Conflicts and Operations by INDIAN ARMY

First Kashmir War (1947)

Almost immediately after independence, tensions between India and Pakistan began to boil over, and the first of three full-scale wars between the two nations broke out over the then princely state of Kashmir. Upon the Maharaja of Kashmir's reluctance to accede to either India or Pakistan, 'tribal' invasion of parts of Kashmir.^[9] The men included Pakistan army regulars. Soon after, Pakistan sent in more of its troops to annex the State. The Maharaja, Hari Singh, appealed to India, and to Lord Mountbatten of Burma, the Governor General, for help. He signed the Instrument of Accession and Kashmir acceded to India (a decision ratified by Britain). Immediately after, Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar and repelled the invaders.^[9] This contingent included General Thimayya who distinguished himself in the operation and in years that followed, became a Chief of the Indian Army. An intense war was waged across the state and former comrades found themselves fighting each other. Both sides made some territorial gains and also suffered significant losses.
An uneasy UN sponsored peace returned by the end of 1948 with Indian and Pakistani soldiers facing each other directly on the Line of Control, which has since divided Indian-held Kashmir from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Tensions between India and Pakistan, largely over Kashmir, have never since been entirely eliminated.

Inclusion of Hyderabad (1948)

Main article: Operation Polo

After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.

Liberation of Goa, Daman and Diu (1961)

Main article: Portuguese-Indian War

Even though the British and French vacated all their colonial possessions in the Indian subcontinent, Portugal refused to relinquish control of its Indian colonies of Goa, Daman and Diu. After repeated attempts by India to negotiate with Portugal for the return of its territory were spurned by Portuguese prime minister and dictator, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, India launched Operation Vijay on 12 December 1961 to evict the Portuguese. A small contingent of its troops entered Goa, Daman and Diu to liberate and secure the territory. After a brief conflict, in which 31 Portuguese soldiers were killed, the Portuguese Navy frigate NRP Afonso de Albuquerque destroyed, and over 3000 Portuguese captured, Portuguese General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva surrendered to the Indian Army, after twenty-six hours and Goa, Daman and Diu joined the Indian Union.

Sino-Indian Conflict (1962)

Main article: Sino-Indian War

The cause of the war was a dispute over the sovereignty of the widely-separated Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh border regions. Aksai Chin, claimed by India to belong to Kashmir and by China to be part of Xinjiang, contains an important road link that connects the Chinese regions of Tibet and Xinjiang. China's construction of this road was one of the triggers of the conflict.
Small-scale clashes between the Indian and Chinese forces broke out as India insisted on the disputed McMahon Line being regarded as the international border between the two countries. Despite sustaining losses, Chinese troops claim to have not retaliated to the cross-border firing by Indian troops.^[10] China's suspicion of India's involvement in Tibet created more rifts between the two countries.^[11]
In 1962, the Indian Army was ordered to move to the Thag La ridge located near the border between Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh and about three miles (5 km) north of the disputed McMahon Line. Meanwhile, Chinese troops too had made incursions into Indian-held territory and tensions between the two reached a new high when Indian forces discovered a road constructed by China in Aksai Chin. After a series of failed negotiations, the People's Liberation Army attacked Indian Army positions at the Thag La ridge. This move by China caught India by surprise and by 12 October, Nehru gave orders for the Chinese to be expelled from Aksai Chin. However, poor coordination among various divisions of the Indian Army and the late decision to mobilize the Indian Air Force in vast numbers gave China a crucial tactical and strategic advantage over India. On 20 October, Chinese soldiers attacked India in both the North-West and North-Eastern parts of the border and captured vast portions of Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh.
As the fighting moved beyond disputed territories, China called on the Indian government to negotiate, however India remained determined to regain lost territory. With no peaceful agreement in sight, China unilaterally withdrew its forces from Arunachal Pradesh. The reasons for the withdrawal are disputed with India claiming various logistical problems for China and diplomatic support to it from the United States, while China stated that it still held territory that it had staked diplomatic claim upon. The dividing line between the Indian and Chinese forces was christened the Line of Actual Control.
The poor decisions made by India's military commanders, and, indeed, its political leadership, raised several questions. The Henderson-Brooks & Bhagat committee was soon set up by the Government of India to determine the causes of the poor performance of the Indian Army. The report of China even after hostilities began and also criticized the decision to not allow the Indian Air Force to target Chinese transport lines out of fear of Chinese aerial counter-attack on Indian civilian areas. Much of the blame was also targeted at the incompetence of then Defence Minister, Krishna Menon who resigned from his post soon after the war ended. Despite frequent calls for its release, the Henderson-Brooks report still remains classified.^[12]Neville Maxwell has written an account of the war.^[13]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

Tanks of 18th Cavalry of the Indian Army take charge at Pakistani positions during the 1965 war.

A second confrontation with Pakistan took place in 1965, largely over Kashmir. Pakistani President Ayub Khan launched Operation Gibraltar in August 1965 during which several Pakistani paramilitary troops infiltrated into Indian-administered Kashmir and attempt to ignite an anti-India agitation in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani leaders believed that India, which was still recovering from the disastrous Sino-Indian War, would be unable to deal with a military thrust and a Kashmiri rebellion. However, the operation was a major failure since the Kashmiri people showed little support for such a rebellion and India quickly moved forces to drive the infiltrators out. Within a fortnight of the launch of the Indian counter-attack, most of the infiltrators had retreated back to Pakistan. Battered by the failure of Operation Gibraltar and expecting a major invasion by Indian forces across the border, Pakistan launched Operation Grand Slam on 1 September, invading India's Chamb-Jaurian sector. In retaliation, the India's Army launched major offensive throughout its border with Pakistan, with Lahore as its prime target. Though the Indian Army's break through of the final phases of Pakistani defence was considerably delayed due to logistical issues, the conflict was largely seen as a debacle for the Pakistani Army.^[14]
Initially, the Indian Army met with considerable success in the northern sector. After launching prolonged artillery barrages against Pakistan, India was able to capture three important mountain positions in Kashmir. By 9 September, the Indian Army had made considerable in-roads into Pakistan. India had its largest haul of Pakistani tanks when the offensive of Pakistan's 1 Armoured Division was blunted at the Battle of Asal Uttar which took place on 10 September near Khemkaran. Six Pakistani Armoured Regiments took part in the battle against three Indian Armoured Regiments with inferior tanks. By the time the battle had ended, the 4th Indian Division had captured about 97 Pakistani tanks in either destroyed, or damaged, or in intact condition. This included 72 Patton tanks and 25 Chafees and Shermans. 32 of the 97 tanks, including 28 Pattons, were in running condition.^[15] In comparison, the Indians lost only 32 tanks at Khemkaran-Bhikkiwind. About fifteen of them were captured by the Pakistan Army, mostly Sherman tanks. Pakistan's overwhelming defeat at the decisive battle of Assal Uttar hastened the end of the conflict.^[16]
At the time of ceasefire declaration, India reported casualties of about 3,000 were killed. On the other hand, it was estimated that about 3,800 Pakistani soldiers were killed in the battle, 9,000 were wounded and about 2,000 were taken as prisoners of war.^[17][18][19] About 300 Pakistani tanks were either destroyed or captured by India and an additional 150 were permanently put out of service. India lost a total of 190 tanks during the conflict and about 100 more had to undergo repair.^[16] In all, India lost about half as many tanks as Pakistan lost during the war.^[20] Given India's advantageous position at the end of the war, the decision to return back to pre-war positions, following the Tashkent Declaration, caused an outcry among the polity in New Delhi. It was widely believed that India's decision to accept the ceasefire was due to political factors, and not military, since it was facing considerable pressure from the United States and the UN to stop hostilities.^[21]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

See also: Battle of Longewala, Battle of Hilli, and Battle of Basantar

An independence movement broke out in East Pakistan which was brutally crushed by Pakistani forces. Due to large-scale atrocities against them, thousands of Bengalis took refuge in neighboring India causing a major refugee crisis there. In early 1971, India declared its full-support for the Bengali rebels, known as Mukti Bahini, and Indian agents were extensively involved in covert operations to aid them.
On 20 November 1971, Indian Army moved the 14 Punjab Battalion and 45 Cavalry into Garibpur, a strategically important town near India's border with East Pakistan, and successfully captured it. The following day, more clashes took place between Indian and Pakistani forces. Wary of India's growing involvement in the Bengali rebellion, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on 10 Indian air bases at Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Agra, Adampur, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Uttarlai and Sirsa at 1745 hours on 3 December. This aerial offensive, however, failed to accomplish its stated objectives and gave India its excuse to declare a full-scale war against Pakistan the same day. By midnight, the Indian Army, accompanied by Indian Air Force, launched a major three-pronged assault into East Pakistan. The Indian Army won several battles on the eastern front including the decisive of battle of Hilli, which was the only front where the Pakistani Army was able to buildup considerable resistance. The operation also included a battalion-level airborne operation on Tangail which resulted in teh capitulation of all resistance within five days.^[22] India's massive early gains was largely attributed to the speed and flexibility with which Indian armored divisions moved across East Pakistan.^[23]

Indian Army personnel celebrate victory at the end Battle of Basantar on top of a knocked out Pakistani Patton tank.

