General discussion Climate change debate?

Danno

After looking at the excellent September Summary given by Pat on the other thread - I noticed that he said:

Deep Easterly wrote:

At 12.6c, it is the first (though marginal) below average month we have had in 2008 (-0.2c). South Connacht and North Leinster coolest areas in general.

Now I have been watching the Met's Monthly Data site for Birr have shown that September was the fourth month this year to record a below average temperature month and looking around further, Mullingar is reporting five below average months.

It is at this point that I feel it was a grave mistake closing Clones and Kilkenny stations as we have no data for those stations to also reflect upon.

So, the question begs, are we going to start freezing from the centre of Ireland outwards to eventually engulf all coastal areas //excluding Bray// this winter?

Cornilius

I know this topic has been discussed several times before and overlaps many other thrends, but of late the whole climate change debate has become even more difficult to believe either side of the debate as no concrete evidence has proven the theory even with all the billions invested in research! I have been stting on the fence myself and I would like to hear ye fellow weather lover's opionions on this and maybe we could display our results on a poll or something what ye think?

Danno

Excellent idea. Nothing like a good debate, especially in the mundane season of Autumn.

Danno

As I will be batting for the Anit-GW campaign, will start at home with an interesting article from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1001/breaking59.htm

Main points include:
- Most of the country suffered the coldest September in 14 years, forecasters said today.

- In its monthly summary Met Eireann said the temperature never rose above 20 degrees anywhere - the first such occurrence in more than 30 years.

- Average monthly air temperatures were around half a degree below normal at some southern weather stations and it was the coolest September since 1994 almost everywhere.

Also, may I request that my post here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57440152&postcount=1 get embedded into this thread please Snowbie?

baldieman

Hi,
There just may be an opportunity to test the solar activity theory.
Over the last several decades, sun spots and solar wind have been growing stronger and this is considered by some to be the cause of climate change.
But, it's suddenly become more quiet. If the sun continues like this, we may be in for some old fashioned winters!

M.T. Cranium

My view is that global warming is a largely natural phenomenon that has probably peaked already in the present case, but the rebound to colder than normal temperatures seems to be faster in North America than in Europe due to the persistence of warmth in the North Atlantic at high latitudes and the far-north position of the ice pack in regions to the north of the British Isles.

This argues for a gradual return to somewhat cooler conditions for a few years at least, and a quiet Sun will be a positive factor in that.

On the other hand, I do see some evidence for a slight increase in temperatures from the increased GHG factor, and this would tend to keep the temperature decrease more like a flat line for several years.

Rather than trying to predict which outcome it will be, I would suggest the outcome might help us determine how strong the AGW factor is. But in a highly variable climate like we have in North America, the AGW factor or signal is too weak to overcome large-scale pattern shifts and reductions of temperatures that are quite significant.

slagger

Prof Ray Bates UCD in an article in the Irish Times also explians that the current wet weather is due weather cycles (natural climate change?)and not man made climate change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0926/1222357357433.html

Danno

Danno wrote: »

It is at this point that I feel it was a grave mistake closing Clones and Kilkenny stations as we have no data for those stations to also reflect upon.

The met will argue that urbanisation around those stations would make comparisons with previous decades null and void.
Proximity to housing can increase temperatures by a degree or two.
Certainly when I drive into Arklow on a frosty night,the car temp rises 2c and I don't believe it has to do with an extra mile closer to the sea.

Deep Easterly

slagger wrote: »

Prof Ray Bates UCD in an article in the Irish Times also explians that the current wet weather is due weather cycles (natural climate change?)and not man made climate change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0926/1222357357433.html

Very interesting article Slagger.

Extract:

Ray Bates wrote:

An examination of the Atlantic temperatures for August, however, shows that there was a large pool of abnormally cold water stretching from the west coast of Ireland to the mid-Atlantic. This would have had a greater effect on the moisture content of depressions reaching Ireland than the distant warm area in the western Atlantic. Surface temperatures over Ireland were the coolest since 2002 in many places.

