Claim: “Worsening Wildfires Linked to Temp Rise”

On Tuesday, Oct 11, 2016, the Arizona Daily Star printed a front page, top of the fold story from the Associated Press (AP) with the title claimed above. The Star’s online version (with a different title) can be found here.

The story claims: “Rising temperatures are flatly to blame for recent fearsome fire seasons, leading scientists reported Monday.” It also claims: “The study showed that more than a century of fossil-fuel burning, deforestation and farming has helped push the American West into an explosive new wildfire regime, and the findings suggest far worse could be ahead.”

The AP story never gives a link or even mentions the title of the paper, but I found it through other sources. The paper itself, “Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests” is pay-walled, but you can read the abstract here.

I have two problems with this story: one with the research and one with the way AP reported it.

Science first:

The paper abstract says: “We use modeled climate projections to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to observed increases in eight fuel aridity metrics and forest fire area across the western United States….We estimate that human-caused climate change contributed to an additional 4.2 million [hectares] of forest fire area during 1984–2015, nearly doubling the forest fire area expected in its absence.”

I presume these are the same climate models which can’t get their temperature projections even close to reality. From that they conjure a contribution from “Anthropogenic increases in temperature” even though there is no physical evidence to support such an assumption.

I also found it very curious that they chose 1984 as the start point.

The National Interagency Fire Center provides a table listing the number of fires and acres burned from 1960 through 2015 (link). In 1984, they report that there were 20,493 fires that burned 1,148,409 acres. In 2015, they report that there were 68,151 fires that burned 10,125,149 acres. That would seem to support the hypothesis that there are more fires with warming. It says nothing about the alleged anthropogenic cause of warming.

BUT: here is what the researchers and press releases left out. In 1960, there were 103,387 fires that burned 4,478,188 acres. That high number of fires continued into the early 1980s. In 1981 there were 249,370 fires that burned 4,814,206 acres. In 1963, fires burned 7,120,768 acres; in 1969 fires burned 6,689,081 acres. The drastic drop in the number of fires from 1982 to 1983 was followed by a gradual increase in acres burned. That could reflect a change in fire policy rather than a response to warming. Could this paper represent cherry-picking data that fits the hypothesis and while ignoring data that doesn’t?

A large body of research shows that wildfires both increased and decreased with rising temperatures depending on the locality. For the globe as a whole, there is no consistent relationship between temperature and acres burned. See a summary of that research here:

The graph below, based on analysis of charcoal trapped in sediments, shows a longer perspective of cyclical wildfire regimes (source:

Fire western US biomass burned

“The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” -T. H. Huxley

The AP report:

In describing the research, the unnamed AP writers use the terms “climate pollution” and “greenhouse gas pollution” when referring to carbon dioxide emissions. This indicates to me that the AP writers are ignorant of science, the fact that carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, and that for most of the history of this planet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 3- to 10 times higher than the current concentration. Or, is it just that these writers have imbibed deeply the global warming kool-aid? That the Arizona Daily Star continues to print stories like this indicates that they too are ignorant of science and have a political agenda.

See also:

Wildfires and Warming – Relationship not so clear

Energy subsidies in perspective

This post is reblogged from

I thought the graph is especially telling.

The truth about energy subsidies – solar gets 436 times more than coal

The next time some paid troll whines about coal getting government subsidies, and wind and solar being “pure” show them this.

From the Washington Times:


By Stephen Moore

One of Hillary Clinton’s wackier ideas is to build half a billion solar panels — at taxpayer expense. It would be one of the largest corporate welfare giveaways in American history. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) estimates that the cost of the plan will reach $205 billion. That’s a lot of money to throw at Elon Musk and all of Hillary’s high-powered green energy friends.

By the way, there are only 320 million people in the country so her plan would mean more solar panels than people. If Hillary has her way, the entire landscape in America will be blighted by windmills and solar panels. How is this green?

The economics here are even worse. Back in the 1970s Washington made a big bet on green energy with synthetic fuels and renewable fuels. The programs crashed and were all mercifully killed off during the Reagan years. Billions of dollars went down the drain. George W. Bush made a big bet on switch grass and wood chips to produce energy. President Obama has spent more than $100 billion on wind and solar subsidies. Instead of energy independence, we got bankruptcies like Solyndra.

 A lesson of the last several decades is that the government has a horrible record of intervening in energy markets. Mr. Obama was running around the country in his first term warning that America was running out of oil. He wasn’t paying attention to the shale oil and gas revolution and the advent of clean coal technology that overnight doubled our fossil fuel resources. At the very time that natural gas prices were falling to $2 per cubic million feet, the government was trying to force feed the nation on wind and solar power which costs three to five times more per kilowatt hour of electricity.  Read more

War on the Range – Ranchers versus Mesquite



Southern Arizona ranchers have been battling mesquite trees for almost 100 years. The principal reason is that mesquite trees and shrubs suck up the water and thereby degrade the range making it less suitable for raising livestock. It also makes the grasslands less accommodating to wildlife.

