In her lecture series, “Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change,” astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.  Dr. Baliunas’ work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what’s been widely publicized in the mainstream media.

Her research goes back to time periods when the amount of carbon emission was small enough that it wasn’t a major player. “If you go back far enough you eliminate some of your variables,” she said. “I’ve always been interested with the changes of the sun and how they impact the earth. I decided to look at a narrower time scale this time.” Baliunas asserts that increases and decreases in solar output led to historically warmer and cooler periods. Baliunas said concerns for world energy poverty should be more significant than worrying about something 100 years from now. Read more here.

Dr. Baliunas received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University. She works with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

A total of 17.3 million hectares of forests, about one-tenth of China’s forest resources, have been damaged by the unprecedented snow wreckage, worst in at least five decades, with forests, bamboo and seedlings in some parts of the country seriously destroyed. In its latest report released on Friday, th State Forestry Administration (SFA) confirmed the total losses of forest in 18 provinces in southern China, saying that in the worst-hit region, nearly 90 percent of forests had been ruined. The administration didn’t give any figure for the value of the losses. Previous SFA report showed that by Jan. 31, disastrous winter weather had levied a toll of 16.2 billion yuan (about 2.5 billion U.S. dollars) in China’s forestry sector. See snow photo gallery here.

See satellite view of snow in China courtesy of NOAA OSEI below.

See a high resolution version here.

UPDATE: February 8th readings down to -72F at Chicken, just three shy of the February Alaska record. Cold spell longest since 2000. See these NWS Public Information Statements.

The National Weather Service sent out a notice this afternoon reporting some stunningly low temperatures, including an unofficial mark of 70 degrees below zero at Tok at 8 a.m. The last time an official temperature of 70 below or colder was recorded in Alaska came on Jan. 1, 2000, when a reading of 72 below zero was recorded at Chicken, the tiny community on the Taylor Highway in the Fortymile country east of Fairbanks and toward the Canadian border.

The coldest official temperature recorded in the state this morning was 67 below at O’Brien Creek, another spot on the Taylor Highway. Readings of 50 to 60 below zero were common throughout the Interior overnight. Chicken posted a temp of 65 below; Chalkyitsik and Fort Yukon had lows of 60 below; Northway and Beaver, 58 below; Eagle airport, 54 below; Manley, 51 below; Fort Greely, 50 below. Residents of the Fairbanks and North Pole areas also found themselves in the deepening freeze. The Woodsmoke subdivision in North Pole had the coldest temperature in the urban area at 52 below at noon. The noontime temperature at Fairbanks International Airport stood at 45 below.  See story here.

See full size cartoon here

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) document entitled Human Impacts on Climate begins with the statement that “the earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.” It sounds ominous, doesn’t it? But if mere warming or cooling is a sign of being out of balance, one could truthfully say that earth’s climate is almost always “out of balance,” which suggests that its current condition is actually normal.

The second declaration of the document says that many components of the climate system “are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural.” And unnatural climate change sounds even more ominous. But is this really the case?

The AGU Council next describes some of the climatic projections that are used to scare people into believing we must act decisively and soon if we are to prevent the mother-of-all-catastrophes. To their credit, however, they note that “with such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty.” But to their discredit, they add that “none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential,” implying there is nothing that can significantly change the model-based projections. In reality, however, there could well be several factors—all largely unknown to them—that may in fact be able to do what the Council essentially infers is impossible. When faced with the amazing complexity of nature, therefore, humility is much to be preferred over hubris.

In light of these several observations, the leadership of the American Geophysical Union would do well to restrict themselves to purely scientific matters and not delve into policy prescriptions, as they do in the final paragraph of their official statement. If the science of the subject ever becomes clear, the people of the world will know what to do about it; they are not dumb. Therefore, to try to tell them how to act now, when the science is not clear, is actually an admission of that fact, i.e., the fact that the science is not clear, just as it is also an indication of the possibility that something other than science alone may have prompted the Council’s recent reaffirmation of their “position” on this scientific matter. Read full review here.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

See full size image here

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve thehealth, longvity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.  Read this very thorough and optimistic analysis here.

Icecap Update: See interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson by William F. Jasper here.