What should we do to mitigate climate change?

'Probably' What other amateur-hour predictions should we count on from you?
It's your school-boy confusion and uninformed predictions that place you firmly in the science denying camp.
You started with 'the planet is cooling' (in a few years) with Easterbrook. Then you moved on to the planet will be hotter than IPCC predictions (with Douglas). Then you quoted Archibald in a failed atempt to make your case that carbon is of no concern. Then you pull out the ID-advocate Spencer (read his book CLIMATE CONFUSION -it's garbage). Now you're holding to some bogus predictions about carbon levels. Class is over.

'Can you smell that smell?'
--Lynyrd Skynyrd

Croft:
You quoted "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02640.html"
Scott, read the rest of the article and you will see how Raymond T. Pierrehumbert shows in fact how elevated levels of CO2 did trigger deglaciations, augmented by such factors as "a reduction of vertical temperature gradients in winter, a reduction in summer tropopause height, the effect of snow cover and a reduction in cloud greenhouse effects."

Scott:
I don't have access to the full article, That summary just encapsulates the uncertainty of CO2 forcing based on paleo data. And reduction in cloud greenhouse effects? Cloud cover inhibits warming, it somewhat inhibited heat radiation to space, but overall it's a shield against the sun's warming. That's whacked out physics to me.

OK so I am getting terminology mixed-upped- Paleoclimtology, study of ancient climates, with paleontology, study of ancient life. Then there's paleontology or paleotology which is study of ancient science.

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/eJournals/Snowball_Earth/
The Sun's radiance was 4 to 6% less than present. So does that explain warming? I think so. And he had 4 different models. And how can you say that climate models are so certain when I have shown they are not, from a former climate modeler and a IPCC guru. Hansen's NASA has continuously overshot temp projections.

Croft:
Scott, we are here speaking of Paleoclimatology. The fact that CO2 emissions can end a glacial epoch, and lead to an enormous temperature rise is highly relevant to our discussion. Scott the effect of CO2 at more than 550 times the current levels, is far more than your supposed maximum of "It has a limit of 300~325ppm." a figure which has already been exceeded by human activity.

Scott:
Well duh. You took that 325ppm statement out of context. I was talking about forcing levels and I specifically said that the maximum forcing limit of CO2 at the present solar radiance levels is about that. And I gave two scientific links as evidence. So anything above that level has no more forcing effect. In fact it would take a lot more before adiabatic effects of compression figure in like on Venus. But this is what I referred to as spinning what I said previously: CO2 forcing is not linear, it's a decreasing logarithmic factor much like a capacitor charging.

But in your mindset John increasing CO2 = unlimited global warming = waterworld = polar bear drowning.

Have you ever seen the documentary "In the land of the polar bears" by Nova. In this documentary, polar bears swim 85 miles to an island off the coast of Siberia to hunt 2,000 lb Walruses.

The scene showing a 500 lb polar bear wading his way into a herd of 50 2,000 lb male Walruses with 2 foot long tusks is unbelievable. The bear finally attacks one of the smaller 1,500 lb Walruses and kills it and drags it away from the herd while the bigger ones are trying to attack the bear back. Nah, it was no contest for the giant Walruses against the bear. They can swim 85 miles and then kill a giant Walrus 3 times their size with 2 foot long tusks no problem. Some endangered species.

My point is paleoclimatogy has no definite proof of CO2 forcing ending iceages, the icecores of the past 450 thousand years proved that along with the scientific references I gave. And when you ignore that you are unprofessional. You just give links to your talking point consensus But according to you and Sanfranek I would have to be a paleoclimatologist in order to counter your conclusions. That's like saying you have to be Moslem to understand the Koran. As I said before, it's modern physics and it's applications, paleo proxies data is no proof in itself, there are too many ambiguities. I think Spencer has a better handle on it then you or Safranek does.

Croft:
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO. They say this figure is slightly down on earlier years this century partly because of the La Niña that developed in the Pacific Ocean during 2007.

Scott:
Junkscience carries those temp records along with the other major sources. And I don't fall for quotes with no links or date reference. The WMO is a UN organization and I take anything out of the UN with a big grain of salt. I bet they just harmonize along with the IPCC.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/UAH_LT_since_1979.jpg

In short I don't place a lot of credibility on paleo data over 5 million years or so. So that John is how we differ. I call people like you professional spinsters, because I don't like you or Sanfranek's responses. I consider it razzle dazzle hype. It's like a clergy man saying there's proof of Jesus Christ or even from an Islamic mullahs, and giving all kind of proofs while demeaning the minority dissension, no matter how credible. That's where we stand.

Safranek:
You started with 'the planet is cooling' (in a few years) with Easterbrook. Then you moved on to the planet will be hotter than IPCC predictions (with Douglas). Then you quoted Archibald in a failed atempt to make your case that carbon is of no concern. Now you're holding to some bogus predictions about carbon levels.

Scott:
I don't know where you coming from about Douglas. I gave several links but you just spin and discredit them. I did not quote Archibald, I made reverence to one of his publications references. Perfect example how you spin and hype stuff. I take your comments with a heap of dung. I gave you my links and my reasons for not believing in the CO2 driving climate change scare. It has limits of 300~325ppm and the scientific evidence is in links, period! But most of what you do is spin and hype. Enough said!

And yes, I did get Allman Brothers mixed up with Lynyrd Skynyrd. I have to apologize to both bands for that gaff. I'm not a big Rock fan. I have nothing personal against rock, it's an art form like country or soul. Some of it I like and much of it I don't care for, even among individual groups or artists, although I have fondness for blues rock. I'm an eclectic individual.

Scott wrote

"And I don't fall for quotes with no links or date reference."