Mesquite is a very hardy plant that produces an abundance of seed pods. The seeds and pods are collected and stored by rodents. Many animals, including livestock and deer, eat the seed pods, but the seeds themselves pass through undigested and are deposited with some fertilizer.

The problem as described to me by a southern Arizona rancher:

Southern Arizona is characterized by intermittent drought. This results in marked death loss of the perennial forage grasses, however, drought seldom causes death of whole mesquite plants. Mesquite have a long tap root enabling it to reach underground moisture and can tolerate drought. Grasses do not have that advantage. As the tree grows it demands more moisture. The result is each year, depending on the rainfall, less and less forage is produced as the tree shades the ground and quickly takes up the moisture. As the mesquite grow, noxious plants also become established with their deeper roots which make them drought resistant. These include burroweed and snakeweed. These also crowd out grass. As the ground is bare, when a heavy rain falls there is not grass and grass roots to hold the soil so erosion becomes an issue.

According to University of Arizona Technical Bulletin 74, published in 1938:

Certain range lands of the grassland type in southern Arizona are undergoing an invasion by the mesquite tree and noxious shrubs to the extent that the native stand of palatable forage is being materially reduced. The development of this problem has taken place at a pace gradual enough that its seriousness was not fully realized by stockmen until the cumulative effects of some forty years’ transition in the vegetation type of the affected areas became increasingly apparent.

The report goes on to discuss various methods of mesquite eradication including use of petroleum products, arsenic, acid sprays, and other chemical means. These methods proved ultimately ineffective. Petroleum did not kill the roots so the mesquite soon sprouted new growth. The chemicals remained on the stumps and were thus dangerous to livestock and wildlife. Burning individual trees was also ineffective. Only sodium arsenite solution would kill the roots, but it was difficult to prepare and handle.

The US Department of Agriculture weighed in with Circular 908 published in 1952:

One of the most serious and perplexing problems in southeastern Arizona is mesquite invasion of grasslands. Mesquite occurs there in varying degrees of abundance on 9 million acres of range land. The problem is likewise serious elsewhere in the Southwest. Mesquite is now firmly established on considerably more than 70 million acres of range in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. An estimated half of the area now occupied by mesquite has been invaded since the advent of domestic livestock. The increase of mesquite is viewed with ever-increasing alarm by range operators.

The principal reasons for concern are : (1) Mesquite, even under moderate grazing use, is still persistently increasing both by invading open grassland and by thickening of old stands. (2) Cutting mesquite, especially in bottom-land areas, usually results in an impenetrable thicket of sprout regrowth and new seedlings. In many of these “jungles,” grazing has had to be abandoned. (3) Livestock handling costs are increased, especially in dense upland mesquite thickets where it is difficult to gather livestock for market or to find screwworm-infested animals for treatment. (4) Increases in mesquite are usually accompanied by decreases in quantity and quality of perennial grass forage and corresponding reductions in livestock production. (5) Still more serious from a long-time viewpoint is the accelerated erosion generally found on uplands as well as bottom lands wherever mesquite has encroached.

The USDA further opines on the cause of the mesquite invasion:

The probability is that neither protection nor heavy grazing has much to do with the increase of shrubs here, but it is primarily the direct result of the prevention of fires.

I spoke with several ranchers who are battling mesquite in southern Arizona. For many years they have been using mechanical means to cut the trees and shrubs and digging out the roots. They try to remove at least 80% of the mesquite. Studies at the Santa Rita Experimental Range show that removing about 80% and leaving some mature trees makes the range more amenable to wildlife than thick mesquite stands or open range.

Before removal work can be done, the ranchers have to make surveys for endangered species such as the Pima Pineapple Cactus, which was listed in 1993 (and there is still no recovery plan). They also have to survey for cultural resources.

The mechanical method means bulldozers to knock down the trees and dig up the roots. One rancher told me it costs $300-$400 per acre and can get only one acre per hour. This is an expensive and tedious operation.

More recently, ranchers have been experimenting with chemical warfare again. Dow Chemical has developed an herbicide that is specific for mesquite. It is deployed by helicopter spraying. This costs about $106 per acre and can cover 80 acres per hour. This is similar to crop dusting operations used on farms.

The ranchers say another main reason for mesquite removal is to reduce soil erosion and restore native grasses. Since chemical removal has begun, ranchers have noticed return of many native grass species.

After reading a version of this article published in the Arizona Daily Independent, another southern Arizona rancher send me these comments:

Mesquite proliferation can be a problem, but they multiply and then decrease quite apart from grazing. It’s fairly cyclic and occurs even where no grazing has occurred (there’s a very deep and large area surrounded by cliffs in Mexico–never grazed–where scientists measured mesquite increase. It increased at the same rate as in the grazed pastures elsewhere.

