy
precipitation events have increased during the period of historical records, but for many other severe
weather categories, the trends have been downward over the past half century. Damage from severe
weather has increased over this period, but this upward trend disappears when inflation, population
growth, population redistribution, and wealth are taken into account.”
SDP
Please describe the physical mechanism that links solar variations to increased geological activity.
PAULD -says, the extreme weather events would not be occurring without warmer temperatures to fuel them.
Correction, the extreme weather events would not be taking place if their was not a big contrast in warm /cold air.
Prior to this time period ,cold air was not as plentiful as it is now, so it is the cooling which is fueling the increase in extremes.
IN ADDITION PAST HISTORY EQUATES EVERY SINGLE COLD PERIOD WITH MORE ,NOT LESS CLIMATIC EXTREMES.
I PUT UP THE DALTON MINIMUM CLIMATIC/GELOGICAL EXTREMES AGAINST ANY PERIOD ON EARTH SINCE THEN. IF ONE REMEMBERS THE DALTON PERIOD WAS ONE OF COLD.
Also the global warmers are as usaul talking out of both sides of their mouths, because on the one hand they say increase greenhouse gasses will create more storms,while at the same time create a more zonal atmospheric circulation, which equates to more stable climatic conditions.
Guess what ,prior to 2005 the climate was warming ,(not due to co2 ) and the extremes in weather were less do to a more zonal circulation, and all the global warmers accepted this,until they got tripped up when the prolong solar minimum started, which is resulting in the atmospheric circulation becoming more meridional, with more extremes in climate, and a trend toward lower tmepratures. Not to forget the increase in geoloigical activity.
Ray and Epsen,
“Warming” is a process which is fueled by an energy imbalance in the system caused by an increase in greenhouse gasses. This energy imbalance has not changed and the associated “warming” has not stopped or slowed down. You are confusing the behavior of one measure of this energy imbalance (which happens to be highly noisy and contains well documented oscillations) with the process itself.
Carter, your post makes no sense to me. The OHC (and I think OHC change rate is a much better measure of warming) has been quite stable as well lately, so where on earth (literally!) is the imbalance?
AR4 does not predict specific rates of warming, since there was (and is) no way to know what emissions path will be chosen, what solar activity will be, or what aerosol burdens will be. The various SRES emissions scenarios illustrate what is probable with various emissions levels.
In short, the IPCC authors may be good, but they are not equipped with fortune-telling crystal balls, nor with clairvoyance.
As an aside, trying to draw predictive conclusions from 9 years of observational climate data basically requires that clairvoyance. Notice how Dr. Spencer avoided doing so?
Kevin, I agree that the IPCC authors aren’t clairvoyant, but nevertheless in the AR4 summary for policymakers they made some very broad claims which may look very stupid in just a few years:
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios. {3.2}
(See page 7)
The longer the current flat period lasts (or even worse – we get a cooling), the less likely these claims will turn out to be. And I won’t even speak of their broad claims about actual climate impacts by 2020 on page 11!
The IPCC is full of BS.
Replies to Ray and salvatore del prete still awaiting moderation after 2 days.
@Dragontide
“Replies to Ray and salvatore del prete still awaiting moderation after 2 days.”
Have you put any links to another web pages in them?
If you have then I advise you to send them without those links, or divide them with gaps, so they wouldn´t count as links, but everyone could use them. There is little chance that your replies will be moderated, because this thread is no longer very active.
Martin:
Well they are both NOAA links. NOAA links have gone through before w/o need for moderation.
But I’ll try again. Thanks for your help Martin.
Ray says:
June 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM
“Dragontide,
“The unprecedented, large number of extreme weather events, over such a short period of time would not be occurring without warmer temperatures to fuel them.”
Have you any examples and evidence to support the above statement?”
You can get a lot of that information from NOAA’s “Global Hazard” reports. Star with the May, 2011 report then work your way back. The site is very user friendly.
(link removed. Google “Global Hazard NOAA”)
One solid way to measure AGW is the simple the fact that there are no hurricane parties anymore. A cat-1 hurricane that forms near Africa will not remain a cat-1 anymore, during it’s long trek across the Atlantic. Watch it happen (not happen) again this year. (Link removed. Google “National Hurricane Center”) Can one, single hurricane remain at cat-1 as it travels across the Atlantic? It’s just not possible anymore.
One thing that really got my attention was in 2006 when four major cyclones hit the Philippines in a three week period. Since that time an incredible number of weather records have been broken. (all documented in the hazards reports)
“Extreme weather events have always occurred but we hear about them more now because of better communications.