OK you asked for it my friend. Since you are so enamoured of references have a look at the following.

Scott the Hadley Centre you quoted earlier has the site

See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

It shows 2008 was the tenth warmest year on record since data started being collected in 1850. Some cooling!

Regarding polar bears, I don't take evidence of TV shows generally. I prefer scientific literature. For example

"Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climatic Change"
By Stirling, I, Lunn, NJ and Iacozza, J
Arctic [Arctic]. Vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 294-306. Sep 1999.

From 1981 through 1998, the condition of adult male and female polar bears has declined significantly in western Hudson Bay, as have natality and the proportion of yearling cubs caught during the open water period that were independent at the time of capture. Over this same period, the breakup of the sea ice on western Hudson Bay has been occurring earlier. There was a significant positive relationship between the time of breakup and the condition of adult females (i.e., the earlier the breakup, the poorer the condition of the bears). The trend toward earlier breakup was also correlated with rising spring air temperatures over the study area from 1950 to 1990. We suggest that the proximate cause of the decline in physical and reproductive parameters of polar bears in western Hudson Bay over the last 19 years has been a trend toward earlier breakup, which has caused the bears to come ashore in progressively poorer condition. The ultimate factor responsible for the earlier breakup in western Hudson Bay appears to be a long-term warming trend in April-June atmospheric temperatures.

Science 5 January 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5808, p. 25, DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5808.25 reports how on the basis of such evidence the USA has placed the polar bear on the endangered species list. With the melting of the Icecaps, polar bears are being required to swim much further than 85 miles, and the numbers drowning are increasing.

See Charles Monnett and Jeffrey Gleeson's article "Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea " in Polar Biology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0722-4060 (Print) 1432-2056 (Online)
Issue Volume 29, Number 8 / July, 2006

Received: 25 April 2005 Revised: 20 December 2005 Accepted: 20 December 2005 Published online: 12 January 2006

Abstract During aerial surveys in September 1987-2003, a total of 315 live polar bears were observed with 12 (3.8%) animals in open water, defined for purposes of this analysis as marine waters >2 km north of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coastline or associated barrier islands. No polar bear carcasses were observed. During aerial surveys in early September, 2004, 55 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were seen, 51 were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water. In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned. Average distance from land and pack ice edge for live polar bears swimming in open water in 2004 (n=10) were 8.3±3.0 and 177.4±5.1 km, respectively. We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.

Pity you cannot get more than the abstracts. If you subscribe to a halfway decent library they should be able to give you access to the rest of the articles than the abstracts.

Scott you wrote "In short I don't place a lot of credibility on paleo data over 5 million years or so. So that John is how we differ."

Perhaps that is so. Scott, I have done a fair bit of work on CO2 levels across large periods of geological time. The accuracy of this work, particularly the Geocarb III work is within orders of magnitude more precise than anything that has gone before.

You may like to check out the following references. Lenton is particularly good groundbreaking work. When teamed with Watson they make an unbeatable pair.

# Bergman, Noam M., Timothy M. Lenton, and Andrew J. Watson (2004). "COPSE: A new model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time". American Journal of Science 301: 182-204.
# Berner, RA and Z. Kothavala (2001). "GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time". American Journal of Science 304: 397-437.
# Gradstein, FM and JG Ogg (1996). "A Phanerozoic time scale". Episodes 19: 3-5.
# Gradstein, FM, JG Ogg and AG Smith (2005). A geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738.
# Rothman, Daniel H. (2001). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (7): 4167-4171.
# Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montańez, Neil J. Tabor, and David J. Beerling (2004). "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate". GSA Today 14 (3): 4-10. DOI:<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2 10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>;2.0.CO;2

Direct determination of past carbon dioxide levels relies primarily on the interpretation of carbon isotopic ratios in fossilized soils (paleosols) or the shells of phytoplankton and through interpretation of stomatal density in fossil plants. Each of these is subject to substantial systematic uncertainty.

Estimates of carbon dioxide changes through geochemical modeling instead rely on quantifying the geological sources and sinks for carbon dioxide over long time scales particularly: volcanic inputs, erosion and carbonate deposition. As such, these models are largely independent of direct measurements of carbon dioxide.

Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been significantly higher than they are at present.

When coupled with the paleoclimatological evidence of past glacial periods we see Ice Ages associated with periods of low CO2 and warming periods associated with periods of higher CO2 concentrations, far higher than the thresholds you quote Scott. I take your point that the connection between CO2 is non linear, but positive feedbacks exist too, and there are multiple thresholds with quite rapid periods of transition between them, as the climatic data shows for the Cenozoic.

For the correlative causations check out the following

* Frakes, L. A., Francis, J. E. & Syktus, J. I. (1992) Climate Modes of the Phanerozoic (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge).
* Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montańez, Neil J. Tabor, and David J. Beerling (2004). , GSA Today, 14(3): 4-10. DOI:<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2 10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>;2.0.CO;2
* Shaviv, N. and Veizer, J. (2003) Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today July 2003, 4-10.
* Veizer, J., Ala, D., Azmy, K., Bruckschen, P., Buhl, D., Bruhn, F., Carden, G.A.F., Diener, A., Ebneth, S., Godderis, Y., Jasper, T., Korte, C., Pawellek, F., Podlaha, O. and Strauss, H. (1999) 87Sr/86Sr, d13C and d18O evolution of Phanerozoic seawater. Chemical Geology 161, 59-88.
* Veizer, J., Godderis, Y. and Francois, L.M. (2000) Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon. Nature 408, 698-701.

