Climate News Roundup

Climate change could diminish drinking water more than expected – Innovations Report. “As sea levels rise, coastal communities could lose up to 50 percent more of their fresh water supplies than previously thought, according to a new study from Ohio State University.” The problem–saltwater intrusion is more complicated than scientists first realized.

The Carbon CalculusNew York Times. A good overview of the economics of carbon pricing that is comprehensive without being too technical.

Climate change ‘could bring an end to globalisation’ – “Climate change could bring globalisation to an end by 2040, according to a new report from leading national security experts — with nations turning inwards to save resources as new climate-related conflicts arise.” The article notes: “The Age of Consequences” report, produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in the US, predicts that scarcity of resources may “dictate the terms of international relations” for years to come as rich countries could “go through a 30-year process of kicking [the poor] away from the lifeboat”. More coverage of the CSIS report can be found on Climate Progress earlier this week.

8 Responses to Climate News Roundup

  1. Ron says:

    Here’s this week’s skeptic post –

    By John Coleman, meteorologist, founder of the Weather Channel

    It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

    Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

    I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

    I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

    In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. See John’s full blog story here.

  2. Jay Alt says:

    Joe could pay more attention to statements on climate issued by the American Meteorological Society instead of science fiction novels.

  3. Jay Alt says:

    I notice his name is John Coleman, not Joe. The observation also applies to Joe D’Aleo.

    I am surprised that models of brackish water intrusion haven’t been done before. Someone should know whether or it currently intrudes inland beyond the sea edge, check the wells.

  4. David B. Benson says:

    Jay Alt — The lower one drills, the further the brackish water intrudes inland.

  5. Ronald says:


    The post of John Coleman carries some glaring errors.

    He writes that global warming is about science. Then he writes this is about the science of meteorology. It is not. It is about the science of climatology. They are related, but not the same at all.

    Then he goes about writing about the politics of global warming in the United States and not the science. He says he has read a lot about the subject, but nothing he has written would give a clue as to what in the science gives him his conclusion. He does write a lot about the politics and maybe that’s what he means when he says he’s read a lot about it, but we can’t know from what he wrote.

    This is not a good post for the deniers. You like it because for you the politics is right, but if the author says it’s about the science, then he should write about the science and not the politics.

  6. Ron says:

    This article belongs in a discussion of wildfires, but interesting news nonetheless –

    The gist is that at least one expert is pointing more to the past century’s fire suppression policies, than global-warming-caused drought as the reason behind wildfires.

    The meeting in the article took place in California, but Arizona has had its share of horrendous fires the past few years. Personally, I’m pretty familiar with Arizona. I’ve viewed many photographs and read many accounts of what the forests of AZ looked like 100+ years ago. It was a very different picture.

    Back in the day, the forests weren’t choked with brush and piled high with dead leaves and pine needles; they were carpeted by lush grass that supported large herds of deer and elk. What has caused the change? Is it increasing drought caused by global warming? I have to say no.

    For thousands of years the Native Americans of the area managed the forests in their own way, very different from the way we manage them nowadays. No, they were not just happy pagans dancing through life; they actually MANAGED the land.

    Of course, they didn’t have fire departments, so they had little choice but to let lightning-caused fires burn, but they also set fires when they didn’t occur naturally. The result was an ecosystem that supported a lot more wildlife and one in which huge, destructive fires never happened. The fires cleared out brush and unhealthy trees, fertilized the soil, and helped control pests like bark beetles. A similar approach was taken by the Plains tribes who routinely burned large tracts of grasslands to help promote the bison herds.

    I don’t pretend to know the all the answers for our troubles these days. Human encroachment into the forests often requires super-human efforts to save threatened homes. And I don’t know what the effect would be on AGW (if it exists) of all that brush land regularly burning; but I’m just trying to make two points: 1) it’s a stretch to blame rising temperatures for increased destructive fires, and 2) despite the dogma of the new religion of environmentalism, Man has been an integral part of the ecosystem for, well, forever.

    Maybe the burning of fossil fuels could be viewed as an integral part of the ecosystem, as well, if we pondered it from a Lovelockian point of view.

  7. Ron says:

    Hey Joe,

    Would it be possible to add a feature to this blog? How about a little check-box to be notified by email when there is a reply to a thread we’ve posted in? Might make the discussions more efficient.

  8. Joe says:

    Some blogs have an RSS feed for comments. I may look into that. Getting changes implemented in the blog is, however, a very slow process….