I agree with this totally. As we all know, the high amount of cloud that occured over Ireland during August explains why temperatures came in at slightly above normal.

In turn this cloud could well be the result of the cooler air and sea temps as discussed in the full article that were recorded to the West of Ireland, as the inability of cool air to hold moisture would indeed have resulted in more cloud being created and being brought up on the SW wind over us, thus keeping the night time minima up, and ironically, the average up.

Danno

One theory floated about was with a warming climate as we've had over the last decade or two, is that more cloud would form caused by increased evapouration caused by the heat (well duuuhh I hear you say :P ) but in turn this extra cloud has a role to play in deflecting the suns rays thus reducing heat that hits the earths surface. So, can these cloudy summers help kick start a colder winter?

Mullaghteelin

Danno wrote: »

So, can these cloudy summers help kick start a colder winter?

The same pattern that we endured during August would give us another heartbreakingly mild and stormy winter, just like recent ones.
IMO the cold pool of water to our southwest over the last while is probably the result of the unusually unsettled, breezy pattern that dominated. We had a number of deep depressions tracking further south than normal for much of July and August, where normally the Azores high should be.
By January, Ild expect the water temps to be back to normal, or above.:(

Why get excited about a month of slighty below normal temps, yet turn a blind eye to all those other months that are more significantly above normal? We had an exceptionally warm and sunny May. January and February were above normal for most of us for the second (or third?) year running. You cant expect EVERY MONTH to be above normal, even in a warming climate, its the long term trend that matters.

piraka

Temperature readings of the lower troposphere. Quite a dramatic cooling happening. No wonder they changed the argument from Global Warming to Climate Change. You can never be wrong with climate change.

Danno

@ Mullaghteelin - There have been 5 months below average at Mullingar, 4 at Birr.

The rapid cooling of the lower troposphere is responsible for our wetter weather lately. Warmer troposphere results in high pressure.

Danno

With this week's cold weather forecast, I think it is safe to say that Birr, currently running 0.2c cooler than the mean (http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-data.asp?Num=65) will report it's fifth below average month for the year. Looking further north to Mullingar (http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-data.asp?Num=71) it will definately be six months below average here temperature wise this year. Interesting time now as over the last few years, colder than average months were as rare as hen's teeth.

Carpenter

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm


Are things getting cold around here

Supercell

Another denialist nutter article
Note despite his claims that "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" , the chart still shows temperatures above the long term mean!!
Climate fluctuates, warming is happening but it won't uptick every year, will be some downticks too but the overall trend is undeniable as this fools own chart shows.

Danno

Can this be merged here please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396186

Supercell

Danno wrote: »

Can this be merged here please? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396186

Done!

Deep Easterly

Supercell wrote: »

Climate fluctuates, warming is happening but it won't uptick every year, will be some downticks too but the overall trend is undeniable as this fools own chart shows.

Climate fluctuates, cooling is happening but it won't downtick every year, will do some upticks too but the overall trend is undeniabe as this fools own chart shows.

I say potato, you say tomato...

M.T. Cranium

I'm not sure if this will be potato or tomato.

In the Canadian arctic, where the impact of warming is said to be largest, a weather station with a long period of record is Cambridge Bay on southern Victoria Island. This station has been in more or less continuous operation since 1929, although a few years are missing from the 1930s.

I have provided a graph of mean temperatures in June at this location. The long-term trend was actually downwards from the 1930s through the 1940s, since then, it has been generally upwards with some variations. Obviously it is the size and the future trend of the variations that will be important here, if this station warms another 2-3 degrees by 2020 then there would be a significant impact on the length of the ice-free summer season in the region, whereas, if the trend goes neutral or slightly downward again, it could sustain at least the 2008 amount of ice in the Canadian arctic.

I have labelled some of the warmer years just to provide easier reference.

Note that in this decade, there had been quite a downturn for several years, then the very warm summer (in relative terms) in 2007, and another rather cool summer this year. June temperatures tend to correlate pretty well with July and August temperatures in this region. I chose June because it is the time of the year when temperatures finally make it above freezing in the western arctic, and it would normally be the end of the local snow and ice season until very late August or early September, so it could be considered critical in climate change studies (or lack of climate change studies).