If they cause more damage it is because there is more stuff to damage.
If they kill more people, it is because there are more people to kill.”
We hear about them faster. But long droughts, major floods and all that did not go unnoticed long ago. When people talk about the Medieval Warming Period, the heatwave of Europe is well defined.
Counting deaths doesn’t help anything. If a person leaves town at the right time or can get to a tornado shelter in time (many factors), then that person lives, no matter what the weather situation is. And better communications helps save lives by providing advanced warning in many cases.
salvatore del prete:
Volcanic activity plays a larger roll on climate than man’s Co2, ONLY if it’s a super volcano. (like the one 75,000 years ago)
Dragontide: “When people talk about the Medieval Warming Period, the heatwave of Europe is well defined.” Could you explain what you mean by this?
And btw., the summer of 1540 (well outside the MWP and into the decent into the LIA) was more extreme than 2003 (http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=474 ).
Espen:
Europe was quite warm during the MWP. Ray made a statement claiming weather events went unnoticed long ago.
Did the temperatures of 1540 persist in the following years? No. Which makes 1540 irrelevant.
When talking about extremes, I can name some present.
1, We had 2 storms in 3 days, one with 100 mm of precipitation in 2 hours, and then 45 mm in one hour.
2, There are forest fires in Russia, again.
When I said that I wouldn´t be surprised if this year turns out to be simmilar to 2010, I didn´t know I was that close in these two things.
Moreover, there are 2 waves of tornadoes in the USA, and that´s only June.
As I have said, I will say it one more time, this is the first solar minimum since 1790, if it last, which it should we will probably find out one way or the other, just how much influence the sun has on earth’s climatic,oceanic, and geological systems.
Past history suggest it has influence. I think that is correct ,and have used many arguments and shown reasons why.
I don’t know if I am correct, only time will tell.
This decade is a great opportunity in my opinion to see what is what, when it comes to earth’s climatic system,due to the prolong solar minimum.
Martin:
Those fires in Russia were quite scary, weren’t they? Russia had to undergo emergency transports of nuclear fuels and missiles as a result. (it was a close call for all hell breaking loose)
The Pakistan and Queensland floods last year were pretty jaw dropping as well.
The 2006 record for high wind alerts for a 24 hour period (455) was broken this last April. (over 1300) And the list goes on and on and on.
Why these skeptics ignore forensic evidence is beyond me. Wait. No it’s not. *cough, cough, Koch Brothers, cough*
Dragontide: 1540 was not a one-time incident, all the summers 1538-1541 were dry and hot.
Martin: Did you read Dr. Spencer’s recent posts on tornadoes??
@Espen
“Martin: Did you read Dr. Spencer’s recent posts on tornadoes?”
I´m not claiming it is from any warming. Actually, when one goes back into history, there is no correlation between actual temperature and tornado incidence, well, only within those day´s limited data on tornadoes. The same applies on hurricanes.
@Dragontide
“The Pakistan and Queensland floods last year were pretty jaw dropping as well.”
In this case, Im´ quite sure that main cause was the La Nina event.
Espen says:
“Dragontide: 1540 was not a one-time incident, all the summers 1538-1541 were dry and hot.”
Okay, I’ll take your word for it. But it could not possibly have been nearly as hot as it is now.
ATTENTION ALL AGW SKEPTICS PLEASE!:
No disruptions of Inuit lifestyle then. (like there is now) The ice in Antarctica did not melt enough for those newly discovered, deep ice dwelling,iron breathing, micro-life-forms to start spilling into the ocean, after living comfortably there for 1.5 million years. (only now)
Inuit history goes back 30,000 years. (in the Arctic) You have to go back at least 1.5 million years to beat today’s heat in Antarctica. These are indisputable facts. That eliminates a lot a possibilities as far as causes of the current warming goes, doesn’t it? And it completely debunks all claims of recent global cooling.
That’s checkmate guys. C’mon, skeptics. Ya lost. Admit it. It’s okay. What’s not okay is how China is snatching up all the patents for solar panels. (they now have some cities that are 100% solar) South Korea is grabbing up all the LED lighting patents. Don’t get me wrong. Ah salute to them for being smart enough to see the big picture. But America needs products to sell to other nations. And the threat of AGW is as real as the SEC’s dominance of NCAA football. (sorry. Couldn’t resist. ROLL TIDE!) :p
@Dragontide
Just a matter of fact, LED technology is extremely messy during manufacturing. Not only emmisions, but real toxic waste.
Martin:
@Dragontide
“The Pakistan and Queensland floods last year were pretty jaw dropping as well.”
In this case, Im´ quite sure that main cause was the La Nina event.
