Here's how it starts:
What will temperatures be like in your state in 100 years? If current trends continue,Current trends? Well, that begs the question--what is the current trend? What have temperatures done over the past 100 years in that area? For that we can turn to 'climate doyen' James Hansen's NASA GISS database, choosing two major stations with the longest periods of record in Kansas, both stretching back into the 1800s. Here's Wichita:
And here's Topeka:
Notice the trend at both sites. Temperatures were higher in the 1930s than they are now, and even though both sites have warmed some since 1980 neither have surpassed the early 20th century in any significant way despite a steady rise in CO2. So at least for those two stations the overall 100 year trend has been neutral. Yet the report says based on trends the temperatures will rise 10 degrees.
This is even more curious in light of a recent NOAA report that admitted global warming "holes" around the world--areas where the impact hasn't been felt much, for reasons unexplained--and lo and behold:
However, there is a "warming hole" where no change occurred in the center of the country, roughly between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, according to Martin Hoerling of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory.In other words, global warming is happening all over the world, except the plains, but plains residents should have full confidence this unexplained hole will disappear in due course because an outfit called the Nature Conservancy said so based on current trends. Interesting.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with conserving nature. At the same time using questionable science, subterfuge, deceptions, or outright lies to reach political goals (in order to develop the public 'will' for change) can easily nullify all the good deeds. They need to be very careful in how they present data lest they be seen as just another liberal advocacy group.
Of course the bigger question is whether this could have anything to do with the politics of cap and trade. The Huffpo admits there are some issues in the center of the country due to no observed weather changes (as NOAA admits) so what better way to sway those fly-over skeptic farmers by placing a temperature bullseye in their backyard, or rather, their south forty? Farmers are the biggest weather worriers in the world.
By the way, here's another non-climate outfit trumping climatic doom, this time for Cleveland. Hey, maybe it is a trend!
This CNN story about Bill Gates and geo-engineering hurricanes is interesting but contains a few distortions up front:
Gates and a dozen other scientists have raised eyebrows by submitting patent applications for a technology to reduce the danger of approaching hurricanes by cooling ocean temperatures."Other scientists"? At what point did Gates become a scientist?
It's a noble idea, given the horrible memories from Hurricane Katrina, which slammed into the Gulf Coast four years ago this week.The storm made landfall in Louisiana but most of the Category 3 damage was located in Mississippi, almost always forgotten. The New Orleans damage was largely a man-caused disaster--failure of levees. Perhaps Gates could use some of his loot for jacking New Orleans back over sea level and fortifying existing levee technology.
As to the concept itself, it doesn't sound quite as dangerous as messing around with the atmosphere since as the expert noted the hurricane will overturn the water anyway. The frightening thought is having world bodies in control of such decisions, which would almost surely be necessary to eliminate the finger pointing when things eventually go wrong.