Pakistan launched a counter-attack against India on the western front. On 4 December 1971, the A company of the 23rd Battalion of India's Punjab Regiment detected and intercepted the movement of the 51st Infantry Brigade of the Pakistani Army near Ramgarh, Rajasthan. The battle of Longewala ensued during which the A company, though being outnumbered, thwarted the Pakistani advance until the Indian Air Force directed its fighters to engage the Pakistani tanks. By the time the battle had ended, 34 Pakistani tanks and 50 armored vehicles were either destroyed or abandoned. About 200 Pakistani troops were killed in action during the battle while only 2 Indian soldiers lost their lives. Pakistan suffered another major defeat on the western front during the battle of Basantar which was fought from 4 December to 16th. By the end of the battle, about 66 Pakistani tanks were destroyed and 40 more were captured. In return, Pakistani forces were able to destroy only 11 Indian tanks. None of the numerous Pakistani offensives on the Western front materialized.^[24] By 16 December, Pakistan had lost sizable territory on both eastern and western fronts.
Under the command of Lt. General J.S Arora, the three corps of the Indian Army, which had invaded East Pakistan, entered Dhaka and forced Pakistani forces to surrender on 16 December 1971, one day after the conclusion of the battle of Basantar. After Pakistan's Lt. General A.A.K. Niazi signed the Instrument of Surrender, India took more than 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war. At the time of the signing of the Instrument of Surrender, 9,000 Pakistani soldiers were killed-in-action while India suffered only 2,500 battle-related deaths.^[18] In addition, Pakistan lost 200 tanks during the battle compared to India's 80.^[25]
In 1972, the Simla Agreement was signed between the two countries and tensions simmered. However, there were occasional spurts in diplomatic tensions which culminated into increased military vigilance on both sides.

Siachen conflict (1984)

Main article: Siachen conflict

The Siachen Glacier, though a part of the Kashmir region, was not officially demarcated on maps prepared and exchanged between the two sides in 1947. As a consequence, prior to the 1980s, neither India nor Pakistan maintained any permanent military presence in the region. However, Pakistan began conducting and allowing a series of mountaineering expeditions to the glacier beginning in the 1950s. By early 1980s, the government of Pakistan was granting special expedition permits to mountaineers and United States Army maps deliberately showed Siachen as a part of Pakistan. This practice gave rise to the contemporary meaning of the term oropolitics.
India, possibly irked by these developments, launched Operation Meghdoot in April 1984. The entire Kumaon Regiment of the Indian Army was airlifted to the glacier. Pakistani forces responded quickly and clashes between the two followed. Indian Army secured the strategic Sia La and Bilafond La mountain passes and by 1985, more than 1,000 square miles (2,600 km²) of territory, 'claimed' by Pakistan, was under Indian control.^[26] The Indian Army continues to control all of the Siachen Glacier and its tributary glaciers. Pakistan made several unsuccessful attempts to regain control over Siachen. In late 1987, Pakistan mobilized about 8,000 troops and garrisoned them near Khapalu, aiming to capture Bilafond La.^[27] However, they were repulsed by Indian Army personnel guarding Bilafond. During the battle, about 23 Indian soldiers lost their lives while more than 150 Pakistani troops perished.^[28] Further unsuccessful attempts to reclaim positions were launched by Pakistan in 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1999, most notably in Kargil that year.
India continues to maintain a strong military presence in the region despite extremely inhospitable conditions. The conflict over Siachen is regularly cited as an example of mountain warfare.^[29] The highest peak in the Siachen glacier region, Saltoro Kangri, could be viewed as strategically important for India because of its immense altitude which could enable the Indian forces to monitor some Pakistani or Chinese movements in the immediate area.^[30] Maintaining control over Siachen poses several logistical challenges for the Indian Army. Several infrastructure projects were constructed in the region, including a helipad 21,000 feet (6,400 m) above the sea level.^[31] In 2004, Indian Army was spending an estimated US$2 million a day to support its personnel stationed in the region.^[32]

Counter-insurgency activities

The Indian Army has played a crucial role in the past, fighting insurgents and terrorists within the nation. The army launched Operation Bluestar and Operation Woodrose in the 1980s to combat Sikh insurgents. The army, along with some paramilitary forces, has the prime responsibility of maintaining law and order in the troubled Jammu and Kashmir region. The Indian Army also sent a contingent to Sri Lanka in 1987 as a part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force.

Kargil conflict (1999)

Main article: Kargil War

Map describing Kargil war.

In 1998, India carried out nuclear tests and a few days later, Pakistan responded by more nuclear tests giving both countries nuclear deterrence capability. Diplomatic tensions eased after the Lahore Summit was held in 1999. The sense of optimism was short-lived, however, since in mid-1999 Pakistani paramilitary forces and Kashmiri insurgents captured deserted, but strategic, Himalayan heights in the Kargil district of India. These had been vacated by the Indian army during the onset of the inhospitable winter and were supposed to reoccupied in spring. The regular Pakistani troops who took control of these areas received important support, both in the form of arms and supplies, from Pakistan. Some of the heights under their control, which also included the Tiger Hill, overlooked the vital Srinagar-Leh Highway (NH 1A), Batalik and Dras.
Once the scale of the Pakistani incursion was realized, the Indian Army quickly mobilized about 200,000 troops and Operation Vijay was launched. However, since the heights were under Pakistani control, India was in a clear strategic disadvantage. From their observation posts, the Pakistani forces had a clear line-of-sight to lay down indirect artillery fire on NH 1A, inflicting heavy casualties on the Indians.^[33] This was a serious problem for the Indian Army as the highway was its main logistical and supply route.^[34] Thus, the Indian Army's first priority was to recapture peaks that were in the immediate vicinity of NH1a. This resulted in Indian troops first targeting the Tiger Hill and Tololing complex in Dras.^[35] This was soon followed by more attacks on the Batalik-Turtok sub-sector which provided access to Siachen Glacier. Point 4590, which had the nearest view of the NH1a, was successfully recaptured by Indian forces on 14 June.^[36]
Though most of the posts in the vicinity of the highway were cleared by mid-June, some parts of the highway near Drass witnessed sporadic shelling until the end of the war. Once NH1a area was cleared, the Indian Army turned to driving the invading force back across the Line of Control. The Battle of Tololing, among other assaults, slowly tilted the combat in India's favor. Nevertheless, some of the posts put up a stiff resistance, including Tiger Hill (Point 5140) that fell only later in the war. As the operation was fully underway, about 250 artillery guns were brought in to clear the infiltrators in the posts that were in the line-of-sight. In many vital points, neither artillery nor air power could dislodge the outposts manned by the Pakistan soldiers, who were out of visible range. The Indian Army mounted some direct frontal ground assaults which were slow and took a heavy toll given the steep ascent that had to be made on peaks as high as 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Two months into the conflict, Indian troops had slowly retaken most of the ridges they had lost;^[37][38] according to official count, an estimated 75%–80% of the intruded area and nearly all high ground was back under Indian control.
Following the Washington accord on 4 July, where Sharif agreed to withdraw Pakistani troops, most of the fighting came to a gradual halt, but some Pakistani forces remained in positions on the Indian side of the LOC. In addition, the United Jihad Council (an umbrella for all extremist groups) rejected Pakistan's plan for a climb-down, instead deciding to fight on.^[39] The Indian Army launched its final attacks in the last week of July; as soon as the Drass subsector had been cleared of Pakistani forces, the fighting ceased on 26 July. The day has since been marked as Kargil Vijay Diwas (Kargil Victory Day) in India. By the end of the war, India had resumed control of all territory south and east of the Line of Control, as was established in July 1972 per the Shimla Accord. By the time all hostilities had ended, the number of Indian soldiers killed during the conflict stood at 527.^[40] while more than 700 regular members of the Pakistani army were killed.^[41] The number of Islamist fighters, also known as Mujahideen, killed by Indian Armed Forces during the conflict stood at about 3,000.^[42]