Oh, no doubt about that. AGW does not create any of the disasters, all by itself. It makes existing anomalies more pronounced. Without the large excess of AGW gasses, Queensland and Pakistan would have most likely still happened, just not as severe. That’s what weather has been doing all over the world. It’s gets just a little more extreme, year after year.
The major player is El-Nino. The really strong ones churn up a lot of heat from the ocean. If the strong El-Ninos only occurred once every 20-25 years or so, I don’t think the AGW gasses would be much of a problem. All the heat from them would have enough time to make it into space before the next one hits. But that’s not the case and mankind has no earthly idea of how to control the ENSO. So we have to play the cards we’re dealt.
Dragon tide, there have always been periods of extreme weather. Here is one from 1935 and 36. Keep in mind this is not an exhaustive search at all.
1933 Sept Cat 3 Florida landfall.
1933 4 LOWEST state temp ever were recorded in Oregon -54 Feb. 10, Texas -23 Feb. 8,
Vermont -50 Dec. 30, Wyoming -66 Feb. 9
1933 February 6 Highest recorded sea wave (not tsunami), 34 metres (112 feet), in Pacific hurricane
1933 Highest temp ever in SWEDEN 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) tied in 2009
1933 Lowest temp ever recorded in ASIA ?68 °C (?90 °F) tied in 02 and 06
1933 NORTH KOREA LOWEST temp ever North Korea ?43.6 °C ( -46.48°F)
1933 August 11th Highest World Temperature ever reaches 136 degrees F (58 degrees C) at San Luis Potosí, Mexico (world record).
1933 Nov 11th Great Black Blizzard” first great dust storm in the Plains of the USA.
1934 May 11th Over two days, the most severe dust storm to date in the USA sweeps an estimated 350 million tons of topsoil from the Great Plains across to the eastern seaboard.
1934 Fastest recorded with an anemometer outside of a tropical cyclone: 372 km/h (231 mph) sustained 1-minute average; Mount Washington, New Hampshire,
Michigan -two states recorded their highest ever temperature both 118 degrees Idaho and Iowa, and two states recorded their lowest ever temperatur Michigan -51 and New Hampshire -47
1934 LOWEST temp ever Singapore 19.4 °C (66.9 °F)
1934 Typhoon strikes Honshu Island, Japan, kills 4,000
1935 Ifrane Morocco, LOWEST temperature continent of Africa ever recorded, minus 11
1935 Florida, A CAT ONE HURICANE AT LANDFALL.
1935 Nepisiguit Falls, New Brunswick 39.4 °C 12th highest temp ever in Canada.
1935 Collegeville, Nova Scotia 38.3 °C 15th highest temp ever in Canada.
1935 Iroquois Falls, Ontario ?58.3 °C 5th lowest temp ever in Canada.
1935 Western Russia, 9th coldest July in 130 years.
1935 145,000 dead 1935 Yangtze river flood China
1935 August 1935 and 36 two typhoons hit Fukien province in China, hundreds dead.
1935 Labor Day hurricane one of the most intense hurricanes to make landfall in U.S. in recorded history. More than 400 people were killed. 185 MPH sustained winds
1935 Hati 21 October: hurricane in Sud and Sud-Est départements. 2,000 people perished.
1936 HIGHEST state temperature ever recorded in Nebraska 118 Jul. 24, New Jersey 110 Jul. 10, North Dakota 121 Jul. 6, Oklahoma 120 Jun. 27, Pennsylvania 111 Jul. 10, South Dakota 120 Jul. 5, Virginia 112 Jul. 10, Wisconsin 114 Jul. 13, Arkansas 120 Aug. 10, 1936, Indiana 116 Jul. 14, ever recorded Kansas 121 Jul. 24, Louisiana 114 Aug. 10, Maryland 109 Jul. 10
1936 TORNADO outbreak April 5-6 Mississippi and Georgia 436 dead
1936 Bay of Bengal Myanmar May 1st cyclone 72,000 homes lost 360 dead
1936 Drought related famine in China, five million dead. (
NOAA’S TOP GLOBAL WEATHER, WATER AND CLIMATE EVENTS OF THE 20 TH CENTURY)
1936 July 11th St. Albans, Manitoba 2nd highest temp ever in Canada 44.4 C
1936 Northeast Flood – Spring 1936
Dragontide
Just do a google search on “biggest flood in Australia”
Australia is called a land of floods and droughts, it´s their natural climate, just as tornadoes in the USA.
