Climate Change Blogs

IPCC: Cost of Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Super-Affordable if We Act Now

Published: April 13, 2014
Climate change is a huge threat to civilization if we do nothing more to reduce it, but the costs are very affordable if we start now, said the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today, in the third installment of their once-every-seven-years report on the climate. Today's report on mitigation--how we can slow down climate change--was the most hopeful of the reports, since it found that the cost of keeping global warming under the "dangerous" level of 2°C will only reduce "consumption growth" of the global economy by 0.06% per year if we start immediately and act strongly. Since consumption growth is expected to increase between 1.6% and 3% per year in the coming decades, we’re talking about annual growth that is, for example, 2% rather than 2.06%. This is a small price to pay to greatly decrease the risks of increased hunger, thirst, disease, refugees, and war outlined in the IPCC's frightening Working Group 2 report on risks and adaptation released two weeks ago. Today's report was authored by 235 scientists from 58 countries, and was approved by the governments of every nation of the world who cared to send a representative to the week-long approval meeting in Berlin, Germany. There is one more portion of the 2013 - 2014 IPCC report coming, a grand summary of Parts 1, 2, and 3 that will be released around November 1, 2014. Some key themes from today's report on mitigation:

Emissions of greenhouse gases are rising at a near-record pace. Greenhouse gas emissions grew 2.2% per year between 2000 - 2010, compared to a rate of 1.3% per year between 1979 - 2000. The increase was 3% per year between 2010 - 2011, and 1 - 2% from 2011 - 2012. About 76% of the greenhouse gases emitted were in the form of CO2, with 16% from methane. In 2010, ten countries accounted for about 70% of the world's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes. About half of the cumulative human-caused CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2010 have occurred in the last 40 years.

If we are going to avoid a dangerous 2°C (3.6°F) warming, we must make large and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At the 2010 climate talks in Cancun, the governments of the world agreed that global warming should be kept under 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels in order to avoid a "dangerous" threshold of climate change. The new IPCC report says that in order to do this, the share of zero and low carbon energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, and unproven technologies like fossil fuel with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) must at least triple by 2050, and greenhouse gas emissions will have to fall 40 - 70%, compared to 2010 levels. By 2100, emissions of CO2 need to be near zero. This would require about $30 billion per year less to be spent on fossil fuels from 2010 - 2029, $147 billion per year more to be spent on zero and low carbon energy sources, and several hundred billion per year more per year to be spent on energy efficiency. (For comparison, the annual global total investment in the energy system is $1.2 trillion.) The report emphasizes that the greenhouse gas reduction promises made at the 2010 Cancun summit for the year 2020 are not enough to keep warming of the planet below 2°C at the lowest cost, though will likely keep a 3°C temperature rise from occurring.

If the world delays mitigation through 2030, it will be much more expensive and perhaps impossible to keep warming below 2° C. Models that delayed doing significant emission cuts until 2030 showed that the economic costs during the transition to renewable energy and in the long-term would be higher. Also, if some key (and unproven) technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) turn out not to be feasible at large scales, it will be difficult to keep warming below 2° C.

Keeping Earth's temperature rise below 2°C will have additional co-benefits. For example:
1) Reducing air pollution. The World Health Organization reported that in 2012 about 7 million people died--one in eight of total global deaths--as a result of air pollution exposure.
2) Improving energy security, leading to less price volatility and fewer supply disruptions.
3) Environmental protection.

There is a huge opportunity in the next few decades to build low-emission cities. Urban land cover is projected to expand by 56 - 310% between 2000 and 2030. Most of this urban infrastructure has yet to be built, presenting a tremendous opportunity to build the new urban areas so they emit fewer greenhouse gases. However, this will require strong policy, technical, financial and institutional measures.

Economic and population growth are the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. We've grown far more efficient at producing goods using less energy, meaning that the "energy intensity" of the global economy steadily declined from 2000 - 2010. However, increasing economic growth and population growth have outpaced the decline in energy intensity, resulting in higher greenhouse gas emissions. "Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities." If we take no additional measures to slow down human-caused climate change, the planet is expected to warm by about 4°C by 2100 compared to per-industrial levels. That's the same difference in temperature as between today's climate and the Ice Age.

Greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation are decreasing. Some good news is that the global rate of deforestation has been going down, which has made greenhouse gas emissions due to land use changes decline (greenhouse gas emissions due from agriculture, forestry, and other land use are 24% of the human total.) These type of emissions are projected to continue to fall, and possibly go to zero by 2100.