For Cenozoic you should check out the figures which shows climate change over the last 65 million years. The data is based on a compilation of oxygen isotope measurements (δ18O) on benthic foraminifera by Zachos et al. (2001) which reflect a combination of local temperature changes in their environment and changes in the isotopic composition of sea water associated with the growth and retreat of continental ice sheets.

# Zachos, James, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas, and Katharina Billups (2001). , Science, 292(5517): 686-693. doi:10.1126/science.1059412

They show a close correlation with CO2 levels which clearly shows as a major climatic forcer, together with various periods of plate tectonic movements.

You finished "I call people like you professional spinsters, because I don't like you or Sanfranek's responses. I consider it razzle dazzle hype."

I am sad that you feel that way. What would get you to change your mind?

Regards

John

Added to the information to Scott posted earlier people also need to consider the following.

Stephan Rahmstorf et al "present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates."

See Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections

Their graphs for observed sea and temperature level rises, compared to the IPCC projections are both very worrying. Similarly the rapid melting of Arctic Sea Ice suggests that the Arctic will be Ice free within 15 years (if current trends continue), whereas the IPCC modellers thought it would not happen for more than 50 years. They have underestimated it by an order of 3.

Even more worrying is the recent report by Jeffrey Polovina in the Geophysical Research Letters of 2008. It shows that the "oceanic deserts" are expanding. These are areas of the ocean devoid of plankton, and thus supporting very little life. It appears that the extension of the thermohallocline layer of the oceans is preventing the mixing of surface and deeper waters, preventing lower nutrients to enrich surface waters, and thus preventing blue green algal growth. This in fact limits an important sink for CO2, as maritime photosynthesis accounts for 50 Gigatonnes of carbon per annum, nearly 7 times the total anthropogenic source. Limiting this important sink is going to cause an even more rapid build up of atmospheric CO2. The abiological oligotropic gyres at the centre of the oceans may be expanding very rapidly, since 1993 at the rate of about 4% per year, mostly in winter, and mostly in the northern hemisphere. See the PDF at http://www.melanie-abecassis.eu/CHL.pdf Their conclusion is that most coupled biosphere-climatic models do not take account of these observed trends.

Of course the IPCC reports have neglected these important bio-feedbacks from their calculations, as modellers do not like recursive, non-linear modeling. It creates butterfly effects which make prediction almost impossible. Nevertheless it can be done. Lovelock reports how by including biofeedback loops into climatic models, over the transition from pre-industtial to present and projected levels of CO2, world temperatures show a gradual rise in temperature from 14 to 22.5 degrees. However, the sensitivity of the system to perturbations actually increases over this period, and the amplitude of fluctuations increases.

Looking separately at the effects of land and oceanic plants to these increased CO2 levels shows similarly a turbulent decline in oceanic plankton whilst with higher CO2 there is a growth and then a stabilisation of terrestrial vegetation (diminishing returns). Fluctuations in plankton also have increasing amplitude before crashing towards a very low level indeed. This kind of scenario has also been invoked in the Permian extinction in which 98% of all species on the planet perished. The disappearance of oceanic plankton causes a rapid decline in plant species which subsequently collapses still later with further increases in CO2.

Of course with the removal of humans, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would abruptly cease. Perhaps, for the health of the biosphere, this is the scenario the planet is moving towards. Lovelock shows that there are a number of metastable states along the way with periods of chaotic turbulence between.

Come on folks. Is mitigation, (as Lovelock suggests in his recent book) now too late, and adaptation our only hope.

This is a discussion on what to do, not yet another Global Warming yea or nay debate.

That was the reason I started it.

Regards

John

[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 19, 2009 10:48:26 AM PDT]

For dealing with issues of climate change, here is what is happening in Copenhagen.

Six ways to save the world: scientists compile list of climate change clinchers

Thursday 12 March 2009 16.35 GMT

Scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen summarise findings for policy makers to discuss at UN summit in December

George Monbiot.

Scientists at the international congress in Copenhagen have prepared a summary statement of their findings for policy makers. This was handed today to the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in December he will formally hand this statement over to officials and heads of state at the conference. The full conclusions from the 2,500 scientific delegates from 80 countries that have attended the three-day meeting this week will be published in full in June 2009. The congress was conceived as an update of the science of global warming ahead of the UN summit in December. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in 2007 is now three to four years out of date.

The scientists' six key messages are:

1) Climatic trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario projections (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

2) Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change". Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for countries to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

3) Long-term strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid "dangerous climate change" regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

4) Equity dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

5) Inaction is inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

6) Meeting the challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

From BBC World Service

Key role of forests 'may be lost'
By Mark Kinver
Science reporter, BBC News

Conifers (Image: Erkki Oksanen)
Coniferous forests are particularly susceptible to climatic changes

Forests' role as massive carbon sinks is "at risk of being lost entirely", top forestry scientists have warned.

The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) says forests are under increasing degrees of stress as a result of climate change.

Forests could release vast amounts of carbon if temperatures rise 2.5C (4.5F) above pre-industrial levels, it adds.

The findings will be presented at the UN Forum on Forests, which begins on Monday in New York.

Compiled by 35 leading forestry scientists, the report provides what is described as the first global assessment of the ability of forests to adapt to climate change.

The fact remains that the only way to ensure that forests do not suffer unprecedented harm is to achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
Professor Andreas Fischlin,
Assessment co-author

"We normally think of forests as putting the brakes on global warming," observed Professor Risto Seppala from the Finnish Forest Research Institute, who chaired the report's expert panel.

"But over the next few decades, damage induced by climate change could cause forests to release huge quantities of carbon and create a situation in which they do more to accelerate warming than to slow it down."

