« Sea ice loss 2012: what do the records mean? | Main | Models are improving, but can they catch up? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I wouldnt bet on cold fusion, but if I was an american I would demand a second Manhatan project for finding clean energy from fission or fusion. It can be done. But research requires money and effort. ITER, that has a very high propability of getting energy from fusion, will cost 20 billion dollars over 12 years. Compare that to 5 trillion that is the value of fossil fuel that the planet burns every year.

My opinion. No cap and trade nonsense. No taxes. Fossil fuels are so cheap and the CEOs have bought the politicians so that there will always be loopholes. Do the simple thing, tax all fossil fuels on the planet with 5%. That 250 billion $ can then be allocated to the UN which can allocate the money to whatever projects the world community believes has the best propability of success.

This warranties not any significant impact on lifestyle, but R&D on advanced fission,fussion and solar will skyrocket.

Jim Williams

NeilT, you explain it to them this way: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_365a.rnl.html

See the big red splotch in the middle of America? That's this Summer's Drought.

Now, look at the bigger red splotch in the Arctic.

Bob Wallace

Yes, off topic, but Joe's cherry-picking is not exactly a serious topic.

We have the technology in hand right how to solve our clean energy needs. We do not have to wait for something not yet invented.

Wind is producing electricity at $0.05/kWh and expected to fall to $0.03/kWh. PG&E just signed a 20 year purchase agreement for solar at $0.104/kWh and the price of solar is expected to fall to about $0.08/kWh in the next ten years.

http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/ - click on LCOE.

We could generate from 25% (Eastern grid) to 35% (Hawaiian grid) with a combination of wind and solar without adding any storage or backup generation. That would just about allow us to close down all existing coal plants. Coal is providing less than 35% of our total electricity in 2012.

Then - getting natural gas off our grids.

We have at least 7,500 existing dams that could be converted to pump-up solar if that was our only option for storage. We have very inexpensive large scale batteries apparently just about ready for the real world.

I didn't even mention geothermal (about 6 cents and expected to drop), tidal (should be as cheap as wind) and hydro (many dams that could be converted to power producers).

We do not need to wait for anything.

Contact your Congress member and make noise.


Forbes Magazine cheats, it engages in an un-winnable trumped out debate by propping up a contrarian or another. By coincidence, economics and climate have a similarity, they deal with the future. However Forbes editors and freelance regulars couldn't predict the deregulation palooza driven economic crash of 2008. How good can they possibly be any good with climate?

Just curious. What is the climate record of Henrickson? How good was he in predicting any climate event?

Juhariis, its not wasted time, take fighting back nonsense and turn it like a climate feedback. They attack good science, we remain silent, they win. Instead, feeding back by explaining correct science , we keep the subject going until it resonates with a critical mass of the population. They give us more exposure time, a better chance to explain reality.

Bob Wallace: Joe's cherry-picking is not exactly a serious topic.

But I think it is, Bob. Because so long as voices like Bastardi's are playing to the fossil fuel-addicted masses--and fossil fuel cash-addicted politicans--simply ignoring them means they reign. And those voices that reign, win.

Getting us out of our CO2 hell isn't a single-pronged approach. That is, while it's obviously vitally important that we pursue rapid research and development of non fossil fuels like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal, it's also vitally important that we continue to publicly call out and battle those anti-science voices that are doing all they can to stifle that R&D and keep the world sucking the oil spigot for as long as possible. So long as that remains the case, spotlighting, as Neven has done here, the antics and motivations of people like Bastardi, Watts, and Goddard is, I believe, a necessary and noble thing.

Bob Wallace

No, we've done all we need to do in terms of research and development on non-fossil fuel technology.

It is time to implement. And implement rapidly.


Of course we should continue research. On all sorts of things including better wind/solar/nuclear. If we discover better ways to fix our problems we can jump over to them. We do exactly that on a regular basis with wind and solar.

We should not let the perfect get in the way of the very-much-good-enough.


Spend your time doing battle with idiots if it pleases you. It has value to the extent that it might educate those who are not up to speed. It is very unlikely to bring the unholy trio to the truth.

You beat them down. I'll beat the drum for fixing our problems. The US has peaked in CO2 emissions. We are on a downward slope. What we need to do is accelerate.