History fast facts

The 16th century Escorial palace of King Phillip II of Spain had 1,200 doors.
The world’s first travel agencies were Cox & Kings, founded in 1758, and Thomas Cook, founded in 1850.
A dog was the first in space and a sheep, a duck and a rooster the first to fly in a hot air balloon.
Music was sent down a telephone line for the first time in 1876, the year the phone was invented.
Beer was the first trademarked product – British beer Bass Pale Ale received its trademark in 1876.
Playing-cards were known in Persia and India as far back as the 12th century. A pack then consisted of 48 instead of 52 cards.
Excavations from Egyptian tombs dating to 5,000 BC show that the ancient Egyptian kids played with toy hedgehogs.
Accounts from Holland and Spain suggest that during the 1500s and 1600s urine was commonly used as a tooth-cleaning agent.
Julius Caesar was the first to encode communications, using what has become known as the Caesar Cipher.
The first mention of soap was on Sumerian clay tablets dating about 2,500 BC. The soap was made of water, alkali and cassia oil.
The first animal in space was the female Samoyed husky named Laika, launched by the Soviets in 1957.
In 1958, the US sent two mice called Laska and Benjy into space.
In 1961. the US launched a male chimpanzee called Ham into space.
In 1963, the French launched a cat called Feliette into space.
Great Britain was the first county to issue postage stamps, on 1 May 1840. Hence, UK stamps are the only stamps in the world not to bear the name of the country of origin.
Napoleon‘s christening name was Italian: Napoleone Buonaparte. He was born on the island of Corsica one year after it became French property. As a boy, Napoleon hated the French.
John Rolfe married Pocahontas the Red Indian Princess in 1613.
Only one of the Seven Wonders of the World still survives: the Great Pyramid of Giza.
The first parachute jump from an airplane was made by Captain Berry at St. Louis, Missouri, in 1912.
On 21 June 1913, over Los Angeles, Georgia Broadwick became the first women to parachute from an airplane.
The first written account of the Loch Ness Monster, or Nessie, was made in 565AD.
The world’s first skyscraper was the 10-storey Home Insurance office, built in Chicago in 1885. (During Roman times buildings were up to 8 stories high.)

A journey to the miraculous and secret world of animals.

Every creature, as the art of the God, keep secrets and miracles inside it. We, as human, are the only creature who has an ability to thinking. Various animal kinds have different features to survive in wild nature. Some of them are discovered by scientists in the history. However, I believe there are many secrets of animals which have not been discovered yet. I have been researching on animals and noting whatever I’ve found interesting. After years, I’ve discovered many secrets of them which you don’t know yet.This is a great list of amazing facts of animals.
1. Dolphins sleep with one eye open

2. Crocodiles are blind in the water but very keen of sight in the air.
3. Crocodiles are color-blind.

4. Owls are the only bird that can see the color blue.

5. Unlike all other insects, flies have five eyes. They have two large eyes and three smaller eyes between them.

6. Snails have four noses.

7. Giraffes have no vocal chords

8. The tongues of chameleons are as long as it’s body or even longer. Some chameleon types have a tongue longer than two times of it’s body. 9. The tongues of chameleons are faster than a fighter jet.
10. The eyes of ostrich’s are bigger than their brains.

11. An ant can lift fifty times of it’s own weight
.
12. A cockroach can survive without it’s head for nine days. At the end of nine day, it dies because of hunger.

13. A tarantula can survive for more than two years without food.

Planet Formation in Action? Astronomers May Have Found First Object Clearing Its Path in Natal Disc Surrounding a Young Star

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2011) — Using ESO's Very Large Telescope an international team of astronomers has been able to study the short-lived disc of material around a young star that is in the early stages of making a planetary system. For the first time a smaller companion could be detected that may be the cause of the large gap found in the disc. Future observations will determine whether this companion is a planet or a brown dwarf.

---

Planets form from the discs of material around young stars, but the transition from dust disc to planetary system is rapid and few objects are caught during this phase [1]. One such object is T Chamaeleontis (T Cha), a faint star in the small southern constellation of Chamaeleon that is comparable to the Sun, but very near the beginning of its life [2]. T Cha lies about 350 light-years from Earth and is only about seven million years old. Up to now no forming planets have been found in these transitional discs, although planets in more mature discs have been seen before.
"Earlier studies had shown that T Cha was an excellent target for studying how planetary systems form," notes Johan Olofsson (Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany), one of the lead authors of two papers in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics that describe the new work. "But this star is quite distant and the full power of the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) was needed to resolve very fine details and see what is going on in the dust disc."
The astronomers first observed T Cha using the AMBER instrument and the VLT Interferometer (VLTI) [3]. They found that some of the disc material formed a narrow dusty ring only about 20 million kilometres from the star. Beyond this inner disc, they found a region devoid of dust with the outer part of the disc stretching out into regions beyond about 1.1 billion kilometres from the star.
Nuria Huélamo (Centro de Astrobiología, ESAC, Spain), the lead author of the second paper takes up the story: "For us the gap in the dust disc around T Cha was a smoking gun, and we asked ourselves: could we be witnessing a companion digging a gap inside its protoplanetary disc?"
However, finding a faint companion so close to a bright star is a huge challenge and the team had to use the VLT instrument NACO in a novel and powerful way, called sparse aperture masking, to reach their goal [4]. After careful analysis they found the clear signature of an object located within the gap in the dust disc, about one billion kilometres from the star -- slightly further out than Jupiter is within our Solar System and close to the outer edge of the gap. This is the first detection of an object much smaller than a star within a gap in the planet-forming dust disc around a young star. The evidence suggests that the companion object cannot be a normal star [5] but it could be either a brown dwarf [6] surrounded by dust or, most excitingly, a recently formed planet.
Huélamo concludes: "This is a remarkable joint study that combines two different state-of-the-art instruments at ESO's Paranal Observatory. Future observations will allow us to find out more about the companion and the disc, and also understand what fuels the inner dusty disc."
Notes
[1] The transitional discs can be spotted because they give off less radiation at mid-infrared wavelengths. The clearing of the dust close to the star and the creation of gaps and holes can explain this missing radiation. Recently formed planets may have created these gaps, although there are also other possibilities.
[2] T Cha is a T Tauri star, a very young star that is still contracting towards the main sequence.
[3] The astronomers used the AMBER instrument (Astronomical Multi-BEam combineR) and the VLTI to combine the light from all four of the 8.2-metre VLT Unit Telescopes and create a "virtual telescope" 130 metres across.
[4] NACO (or NAOS-CONICA in full) is an adaptive optics instrument attached to ESO's Very Large Telescope. Thanks to adaptive optics, astronomers can remove most of the blurring effect of the atmosphere and obtain very sharp images. The team used NACO in a novel way, called sparse aperture masking (SAM) to search for the companion. This is a type of interferometry that, rather than combining the light from multiple telescopes as the VLTI does, uses different parts of the mirror of a single telescope (in this case, the mirror of the VLT Unit Telescope 4). This new technique is particularly good for finding faint objects very close to bright ones. VLTI/AMBER is better suited to studying the structure of the inner disc and is less sensitive to the presence of a distant companion.
[5] The astronomers searched for the companion using NACO in two different spectral bands -- at around 2.2 microns and at 3.8 microns. The companion is only seen at the longer wavelength, which means that the object is either cool, like a planet, or a dust-shrouded brown dwarf.
[6] Brown dwarfs are objects between stars and planets in size. They are not massive enough to fuse hydrogen in their cores but are larger than giant planets such as Jupiter.

enlarge

This artist's impression shows the disc around the young star T Cha. Using ESO's Very Large Telescope this disc has been found to be in two parts, a narrow ring close to the star and the remainder of the disc material much further out. A companion object, seen in the foreground, has been detected in the gap in the disc that may be either a brown dwarf or a large planet. The inner dust disc is lost in the glare of the star on this picture. (Credit: ESO/L. Calçada)

ANIMAL FACTS

There are presently over a million animal species upon planet earth.