Renewable energy is growing fast, but needs help to increase its market share. In order to help renewable energy grow more rapidly, direct or indirect subsidies are needed. Indirect subsidies could occur by taxing fossil fuels or adopting a cap and trade system. The report doesn't recommend any particular policy actions, but does note that "to help reduce possible adverse effects on lower income groups who often spend a large fraction of their income on energy services, many governments have utilized lump‐sum cash transfers or other mechanisms targeted on the poor."

New Blockbuster IPCC Climate Report: Comprehensive, Authoritative, Conservative, my September 2013 post on who the IPCC is, and how they write their reports.

Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused, my September 2013 post on Part I of the 2013 - 2014 IPCC report.

IPCC: Climate Change Increasing Risk of Hunger, Thirst, Disease, Refugees, and War, my March 31, 2014 post on Part II of the 2013 - 2014 IPCC report.

Available: professionals willing to speak about climate change to local groups
If your school, chamber of commerce, church, library, or community club needs a local expert on climate science to come speak, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and the United Nations Foundation can help out, thanks to a new effort called The organization has more than 160 volunteer experts from al 50 states in a database that is searchable by geographic location, expertise, and languages spoken. If you are have expertise in climate science and are interested in volunteering for this network, please go to and create a profile. I have my own set of slides I use for such talks that anyone is welcome to borrow from, available at

Jeff Masters
Categories:Climate Change

Energy, Food, Population and Climate

Published: April 9, 2014
Energy, Food, Population and Climate

I was reading this article, Green Energy Draws Investment Worldwide, which reports on the United Nations' Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investments 2014. The article documents that global investments in renewable energy dropped in 2013, but also notes that China now exceeds Europe in renewable energy investments. Part of the reason for reduced investment in renewable energy was due to the declining price of solar energy. Another reason is unstable energy policy. In the U.S., for instance, the investment in wind energy jumps up and down based on incentives such as tax credits. The amount of energy produced by renewables continues to increase from year to year. If we obtained this energy from fossil fuels, there would be approximately 20% more carbon dioxide emissions.

Even with accounting that carbon dioxide emissions are only 80% of what they might be, the total global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase every year. Here is a figure put together from reports from the International Energy Agency.

Figure 1: World Primary Energy Supply in 1973 and 2003. From International Energy Agency.

In 1973 oil provided 45.0 % of the world’s energy and in 2003 the number is 34.4%. Natural gas provided 16.2% in 1973 and 21.2% in 2003. Coal was 24.8% in 1973 and 24.4% in 2003. If I add correctly in 1973 fossil fuels provided 86% of the world’s energy and in 2003 fossil fuels provided 80% of our energy. The big difference between 1973 and 2003 was the increase in nuclear.

The emissions continue to increase because the total amount of energy generated increased. Mtoe is Megatons oil equivalent, and that number went from about 6,000 to 10600 in 30 years. In that 30-year period there was about a 75% increase in total energy production.

Figure 2 shows in the top part of the figure the same type of information as in the above figure, but for 2011. Total energy production in 2011 was about 13,113 Megaton oil equivalent. In 2011, the increase in energy production is approximately 120% compared to 1973. Compared to 2003, the 2011 energy production is about 25% higher.

Figure 2: World Primary Energy Supply in 2011, top. From International Energy Agency. Total energy production in 2011 was about 13,113 Megaton oil equivalent. The bottom part of the figure is the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions from each energy type.

When we look at the percentage of energy production, the energy coming from non-fossil fuel sources is 18%. Percentage wise, the amount that might be accounted to renewables has actually decreased. Therefore, we do have less carbon dioxide emissions than might be the case, but our energy use increases and our reliance on fossil fuels remains in many ways the same. The amount of energy produced by non-fossil fuels today would have been over 40% of the world’s energy use in 1973.

In terms of share of energy production, coal has increased at the expense of both oil and non-fossil fuels. If you look at the bottom part of the figure, the high amount of carbon dioxide emissions from coal shows that coal is especially bad for the climate.

In the past decade, globally, coal has grown more than either renewables or natural gas. This has fueled, especially, the economies of India and China, leading to a significant rise in standard of living. This shows up as large changes in, for example, hunger statistics. The tie between economic success, energy use and carbon dioxide becomes more clear. Despite amazing growth in the use of renewables, which has actually decreased carbon dioxide emissions in Europe, the total growth in energy production overwhelms this decrease. This makes the current continued increase in carbon dioxide emissions more staggering – it comes in the presence of real reductions in emissions from renewables.