Wayne Kernochan

I have been happily lurking due to the superb contributions of other commenters, but I have to delurk, because I think the comments on alternative energy are off course.

Fusion -- I have been following this since the 1970s. Large amounts of money have indeed been sunk into fusion. A new promising approach has been publicized in the last year in an MIT pub, iirc. However, no one talking about it is acting as if major global rollout is going to happen any time before 40 years from now. You have to get well beyond breakeven. You have to bring the initial cost down substantially. You have to fit it to an energy grid, since it doesn't scale down. You have to deal with the usual productization -- remember, although it's not dirty, it involves extremely high temperatures.

What everyone seems to be leaving out in the discussion of most other alternatives is the fact that the climate will change substantially over the next 40 years. For wind on land, what is windy now may very well not be windy 40 years from now. Wind installations presently don't move very easily. For wind on salt water, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that between 2050 and 2100, the water will rise by 15 feet, and over the next 40 years the height of waves at high tide during storms should go up 10-20 feet, and another 10-20 feet in the fifty years thereafter. Turbines are apparently not designed to cope with water drag.

Geothermal is fine, but I see no one saying that it is anywhere near a solution that can handle even 30% of the world's needs. Tidal power, like wind, suffers from the problem of not being movable and rising oceans. By the way, fusion suffers from needing water as coolant, and is therefore vulnerable to loss of summer river flow from melting of land ice and warming of ocean water -- both of which have already been reported as problems today. The production of natural gas, while it cuts emissions from burning by 50%, actually cuts overall very little, because of added carbon emissions in the production process, as Joe Romm points out.

The only solution for most energy (and transportation and heating/cooling) needs is solar. The cost argument is garbage, reflecting only the fact that economic analysis tends to double down on existing infrastructure, which continues to be designed for coal/oil/natural gas. The real barrier is lack of an adequate battery for medium-term storage. An MIT pub reports a new approach that seems plausible and scalable over the next 2-5 years, with luck. Along with energy efficiency, solar has to be one the two major components of an immediate and drastic deployment of a long-term and immediate solution.


I wish I could share your enthusiasm, Bob, but it's not quite as contagious as you might wish. ;-)

As you know, by far the largest reason US CO2 emissions have dropped to a 20-year low is because the sudden abundance of cheap(er) natural gas caused many power plants to switch over from coal. The drop didn't come about because we learned to better conserve; it didn't drop because we've made the move to clean and renewable sources of power; it didn't drop because Americans finally understood the perils of increasing CO2 concentrations and did something about it. No, it dropped simply because we switched from one non-renewable GHG-emitting fossil fuel to another non-renewable GHG-emitting fossil fuel. In other words, it's not as though we've kicked our drug addiction; we just found a source for cleaner needles with which to shoot up. That's progress, yes. But not really the kind anybody should stand up and cheer about just yet.

(Not to mention, the production of natural gas brings with it a whole slew of nastiness, such as the still-unknown dangers of fracking and the possibility of massive "fugitive" methane leaks from gas drilling sites.)

One thing is clear: as Michael Mann has said, people will follow their wallets where global warming is concerned. So absent a breakthrough in technology that will cause clean energy prices to become distinctly less expensive than oil, coal, and gas, intervention from the government will be the only thing that will keep us from milking the fossil fuel cow for all the relatively cheap milk she can give us. And the only way to get that government intervention is by convincing people of the truth--and doing that will entail being sure clowns like Bastardi, Goddard, and Watts are shouted down whenever possible.

I intend to keep doing just that. Not for my pleasure, as you stated, but for my planet. It's the least I can do.

Jon Torrance


Ummm... how do you handle the cognitive dissonance of believing both "No cap and trade nonsense. No taxes." and "Do the simple thing, tax all fossil fuels on the planet with 5%."?

Lynn Shwadchuck

@Wayne Kernochan: As a fellow lurker (in awe of all the knowledge you regulars have) I'm in agreement with you. It's too late for anything that takes decades, stable sea levels or cooling water. So solar is the only way. You should see all the arrays on farms and bush lots up here.


Actually, the biggest reason for the drop in CO2 emissions is the dramatic shrinkage of GDP from which we have not yet recovered.


Also, we can argue with the denialists all we want and present scientific evidence until we are blue in the face. Nothing will change until the pain of not changing becomes unbearable.