The reptiles have 6,000 species crawling in their habitats; and more are discovered each year.

There are over 70,000 types of spiders spinning their webs in the world.

Well, there are 3,000 kinds of lice. Yes, it is the lice we are prone to get due to lack of hair hygiene.

This is a mind-boggling fact – for each of the 600 million people there is about 200 million insects crawling, flying...

Mammals are the only creatures that have flaps around their ears.

The world has approximately one billion cattle, of which about 200 million belong to India.

The life of a housefly is only 14 days.

A dog was the first animal to up in space.

A sheep, a duck and a rooster were the first animals to fly in a hot air balloon. The oldest breed of a dog known to mankind is the ‘Saluki’.

An ostrich is the fastest bird and can run up to 70 km/h.

Never get a camel angry, for he or she will spit at you.

There are crabs that are the size of a pea. There are known as ‘Pea Crabs’.

The lifespan of 75 percent of wild birds is 6 months.

Denmark has twice as many pigs as there are people.

You do not need cotton buds to clean a giraffe ears. It can do so with its own 50cm-tongue.

Want to known the appetite of a South American Giant Anteater? Well it eats over 30,000 ants, per day.

The sailfish can swim at the speed of 109 km/h, making it the fastest swimmer.

The Sea Horse is the slowest fish, drifting at approximately 0.016 km/h.

The small car on the road is probably the size of the heart of a blue whale.

The length of an elephant is the same as the tongue of a blue whale.

The crocodile's tongue is unmovable, as it is attached to the roof of its mouth.

The Global Warming Debate - The Facts

Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An increasing number believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable from the noise in the environmenal data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted for such things as urban heat island effects (are the city temps warmer than the suburbs where you live? Has the city grown since 1850? Have the runways increased near the temp gage at your airport since 1920?), and instrument calibration. This is particularly true of the global data set, even though "urbanization has caused regional increases in temperature that exceed those measured on a global scale, leading to urban heat islands as much as 12°C hotter than their surroundings". Most scientists agree that warming is better than cooling and many believe CO2 provides important enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while also believing we should not be fouling our nest.
Our site makes every effort to present the true science of climate change. When the news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, the same source (U. of Illinois) reported the Antarctic at its record high, but this was not reported in the media. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press, we have created a companion site that presents the evidence for global cooling, just as most newspapers and alarmists present only the science that supports warming. There are many reasons to be cautious about accepting CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. They claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. The soot may well explain much of the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.
It is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than today, for example, in the time of the dinosaurs (the mid-cretaceous period) when the CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More recently, in the prior period between ice ages, just 125,000 years ago, the Earth also was much warmer than today and the sea level much higher - by about 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) (IPCC). The primary driver of the past climate shifts is believed to be orbital mechanics and solar variability, with some contribution from Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions. It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent (3%) of the total amount and that the total is very small - there is 23.6 times more argon (0.009) in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.00038). The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years" (a seminal study). Lastly, we know that the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable. In a first attempt (Hadley-chart) to use a CO2 - based model to predict temperatures, the results are not impressive at all and are exactly opposite observations.
The cause of the temperature rise, and therefore the future course, is settled only within the consensus group of scientists. This is based on work of computer modelers, believing their increasingly complex models show the cause is due to man's activities and that there will be increasing temperatures according to how much additional greenhouse gases are emitted. There are many other scientists who are non-modelers, many with backgrounds as atmospheric physicists, climatologists, engineers, meteorologists, and paleo-climatologists, who do not believe the primary cause is mankind, although this could be part of it. These scientists and the people who follow them are often called climate change skeptics. Most of these scientists believe that the sun is at the root of the warming (if any), but that other factors are also at work. To help separate fact from fiction, an explanation of these thoughts is included here, along with links to these materials.
The Hadley prediction chart and the observation chart below are from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which is well respected for its historical databases maintained at the global level, and which are used in IPCC assessments. See the Hadley composite charts for 1860 to present by month, year and quarter by hemisphere. Note that "global" warming is greatest in the Northern hemisphere. Links to similar charts, but all slightly different with different assumptions or algorithms to fill in missing or sparse data, are provided in the left margin. The Japan Met. Agency (JMA) site is recommended because it is interactive and allows you to query the data base. For example, go to the JMA site and try different months, such as August and September. This will confirm the IPCC models that predict more warming will occur during the winter months than the summer. We don't know if this true.

This chart looks ominous until put into the context that the average temperature for 1901-2000 is 13.9C (57.0F), so we are talking about a change from about 13.5 to 14.3 C or 56.3 to 57. 7 F. Scientifically, we should use absolute temperatures, which would add an additional 273 C (460 F) degrees. In this context the increase is about 0.3 % Note on the chart that this premier data set puts the observed global warming at 0.42 deg. C (0.8 deg F) above the mean. As seen below, this increase since the mid 1800s is similar to that since the year 1000, although IPCC says the present temperature is likely higher. Greenland ice cores indicate that the start of the instrumented data (thermometers) coincides with a cold period in the northern hemisphere and that at the site of a well-studied ice core (Global Cooling-Doomsday Called Off), the temperature in the mid 1800s was the coldest in 8,000 years.

For the USA, the trend is less pronounced. Three of the 5 warmest years occurred about 80 years ago. NOAA/NCDC revised data on May 1, 2007 and NASA did so in August 2007. Per NOAA: This new data set uses mostly rural data and algorithms are used to identify and correct extraneous factors such as urban heat island effects.NOAA: "U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record."  Comment: The use of this data set has dropped the temperature increase to 1.0 deg. F (.56 C) from the "improved data set of 2005" which had yielded a rise of 1.12 F. NOAA also says: The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2006 was +0.54°C (+0.97°F) above average. But in the most recent data NOAA NCDC: "For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for October was 54.5°F (12.5°C), which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean, and ranked as the 44th coolest October on record, based on preliminary data." The NASA GISS chart of US data is shown. Our view: It is not clear this is worth getting excited about, given that the benefits of warming likely exceed the detriments and that this rise may be a data artifact, or a mostly natural variation. Many recent years are below 1900 and all are below 3 years of the 1920s and 30S. We believe if the global data set, which is not disclosed to enable peer review, were given equal scrutiny to the US set, global warming would either vanish or be barely detectable. Russian Academicians believe major cooling is imminent. The January 2009 PRAVDA ice-age article is likely vetted by them and the IPCC co-chair.

As the number of stations (often rural) has fallen the temperature has risen in an inverse relationship, suggesting the Urban Heat Island effect is the key component of any rise.

Global Warming?: Time for a Reality Check?

In the prior inter-glacial period about 125,000 years ago, there was no summer ice at the North Pole and the sea level was 15 feet (5m) higher than today. Is this going to happen anyway? Is our temperature just naturally rising and if our own CO2 is helping it along, won't temperature still rise, even when we stop breathing out CO2?
IPCC 2007 reports the prior inter-glacial warmth was driven by orbital mechanics that are not present today. Nevertheless, this prior warmth tells us much about what the true impacts will likely be because nearly all the plant and animal species on Earth now were present then also.
Resource alarmists believe we will soon run out of fossil fuels. As soon as this happens, it seems, prices will rise and the CO2 problem will simply go away as plants clear out the CO2, that seems to be getting ahead of their ability to remove it. For reason to prevail, as depicted in the GCMs (Global Circulation (or Climate) Models), somebody must know of magnificent petroleum reserves hidden from the prophets of doom. Different parts of certain NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) ought to get together to get their story straight. If we were to take the IPCC approach, we would look at the literature and note the range of projections and include all these impacts. Doing so would show that the US Energy Information Agency seems alone in showing a growth in oil and gas production for 20 years (limit of projection), driven by increased prices as demand outstrips supply. This is not unreasonable. Other energy advisors in the private sector see a 25% drop in production in about the same period. The projection to the end of the century ranges from sharp reductions to zero output of oil and gas. The reserves of coal are much greater and production will peak later, but soon, within 10 years being often proposed. For most coal producing countries, coal output is in steady decline. Shortages will drive prices making recovery of presently marginal sources and types of fossil fuels feasible. But, it is all a matter of time before CO2 production from all fossil sources declines. The upheaval to society will likely surpass even the most extreme visions of global warming impacts. In March 2008, the price of coal had risen 50% over sixmonths, and the upheavel was documented by the Washington Post. In June 2008, BP released its  well respected Review of World Energy. This report says "The world has ample resources, with more than 40 years of proven oil reserves, 60 years of natural gas and 130 years of coal."

The IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast for this Century:

• CO2 (the most important gas) has risen from 280 ppm to 379 since pre-industrial times and its growth seems to be accelerating. Whether it does or not is the basis for 7 assumptions about future temperatures.
• Temperature increase. For the next 2 decades, 0.2 deg. C (0.4 F) temperature rise per decade, slightly higher later in most models. The models are all different and respond differently to different assumptions. For the end of this century, IPCC provides 7 best estimates (for 7 assumptions) ranging from 0.6 - 4.0 C (1.1-7.2 F). Warming is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5 deg. C (3.6-8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 deg. C (5.4 F). Since the 1800s the temperature has risen 0.76 deg.C (1.4 F). The warming is to be greater on land, in high northern latitudes.
• Sea level rise. For 6 sets of assumptions, the mid-points are about 0.3 meters ( 1 ft.) Since 1850 sea level has risen about 200 mm (9 in.), a little less than 2 mm/yr. More recently the rate appears to be 3.1 mm/yr, now measured by altimetry satellites. (However, we learned on 22 June 2007 that the data were manipulated to achieve this!!). A good explanation is by the late John Daly, whose passing was hailed by the IPCC ClimateGate scientists. In a 2009-published study, the authors used GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key tide gages, finding a "global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century" and with no acceleration.
• Other attributes. Ocean acidity should rise with reduced ph units of 0.14 to 0.35; hurricanes become more intense, perhaps less numerous; heat waves and heavy precipitation more frequent; less sea ice and snow cover; higher westerly winds in mid-latitudes; more precipitation in high latitudes, less in sub-tropics inland areas.

Impact Assessments Require Trust in the Climate Forecast

My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change. However, to determine impacts correctly, one must understand the nature of change and its likelihood to continue. It is necessary to have trust in what the climate scientists tell you is going to happen in the future.  In the IPCC structure, the science has been led by the UK and US scientists, and they have used modeling as their primary tool, with some paleoclimate analysis coming later. The Impact Assessments have been led by the Russians, who have had an intense distrust of modeling. They viewed paleoclimatology as the most valid tool: if you want to know what will happen when CO2 rises or the temperature changes, they say  to look at the history of the earth. As an American, working with the Russian teams, I was often caught in the middle of both camps. I learned to listen to both views, and continue to do so. In particular, we learned to distrust any science literature or impacts assessment that did not consider all data available, whether modeling, the instrumented record back into the 1800s and/or the paleo and historical temperature reconstructions. If the data are truncated, there is likely an agenda. Many of us have learned, either formally, or informally, how to detect misrepresentation by statistical treatments and graphics.
The probability of warming may be greater, but cooling's mass starvation begs us to plan for both.

How To Tell If an Impact Assessment Is Biased

When reviewing impact assessments, look for bias. Often the authors think only of negative changes. This is not necessarily because of personal agendas (such as to assist animals, clean the air, or reduce the birth rate), but is primarily due to human nature. To guard against having a biased report, one should look for balance. Does the material articulate that things will be different and that there are pluses and minuses? There may well be more of one than another. Sometimes balance is reflected in the amount of text, or graphics made to illustrate impacts and often it is reflected in the number of negative versus positive impacts, the latter often left out completely at the first draft stage. If missing, they tend to be only partially treated thereafter as the authors slowly yield to reviewer comments. Examples of balance:

• Discussions of increased summer heat waves and deaths should also include the reductions of winter cold waves and hypothermia deaths. Far more people die of cold.
• Increased costs of home air conditioning need to be discussed in the same context as reduced heating costs.
• Increased mismatches between food availability in ecosystems need to also include reduced energy demands needed to maintain body temperature, such as for marine mammals and the fact that plants and cold-blooded animals usually grow faster when warmer rather than colder. Thus the food of most fish and mammals grows faster when warmer.
• Discussions of coral reef bleaching need to include the expansion of coral reef habitats.
• Discussions of agriculture and forestry problems such as regional droughts and changing types of plants must include the expansion of production areas, general increased precipitation, and CO2 fertilization.
• Discussions of poison ivy becoming more prolific because of wetter environments, warmer temperatures, and CO2 fertilization, should similarly treat agricultural crops and forests.
• Discussions of polar bear food contraints must include the impact on the seals and other items they kill.

The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality

• CO2 has usually been associated with temperature rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The Earth's natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison with other periods in Earth's history. Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices will continue to rise. It is absolutely unrealistic to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century. Even China, with the largest coal reserves, is now importing coal, causing a doubling of the global price. This will get more coal out of the ground, quicker, but it cannot continue forever. The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 validation of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years".
• The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
• Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that  has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway. The late John Daly, whose passing was hailed by the IPCC ClimateGate scientists, shows that the IPCC forecast is the result of modeling errors rather than from actual observations and that local land movement is more important than the relatively low rate of actual sea-level rise. In a 2009- study using GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth a "global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century" was reported. Their study shows no acceleration and no changes in rate during warm or cold periods of the last 110 years. It is virtually a straight-line rate of increase, independent of Earth's temperature.
• The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular, if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. It has not. Further, the lead hurricane expert for IPCC, Chris Landsea, resigned over the misrepresentation of data by IPCC .

The Present and Projected Increases are Not Huge

Oceans and coastal zones, the things I know best, have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. Marine life has been in the oceans nearly since when they were formed. During the millennia they endured and responded to CO2 levels well beyond anything projected. Prior temperature changes put tropical plants and coral reefs near the poles or had much of our land covered by ice more than a mile thick. The memory of these events is built into the genetic plasticity of the species on this planet. IPCC forecasts are for warming to occur faster than evolution is considered to occur, so impacts will be determined by this plasticity and the resiliency of affected organisms to find suitable habitats. Species mixes and distributions will change, just as they always have. Some species will be so disadvantaged they will go extinct and ecological niches will develop that offer opportunities for new species to arise.
The chart is of the Paleo Record. Northern Hemisphere Annual Temperatures from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data over the last 2000 Years. The red signifies only the use of the instrumented record, since about 1860.(From NOAA/NCDC).

In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology change rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed the changes expected with global warming and occur much faster. The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000, has brought the global average temperature from 56.6 to 57.4 degrees F. This is at the level of noise in this rapidly changing system. Sea level has been inexorably rising since the last glaciation lost its grip, and temperatures rose by 10-20 degrees, a mere 10,000 years ago. It is only some few thousand years since Georges Bank was part of the mainland. It is now 60 miles offshore of Provincetown on Cape Cod. Its trees and the shells of its oysters that flourished on its shores still come up in dredges and trawls in now deep water, with the oysters looking like they were shucked yesterday. In the face of all these natural changes, and those we are here to consider, some species flourish while others diminish. These considerations were well understood in all the IPCC groups in which I participated. I have some concerns about some few species near the margins of their suitable habitat range. These include corals near the equator and perhaps polar bears. But I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even with the IPCC’s warming, than the next ice age that will likely last over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. In contrast, the last ice age maximum, at just 20,000 years ago saw temperatures 4-7 deg. C (7.6-13.6 F) cooler than present. The one deg. F rise since the 1850s is a relatively small component. (Photo of frozen North Cove, Fairhaven Mass. in March 2007; courtesy of OceansArt.us)

Was the Earth Warmer Before? Sea Level Higher? CO2 Higher?

There are many frequently asked questions (FAQs), some of which are addressed here.

IPCC: Global average sea level in the last interglacial (Eemian) period (130,000-111,000 years ago) was likely 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average Arctic temperatures at that time were 5.7 to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 13 feet (4 meters) of the observed sea level rise. There may also have been a contribution from Antarctica. Note in the chart how the rate of sea level rise is very low compared to that when the ice age wanes. (IPCC 2007).