Debate defining

The scientists hope that the report, called Adaption of Forests and People to Climate Change - A Global Assessment, will help inform climate negotiators.
Dead spruce forest (Image: John Innes)
Warm winters have allowed spruce beetles to cause widespread damage

The international climate debate has focused primarily on emissions from deforestation, but the researchers say their analysis shows that attention must also be paid to the impacts of climate change on forests.

While deforestation is responsible for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, forests currently absorb more carbon than they emit.

But the problem is that the balance could shift as the planet warms, the report concludes, and the sequestration service provided by the forest biomes "could be lost entirely if the Earth heats up by 2.5C or more".

The assessment says higher temperatures - along with prolonged droughts, more pest invasions, and other environmental stresses - would trigger considerable forest destruction and degradation.

This could create a dangerous feedback loop, it adds, in which damage to forests from climate change would increase global carbon emissions that then exacerbate global warming.

The report's key findings include:

* Droughts are projected to become more intense and frequent in subtropical and southern temperate forests

* Commercial timber plantations are set to become unviable in some areas, but more productive in others

* Climate change could result in "deepening poverty, deteriorating public health, and social conflict" among African forest-dependent communities

The IUFRO assessment will be considered by delegates at the eighth session of the UN Forum on Forests, which has the objective of promoting the "management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest".

Co-author Professor Andreas Fischlin from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology commented: "Even if adaption measures are fully implemented, unmitigated climate change would - during the course of the current century - exceed the adaptive capacity of many forests.

"The fact remains that the only way to ensure that forests do not suffer unprecedented harm is to achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."

And is it happening already?

Climate change 'fans Nepal fires'

By Navin Singh Khadka
BBC Nepali Service

Nepal satellite image (Nasa)
Smoke trails from scores of fires can be seen in the satellite images

The forest fires that flared unusually viciously in many of Nepal's national parks and conserved areas this dry season have left conservationists worrying if climate change played a role.

At least four protected areas were on fire for an unusually long time until just a few days ago.

Nasa's satellite imagery showed most of the big fires were in and around the national parks along the country's northern areas bordering Tibet.

Active fires were recorded in renowned conservation success stories like the Annapurna, Kanchanjunga, Langtang and Makalu Barun national parks.

The extent of the loss of flora and fauna is not yet known.

Press reports said more than 100 yaks were killed by fire in the surrounding areas of the Kanjanchanga National Park in eastern Nepal.

Trans-Himalayan parks host rare species such as snow leopards, red pandas and several endangered birds.

Carbon source

More than the loss of plants and animals, the carbon dioxide emitted by the fires was a matter of concern, according to Ghanashyam Gurung, a director at WWF's Nepal office.

Some of the national parks in the plains bordering India were also on fire, but those caused less concern among conservationists and forest officials.

"Fires in the protected areas in the plain lands can be controlled easily because we have logistics and manpower ready for that - and that is what we did this time," said Laxmi Manandhar, spokesman for Nepal's Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.

We have seen winter becoming drier and drier in the last three or four years, but this year has set the record
Nirmal Rajbhandari
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology

"But in the national parks in the Himalayan region, we could hardly do anything because of the difficult geography. Nor do we have facilities of pouring water using planes and helicopters."

Forest fires in Nepal's jungles and protected areas are not uncommon during the dry season between October and January.

Most of the fires come about as a consequence of the "slash and burn" practice that farmers employ for better vegetation and agricultural yields.

But this time the fires remained out of control even in the national parks in the Himalayan region where the slash and burn practice is uncommon.

In some of the protected areas, the fires flared up even after locals and officials tried to put them out for several days.

High and dry

So, why were the fires so different this time?

"The most obvious reason was the unusually long dry spell this year," says Mr Gurung, just back in Kathmandu from Langtang National Park to the north of the capital.

"The dryness has been so severe that pine trees in the Himalayan region are thoroughly dry even on the top, which means even a spark is enough to set them on fire."

For nearly six months, no precipitation has fallen across most of the country - the longest dry spell in recent history, according to meteorologists.

"This winter was exceptionally dry," says Department of Hydrology and Meteorology chief Nirmal Rajbhandari.
Helicopter water dousing (
Many fires were left to burn due to a lack of resources

"We have seen winter becoming drier and drier in the last three or four years, but this year has set the record."

Rivers are running at their lowest, and because most of Nepal's electricity comes from hydropower, the country has been suffering power cuts up to 20 hours a day.

Experts at the department said the severity of dryness fits in the pattern of increasing extreme weather Nepal has witnessed in recent years.

Had it not been for recent drizzles, conservationists say some of the national parks would still be on fire.

They point to "cloud burst phenomena" - huge rainfall within a short span of time during monsoons, and frequent, sudden downpours in the Himalayan foothills - as more examples of extreme weather events.

"Seeing all these changes happening in recent years, we can contend that this dryness that led to so much fire is one of the effects of climate change," said Mr Rajbhandari.

Anil Manandhar, head of WWF Nepal, had this to ask: Are we waiting for a bigger disaster to admit that it is climate change?

"The weather pattern has changed, and we know that there are certain impacts of climate change."

John to Brooks: "What would get you to change your mind?"

For Brooks making a comment on one of his posts is 'spin'. There's really noithing that could change his mind. Why? When you actually read the garbage he likes to cherry pick to make his case, and then demonstrate his own inability to make sense of the material, you're 'razzling and dazzling' him. So be it.
So when I point out Brooks citing Easterbrook (who thinks we're heading for a rapid cool down), then point out that Douglas (previously quoted ) believes the Earth will warm faster than the IPCC, and finally, examine Archibald's findings regarding man-made global warming, you quickly come to the conclusion that Brooks is 'electic' in his attempts to make his case, but fails since he clearly has not read his own citations. He can't even get his music quotes right.
Enough said.