Right now, the bulk of the focus has been on sea level rise (not imminent) and the demise of the polar bears (so what). We need to make a very real connection between climate and weather to get people to pay attention.


Do not rule out wind turbines. Denmark produces nearly 25% of its energy needs from wind power and plans for that to be 50% in 2020.


Meanwhile, in Germany, wind turbines installed in the first six months brought the total capacity to over 30,000 megawatts, producing 9.2 percent of the country's electricity, up from 7.7 percent in 2011, a utility industry group said last week.

Bob Wallace

Dj, a shrunken GDP is definitely not the reason that US CO2 emissions have fallen. GDP for every year past the CO2 peak year of 2005 is higher than the year before except for a slight dip in 2009.

The reason is also not because we are making less electricity. We are making slightly more than we were in 2005 and have so every year since 2005 except one.

The reason is due to a number of reasons. We are driving slightly less and flying slightly less. We have increased the amount of non-hydro generation. We have incraesed both car and jet efficiency. We have significantly cut our use of coal. We have increased the amount of natural gas we use for electricity.

Yes, natural gas is a two-edged sword. Methane leaks are bad and fracking can lead to water contamination, but unfortunately we have a larger problem facing us which is climate change. Is there anyone on this forum who believes CO2 emissions are not a larger risk to the planet than localized groundwater contamination?

Now, we seem to have affordable storage coming to market in the next couple of years. If so then we can start replacing natural gas with stored wind/solar power.


Jim, that's not the point, telling them this year is not it and using this year as an example is not it either.

Next year, even if it's not a record. Even if there is no drought in the US, THAT is the time to tell them that a record setting year in the Arctic is still a complete disaster.

The point is telling them when it's not a record year and why that is so important in the overall scheme. They need to hear it every year all the time until they get the idea that this is a process and not a 5 minute emergency.

It's hard work.

Bob Wallace

Now, let's take up cost. One more time.

The current median LCOE of coal produced electricity is $0.05/kWh. For natural gas the median LCOE is $0.05. For wind it is $0.05. No subsidies are included in LCOE numbers.

What is not included in the price of coal is the other roughly $0.15/kWh we spend in tax dollars and health insurance premiums to pay for the side effects of burning coal.

Clearly wind is cheaper than coal and there is no price penalty for choosing wind over natural gas.

Right now we should be pushing on our elected officials to assist wind installation, use wind produced electricity when the wind is blowing and switch to natural gas when it isn't.

BTW, the EIA is projecting NG prices to be up some next year. That happens and wind becomes our cheapest way to generate electricity.


Rooftop solar PV has reached "retail grid parity" in parts of the US. Especially if one includes the 30% federal subsidy. People can put solar on their roofs, send extra daytime electricity to the grid and take back the electricity they need when the Sun is not shining.

Doing so allows them to lock in electricity at a price at or below today's retail price for the next twenty years. Then (assuming that the panels are amortized over 20 years) they will enjoy 20+ years of essentially free electricity. We don't know how long solar panels last, the oldest array has been going for over 30 years and has lost little output and had only a small percentage of its panels fail.

This is another way that individuals can do something rather than just worry and complain. You can do something good for yourself and for the planet.

And you will help bring down the cost of electricity for others. Germany, by having a lot of solar on their grid, is enjoying large drops in wholesale electricity prices on sunny days.

Timothy Chase

As people are talking solutions, I believe the following may be relevant...

No Breakthroughs Necessary: 95 Percent Renewable Energy Possible By 2050 (DeSmog Blog, Sat, 2012-09-15 06:00) by Ben Jervey

The open access tech paper is here:

Yvonne Y. Deng. Kornelis Blok, Kees van der Leun (September 2012) Transition to a fully sustainable global energy system, Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp. 109–121

Lewis Cleverdon

Can anyone explain how a voluntary drive for renewable energy actually changes our climate prospects ?

Thus far, with oil at around $100 and global coal and gas prices keeping pace, renewables aren't even covering the annual rise in fossil energy demand as a couple of billion people aspire to one fifth of US consumption rates. They do help somewhat to stop prices spiking, but the notion that they displace any fossil fuels is just seductive hype - any fossil fuels locally displaced are bought and burnt elsewhere.