NOAA: The Mid-Cretaceous period is one period in the geologic past that stands out as distinctly warmer than today, particularly at high latitudes. During the mid-Cretaceous Period, 120-90 million years ago, fossil remains of plants and animals believed to inhabit warm environments, were found at much higher latitudes. Breadfruit trees apparently grew as far north as Greenland (55° N), and in the oceans, warm water corals grew farther away from the equator in both hemispheres....... The mid-Cretaceous was characterized by geography and an ocean circulation that was vastly different from today; as well as higher carbon dioxide levels (at least 2 to 4 times higher than today). This indicates that the mid-Cretaceous climate system was different from that of today or any we might have in the future. Explanations evoking ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns radically different from today have been proposed to explain the climate of the mid-Cretaceous; however, there is no scientific consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about (source: NOAA Paleo Climatology program). In some ancient times when CO2 levels were very high, ocean organisms with shells based on silica replaced those with shells based on calcium.
During the Mid-Pliocene (about 3 million years ago) global temperatures were substantially warmer for a sustained period and are similar to those forecast by IPCC, with similar CO2 and sea levels of 15-25 meters (50-82 ft.) greater than today. Most of the warming was in the high northern latitudes with little warming in the tropics.  Even just 7 thousand years ago, in the midst of the present period (Holocene) between glaciation, the Russian Arctic, at least, was 2.5-7 deg.C (4-12 F) warmer than today (Quartenary Research).
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (leading expert on sea level): "If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling." Dr. Mörner's credentials. In a 2009 study, the authors used GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key tide gages, finding a "global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century" Their study shows no acceleration and no changes in rate during warm or cold periods of the last 110 years. It is a monotonic rate of increase, independent of Earth's temperature.

What Actions Should We Take to Respond to Climate Change?

We should respond prudently to the threats from climate change. These actions should include things that make sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the near future. In the distant future it is a certainty that the Earth will warm beyond what we have today and that the next ice age is waiting in the wings, but not for another 30,000 years or so, according to our present knowledge of solar variability and orbital mechanics (IPCC 2007). If we are concerned about global warming, a guiding principle is to do things that yield a cost savings or are neutral. Overall, we should aim to reduce our cost of goods sold and, at the consumer level, our living expenses, while at the same time "cleaning up our act". What should we do now? See Ways to Improve Energy Efficiency and Energy Sources. (We also have a mixture of half serious and tongue-in-cheek ideas to halt climate change.) All of us should lead by example, and as much as possible, within the market place, while keeping our personal freedoms we hold so dear. One way to check? Look at your household energy consumption. It is reasonable to have it drop one percent every two years for as long as you have been in your house, just from household maintenance, appliance replacement and replacing light bulbs with fluorescents or LEDs when they burn out (see cflsafety.blogspot.com) for a review of safety concerns). All lights on timers, for example, should be fluorescents. Do we adjust the thermostat for when nobody is home? Is our shower just a little too long? Perhaps the biggest example would be in not begetting more children than is socially responsible. See our list of ways to secure energy sources, improve efficiency and alternative energies.

What Actions Should We Not Take to Respond to Climate Change?

We must respond prudently to the threats from climate change. We live in a global economy, much of it with lower production costs than our own in the developed world. Whether we live in the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or the EU, we know our job losses are draining our countries, making it more difficult to support our retirement programs, health benefits, and even our national defense. We must be careful to not further increase the costs of our products and services. So we --

• Should not commit to actions that put us at a disadvantage, whether it is the Kyoto protocol or some other vehicle. If we increase our taxes on fuels (e.g., a carbon tax) that are inputs to production and services, we will jeopardize US industry. If a taxing regime is implemented it must separate production uses from consumption.
• Should not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health, our lives, and our family, and place them at risk by driving, or riding in, vehicles that put them at risk in order to save energy or other costs. If there are larger vehicles where you drive, don't get priorities confused.
• Should not stop breathing even though it would be one of the most immediate steps to slow CO2 emissions.
• Should not do things without thinking. There are many ideas that may not have merit. For example, buying local vegetables to reduce transportation costs may actually increase energy use if the far off producer is a more efficient, and this is likely, if its costs are lower even after getting its goods to the local market. Another example is in using biofuels that have a high fossil energy input in fertilizer or machinery, or planting trees to reduce CO2, but finding out they also absorb solar radiation more than what they replace.

What Issues Separate the Consensus and Skeptic Scientists?

There are four elements separating consensus and skeptic scientists. Not all elements are disputed by everyone. The elements are: (1) the amount of temperaturechange since 1850; (2) whether the change is in the range of natural variability or is attributable to humans; (3) the amount of warming that greenhouse gases (CO2 and equivalents) will warm the Earth in the future; and whether for the most likely scenarios, there are more losers than winners and if the change is just different. Underlying these elements are several issues:

• Reliance on Computer Models. The sophistication of computer models has advanced steadily over the past few years, to the point that many scientists believe the models are able to forecast future changes in climate. Other scientists believe that the outputs, while interesting, do not match the reality of what happened in prior periods of the Earth's history when the temperature was higher and the CO2 levels 2 to 20 times higher than today. Most also believe the Earth system is far too complex, with too many unknown drivers and feedbacks, to enable use of models. One example is the El Niño phenomenon, which is not reliably modeled after decades of study. Another is that there are indications that the models are wrong in the drought predictions in the tropics and subtropics. Paleo data shows that deserts were wetter during prior warm periods and a May, 2007 paper in Nature points out that there is a ~6.5% rise in precip per deg C, while the models only use 1-3%, an error of 3X! in results. This explains better the satellite obs of a greener, wetter Earth (NASA). The models cannot be initialized to current conditions and are unable to correctly incorporate the major decadal scale vents such as the NAO and the PDO, that control our climate in the northern hemisphere (Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Author).
• Computer models are too coarse. Everyone knows the models should have finer resolution, but there are computational constraints and staffing constraints to develop models at the regional or even local scale. The skeptics argue that this is part of the overstating of impacts. for example. a mountainous area the size of a large country may have an average height that is barely above sea level. The rain-producing mountains that intercept sea-breezes do not exist in the model and the result of the simulation understates future rainfall for the region. There is also a problem in the use of average temperatures in that they do not capture the difference in density and humidity.
• The models do not seem correct. The warming of the ocean, the warming of the land, the rise of sea level are all coming in below projections, while much more rain is falling, as the time series grows and even as the models are "adjusted" to reflect the observations, casting their basic premises into doubt. On 22 June, 2007 (Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner) we learned that data were manipulated to create an acceleration in sea level rise. Warming should be detected through an acceleration in the rate of rise and that rise should slow the Earth's rotation. Neither  has  occurred.
• Attribution of the warming trend to human activities. The consensus scientists believe their models can replicate reasonably enough the contribution of human-caused greenhouse gases and thus they can be used to estimate future warming. The other scientists believe this is not the case. The reasons vary among the scientists, but the most common ones are: CO2, the target gas, pales in its abilities to impact temperature compared to water vapor and solar variability (not just radiation but also magnetic flux (which controls cosmic radiation and cloudiness) and orbital mechanics). Some scientists believe that CO2 is actually a cooling gas and we need to look elsewhere. Additional factors that some skeptics believe are not adequately considered are the natural contributions of CO2 and other gases that dwarf the human component and the impact of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds. Also, it is not clear to some scientists whether CO2 increases lead to warming or whether warming leads to CO2 increases. To many skeptics, the over valuation of CO2 as a causative agent, particularly in light of it having a logarithmic function that decreases impact with the amount of CO2, is an indication of a policy agenda meant to deter the use of fossil fuels, not understand climate change.
• This warming may be natural variability. While most scientists believe that the observed warming is real, some believe that it is so slight that we can't be sure that instrument calibration problems and urban heat island impacts have been dealt with adequately. If not, it has not been for lack of effort. The problems are immense. For example, in 1999, Los Angeles moved its data station 4 miles to an area outside the city that is lower in elevation and nearer the coast, with cooler, drier, and less extreme conditions. Even when a location has not moved, the rising temperatures may reflect the growth of a community, or land use changes, around it. Calibration is daunting for calibrating the instruments themselves. An example is relating sea surface temperatures that were derived from a thermometer placed in a bucket of water pulled from the ocean in 1860, with a continuous stream of data taken from a ship's water inlet much deeper in the water in the 1960s, data from drifting and moored buoys transmitted by satellite in the 1980s, and with satellite data from the very top layer of the surface since the 1970s. Perhaps only time will really tell. Many skeptic scientists believe that the trend line turned in 1998 for the present cycle, while many consensus scientists are quick to point out that we are still having temperatures above average, and in turn, the skeptics claim that there is no real way to compute a global average. Lastly, the best data are from the USA. According to NOAA, 2006 was the warmest year in U.S. records, almost the same as 1936. The skeptics say that if only rural sites are used, the temperature actually falls, indicating that in the US, and probably the world, what has been measured is the growth of cities and the heat they absorb and generate; there is no warming.
• This warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age. The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?: A possible cause of global warming by Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) . Another difficulty with accepting the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence from the coldest period in 8,000 years.
• The rate of warming is dangerous. Not so, say the skeptics, pointing out that the rate of warming from 1980 to 1998 has been seen before, and for many parts of the Earth such temperature changes are recurrent, such as when the Atlantic and Pacific and ENSO (el Niño) oscillations change state, causing immediate massive changes in ocean environments of fish, corals, and marine mammals.
• Sensationalist press not counteracted. The fact that Antarctica is warming in the area nearest Chile gets heralded, but the IPCC science documents show that, as a whole, Antarctica is stable. Flooding of coasts and cities, attributed to warming, is not countered by the IPCC, even though its science document shows no discernible acceleration in the rate of rise, a solid indicator of warming and necessary for prior sea level projections.
• Warming Impacts. Many scientists in the consensus group believe that the IPCC estimates of temperature rise are accurate and the impact from these changes will be bad for the Earth, its ecosystems, and its people. Other scientists, even if accepting the IPCC forecasts, believe that the Earth was warmer before and with higher CO2 levels and that these were among the most ecologically productive periods in terms of speciation and biomass. This contrasts sharply with periods of glaciation, the ice ages, that come and go whether humans have any influence or not. A case in point is my testimony which shows the paleo record tells us that corals were very expansive when the Earth was warmer and CO2 much higher, whereas 3 other scientists testified that corals were in grave danger, even now, due to the high temperatures and acidification of the ocean caused by CO2.
• An Average Wrong Answer. The IPCC reliance on emission scenarios, and then presenting all the outputs of temperature rise and impacts as if they had somewhat equal probability, leads to an average wrong answer and exaggerated impact assessments.
• Influence of the Sun. Scientists affiliated with the Consensus believe solar influences are not important to the recent warming and that are actually in the wrong direction (See recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich).  Other scientists believe that the analysis is flawed and that the actual mechanisms through which the Sun affects Earth climate were not used in the analysis (for example, Whitehouse). Many solar scientists believe that most of the Earth's temperature variation is explained by the sun's activity and our proximity to it (Scafetta and West).