Martin:
Sure. But how many times in past few years has the words: “new record” been employed when referring to weather events in Australia and around the globe? There are always droughts, floods and tornadoes in their traditionally, given areas. In Alabama, April 27th broke most or all of the tornado records. Floods from New Jersey thru Massachusetts broke records in the past few years. When you add in all the near records to that and consider the short time frame in which they all occurred, a very clear pattern emerges.
I’ll give you Queensland for the sake of discussion. That, however, does not change the fact that the warmer the air is, the more water vapor it can hold when a passing weather system interacts with it. And of course, the warmer the air is in normal drought areas, the more severe a drought will be.
Year after year, fire fighting technology improves. (it’s just the nature of things) But combating fires seems to get harder and harder. (that’s just awful what’s going on in Arizona right now) Another one of those FORENSIC EVIDENCE items that just can’t be ignored.
“I’ll give you Queensland for the sake of discussion. That, however, does not change the fact that the warmer the air is, the more water vapor it can hold when a passing weather system interacts with it. And of course, the warmer the air is in normal drought areas, the more severe a drought will be. ”
True, can be seen in the tropics. But the real difference is in atmospheric pressure. The polar regions are dry as well as in the tropics. NOT EQUATORIAL to be precise.
As for new records, they´re usual, because our records are short. Very short. I´m not denying that the climate had warmed up since the LIA and it posses new challenges to all species. Comparatively small though. And those who cannot adapt, extinct. Some species were wiped out by global warming (probably with huge contribution of man) at the end of last ice age, but it was just good for mankind. We do not live neither in perfect, nor stable world. Btw Netherlands is not complaining about sea level rise, which is currently slowing down either. They´re gaining ground from the sea.
On forest fires. Your statement is merely a speculation. It´s unverifiable. Of course, also precipitation records are unverifiable, because it also has quite often local character.
Dragontide: 1540 was warmer than 2003 – did you follow the link I provided? About Antarctica microbes: you’re just wrong. “Blood falls” were discovered in 2011, and the subglacial lake the salty brine is coming from, is still inaccessible. East Antarctica hasn’t warmed much anyway (and was probably significantly warmer during the Holocene climatic optimum just a few thousand years ago).
Oops, in my previous message I wrote that Blood Falls were discovered in 2011. That should of course have been 1911.
Dragontide: You repeatedly use the term FORENSIC EVIDENCE instead of ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. That may be ineteresting to some readers of this blog, yet irrelevant in scientific debate. Try some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE when you are challenging what Mr.Spencer writes.
“Climatic condtions prior to 2005 were much more stable then they have been since 2010,much more.”
A year and a half? What can any one surmise in 18 months? The time frames here cannot be reduced to such intervals. Get a grip.
Kevin McKinney says:
June 8, 2011 at 6:06 AM
“AR4 does not predict specific rates of warming, since there was (and is) no way to know what emissions path will be chosen, what solar activity will be, or what aerosol burdens will be.”
On the contrary the models used in AR4 scenarios make very specific predictions about temperature increases, most of them excessive.
Dragontide, I gave you four years in a row of extreme weather 1933 to 1936, more extreme then now.
Dragontide says:
“Year after year, fire fighting technology improves. (it’s just the nature of things) But combating fires seems to get harder and harder.”
A typical statement from a pablum puking liberal. There is nothing natural in fighting natural fires. The nature of things is when lightening strikes a dry forest or great expanse of grassland and starts a fire, without human-kind around to snuff it out it would naturally eliminate overgrowth, giving room for new growth. With our improvements in fire fighting technology, both natural and man-made fires that are extinguishable are extinguished, protecting personal property threatened by the flames but circumventing the natural process leading to renewed growth. Those extinguished flames don’t complete what they are naturally intended for, and the tree huggers are inequipped both mentally and physically to manage our natural resources adequately.
The following is quoted from story on some locals who know a bit more on this subject than dragontide could ever hope to.
“Under the disguise of non-profit organizations and saviors of the environment and endangered species, groups like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity have been strong advocates against logging, the burning of small natural fires, and grazing on federally held forest land. Excessive Forest Service regulation, Endangered Species Act regulations, clean water regulations and more, prevent the salvaging of dead trees and cleanup of excess dead vegetation. This has resulted in a dangerous and large build up of extremely dry dead trees, excess brush and thick vegetation undergrowth. A ticking time bomb waiting for a single lightening strike to set it off”
Refer to the following for the complete story…http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2011/06/11/catastrophic_wildfires_thank_the_greenies_and_forest_service
So dragontide, instead of wasting your time playing your fantasy online games (my assumption based on you moniker), I suggest you increase your range of reading material. You’re not stupid, you’re just grossly misinformed.