I receieved the following. It seems that the USA is at last beginning to wake up to the real opportunities that a carbon neutral world offers.

From Repower America

"We can no longer delay putting a framework for a clean energy economy in place."

Those were President Obama's words in last week's economic address when he adopted our call for closing of the carbon pollution loophole -- a critical step towards revitalizing our economy and repowering America.

VIDEO: Obama on closing the carbon pollution loophole.

We've been running ads and talking to people across the country to raise awareness about the carbon pollution loophole. And by adopting our call, President Obama has demonstrated that he understands that a cap on carbon pollution will lead to rapid growth in clean energy investment and create millions of jobs. With unemployment at 8.5%, we know there is no time to waste.

But without swift action from Congress, these jobs will be allowed to go elsewhere, as other nations continue to outpace us on progress towards a clean energy economy.

Our leaders are debating crucial legislation right now. They need to know you stand with President Obama and millions of other Americans in calling for a clean energy economy and solutions to the climate crisis.

Please watch the video of President Obama's address and call your Representative today:

http://www.RepowerAmerica.org/action/congress/

Here's a script you can use:

"Hi. This is [your name] from [your city, state]. I am calling to urge Representative _________ to support the Clean Energy Jobs Plan. These are good jobs that can't be outsourced and increase our supply of clean, free energy. It will revitalize our economy and help solve the climate crisis. That's why, as a constituent, it is very important to me that my elected officials support the Clean Energy Jobs Plan. Thank you."

Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to get connected to your Representative's office.

After you make your call, click here to let us know how it went.

It's time for America to lead again. It's time to close the carbon pollution loophole. Call Congress now:

http://www.RepowerAmerica.org/action/congress/

Thanks,

Steve Bouchard
Campaign Manager

in preparation for the Copenhagen Conference this November here is another action you can take to Mitigate CO2

Here's the invitation I'm sending around about the October 24th Day of Action--it comes to you from a coalition of leaders around the world.
It's going out to people on every continent and in every nation, from Antarctica (hi to our friends at McMurdo Station) to Zimbabwe (greetings to the folks at ZERO working on windpower in rural Africa!). We need everyone working together, in a way that's rarely happened before.

The invitation is a bit long, which worries me since I'm a writer, and value conciseness. But we need to get across both the problem and the plan--and after all this is the greatest challenge we face.

This is going to be fun--and important. Please spread it around.

Many thanks,

Bill

This is an invitation to help build a movement--to take one day day and use it to stop the climate crisis.

On October 24, we will stand together as one planet and call for a fair global climate treaty. United by a common call to action, we'll make it clear: the world needs an international plan that meets the latest science and gets us back to safety.

This movement has just begun, and it needs your help.

Here's the plan: we're asking you, and people in every country on earth, to organize an action in your community on October 24.
http://www.350.org/oct24
There are no limits here--imagine bike rides, rallies, concerts, hikes, festivals, tree-plantings, protests, and more. Imagine your action linking up with thousands of others around the globe. Imagine the world waking up.

If we can pull it off, we'll send a powerful message on October 24: the world needs the climate solutions that science and justice demand.

It's often said that the only thing preventing us from tackling the climate crisis quickly and equitably is a lack of political will. Well, the only thing that can create that political will is a unified global movement--and no one is going to build that movement for us. It's up to regular people all over the world. That's you.

So register an event in your community for October 24, and then enlist the help of your friends. Get together with your co-workers or your local environmental group or human rights campaign, your church or synagogue or mosque or temple; enlist bike riders and local farmers and young people. All over the planet we'll start to organize ourselves.

With your help, there will be an event at every iconic place on the planet on October 24-from America's Great Lakes to Australia's Great Barrier Reef--and also in all the places that matter to you in your daily lives: a beach or park or village green or town hall.

If there was ever a time for you to get involved, it's right now.
There are two reasons this year is so crucial.

The first reason is that the science of climate change is getting darker by the day. The Arctic is melting away with astonishing speed, decades ahead of schedule. Everything on the planet seems to be melting or burning, rising or parched.

And we now now have a number to express our peril: 350.

NASA's James Hansen and a team of other scientists recently published a series of papers showing that we need to cut the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from its current 387 parts per million to below 350 if we wish to "maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed."

No one knew that number a year ago-but now it's clear that 350 might well be the most important number for the future of the planet, a north star to guide our efforts as we remake the world. If we can swiftly get the planet on track to get back below 350, we can still avert the worst effects of climate change.

The second reason 2009 is so important is that the political opportunity to influence our governments has never been greater. The world's leaders will meet in Copenhagen this December to craft a new global treaty on cutting carbon emissions.

If that meeting were held now, it would produce a treaty would be woefully inadequate. In fact, it would lock us into a future where we'd never get back to 350 parts per million-where the rise of the sea would accelerate, where rainfall patterns would start to shift and deserts to grow. A future where first the poorest people, and then all of us, and then all the people that come after us, would find the only planet we have damaged and degraded.

October 24 comes six weeks before those crucial UN meetings in Copenhagen. If we all do our job, every nation will know the question they'll be asked when they put forth a plan: will this get the planet back on the path below 350?

This will only work with the help of a global movement-and it's starting to bubble up everywhere. Farmers in Cameroon, students in China, even World Cup skiers have already helped spread the word about 350. Churches have rung their bells 350 times; Buddhist monks have formed a huge 350 with their bodies against the backdrop of Himalayas. 350 translates across every boundary of language and culture. It's clear and direct, cutting through the static and it lays down a firm scientific line.