These issues and many more are hotly debated on consensus and skeptic websites and blogs. Some representative Consensus and Skeptic sites with at least a reasonable amount of scientific basis are linked on the left navigation column. One constant debate is the importance of undersea and terrestrial volcanoes in contributing CO2 and the cooling effect of the ash cast into the sky. The photo shows Mount Tungurahua active in July 2007. Click on Mount Tungurahua for larger version and text (source: www.OceansArt.us).

What are the views of the IPCC Process by the Skeptics?

• Very Few Scientists. Few scientists are actually involved in writing the materials, perhaps a few dozen. Usually there is one real leader, a Chair or Co-Chair and 2 or 3 titular co-chairs that often are present to provide balance for the developing nations. Because of skill or language barriers they may not be greatly involved. Lead Authors are usually involved in just one piece of the section or chapter. These few people, depending on the breadth of the chapter, prepare the first and subsequent drafts and the Executive Summary that feeds into the SPM, long before the draft chapters have been through national reviews. Even here, the Co-Chairs decide which inputs are to be accepted, or make recommendations that usually are sustained, during plenary sessions. Yes, thousands of scientists review the IPCC documents, but usually only those parts that impinge on their own expertise, which is usually quite narrow.
• Falsification of Data. With the advent of ClimateGate (hacked emails among key IPCC modelers and data gurus), this is a new point of contention. What many suspected for a long time when they couldn't replicate IPCC results, and could not access the IPCC-used data, seems to be true, at least to them. The fallout could be immense. One thing is certain, we now know how the Medieval Warm Period was surpressed to make the current warmth appear "unprecedented" and how the present stabilization (or perhaps cooling) has been hidden. From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick [This is how the Medieval warmth was hidden] of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the [present] decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX University of East Anglia.  Comment: whether or not  "trick" was merely a "technique", it in fact made the warm period disappear. From skeptic viewpoints, the investigations largely clearing those at the core of the scandal, was preordained by the selection of investigators. Also see Our Climate Change and ClimateGate Positions.
  ClimateGate Articles:
  • Time Magazine: As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction
  • Washington Post: In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate
  • BBC News: Climate e-mail hack 'will impact on Copenhagen summit'
  • Wall Street Journal: Climategate: Science Is Dying - Science is on the credibility bubble
  • Science: Stolen E-mails Turn Up Heat on Climate Change Rhetoric
  Overstatement of Risks and Impacts. We know from the paleo record that the Earth routinely goes through climate swings greater than IPCC projects, yet IPCC does not go far enough in correcting overstatements in its own documents and in those of the press. There will be winners and losers, but always we hear only of the losses. Balance is missing.  Things will be different, but not necessarily worse. For example, sea level rise has been happening since the end of the last ice age, and there is little evidence of any significant acceleration, yet most people believe that global warming will flood all coastal areas. The areas may flood, just as Georges Bank is now deep beneath the Atlantic, if this unusually long period in between ice ages continues and we see warmth as great as the last interglacial, but flooding won't be caused by human-derived warming, although it may contribute. Another example is the great numbers of reports about Antarctica warming, yet the latest IPCC document shows that there is no evidence of any change in temperature or ice coverage.
• Too Many People are Excluded or Their Input not Valued. This includes astronomers and geologists. Some times the exclusion is real or just perceived. Over time this tends to make the inside group of IPCC scientists more uniform in their beliefs while adding to the anti-IPCC consensus.
• Pressure is Placed on People Who Disagree with the IPCC Majority. This is evidenced by the attempted removal of at least 4 US state climatologists whose Governors have decided that conformance to the consensus view is required. The Policy Statement of their Association states that the natural variability in the climate system is very strong, that we lack the ability to predict greater than about 10 years into the future, and it is essential to collect data necessary to know if the climate is changing.
• The process leading to the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is too Political. The Skeptics have more trouble with the SPM than the underlying reports. It is not too affectionately called "SPAM". Even though the Scientists are present during finalization, and have sufficient authority to make sure they can live with it, many of the national delegations work to accomplish their policy objectives through the report. Some Skeptics have responded by developing an Independent SPM, based on the same underlying IPCC science documents, but with very different interpretations. An excellent report by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin sheds light on the process.  It is recommended reading. An excerpt follows from their report of the approval meeting of the IPCC SPM for WG1 (2007):

  "Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.” Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada, with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa, supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included in this section.
  
  On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that “climate skeptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference."
  

  An excellent review of the issues and how the "consensus" has made a mistake is presented in an excellent article (written by Bob Foster) of sufficient quality to be  included among the British briefing documents on Her Majesty's Treasury website.
  

What Does the Consensus Say About the Skeptics?

• On Somebody's Payroll. Many press articles have been written to say that scientists who disagree do so because they are being supported by oil companies or some other group with a stake in the outcome. The counter argument is that most consensus scientists have funding derived from government or university sources that are directly based on public concern and fear. It is most likely that nearly all scientists say and write that which they do because they believe it to be true. Money, whether a Federal grant, or a corporate grant, will flow to support an avenue of inquiry believed in the grantor's interest. Science is not bought in advance (usually).
• Not Mainstream Scientists. The skeptics are discredited often by allegations that they are not doing work that is germane to the climate change work, or that they are inexperienced. The countering allegation is that since one or more of any reviewers for the main scientific journals are likely to be members of the consensus, any work showing the consensus view is wrong cannot be published in a primary journal. One fact is that many of the mainline skeptics are full professors involved in climate research at major universities.
• Disproportionate Press Coverage. Consensus scientists and their allies decry all the attention the Skeptics get, when they are so few. Perhaps they are perceived to be so few because Consensus people do not see them in the room and do not realize how numerous they are becoming. Conversely the Skeptics have reached critical mass and, not seeing any consensus members in their own midst, see themselves as the true consensus. Of course, the press loves a controversy. It, along with fear, are two primary attributes that expand the audience. If anyone believes the Skeptics are some tiny minority, try using your favorite search engine to search for climate skeptics. The search will show dozens or hundreds of pro and con Skeptic arguments and web sites. It will show some of the hype and hysteria on all sides of the climate arguments, as well as legitimate scientific sites and discussion forums.