The meme that the "free market" will boost renewables to a point where they're so cheap that we'll leave fossils in the ground is appealing, but it offers neither an economic rationale nor any plausible timeline remotely commensurate with the rate of destabilization of the climate and of the vast natural carbon banks in the arctic, the forests, and the soils.

To the extent that a drive for renewables has been gaining popular priority over that for a global climate treaty, it seems to me regressive and a diversion. Under the treaty, there is a declining ceiling on global annual CO2 emissions and a trade in national emissions entitlements, meaning that renewables are greatly boosted and the 'bought & burnt elsewhere' loophole is closed. Similarly, the equally crucial drive for energy efficiency no longer suffers from its present massive loophole of Jevon's Paradox. (Better coal fire-box efficiency raises profits - funds more steam engines - burns more coal).

To change our climate prospects the climate treaty is the starting point - without it neither renewables nor energy efficiency have any significant traction on the problem. Yet an emissions control treaty, however stringent, cannot of itself control the warming to which we're committed. Devi remarked blithely how :-
"More than 3 degrees will lead not only to very significant alterations to the climate but also the onset of positive feedback loops"
when in reality we are committed to:
0.8C realized
0.7C pipeline timelagged
0.6C phase-out emissions via a near-zero by 2050 treaty
2.1 loss-of-sulphate-parasol multiplier
4.41C of warming.

That multiplier is the median of Hansen's finding btw, so, if he's as right as he's tended to be, the final figure is +/- 0.6C

Given the pipeline timelag after the treaty ended emissions in 2050, we'd be looking at around 4.4C of warming by 2080, which allows around 70 years of intensifying warming for Devi's "onset" of those interactive mega-feedbacks.

The problem with this view is that at least 6 out of seven are already accelerating under just 0.8C of warming, and they didn't start yesterday:-
Rising water vapour had begun by 1940s;
cryosphere decline by 1950s;
microbial decay of peatbogs by 1960s;
rising permafrost melt by 1970s;
rising forest combustion by 1980s;
rising global soils desiccation by 1990s;
- and whats happened to methane hydrates in the 2000's is still "awaiting publication."

Our best efforts at emissions control give around seventy years of additional warming to empower those interactive feedbacks, when it looks from present events in the arctic as if we can't afford even seven years.

Both modes of Geo-E (Albedo Restoration AND Carbon Recovery) are patently required as the complements to the emissions control treaty for a commensurate response to change our climate prospects, but both could and likely would be done really badly if left to the motivations of corporate nationalism. And given their potential scope, we have to see to it that they're done very well indeed.

Which brings us back to the paramount importance of the treaty. Under its mandate, the R&D of Geo-E can be conducted under stringent scientific supervision that is answerable to all nations, and the loopholes gutting renewables and efficiency programs' effectiveness are closed and locked.

But in my view, without the treaty, we're going nowhere we want to end up, rather fast.

Given that this is a science forum, I'd be chuffed if people would apply scientific rigour to the analysis of the issues raised in this thread, because the longer we allow ourselves to be fooled into promoting the 'conventional wisdoms' (that just happen to suit the status-quo goal of postponing action rather well)
the less our chances of raising our climate prospects.

Seeking brevity may have made this comment sound a bit brusque - which was not my intention.


Bob Wallace

Timothy, to your papers let me add this classic

Jacobson and Delucchi's "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables"


Since they wrote their paper the route has become easier. Wind turbines have moved from roughly 35% capacity to 50% capacity as technology has improved. The number of turbines we would need to build has dropped. We've made significant progress with EVs and PHEVs.

Their concerns about lithium and rare earth minerals have dissipated. We've got plenty and we've got alternatives.

We know what we need to do and we know how to do it. What we have done so far has worked, both the US and the EU27 are witnessing lowering CO2 outputs. China is promising to peak by 2030 and I would expect them to peak earlier, they have met their other green goals ahead of schedule.

We need to speed things up in order to avoid the worst.


Bob W.

I certainly don't know what electricity generation trends look like but U.S. GDP peaked at $38,700 per capita in 2008. It bottomed out in 2010 at $36,650 per capita and has rebounded since. It is forecast to finish at $37,700 per capita in 2012, still 2.6% below its peak in 2008.

Bob Wallace

"Can anyone explain how a voluntary drive for renewable energy actually changes our climate prospects ?"

Sort of, sort of not. It depends on how long we have.