The increase in energy production improves economies. Bringing economic development to a larger percentage of the world’s population, while the population continues to grow, assures decades more of very high emissions. If we then make the reach that economic growth and standard of living are accompanied by consumption of more meat, which has always been the case, we see an amplifying impact on emissions coming from agriculture.

We are therefore even in the best of cases committed to further increases in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as emissions of other greenhouse gases. The ultimate way to limit warming is to reduce emissions, which requires energy sources and food supplies that do not emit greenhouse gases. At this point we are not even offsetting the increase of carbon dioxide emissions by our adoption of renewables. It is interesting to note that China, now the world’s largest emitter, is also the world’s largest investor in renewable energy. Also noteworthy, is that China has driven down the price of solar energy. This places China in not only a potential technological advantage, but is also building policy advantage, as China is on a path that might displace coal’s role in energy production.


IPCC: Climate Change Increasing Risk of Hunger, Thirst, Disease, Refugees, and War

Published: March 31, 2014
Climate change is already having "widespread impacts", and has the potential to worsen global hunger, water availability, disease, drought, flooding, refugees, and war in the coming decades if we do nothing to reduce it, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today, in the latest installment of their once-every-seven-year report on the climate. Today's report on climate change impacts and how we can adapt to them warned that "throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps." Today's report by the Nobel-prize winning group of scientists was the second of four parts. Part 1, released in September 2013, covered the physical science behind climate change. Part 3 (due out in mid-April, 2014) will discuss how we can mitigate (reduce) climate change impacts. Part 4 (due out in early November, 2014) will present a grand summary of Parts 1, 2, and 3. Some key themes from today's report:

Food supplies will tighten. To me, the most important finding of the report is the climate change's threat to reduce global food supplies, which have already been negatively impacted, and are at risk to get much worse: “Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts. Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize (corn) yields for many regions and in the global aggregate." For the future, the report acknowledges that some areas will likely see increases in food production, due to increased CO2 in the air and more favorable precipitation, but the overall global trend in food supplies will likely be downward (Figure 1.) This downward trend in yields will occur in the face of rapidly increasing demand, as the population grows by 2 billion, resulting in "increased likelihood of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions."

Figure 1. Summary of projected changes in crop yields, due to climate change over the 21st century. The figure includes projections for different emission scenarios, for tropical and temperate regions, and for adaptation and no-adaptation cases combined. Over the period 2010 - 2029, about as many scenarios predict an increase in global crop yields as predict a decrease. However, beyond 2030, more than twice as many scenarios predict a decrease versus an increase. Relatively few studies have considered impacts on cropping systems for scenarios where global mean temperatures increase by 4°C or more. For five time frames in the near-term and long-term, data (n=1090) are plotted in the 20-year period on the horizontal axis that includes the midpoint of each future projection period. Changes in crop yields are relative to late-20th-century levels. Data for each time frame sum to 100%. Image credit: IPCC.

Water availability to people will decrease, as wet areas get wetter and dry areas get drier. Not only does climate change pose huge risks to our food supply, it also threatens water availability. “The fraction of global population experiencing water scarcity and the fraction affected by major river floods increase with the level of warming in the 21st century.”

We're not adapting fast enough to avoid serious damage. The report talks about "adaptation deficits", as demonstrated by our relatively poor ability to respond to impacts from from recent extreme climatic events. "Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and coastal flooding, are already moderate (high confidence) and high with 1°C additional warming (medium confidence)." IPCC author and Princeton Professor Michael Oppenheimer put it more succinctly to the Associated Press: “We’re all sitting ducks.”

Poor people are most at risk from climate change. Climate-related hazards constitute an additional burden to people living in poverty, acting as a threat multiplier.

Climate change increases the risk of violence. For the first time, the IPCC lays out the case that climate change can add a destabilizing factor that can make violence more likely in countries with social and economic inequalities. "Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."

Climate change increases the risk of more refugees. "Displacement risk increases when populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events."

Climate change will be costly. Though the uncertainties are high, the costs for an additional 2°C rise in temperature are thought to be between 0.2 and 2.0% of global GDP. "Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range, since it is difficult to account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors."

Human health will suffer. "Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income…the magnitude and severity of negative impacts are projected to increasingly outweigh positive impacts. Examples include greater likelihood of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves and fires; increased likelihood of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions; risks from lost work capacity and reduced labor productivity in vulnerable populations; and increased risks from food- and water-borne diseases and vector-borne diseases" (like malaria.)