Mesquites do consume a lot of water and at greater than 20% cover they are problematic, however, at lower than 20% overall, they are a major feed item for both cattle and wildlife–the beans are highly nutritious and so are the leaves. Also, they make a rich, nitrogen-enhanced (they are nitrogen fixers) soil beneath the tree which grows and maintains good native perennials, just so long as the tree cover is not beyond 20-30% and sunlight reaches the area below the tree for some good part of the day. Shade is also good! The upshot is: these trees are natives and are highly adapted to this climate; they have significant value for both wildlife and cattle as forage and as shade for natives that prefer less direct sun like plains bristlegrass and viney mesquite (that’s a grass in spite of the name) and others.

Here we are not at war with mesquites; however there are areas where their density exceeds desirable. Right now the cost of control (just private land–forget trying to do anything on federally managed land) and the issues with flood plains or critical habitat for assorted species are overwhelming and make constructive control financially impractical.

The screw worm issue mentioned in that 1952 publication is past tense; screw worms were effectively controlled decades ago by the propagation and dissemination of sterile male screw worms by the federal govt. and ranchers. It used to be a huge problem in the summer–now not, We can only surmise that such control would be met by howls of opposition from those who would prefer not to eradicate pest insects.

Controlling mesquite makes the range more productive, saves water, and benefits wildlife.


For information on traditional use of mesquite trees see:

Mesquite trees provide food, fuel, medicine, and more


University of Arizona produces another global warming food scare

A recent paper from the University of Arizona claims “Grasses across the globe may be unable to keep pace with a changing climate, threatening some of the world’s most critical food sources, according to new research by University of Arizona ecologists.”

The study compared “past rates of niche change in 236 species of plants in the grass family with projected rates of climatic change by 2070, the team led by Alice Cang and John Wiens found that the rate of future climate change may dramatically outpace the capabilities of grasses to change their niches and survive.” (Read press release here and the full paper here.)

I see two problems with the claim:

1) Past rates of niche change reflected existing conditions at the time and does not prove that plants cannot adapt at a faster rate if they had to. The authors admit this deep in the paper.

2) The rate of warming projected by modeling has “dramatically outpaced” reality.

This is not the first time this claim has been made. There are hundreds of papers which have studied plant productivity from the near and distant past, and also conducted experiments on plant productivity. Most show that plant productivity is enhanced by warming, especially with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Many of these papers have been reviewed and summarized by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. ( That organization provides summaries and reviews of scientific papers. Here are the conclusions of their summary studies of plant productivity: (Distant and historic past)

In conclusion, in spite of claims that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and unprecedented global warming since the inception of the Industrial Revolution are destroying (or will destroy) the productivity of the biosphere, the terrestrial vegetative biomass of the globe as a whole continues to rise; and it appears to be doing so at a remarkable rate. As for why is this so, it may well be that the twin evils of the radical environmental movement (rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations) are not the evils they are made out to be, but actually blessings in disguise … blessings that are fueling the biosphere! (Recent past)

In spite of climate-alarmist claims that the temperatures of the latter part of the 20th century and on through the present were unprecedented over the past one to two millennia (which is highly debatable) and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were the highest they had been for several hundred millennia (which is true), as well as the fact that mankind yearly harvests and/or destroys much of the planet’s natural vegetation, the total yearly production of terrestrial vegetative biomass for the globe as a whole continues to rise, and at a remarkable rate. (Projection for the future)

Throughout the course of the current century, even the severe warming predicted by current climate models will not likely be detrimental to plant growth and productivity. Rather, it will likely be a major benefit, enhancing plant growth and soil organic carbon storage, which (in addition to their own virtues) will provide a significant negative feedback to global warming as the Greening of the Earth continues!

The studies above are on plant productivity in general. More specific studies on food crops show enhanced growth with warming temperatures and increases of carbon dioxide.

A review of papers on grasslands finds “as the air’s CO2 concentration continues to increase, grassland species should respond positively by exhibiting increased rates of photosynthesis. In addition, such increases in photosynthesis will likely occur even under unfavorable growing conditions characterized by less-than-adequate soil moisture, inadequate soil nutrition, elevated air temperature, and physical stress imposed by herbivory. Thus, earth’s grassland species will likely grow ever more robustly in the future, thanks to the ever increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration produced by the burning of ever larger quantities of fossil fuels.”

A review of papers on food crops is not summarized. Individual papers show that food crops such as wheat and rice will benefit from warming and increases carbon dioxide because the latter extends the temperature range of the plants and make them more water efficient.

In my opinion, the UofA paper does nothing to advance science. It serves only to propagate alarmism. The paper ends with this sentence: “These results support our inferences from grasses that niche shifts may generally be too slow to save populations from rapid anthropogenic climate change.”