On October 24, we'll all stand behind 350--a universal symbol of climate safety and of the world we need to create. And at the end of the day, we'll all upload photos from our events to the 350.org website and send these pictures around the world. This cascade of images will drive climate change into the public debate--and hold our leaders accountable to a unified global citizenry.

We need your help-the world is a big place and our team is small. Our crew at 350.org will do everything we can to support you, providing templates for banners and press releases, resources to spread the word, and tools to help you build a strong local climate action group. And our core team is always just a phone call or e-mail away if you need some support.

This is like a final exam for human beings. Can we muster the courage, the commitment, and the creativity to set this earth on a steady course before it's too late? October 24 will be the joyful, powerful day when we prove it's possible.

Please join us and register your local event today.

Onwards,

Bill McKibben - Author and Activist- USA
Vandana Shiva - Physicist, Activist, Author - India
David Suzuki - Scientist, Author, Activist - Canada
Bianca Jagger - Chair of the World Future Council - UK
Tim Flannery - Scientist, Author, Explorer -Australia
Bittu Sahgal - Co-convener, Climate Challenge India - India
Andrew Simmons - Environmental Advocate, St. Vincent & The Grenadines
Christine Loh - Environmental Advocate and Legislator - Hong Kong

P.S.-We need you to do something else, right away, that's pretty easy. Please forward this message to anyone you know who is even remotely appropriate.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will stop global warming. Turning off lights or denying yourself simple pleasures will not change much. Some things you can do at home will make a big difference are:

1. Paint your roof white.
2. Put Zeocarbon filters on all pluming and septic tank vents.
3. Aerate your septic tank using a solar powered system.
4. Tell your city fathers to convert all sewage lagoons into solar power aerated systems.

Ms. Pennington,

My impression is that all attempts to "stop" global warming would be like trying to stop the Mississippi River from flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

My main question is this: Is it not more sensible to direct our actions towards mitigating whatever effects there may be? I say "may" in all confidence that no one knows what the effects WILL be.

Global warming isn't as predictable as the tide. The fact that we've experienced some small rise in average temperatures over the last century would suggest to me that if, indeed, the prospects are for continual (small) increase, then we should start wearing lighter clothing, explore the possibilities of increasing crop planting in areas further north than before, do a bit more to control insect-borne diseases, etc.

"Stopping" global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions strikes me as a counter-intuitive way to deal with the problem, if it *IS* a problem.

All of mankind's history has demonstrated that if people wish to live a certain way then they will live that way regardless of the risk. Case in point: the people that live near active volcanoes. The advantages of living there outweigh the very real risks. Another case in point: people that live in areas regularly devastated by typhoons or hurricanes. Same thing: the benefits or even merely their situations in life (those poor living in Bangladesh, for example) weigh against moving to a safer area.

All right. Now we have global warming. For those that live, say, in Canada or Finland or Russia, they're now to be told that they cannot heat their homes as they have been because global warming must be stopped. People in Africa are to be told that they cannot use cheap oil to burn for energy to advance their standard of living because global warming must be stopped. Everyone must turn to alternative energy, renewable energy, and make do with less.

Telling them that you care about the fate of the planet says nothing to them about whether you care about THEIR welfare. Your compassion is so much more grand than that.

I'm sorry if I sound a sardonic. My great hope is that the political machinery will become so damaged by the inevitable realization that governments will actually have to impose draconian measures to try to "stop" something that may not even be of our own making and nothing of any real substance will be done. Oh, there'll be lots of sustainability measures and neighborhood drives and rich people putting Zeocarbon filters on all pluming and septic tank vents...but the huge, over-arching attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions will falter and stumble because governments will understand, finally, that they will kill their economies if they attempt to do so.

Then, 50 years from now, we will all wonder what all the hubbub was about.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system, rife with chaotic dynamics and poorly understood feedback loops. Greenhouse gases are clearly implicated the thermal equations - not only because of the implications of the Stefan Boltzmann Law - but also because of the proxy data record which shows excellent correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature. CO2 is the second most significant greenhouse gas as a consequence of the amount of it in the atmosphere - and it's longwave absorption spectra. CO2 has become the poster child for the issue because fossil fuel emissions are a demonstrated component of the changing global concentration of this gas because of carbon isotope studies - and also because of Keeling's work measuring CO2 concentrations brought the issue to mainstream consciousness. The biggest dangers, however, involve tipping points related to other factors, such as the cryosphere albedo feedback cycle - where lost ice cap area results in lower albedo which drives further warming - or the threat of methane clathrates in the sea floor, or methane production in thawing permafrost. The other big factor is CO2's longevity in the atmosphere.

The result of all this is that even if we reduced emissions dramatically now - climate change may already be irreversibly in the cards. And reducing emissions dramatically isn't practical in the very near term anyway. Most alternative energy technologies are still in their infancy. Even with a concerted effort, a transformation of the Earth's energy economy into one based on renewable non-carbon net emitting energy sources will take decades. I've heard 50 years - and it doesn't sound unreasonable. Practices such as the ones outlined by Monica Pennington, while constructive, will not make a really significant difference as long as the energy economy of the world is based on fossil fuels and deforestation is still uncontrolled. At the very most, lifestyle changes and enhancements to methane producing waste management will only shave a few tenths of a percent off of the greenhouse gas forcings delta human activity is causing without action affecting the energy economy and land use.