We can take action to reduce these substantial risks. "Mitigation is considered essential for managing the risks of climate change." Mitigation refers to human actions to reduce climate change. Burning fewer fossil fuels and thus putting less CO2 in the air is essential to mitigating climate change. We should view the next few decades as the era of ‘climate responsibility’, when we can make a huge difference to keep our future climate livable. The report emphasizes that if greenhouse gases continue to rise, the world can expect an additional 6 - 7°F (3.5 - 4°C) of warming by 2100, instead of the international goal of keeping this rise less than 2°F (1.2°C). Princeton's Dr. Oppenheimer compared these two choices as "the difference between driving on an icy road at 30 mph versus 90 mph. It's risky at 30, but deadly at 90." Uncertainty is not a reason to delay climate action, and it is cheaper to act now on climate change than to delay. The International Energy Agency said in 2013 that in order to keep global warming less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, "Delaying stronger climate action until 2020 would avoid $1.5 trillion in low-carbon investments up to that point, but an additional $5 trillion would then need to be invested through to 2035 to get back on track." The latest IPCC findings will be a key discussion topic for world leaders at a September 23, 2014 Climate Summit in New York City, hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The summit aims to mobilize political will to pave the way for an ambitious global legal climate agreement to be signed at the critical December 2015 Conference of Parties (COP) negotiations in Paris.

Associated Press coverage of the IPCC Part 2 report.

New Blockbuster IPCC Climate Report: Comprehensive, Authoritative, Conservative, my September 2013 post on who the IPCC is, and how they write their reports.

Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused, my September 2013 post on Part I of the 2013 - 2014 IPCC report.

Video 1. The IPCC released this video to accompany today's release of their 2014 Impacts and Adaptation report.

Jeff Masters
Categories:Climate Change

Save the Keeling Curve!

Published: March 11, 2014
Climate change's most iconic research project is in danger--a victim of budget cuts in an era of increased government belt-tightening. The Keeling Curve is a measurement of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere made atop Hawaii’s Mauna Loa, begun in 1958 by Dr. Charles Keeling. It is the longest-running such measurement in the world. The curve was instrumental in showing how human emissions of carbon dioxide were steadily accumulating in Earth's atmosphere, and raised awareness that human-caused climate change was an ever-increasing threat to the stability of our climate. After Keeling's death in 2005, the measurements were continued by his son, Ralph F. Keeling. Support from NSF, NOAA and NASA is being diminished or withdrawn, and Keeling has turned to crowd-funding to help raise funds to continue these important measurements. I hope you can join me in making a donation.

Figure 1. The Keeling Curve: climate change's most iconic image. The curve's steady year-by-year increase in CO2 due to burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has wriggles on top of it, due to the natural seasonal cycle in CO2--plants suck in CO2 during the Northern Hemisphere growing season, then release it during the winter. Image credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USCD.

Figure 2. Dr. Charles Keeling posing at the entrance to the Charles Keeling Building at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

CO2 Levels Hit 401 ppm
The latest data from the Keeling curve website shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are surging upwards in their usual late winter push, as plants return CO2 to the atmosphere before the Northern Hemisphere spring growing season hits. CO2 levels reached 401 ppm (parts per million) last week on top of Mauna Loa, setting a new record. CO2 levels were at 280 ppm in 1870, increased less than 1 ppm per year in the 1960s, then accelerated to 2 ppm per year during the 2000s. Less than 1% of the increase since 1870 has been due to natural sources, such as volcanoes. The last time carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm—between 2.5 and 5 million years ago during the Pliocene Era—the Earth was 3.5 to 9° F warmer (2 to 5° C), and sea levels were 65 to 80 feet higher.

There is a hashtag #savetheKeelingCurve
Eli Rabett's post, Shaking the Cup for Science
What Does 400 ppm Look Like? December 2013 blog post by Robert Monroe of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Senate holds all-nighter on climate change
A group of 31 U.S. Senators pulled an all-nighter last night on the floor of the U.S. Senate, taking turns from 9 pm Monday night until 9 am Tuesday morning to promote policy actions on climate change. Many of the Senators involved issued tweets using the hashtag #Up4Climate. The all-nighter was another indication that politicians are becoming increasingly bold about speaking up on climate change.

Latest Version of our WunderMap App Now Includes WunderPhotos
Weather Underground has released today a new version of our WunderMap app for iPhone and iPad. The main new feature that we'd like to highlight is the WunderPhotos layer--now users can view, share, and submit photos all from within the app. Here are a few of the features of the new version of the WunderMap app:

◦ Improved Weather Station display, and both station size and station spacing are now adjustable (Weather Stations Layer ⇒ Settings).
◦ New WunderPhotos layer! View, share, and submit beautiful weather photos.
◦ Fixed incorrect elevation for some Personal Weather Stations.
◦ Swipe-to-delete search history items.
◦ "Terrain/Satellite” and other map options made more prominent.
◦ Bug fixes (crashes, visual glitches, and usability enhancements).
◦ Optimized performance across all devices.