New paper: Plants’ native distributions do not reflect climatic tolerance.

This work revealed that “plants’ native ranges strongly underestimate climatic tolerance, leading species distribution models to under-predict potential range,” and while further noting that “the climatic tolerance of species with narrow native ranges appears most prone to underestimation.” And in light of these findings, they conclude that “many plants will be able to persist in situ with climate change for far longer than projected by species distribution models.”

History shows that crises in food production occurred during cool periods such as “the little ice age.”

One other thing: Let’s suppose that plants cannot adapt fast enough to survive the projected warming. A solution would be to design cultivars of plants that would be more drought and heat tolerant. Oh no, GMO!

Another Greenland melting scare

From the “it’s worst than we thought department”:

A new paper published in Science Advances claims that the amount of melting of coastal glaciers in eastern Greenland has been underestimated by about 20 gigatonnes per year. (Link to full paper titled “Geodetic measurements reveal similarities between post–Last Glacial Maximum and present-day mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet”) The paper does not mention global warming or climate change. The melting is due entirely to geologic processes. But the press manages to sound an alarm.

The New York Post translates the 20 gigatonnes figure to pounds to make it scarier sounding: “The new study, published in Science Advances, discovered that the island is losing 550 trillion pounds of ice a year — 40 trillion, and about 7.6 percent, more than scientists previously thought.”

The Post quotes a professor:

“It is pretty scary,” Michael Bevis, a professor at Ohio State University and co-author of the study, told the AP. “If you look at the last 15 years since we’ve been having these measurements, it’s clearly getting worse.” According to Bevis, the extra ice will add approximately 1/50th of an inch a decade to global sea level. So 1/50th of an inch per decade is scary?

An article from Climate Central (an alarmist site) begins with these paragraphs:

Rising temperatures are melting ice and sending it to the ocean, a process that is pushing sea levels higher and altering the landscape at both poles. The latest news comes from Greenland, where researchers have used high-tech satellite and GPS measurements to see how much mass the ice sheet is losing.

Their results, published this week in Science Advances, indicate that it’s melting faster than previous estimates, particularly in areas where the ice sheet comes in direct contact with the ocean. It’s a troubling finding for the future of coastal areas around the world.

Greenland hot spotThe claim that melting is due to rising temperatures is debunked by the Science Advances study itself. In the study, they show that isostatic rebound following the last glacial maximum is tilting the continent and causing east coast glaciers to flow faster into the sea. They also note that “The onset of increasing flow of the northeast Greenland ice stream (the largest flow feature of the ice sheet), for example, has been linked to a geothermal hot spot.”

As I note in my article Greenland surprises:

Ice-penetrating radar and drilling have led to some surprises in Greenland during the last few years. The continent is bowl-shaped, it has a massive canyon running down its middle, and it contains a large aquifer of liquid water beneath the ice. That means that the continental ice sheet is in no danger of slipping into the ocean as some have claimed.

Regardless of the cause of melting, is it “a troubling finding for the future of coastal areas around the world” as claimed by Climate Central?

According to calculations at the Watts Up With That blog, melting of 550 trillion pounds of ice would cause a sea level rise of 0.689 millimeters or 0.0271 inches per year. That additional 40 trillion pounds actually added 0.045 mm/yr to global sea levels. The total melt contributes to sea level rise of less than the thickness of a penny. Do you find that scary?

To put things in further perspective, consider this report:

“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated. 2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74N and 80N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

That report is an extract from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, written in 1817 (Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153).

Sea also:

The Sea Level Scam

Covering up the inconvenient consensus on global cooling

TempHistory21The world had been cooling since the 1940s and by the 1970s the consensus of climate scientists was that we were about to enter another “ice age” or at least to return to the cold of the “little ice age” (the period from about 1300 to 1870).

Dire predictions appeared in the popular press; see here for a sampling of story headlines.

“During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.”

Does that sound familiar?

There were many scientific papers supporting future cooling also. People trying to justify the current human-caused global warming scam by claiming a supporting consensus of scientists want to get rid of that previous consensus which said global cooling was the existential danger.

This previous cooling consensus, and attempts to erase it, are the subject of an article by Kenneth Richard writing in the NoTricksZone blog (link to article). The article is titled: “Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus.’”

At the end of the article, Richard gives links to and abstracts of many papers from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s which predict global cooling to come.

The first part of Richard’s article concerns the coverup of the existence these papers:

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.

Richard also discusses an attempt to say that there really wasn’t a cooling consensus at all so we should now believe the “real” consensus of human-caused warming.

Ironically, some scientists are again predicting a cooling phase because solar cycles (sunspot numbers) are weakening which leads to more cloud cover and cooling.

Beware of claimed consensus in science:

“Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” – Michael Crichton

See these articles about the warming consensus:

On consensus in science

“Cooking” Consensus on Climate Change

The 97 percent consensus for human caused climate change debunked again


The past is getting cooler – government data manipulation designed to make the present look warmer in relation to the past.