If we assume that roughly 1/2 a century of CO2 increase is still ahead, both through continued fossil fuel use and continued deforestation (and the notion that we have only 50 years of these issues is optimistic, in my opinion) then there are some hard realities we all must face:

1) significant (i.e. 1 foot or more) sea rise is unavoidable. This is hardly speculative given the observed data concerning melting of major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
2) glacial based fresh water sources will disappear for hundreds of millions of people. Once again, hardly speculative based on projecting out observed reductions in glacial mass in the Himalayas and the Andes.
3) climate patterns will change in ways that affect hundreds of millions or billions of people - primarily through transformation of arable land areas. Some areas that are currently arable will become desert - and other areas that are not arable will become so. This isn't a new story - as anyone who has studied the history of the near-east can tell you. Never-the-less, the potential for geopolitical mayhem is vast.

You don't even need to believe in AGW theory to acknowledge that these changes are under way (although you have to disregard a lot of science and data to deny these changes are occurring at all).

The fact that these changes will take place over decades gives us time to adapt, and also to attempt countermeasures. We should pursue geoengineering research vigorously. There is every reason to believe that a workable scheme to increase the Earth's albedo can be effected. We should be researching land-use based geoengineering too. We're going to need to make new areas agriculturally productive and we will need to keep increasing food yields per acre. However, our biggest, and our first job is to transform the energy economy of the Earth to adopt a system of renewable non-greenhouse gas emitting sources. This is vital, not only to help tame the future forcings of global warming - but also to provide the increased amounts of energy we are going to need to survive the consequences of the climate change we have unleashed so far.

Mr. Feldman,

I acknowledge your scientific points and I appreciate the calm way you presented them. You hit it on the head when you said, "the potential for geopolitical mayhem is vast." What interests me is whether the "geopolitical mayhem" accumulates slowly over decades if and when these climate-based changes you mentioned occur and peoples and countries adapt slowly to deal with them; or whether said mayhem results from global planning gone wild and our political systems go into top gear to "do something" to reverse the effects -- to try to return the climate to some past state.

>> The fact that these changes will take place over decades gives us time to adapt, and also to attempt countermeasures. <<

I would only change "attempt countermeasures" to "implement mitigation strategies"; that is, devote our efforts -- if required -- to lessening the effects of any warming rather than trying to counter it. I feel that that would be far cheaper and easier to swallow politically than attempting countermeasures.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

SE: 'devote our efforts--if required--to lessening the effects of any warming rather than trying to counter it'
SE 'no one knows what the effects (of gw) will be'

Dedicate our efforts to lessening the effects even though the effects are not known? You lost me.
Why not just come to grips with the end of the fossil fuel era and adjust accordingly? Won't that kill two, greasy birds?

James Safranek says: <<Dedicate our efforts to lessening the effects even though the effects are not known? You lost me. Why not just come to grips with the end of the fossil fuel era and adjust accordingly? Won't that kill two, greasy birds?>>

I just don't believe that ending the fossil fuel era can be done in a timely manner; let alone deal with the land use issue. I think, in a best case scenario, it will take 25-40 years to turn the energy economy around and 50 to eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. As for land use, we may see a great deal of additional deforestation before the situation stabilizes. There are big unknowns in projections in this department. Meanwhile, the ramifications of the warming that we're seeing now could be substantial. Reductions in ice shelf area, sea ice extent, and snow coverage in mountain areas already has an effect (unmeasured to the best of my knowledge) on the Earth's albedo. What will the extent of this warming be - and the additions wrought by another half century of climbing CO2 levels (at least)?

I think you're right. It's time to undertake the vast work of ending the fossil fuel era. But we should let the act of beginning lull us into a false sense of security.

Mr. Erbach, <<I would only change "attempt countermeasures" to "implement mitigation strategies"; that is, devote our efforts -- if required -- to lessening the effects of any warming rather than trying to counter it.>>

The implication I get from this is 'leave the fossil fuel economy alone and just worry about helping people deal with the change'. If I misunderstand you, please accept my apologies. If that's your jist - it's a mistake. First of all, continuing to raise greenhouse gas levels has the potential to vastly complicate the job of coping with the consequences. What will the consequences truly be? How long will have to adapt? The answers to these questions will depend greatly on the pace of the climate change. That pace may be affected tremendously by how quickly greenhouse gas levels change. Some of this will not be under our direct control (i.e. permafrost melting leading to fermentation, or clathrate melting) - some of it is (i.e. CO2, CH4 and hydrocarbon emissions and land use). Then, finally, there's the fact that we're going to need increasing amounts of energy in the future. We're going to need to make changes if we wish to feed more mouths with less acres and do more while stressing the environment less. That means alternative energy (to me anyway).

Mr. Safranek,

I didn't mean to lose you, but I'll give it another go.

The push -- led by people like our erstwhile Vice President -- to do something now before it's too late will, thankfully, end up being not too much since the political imperative is far short of that required, say, to go to war.

If there are any deleterious effects of global warming -- and, to repeat myself, I have a hard time accepting that they will ALL be bad -- then rather than spending money on countermeasures I believe money would be better spent on mitigation. For example, if sea levels rise, it won't be all at once. People will have time to move back from the sea shore. We don't have to spend huge gobs of money to PREVENT sea level rise.

Another example: if global warming does, indeed, cause more outbreaks of malaria and other insect-born diseases, money spent on sanitation and insect repellent and insecticides would be far cheaper than halting or reversing global warming to reduce insect populations.

All clear?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

Your position is now clear, but it's also clearly faulty. There are far too many wild cards in the global climate scenarios currently being modelled. You're betting the farm that no catastrophic/abrupt climate events will occur in the next 100 years; humanity's adjustment without substantial GHG reduction, for you, is enough. As I've stated, this makes absolutely no sense when the very economic growth you want to maintain is dependent on the fossil fuels causing (part) of the GW problem.