The latest version is available to download for iPhone and iPad at

Jeff Masters
Categories:Climate Change

Record Cold in a Warming World

Published: March 4, 2014
An impressive blast of Arctic air has toppled more records for all-time March cold over the Eastern U.S., in the wake of the major snowstorm that brought 4 - 8" of snow from Missouri to Maryland. Fresh snow is very efficient at radiating heat to space, and the 3.8" of snow that fell in Baltimore on Monday helped drive the temperature down to 5°F on Monday night, tying the city's all-time March low temperature record set on March 4, 1873. The temperature eventually dipped down to 4°F Tuesday morning, breaking the March record. Atlantic City, NJ, which got 5.5" of snow on Monday, also set a new all-time cold record for the month of March on Monday night, when the temperature fell to 2°F. The previous all-time low for the month of March was 3°F set on March 4, 2009. Official records for the Atlantic City area date back to 1874.

At least five other cities have set or tied all-time March cold temperature records during the current cold wave:

Charlottesville, Virginia set an all-time March low of 1°F Tuesday morning (previous record: 7°F on March 4, 1943.)

Billings, Montana set an all-time March low of -21° on March 2, 2014 (previous record: -19°.)

Pierre, South Dakota set an all-time March low on both March 1 and March 2, dipping to -20° (previous record: -19°F on March 11, 1998.)

Flint, Michigan set an all-time March low of -16° on March 3 (previous record: -12°.)

Rockford, Illinois tied its all-time March record low of -11° on March 3.

At least five U.S. cities have set records for their coldest winter on record, as detailed by wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt in his latest blog post. He has not yet compiled a list of cities that have set a record for their warmest winter on record during 2013 - 2014, but I know of at least two: Las Vegas, Nevada, and Tucson, Arizona.

Figure 1. Departure of surface temperature from average as diagnosed by the GFS model at 00 UTC March 4, 2014. A negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) allowed cold air to spill southwards out of the Arctic over the Eastern U.S., bringing temperatures up to 36°F (20°C) below average. Compensating warm air flowed northwards into the Arctic underneath a ridge of high pressure over Europe. Data/image obtained using Climate Reanalyzer™ (, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

How can a planet that is warming experience record cold?
This week's impressive cold blast brings up the question: How can a planet undergoing "global warming" experience record cold? Well, it's a big planet, and the weather has naturally crazy extremes. We expect to see many locations experience all-time daily and monthly cold records each month. It's just that the number of these cold records will be outnumbered by all-time heat records, when averaged over the globe, and over decades. It is called Global Warming for good reason! A 2009 study led by Dr. Jerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO found that in the U.S., the ratio of the number of record daily highs to lows was near 1:1 in the 1960s and 1970s, but had increased to more than 2:1 during the decade of the 2000s, due to our warming climate. The ratio for the 2010’s was approximately 2.4-to-1 for daily records, for the four years 2010 - 2013, as explained in detail at Guy Walton's wunderblog. If "business as usual" emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide continue this century, this ratio of record highs to record lows is expected to increase to 20:1 by the year 2050, and 50:1 by 2100. So, even on planet experiencing extreme global warming, we will still see a few record low temperatures in the 22nd Century.

Figure 2. Ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole. ©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao; data from a 2009 study led by Dr. Jerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO.

Two Years Ago: Summer in March
When we do break all-time heat records in the current warming climate, we should expect that some of these new records will crush the old records in phenomenal ways. That was the case during the astonishing U.S. record-breaking "Summer in March" heat wave just two years ago, in 2012. It was the warmest March on record for the contiguous U.S., 8.6°F above the 20th century average for March, and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months that have passed since the U.S. record began in 1895, only one month, January 2006, had a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012. Every state in the nation experienced a record warm daily temperature during March, and 25 states east of the Rockies had their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. All-time March records were broken at 290 stations, with some stations breaking their all-time March record four times. There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date. Four stations broke daily records by 30°F or more.

Figure 3. "This is the kind of sunset that you can expect to see in July, not in March. 77°F when I took this," said the caption on this wunderphoto taken on March 17, 2012 in Windom, Minnesota by wunderphotographer sally.

Jeff Masters
About the Blogs
These blogs are a compilation of Dr. Jeff Masters,
Dr. Ricky Rood, and Angela Fritz on the topic of climate change, including science, events, politics and policy, and opinion.