We've made incredible progress in bringing down the price of wind and solar over the last few years. Natural gas prices are most likely to move up some. We seem to have affordable battery storage coming.

If we weren't facing a deadline then we could sit back while the free market replaces fossil fuels with renewable and storage for electricity.

We've now got EVs that cost less to own and operate over a ten year ownership than would a $25,000 40MPG ICEV burning $4/gallon fuel.

We almost certainly will see ranges increase and costs drop. Within a few years we will likely be able to buy a perfectly adequate EV for the same price or less than an ICEV and drive that EV on "$1/gallon" gasoline.

At that point drivers will switch to buying EVs rather than ICEVs and we will get off oil.

The big question whether we can wait for market forces to act? I think that is just too dangerous. Look at the Arctic Ocean.

We need to push the change.


Looking at this graph from google:


I'd agree that the US GDP has grown all but one year.

That doesn't mean that the per capita has, but I'd assume that the per capita is not what's relevent to total energy use/electricity use/CO2 emissions.

Bob Wallace

Here's a graph that will let you compare US CO2 emissions, GDP, electricity generation, and total oil consumption on a percentage change from 2005. (Don't know how to get it to display on the page.)


CO2 and oil are down. Electricity slightly up. GDP well up.

Driving is down over the period only 2%, flying down 1.6%, oil use down 10%. Heating oil usage, I haven't yet found.

US population is up 5.3%, 2005 to 2011, less than GDP growth of 16.5%.


Telling the people is top of my list . It makes the rest possible but as well as a "New Manhattan Project" and geoengineering we need:

1) A high price on carbon emissions with a carbon tax to create jobs or Hansen's carbon fee.

2) New ways of living are necessary with less traveling by planes and there must be cars and no beef in our diets.

There is a huge environmental costs for conventional building construction. In York, I'm suggesting small wooden houses as a solution to housing and environment problems. Wooden houses store carbon.


On September 6th Bastardi predicted a jump in sea ice extent and ice rapidly growing back in 10 days.

Well, 10 days have passed and we see a further decline in sea ice extent. I guess Bastardi made a simple sign-error which seems common among septics, is it not Dr. Christy?


cynicus, Bastardi didn't make an error, he deliberately posted a map that only showed sea surface temps and cliamed it showed ice. The title of this thread is in error - Bastardi found no cherry. There is nothing wrong with the map from DMI/COI he used - it doesn't pretend to show sea ice at all. Every color is sea surface temps. What Bastardi did was tell a lie - over and over and over again.

Seke Rob

Hereto-forth to be known as Joe "Mendacious" Bastardi

cynicus' reference to the Christy sign error is a classic![:thumbs up smiley]


More Arctic deceit from the same camp?

(7th comment)


RobPMurphy, you're right, I was too kind and should have put 'error' between quotes or worse..

Thanks Seke! :wink:


"Climate Realists" are really digging their hole big today:

They are insisting that the sea surface chart shows ice, that the email I received from one of the researchers at the DMI/COI which shows the color on the map that is gray shows sea surface temps below -1.7C refers to the sea surface anomalies map, not the SST map. That's impossible when looking at the color schemes.


Such pig-headed obstinacy.

Bob Wallace

Dj, you're concerned about GDP per capita but the more important thing, seems to me, is that US population rose from 2005 to 2011 and CO2 emissions fell.

Bob Wallace

Geoff, I don't agree. We don't need a "New Manhattan Project" we need a "New Liberty Ships Project". We need to ramp up the installation of the technology we have rather than spend time trying to invent new technology.

Wind and solar work and they produce cheap/affordable electricity. We can use them right now to get 100% of the coal off our grids which would be the single biggest thing we could do to slow climate change.

We need to research geo-engineering because the wise ship's captain makes sure there's lifeboats.

We need all of the world's governments to put a thumb on the scale in favor of renewable energy and electric transportation.

Some of the European countries have been highly successful in getting renewables installed at rapid rates. Now they are enjoying cheaper electricity.

Seke Rob

How did they fall mostly... replace coal by shale gas burning [saw it in the long a go news days, oh boy], which bubble is going to burst within the decade.