Mr. Safranek,

>> Your position is now clear, but it's also clearly faulty. <<

Ah. I would say that my position coincides with my use of the Mississippi River simile. I said: "My impression is that all attempts to 'stop' global warming would be like trying to stop the Mississippi River from flowing into the Gulf of Mexico."

My mitigation stance, if applied to the simile, would be to adapt to the inexorable flow; but, extending the metaphor a bit, you claim that that is a "faulty" strategy. Unless I miss my guess, you would prefer to dam the Mississippi upriver to keep it from flowing into the Gulf...again, using the simile as an illustrative framework for argument's sake.

Yes, I AM betting the farm that no catastrophic/abrupt climate events will occur in the next 100 years because, clearly, catastrophic/abrupt climate events have NEVER happened in the past. The Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, the regular Ice Ages...all occured over a period of years, sometimes hundreds of years.

As a thought experiment, I try to imagine what global warming johnnies like you would have recommended we do to counteract the Little Ice Age. Burn all sorts of wood and coal to warm up the atmosphere?

>> the very economic growth you want to maintain is dependent on the fossil fuels causing (part) of the GW problem. <<

So, your solution -- like the Mississippi simile -- is to dam up usage of fossil fuels and REALLY bring economic growth to a halt, especially in the poorer countries. Rich countries, granted, could adapt more readily; poor countries, however, cannot.

>> As I've stated, this makes absolutely no sense <<

You may certainly state it all you want, but it does, indeed, make sense to focus on mitigation strategies -- if needed -- rather than to turn off the spigot as quickly as possible.

What's your feeling on building more nuclear plants? No CO2 emissions whatsoever.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

Given the geologic eye blink, the build up of atmospheric carbon caused by our species is unprecedented, so your comparisons with past climate change are near worthless. Don't bet the farm! I don't think people truly understand how quickly we've tinkered with the carbon cycle, and how much more carbon will be added in a VERY short time frame.
I never said anything about damming oil and gas. I think the transition is going to be far more painful if we don't act with complete knowledge of the facts: we've reached peak oil. If for some reason gas spiked to $8 gallon RIGHT NOW, even rich countries could not 'adapt'. I'm in favor of a serious, national discussiion about alternatives, including nukes.

Mr. Safranek,

>> I think the transition is going to be far more painful if we don't act with complete knowledge of the facts <<

I think -- considering all that you've said about global warming -- that you meant to say: "...far more painful if we wait to act until we have complete knowledge of the facts." Just trying to be helpful...

I read this today:

<http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151>

It's an interview of physicist Freeman Dyson in the Yale Environment 360 on-line magazine. Here's a portion:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dyson: And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being The whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared." real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, "Don't worry, there isn't a problem." It's sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don't say that they're dishonest. But I think it's just a normal human reaction. It's true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it's the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.

e360: When I wrote my first story about this in 1987, I had to say this is all theoretical, we haven't actually detected any signal of climate change. Now, people point to all sorts of signals, which are just the sort of things that were being predicted, based in part on the models. They made predictions and they've tested the predictions by seeing what happened in the real world, and they seem to be at least in the same direction, and in about the same magnitude, they were predicting. So isn't that a hint that there is something right about the models?

Dyson: Of course. No doubt that warming is happening. I don't think it is correct to say "global," but certainly warming is happening. I have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that's where the warming is most extreme. And it's spectacular, no doubt about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on.

But, there are all sorts of things that are not said, which decreases my feeling of alarm. First of all, the people in Greenland love it. They tell you it's made their lives a lot easier. They hope it continues. I am not saying none of these consequences are happening. I am just questioning whether they are harmful.

There's a lot made out of the people who died in heat waves. And there is no doubt that we have heat waves and people die. What they don't say is actually five times as many people die of cold in winters as die of heat in summer. And it is also true that more of the warming happens in winter than in summer. So, if anything, it's heavily favorable as far as that goes. It certainly saves more lives in winter than it costs in summer.

So that kind of argument is never made. And I see a systematic bias in the way things are reported. Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm with Dyson.

Regards,

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

Dyson is wrong. Global warming will mean more drought in continental interiors--ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agricultural production to drought in the past few years. It will mean more violent weather along coastlines (think Katrina). It will mean the disappearance of fresh water for a billion people in Asia and Latin America who depend on glacier melt to feed their rivers. And in the long run it will mean the destruction of trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure due to sea level rise. The effects of global warming will be much more bad than good.

And if Dyson objects to computer models, he ought to stop flying on airplanes or driving over bridges, both of which are routinely developed with computer models these days.

Mr. Levenson,

>> And if Dyson objects to computer models, he ought to stop flying on airplanes or driving over bridges, both of which are routinely developed with computer models these days. <<

I believe that I can respond to that. Models of the aircraft or bridge sort: 1) can be tested, 2) are used to engineer useful things, and 3) are natural outgrowths of aircraft and bridge technology in order to make improvements.

Climate models are none of these things. Climate models have gained importance because the modelers are so desperate to have them be considered important...and those modelers want to have their funding renewed.

I'm still waiting for models to adequately model <b><i>the past</i></b>, as in the Medieval Warming Period or The Little Ice Age or even one of the regular ice ages. How about modeling the dip in average temperatures recorded in the 70s that led to predictions of another ice age?

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

Excuse me, climate models are routinely tested against empirical data. Where did you get the idea that they weren't? And there wasn't a dip in temperatures in the 1970s, there was a dip in the 1940s and it was roughly flat until it started picking up in the 1970s. The shape of the curve is well reproduced if you take industrial aerosols into account. Here's a typical web page with charts showing how the models do with various inputs:

http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/

You don't seem to have actually made any effort to learn how climate models work. You might want to do some research. You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model