New Zinc-lead-silver mineral deposit discovered in SE Arizona




Arizona Mining Inc. (formerly Wildcat Silver) has just announced a major new discovery of zinc-lead-silver mineralization on their Hermosa Taylor project in Santa Cruz County near Patagonia, Arizona.

I have previously reported on what is now called the Hermosa Central deposit which lies to the southeast of the new deposit: see Manganese may be mined in Arizona. According to a prefeasibility study completed in December, 2013, that deposit contains reserves of 145 million ounces of silver and 7.2 billion pounds of manganese, with inferred additional resources of 235 million ounces of silver and 10.3 billion pounds of manganese. The mineralization occurs mainly as a oxide manto (blanket).

The new discovery, called the Hermosa Taylor deposit, discovered in 2015, lies about 2,000 feet to the northwest of Hermosa Central. This mineralization is a stratabound carbonate replacement deposit. This deposit contains sulfides of zinc, lead (with silver) and copper. A resource estimate as of Feb., 2016, claims 39.4 million ton of 11.04% zinc equivalent. (An “equivalent” grade adds in prorated values for copper, lead and silver, see chart here.) There is also an overlying oxide zone according to the cross-section (see here).

Arizona Mining reports that the best hole to date at Taylor Deposit HDS-361 intersects 8 mineralized intervals including 105 feet grading 13.65% Zinc, 10.33% Lead and 3.36 opt Silver and 73 feet grading 15.20% Zinc, 11.20% Lead and 3.89 opt Silver within a larger interval of 504.5 feet grading 6.51% Zinc, 4.88% Lead and 1.72 opt Silver. (Opt = ounces per ton)

The new Taylor deposit remains open to the north, west, and south, so the actual resource could be much bigger than currently estimated. See exploration potentialmap here.

Update, September 13: Arizona Mining reports that a step-out hole sited 1,300 feet northwest of the existing resource encountered intense alteration and recrystallization of the carbonate host and five distinct mineralized intervals including a 24.5 foot interval which assayed 23.1% zinc, 13.5% lead, 0.10% copper and 7.3 ounces per ton silver within a 49.5 foot thick broader zone of mineralization which assayed 13.6% zinc, 8.04% lead, 0.11% copper and 4.79 opt silver. This result bodes well for the possibility of greatly expanding the resource.


Both the Central and Taylor deposits are hosted by Paleozoic sandstones and limestones and by Cretaceous and Tertiary volcanic rocks. See here for more detail.

Arizona Mining’s current interpretation of the geology:

The major lithologic host for the Hermosa deposit is an epiclastic sandstone that is locally interbedded with very fine-grained tuff. High-angle faults, trending predominantly north-south and east-west, bound the horst blocks in the area, and may have served as conduits for mineralizing fluids.

Sections through the deposit oriented both east-west and north-south suggest that the strata are deformed into a doubly-plunging anticline the apex of which is coincident with the highest grade-thickness of silver accumulation, which suggests that deformation pre-dated the mineralizing event, that mineralizing fluids migrated to the topographically highest permeable area, and that post-mineral tilting of the deposit has occurred.

The company still has more drilling and metallurgical testing to do, but that’s the easy part. The hard part is navigating the regulatory quagmire for permitting.

Climate Madness 7

By now you should realize that the war on carbon dioxide emissions is not about the climate but about money and power. As you read the items below keep in mind these two things:

1) Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria: to transform the world economy, redistributing income from rich nations to poorer ones. Figueres stated: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” (Source)

2) Obama’s Clean Power Plan, if fully implemented, would reduce temperatures by 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The UN’s Paris climate agreement, if fully implemented would reduce global temperatures by 0.08 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 according to UN modeling. The costs of the Paris climate pact are likely to run $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually throughout the rest of the century. (Source)

Should We Be Having Kids In Light Of Global Warming?

By Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

National Public Radio (NPR) featured an academic philosopher who says morality requires Americans to stop having kids, because they will only cause more global warming.

“Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” NPR Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR. “The situation is bleak, it’s just dark … Population engineering, maybe it’s an extreme move. But it gives us a chance.”

Rieder said America produces a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person, and the world’s poorest nations will be most affected by global warming. He suggests rich nations should stop having children to remedy this. Reducing the current birth rate to 0.5 kids per woman could be the “thing that saves us,” he said. Read more Read a rebuttal

Climate Anxiety Counseling: Worried about global warming? Fear not because you can now get Climate Anxiety Counseling. (Link)

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

by Kate Hardiman

‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’

Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English, and Sociology/Social Justice. Read full story from the College Fix

Perhaps these professors should consult the Climate Anxiety group. Update: The University of Colorado professors who shut down climate change debate in class have landed on the radar of a member of the school’s board of regents, who says he wants to make sure students are being “educated, not indoctrinated.”

Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change

Environmentalist Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against climate change, by giving governments full wartime powers to seize private property and coerce businesses into supporting the effort, and with strict government control of the economy. Read more

George Monbiot Eats Roadkill to Save The Planet

by Eric Worrall

Prominent Guardian (UK) environment reporter George Monbiot has decided to eat Vegan supplemented with Roadkill to “reduce his impact” on the global climate.Read more

Vibrating roadways to generate electricity?

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more stupid…

Solar Freakin’ Roadways was a bad enough idea…now, the California Energy Commission has agreed to fund several projects to investigate the generation of electrical energy from piezo electric cells placed in road surfaces. The idea is that since a piezo device can convert mechanical vibrations into electricity, they can regain some of the energy lost by cars and trucks that are constantly vibrating the roads. At first it seems like a reasonable idea…until you think about the tiny amount of energy involved compared to the cost of such devices. Read more

How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming

By Tatiana Schlossberg, New York Times

It sounds simple: If something has a big carbon footprint and you get rid of it, you eliminate those carbon dioxide emissions. Right? But it’s not always that easy. In a recent study published in The Journal of Industrial Ecology, researchers at the Center for Environmental Strategy at the University of Surrey in England estimated the annual carbon footprint of crime in England and Wales, and found that reducing crime could actually cause society’s overall carbon footprint of society to increase. That’s because inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption. Read more(FYI, Tatiana Schlossberg is a granddaughter of JFK)

Government regulations:

Federal contractors will have to detail “climate risk”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration recently proposed requiring that all companies doing business with the federal government publicly disclose what they know about their climate-risk exposure. This information will be a factor in taxpayer-funded contracting decisions. The administration is also working to increase disclosure of climate risks that America’s more than 140 million pension beneficiaries face in their investments. And we now require that our agencies consider and publicly disclose climate risk when undertaking other major federal actions, like leases of public resources, issuance of permits, and investment in infrastructure. Read more

Government: New 700,000-Word Regulation is Good for You

by Terry Jeffrey, Townhall

The EPA has just signed a new 1,689-page regulation that imposes new “greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards” on vehicles ranging from heavy-duty pickup trucks to tractor-trailer combinations used to haul cargo. According to the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by model year 2027, the regulation will increase the cost of tractor trucks, depending on the type, between $10,235 and $13,749. Trailers will cost from $1,204 to $1,370 more. The regulation follows from the EPA administrator’s determination, made seven years ago under the terms of the Clean Air Act, that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, “endanger public health.” Read more

The Department of Energy (DOE) has now developed an energy efficiency regulation specific to wine coolers.

It estimated the rule would cost the average small business $12,500 to test whether their equipment meets specifications. While DOE said the $12,500 testing cost is “unlikely to represent a significant economic impact for small businesses,” it did not address the costs to or impact on individual consumers who have or might purchase wine chillers for their homes. Read more

Obama issues guidance making it tougher to build roads, bridges in name of climate change

by Valerie Richardson, the Washington Times

Building that bridge or expanding that highway just became more difficult under a rigorous standard issued by the Obama administration that will make it easier to block a wide range of projects in the name of climate change. The final guidance broadens the National Environmental Policy Act by requiring agencies to quantify the impact of activities that require federal permits not just on the environment but also on “projected direct and indirect GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.” The White House described the guidance as “another big step in the administration’s effort to consider how all types of federal actions will impact climate change and identify opportunities to build climate resilience.” Read more

Climate Predictions:

2009: The 2016 Olympics will be the last summer games due to global warming.

2016: The 2080 Olympics will be the last summer games due to global warming.

The Imaginary Drought Of 2016: Experts predicted a severe drought in the corn belt this summer. But: The past two years has been much wetter than normal across the corn belt.

1923: experts said Glacier National Park will be ice-free by 1950.

1952: experts said Glacier National Park would be ice-free by 2000

2009: experts said Glacier National Park would be ice-free by 2020.

2016: Dengue fever flip-flop: Health researchers now predict that the transmission of dengue fever could decrease in a future warmer climate, countering previous projections that climate change would cause the potentially lethal virus to spread more easily.


“… every season is sure to be ‘extraordinary,’ almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known… speculating quite as conjecturally and even more absurdly, seem to attribute the impending change of climate, of which they assume the reality, to the operation of men. ” -Brisbane Courier, January 10, 1871 in an article entitled “Imaginary changes of Climate”

Climate “science”:

The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature

In this post Tony Heller, proprietor of the blog “Real Science” documents how NASA has been manipulating the temperature record to conform with the current political agenda.

In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970. Climatologists blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on the global cooling that was occurring.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported the same thing, and said global cooling is inevitable.

In 1989 Tom Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said Earth had cooled from 1921 to 1979.