Is Ocean Acidification Real? Is it Bad?

There is not a problem with increased CO2 in the water, leading to acidification (See our US Congress Testimony). There are 4 primary factors:

• First, laboratory work shows there is no basis to predict the demise of ocean shelled plants and animals. The animals above them in the food chain will still find food. The science actually indicates plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful. Since they are at or near the bottom of the food chain, this is good news.
• Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic (2-20X) than is projected. The memory of these events is built into the genes of all species. Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton (e.g., copepods, krill, certain algae) when there was double or triple the amount of CO2, we would be concerned. The opposite is true.
• Third, observational data in studies properly controlled for other variables (e.g., upwelling, rainfall, pollution, temperature, disease) show no harm. IPCC concluded (prior to the Iglesias-Rodriguez paper (positive impact)) that there is no observational evidence of oceanic changes due to acidification. There is also nothing conclusive in the recent research to indicate any reason for concern.
• Lastly, natural changes are greater and faster than those projected. Major warming, cooling, and pH changes in the oceans are a fact of life. Whether over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater to an estuary. Despite severe and rapid changes that far exceed those in the scenarios, the biology adapts rapidly. The 0.1 change in ocean alkalinity since 1750 and the one degree F. rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly changing system. In the face of all these natural changes, whether over days or millennia, some species flourish while others diminish.
• Conclusion. The crustaceans responding favorably in research by Ries et al. (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) are probably similar to those at the base of the ocean food chain such as krill and copepods. Since they eat algae, which also responds favorably to CO2 increases (and warmer temperatures), it is likely there will be increased food in the sea. With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, we see no economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Open-minded research is needed to sort it out.

Is Global Warming Bad?

• The IPCC 2007 Reports Suggest There Will be More Losers than Winners with Warming. The IPCC process includes many unlikely scenarios. These worst-case estimates also have associated impacts, from benign to worst-case. Thus we get the 5% worst impacts that have a 5% chance of happening (a combined 0.25% likelihood) equally discussed with benign changes that are reasonable to expect. By the time summaries are written, and press releases, only the bad effects are presented.  This leads to a gross exaggeration of the problems.
• Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or during the last 2 decades. Whether it is a  fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a  vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will  be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that  seem forgotten. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study (NASA) proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that precipitation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier. In the warm coastal farm lands near Guayaquil, Ecuador (near the equator) are many greenhouses, and in the cooler elevations, they are everywhere. This makes it clear how warming might be good for agriculture and certainly better than cooling.
• More People Die from the Cold than From Heat and no Place on Earth is too Hot for Humans. In Europe, more than 200,000 people die from excess heat while 1.5 million people die from excess cold (Source: Lomborg 2007 ), a point left out of most assessments. For the US, the net lower death count from global warming in 2050 is estimated at 174,000 per year (Citation in Lomborg 2007).
• The climate cooling scare of the 1970s was (and still is) real. Some of the materials were condensed by the CIA and were kept classified. See the left margin for links. In a just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (August 1974)

What About Polar Bears and Arctic Warming and Antarctic Cooling?

• Polar Bears have Endured Warmer Periods than are Forecast by IPCC.  They evolved into their present form some 700,000 years ago (or 100,000 years ago) (or 200,000 years ago) (or before the beginning of the last interglacial) and their molars changed some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. Importantly, polar bears were likely present in some final version of their present form, during the last interglacial (130-110,000 years ago), as late 2007 research indicates, when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole and average Arctic temperatures at that time were 5.7 to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present (IPCC, 2007). This date of evolution should be determined factually, as a first step, before taking action. If polar bears survived the past interglacial, as late 2007 findings indicate, the present warming may be of little consequence. In any case, the 20 polar bear populations need to be looked at individually, in terms of their threats and adaptability, and the management systems that govern their conservation.
• The Arctic Reaches Record Low Ice Coverage in 2007.  The press trumpeted this every few days in the summer of 2007. Further down the page on the monitoring sites of major institutions was some additional news. Antarctic ice coverage at the same time was at or above the highest levels ever recorded. For example, see the University of Illinois Cryosphere Program.  In each case, reliable measurements date only from the arrival of satellite data in the 1970s, another usually omitted fact. However, since the Northwest Passage was open to sailing vessels in 1903-1905 (Gjøa/Roald Amundsen), and again in 1940-42 and 1944 (St. Roch), it is possible this recent reduction in Arctic ice is not an indicator of warming. The return of Arctic sea ice in 2008 to levels at least 30% greater than 2007 received little attention. In May 2010, the ice extent was 1.5% below average.

Will the expanding Antarctic ice cause a new ice age?

"Science" (27 September 2007) reports that the loss of Antarctic ice triggered the last warming and eventual emergence from the last ice age. Will the current expansion of Antarctic ice coverage be sufficient to trigger the next ice age? The Arctic reached record low ice coverage in 2007, but Antarctic ice coverage at the same time was at or above the highest levels ever recorded.  In each case, reliable measurements date only from the arrival of satellite data in the 1970s, another usually omitted fact. Since the Northwest Passage was navigated by sailing vessels in 1903-1905 (Gjøa/Roald Amundsen) , and again in 1940-42 and 1944 (St. Roch), this recent reduction in Arctic ice may not be an indicator of warming. Antarctic Temperature Chart from CO2Science.org. The up-to-date Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly chart is based on the era of satellite data, beginning in 1975. The current anomaly for the last 365 days is also available.

Is CO2 becoming so dense we cannot breathe?

• There is no threat to our ability to breathe. Oxygen and nitrogen still make up 99% of our atmosphere. Methane, CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses make up a minuscule part of what we breathe, but they have important abilities to make the Earth warmer. These gases in the atmosphere (in order) by percent are:
  • Nitrogen         78.1%
  • Oxygen           20.9%
  • Argon             0.9%
  • Carbon Dioxide    0.03852%  (publ. 23 Nov. 2009, globally averaged during 2008)
  • Neon              0.002%
  • Helium            0.0005%
  • Methane           0.0001786%  (NCAR: end of 2008)
  • Krypton           0.0001%  
  • Hydrogen          0.00005%
  • Water vapor       0 to 4%
  • Ozone             0.000004%

(Source: Florida State University (2010), except Methane: NCAR and CO2)

Older Climate Change News - Starting in 1895-2006

• New York Times,Feb 24, 1895 - Prospects of Another Glacial Period
• New York Times, Dec 7, 1905 - Amundsen Navigates Northwest Passage
• New York Times Oct 7, 1912 - Sees Glacial Era Coming
• New York Times Apr 6, 1919 - Do you Think our Climate is Changing?
• New York Times May 15, 1932 - Melting Polar Ice Caps
• New York Times May 5, 1946 - Top of the World (book review includes NW passage made during WWII) (Need subscription or pay)
• New York Times Feb 20, 1969 - Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea (Need subscription or pay)
• New York Times May 21, 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
• Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - The Cooling World.
• Harper’s, September 1958 - The Coming Ice Age (Cover Story - Need subscription or pay)

Newer Climate Change News - Since 2007

Global warming destroying coral reefs warns international study

Polar Bears survived warmer periods. Polar bear jawbone found.

Pope assails climate alarmists. People come first; science must be sound.

Decrease of solar activity is harbinger of 1.5 deg C drop by 2020 (3X the rise of the last Century)
Warming greatest in past decade
Argentina November (2007) frost devastates agriculture. 10% of wheat lost. (Español)

Half of all warming since 1900 is due to sun say Duke University and US Army researchers (Nov 2007). The rest is poor global data.

UN Sec General challenges states on warming. Says real and affordable options exist.

Arctic Ocean Reverses. NASA: not all the changes in Arctic climate are from global warming (Nov 2007)

As much as 120 centimeters of snow had fallen on the Alps as of mid November, the largest amount at the start of winter in more than 5 decades (Nov 2007)

Buenos Aires records its lowest temperature for November in 90 years, 2.5 deg.C (Nov 2007 (Español))

The Northern Hemisphere continues to restore its lost ice at a rapid pace. As of the end of November, the anomaly is at just 1 million sq. km., 1/3 of October's. (Nov 2007)

With rapid re-freezing of the Arctic Basin in October, the ice loss anomaly has been cut in half as of 1 Nov. 2007.

The Antarctic ice sheet continues at a high level, but not enough to raise the total ice coverage  trend at the global level. (Nov 2007)