Meanwhile, all lights in and around the house have been LEDified. Last few procured today at the most horrible furniture house called IKEA, who opened up a big store here, 45 minutes E-cycling, per the GPS, 65 meters above sea level. Smart move. The store starts on the 3rd floor as the first 3 levels are fossil fuel vehicle parking. Not a single docking station to charge an e- or hybride vehicle. Bluntly, enviro unfriendly, at the main motorway node of Chieti junction. Many prayers needed before daring to cycle across that spot.

It's an available statistic, that total energy used per capita has actually been dropping in the past 3 decades or so, but population growth has been outpacing this. Dutch speakers can find quite recently released figures on that for The Netherlands.

P.S. Was that inflation corrected GDP per capita?

L. Hamilton

I'm coming late to this thread but can offer something mildly new: the numbers.

On Aug 26, DMI's own measure of sea ice extent was 2.704 million km^2.

On Sep 13, the date on the temperature graph Bastardi cites, DMI's sea ice extent was 2.516 million km^2.

So Bastardi's "pretty big ice increase" was in reality a decrease of 188,000 square kilometers.

(Rob Murphy, you have saintly patience!)

L. Hamilton

In case anyone could use a graph to go with those numbers, here is DMI ice extent with Bastardi's Aug 26 and Sep 13 dates marked.


Wayne Kernochan

Thanks to all who have wrenched the alternative energy conversation back on a better path. I think I can add three things:

1. A very good overall picture of what's happening, I think, is the global and mauna loa measure of carbon ppm in the atmosphere. In the last three years, it seems to have neither slowed nor speeded its rise, now at about between 2 and 2.5 ppm per year. I anticipate the first mauna loa reading of 400 ppm may happen one day in May 2013. I am frankly surprised it hasn't speeded up further.

2. Joe Romm at climateprogress has, imho, a pretty good analysis of why the US decreases are not all they are cracked up to be, and do not indicate a substantial ongoing decrease in emissions. To that I'd only add that as a computer industry analyst I detect a shift in investment to "emerging countries" that often invests in less energy-efficient or more emissions-intensive technologies, and that is not captured by the way we divide up revenues between countries. Effectively, the US is outsourcing a significant part of its emissions to China and India -- which themselves (in India's case, despite their best efforts) are now pretty much the highest-emission-growth countries.

3. For those who are curious about initial thinking about housing and climate change, Joe Romm referenced an extensive study of what technologies regions of the US might consider to redo their housing as the climate changes over the next 40 years. It should be a source of ideas for all, not just in the US -- although I really hope more ideas come through in the next few years, as the document reads like a recipe for slow change of our present approach to housing.

Bob Wallace

If the reason why the US CO2 emissions are falling (be it so slightly) is outsourcing then why is CO2 falling when electricity generation is rising?

We've got a rising population, we're making more electricity, our GDP has been growing and our CO2 emissions are falling.

Our oil use is down, a bit less than half that drop due to less driving and less flying.

Our cars and airplanes are more efficient. We've added renewable energy to our grid and significantly cut our use of coal.

Is it so hard for people to admit that we might have started to get the problem in hand in the US and EU27? That at the very least we are not growing the problem any more?


Thanks for the graph, Larry. I'll update the post.

L. Hamilton

My post above linked to a graph that initially did not have the most recent date in its title, a detail now corrected (should say 9/17/2012):


Hans Verbeek

Neven, I stumbled upon another glitch in the matrix.
The data of Rutgers University Global Snow Lab shows the complete Greenland icecap melted on sep 13th.

I was relieved to see that all snow and ice had returned to Greenland next day

Seke Rob

I've got my doubts of Rutgers algo-logic v.v. the Greenland snow cover. They write on their site that anything thicker than 10 meters ice cover is considered snow covered, due to detection issues. If one looks at the time series anomalies chart for Greenland, visit


with the knowledge that the GIS has been shrinking, but I stand to be corrected on that, it is beyond me and more why the snow cover anomaly is reducing. Maybe GIS is spreading thinner at the edges... accelerating outwards. At least, I'm not settled on the matter, to add, that I have no issue with the observation that more snow is falling in the winter time... but anything fresh is coming off sooner and sooner, so is the Northern Hemisphere trend.


Cooking the books 101. Meteorology vs. Science.


Hi Neven,
I think you want to delete the ugly link in the post above (and then my post, too :-)

[Spam destroyed, gracias, N.]

The comments to this entry are closed.