But by 1999, NASA had changed the 1921 to 1979 cooling which Tom Karl reported into almost 0.3C warming, and had erased most of the 1940 to 1970 cooling.

By 2001, NASA had increased the fake 1921 to 1979 warming to more than 0.3C, had further erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999.

NASA now shows 0.5C warming from 1921 to 1979, have completely erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and shows 1.1C warming from 1880 to 1999. They more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their 2001 graph.

Summarizing : NASA has completely erased the post-1940 cooling. They turned Tom Karl’s 1921-1979 cooling into 0.5C warming, and have more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their own 2001 temperature graph. Malfeasance like this in most professions would have serious consequences for the perpetrators.

A new global warming study says only a total power shutdown can save us now

by Thomas Richard

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has a new study this week: to prevent catastrophic global warming, the world will need to stop emitting all man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2085. So say goodbye to Uber, iPhones, computers, trains, planes, automobiles, air conditioners, heating, or anything that even remotely relies on fossil fueled power. It means our entire way of life would be thrown into the Stone Age to prevent an unlikely two-degree Celsius rise in temperatures from occurring by 2100. And it would keep developing nations from being industrialized. Forget renewables. According to manufacturing analyst Steven Capozzola, you “can’t build a wind farm with the electricity generated by a wind farm.”

Additionally, the federally funded NCAR study says that we will need to develop carbon scrubbing devices capable of removing CO2 from the air. It notes that even if every sector in every country – including manufacturing, power generation, farming, transportation, and the military–ceased all operations, we would still need technology to remove 15 gigatons of CO2 a year from the atmosphere. Read more

See also:

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6


The explosive geology of the Chiricahua Mountains


The Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona where once the site of very explosive volcanic eruptions. They now host some very interesting rock formations including hoodoos, rock spires, and balanced rocks. (All are erosional forms which develop into fantastic pinnacles, towers and grotesques shapes. Hoodoos have a cap rock.)

Chiricahua location

Like the Tucson Mountains, the Chricahuas have had several periods of volcanism. The principal and most explosive episode began about 27 million years ago.

As described by the U.S. Geological Survey (see reference below), “a large mass of magma accumulated within a few miles of the surface, forming a magma chamber” just to the south of where Chiricahua National Monument occurs in the northern part of the range.

“Eventually, the overlying rock ruptured and the resulting decrease in confining pressure allowed volatiles (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) to separate from the magma and form gas bubbles. Foaming magma formed pumice and expanded as much as 50 times in volume, causing a series of large explosive eruptions. The eruptions blew more than 100 cubic miles of magma out of the volcano and buried a region of at least 1,200 square miles in a thick blanket of hot ash and pumice. For comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced only one tenth of a cubic mile of magma and the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which was one of the largest eruptions of the century, produced only about one cubic mile of magma.”

The USGS report notes, “The eruption produced boiling clouds of very hot (greater than 1,000°F) ash, pumice, rock fragments, and gas that were propelled into the atmosphere and across the land surface at speeds of 50 to more than 100 miles an hour, scouring everything in their paths like superheated jets from a sandblaster. As the clouds lost gas and deflated, they became more dense and flowed downslope from the volcano as pyroclastic flows that ponded in valleys to form thick deposits of steaming ash and pumice.” As the still-hot ash and pumice came to rest is compacted and fuse into a rock geologists call welded tuff.

Eruption of that great volume of magma caused the magma chamber to collapse in on itself to form a caldera (now called the Turkey Creek caldera) that was about 12 miles in diameter and at least 5,000 feet deep. The caldera was partially filled by some of the just-erupted ash and by subsequent eruptions. See geologic map below.

Following the explosive ash eruption, an eruption of less-volatile lava covered most of the caldera and prevented much of the tuff from being eroded away.

During the 20 million years following eruptions, large faults cut the volcanic edifice and dropped part of it down to form the San Simon Valley on the east and the Sulphur Springs Valley on the west.

HoodoosAlso during that time, water and wind eroded the welded tuff along fractures to produce the weird shapes we see today. The USGS opines, “Recent study has shown that contrary to previous ideas, the joints were not produced as the tuff was squeezed and fractured between faults, as if in a vise. If that were the case, one would expect to see a systematic pattern in the orientation of the joints. Instead, the joint directions vary widely and they curve, features that indicate they resulted mainly from contraction brought about by the original cooling of the tuff. Cooling joints form at right angles to surfaces where heat is removed from a lava flow or tuff layer; these are mainly the top and bottom surfaces and the resulting joints are usually vertical planes. The intersection of joint planes form rock columns.”

The USGS calculates that the rock spires and columns are about 2.4 million years old based on the local erosion rate of the tuff. And, they say, “Surprisingly, the columns are quite strong, and even the ‘balanced rocks’ are not as fragile as they appear. Engineering analysis shows that the columns are well within their mechanical failure limits for static load; they are not about to fail under their own weight. In fact, the 187-foot-high Totem Pole could be suspended upside-down without breaking. Dynamic failure is much more likely, in which columns would be ‘knocked over’ by a lateral force. Lateral forces occur during earthquakes, but surprisingly, few of the columns appear to have been destroyed by the nearby magnitude 7.2Pitaicachi earthquake of 1887, despite widespread damage to buildings in the region. Perhaps, a ‘tuned’ frequency of earthquake ground waves is required to get the columns swaying enough to fall.”

geo map



geo map index



Pallister, J.S., du Bray, E.A., and Hall, D.B., 1997, Guide to the Volcanic Geology of Chiricahua National Monument and Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona, USGS MAP I-2541



See more photos here.

Tucson Mountains geology – an update


The Tucson Mountains form the rampart on the west side of the city. If you drive over Gates Pass, take a look at the road cuts, especially near the top, you will see a chaotic jumble of different rocks, mainly volcanics. According to the Arizona Geological Survey: “Tucson Mountain Chaos is a formal geologic name, describing one of the more confusing, complex, and controversial areas in southern Arizona.”

Like many mountain ranges in Southern Arizona, the Tucson Mountains have experienced several episodes of volcanic eruption. Major eruptions occurred during Triassic-Jurassic time (~190-200 Ma), early Laramide (74 Ma), later Laramide (62 Ma), and one late Tertiary (~20 Ma). (Ma means million years ago.) There were also several interspersed minor eruptions.

The early Laramide (74 Ma) eruption was very explosive and produced great volumes of rhyolite tuff (Cat Mountain tuff). The rapid eruption caused the volcano to collapse in on itself to form a caldera. That collapse produced megabreccia called the Tucson Mountain Chaos. (Breccia is simply a bunch of angular fragments cemented together.) Within that breccia are small to very large fragments of other rocks including house-sized blocks of limestone. The breccia could have formed in three ways (and there are proponents of each way): moat in-filling of the caldera, landslides, or fluidized material brought up from below.

TM geo map3The Tucson Mountain caldera is not a typical caldera with equal subsidence all around. Rather, it is a “trap door” caldera with the “hinge” area on the southeast and major subsidence on the west. The western ring fault (called the Museum Fault) parallels Kinney Road from about Old Tucson to just past the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, then swings east around a granite pluton. This structure was first proposed by Peter Lipman of the United States Geological Survey in 1994 and later supported by geophysical investigations.

Beginning about 25 to 30 million years ago, Arizona and the West experienced crustal stretching which began to tear things apart. It was proposed, about 10 years ago, that the Tucson Mountain volcano and caldera formed over where the Santa Catalina Mountains now stand on the east side of Tucson. It was posited that crustal stretching slid the caldera to its present location. (You can see an explanation and cross-sections of that story in a 2009 article from my Wryheat blog.) That was such a neat story that the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum constructed a mechanical model which Docents (including me) used to interpret the story. That particular “kit” has been retired because subsequent evidence shows that the story is probably in error. The main evidence against the sliding story is that the chemistry of the volcanics in the Tucson Mountains is incompatible with the proposed generating pluton in the Santa Catalina Mountains. There are also some structural inconsistencies.

TM section

One other thing: there was a Tucson Mountain dinosaur. Dinosaur bones were found within one of the blocks of megabreccia about 1800 feet NNW of Gates Pass. This dinosaur is classified as a large Hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur). This dinosaur lived in Tucson some time between 72 and 83 million years ago.


Kring, D.A., 2002, Desert Heat – Volcanic Fire, The Geologic History of the Tucson Mountains and Southern Arizona, Arizona Geological Society Digest 21

Lipman, Peter, 1993, Geologic map of the Tucson Mountains Caldera, southern Arizona, U.S.G.S. IMAP 2205. (link)

Lipman Peter W., 1994: Tucson Mountains caldera; a Cretaceous ash-flow caldera in southern Arizona. U S (link)

Marshall, L. and Stokes, P., 2012, the Tucson Mountains Caldera: Using Gravity and Magnetic Anomalies to Test Trapdoor Subsidence and Locate Subsurface Plutonic Bodies. (link)

Spencer, G.L. et al., 2005, The late Cretaceous Tucson Mountains dinosaur, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, 29 (link)

See also:

Arizona Geologic History: Chapter 1, Precambrian Time When Arizona was at the South Pole

Arizona Geological History: Chapter 2, Cambrian and Ordovician Time

Arizona Geological History: Chapter 3: Devonian to Permian Time

Arizona Geological History Chapter 4: Triassic Period

Arizona Geological History Chapter 5: Jurassic Time

Arizona Geological History Chapter 6, The Cretaceous Period

Arizona Geological History Chapter 7: The Cenozoic Era

Old mines of the Tucson Mountains