To see the graph, click on "current" if you see data instead of a graph after you click on the attachment. The word "current" should appear in the bottom left portion of the image. The labels have shifted over a bit to the right from where they appeared on my screen using a different program. The labels are all supposed to be over the highest points on the graph. The superimposed line over the raw data is the ten-year running mean ... it of course has to end in 2003, and it begins with 1934 for the same reason that you need ten years to generate a proper data point. Where it suddenly goes down to zero, that is some glitch in the excel program that does not appear in the data, so ignore that, the running mean is likely to keep rising slowly or become steady around 3.5 C as new data points are added. If we're still talking about this in five years time I can update this graph then.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The met will argue that urbanisation around those stations would make comparisons with previous decades null and void.
Proximity to housing can increase temperatures by a degree or two.
Certainly when I drive into Arklow on a frosty night,the car temp rises 2c and I don't believe it has to do with an extra mile closer to the sea.

There is undoubtedly an urban heat island effect but I drove wexford town to south dublin via the N11 for a few years alot of it around 6am and 10pm
and there was always 2-3C change on parts of the road exposed to the sea.
Wexford town and its outskirts would always be a few degrees higher than say the ferns or enniscorthy area. The sea has a powerful effect on Ireland.

Would I be right or wrong to say we are far closer to an ice age than a warmer earth?

The northerly we had the other day brought temps in Rabat Morocco to 18C max. If it was january?
Also we have had snow in June before. Isnt is possible to get a severe long winter one of the rare ones that give lying snow for months here.
The change in the albedo would cause a feed back loop.

M.T. Cranium

If there was no human modification of climate, the earth would likely be in a slow and erratic temperature decline, at least the northern hemisphere. Ice ages are largely driven by changes in the earth's orbital parameters, for example, the tilt of the earth's axis which changes slowly over time, and the point at which we are furthest or closest to the Sun, which right now is set at closest in our winter (January 3 or so).

These are the so-called Milankovitch factors named after their discoverer.

The cycles are complex and not in phase with one another, so you can have situations where an inter-glacial warm period suddenly switches to a much colder regime, as happened at the start of the last "glacial maximum" but in this case some of the factors are likely to cancel out over the next few thousands of years, and it would be a rather slow transition to ice age conditions well into the future.

Meanwhile, if there is indeed some modification of temperature going on due to human activity, even if it is modest (say 1-2 C deg) this would affect the long-term behaviour of these Milankovitch cycles to some extent, possibly delaying an ice age further, if we keep the current situation and if there is really modification.

There may be variables we don't know about that could change this rather vague forecast. But we do know that a much less active Sun over many hundreds or thousands of years, or super-volcanic eruptions, could also trigger ice age conditions regardless of the Milankovitch set-up.

I think what this all tells us is that perhaps we have passed the very peak of the inter-glacial warming (that may have come and gone in the Neolithic) but further ups and downs will continue for many hundreds or thousands of years before we approach anything like true ice age conditions again, and in the meantime human activity may have altered the equations further.

I still think this will be a colder than average winter with more snow, however.

piraka

It is being reported that there is some screw up in the Irish temperature data (duplication) recorded by Giss used for the global mean temperature.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4318#comments

Comment no. 3

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss-releases-october-2008-data/#comments

comment by Patrick K duplicates at Malin Head, Casement Aerodrome and Dublin Airport

Danno

The next week or so should see some cold records fall quite handily as two Omega blocks extablish themselves over the central USA and mid Atlantic. A few warm records may be broken to the western USA and western Greenland, however I feel that the cold record breakers will outweigh the warm ones... one to watch indeed.

Deep Easterly

Danno wrote: »

The next week or so should see some cold records fall quite handily as two Omega blocks extablish themselves over the central USA and mid Atlantic. A few warm records may be broken to the western USA and western Greenland, however I feel that the cold record breakers will outweigh the warm ones... one to watch indeed.

About time our ship came in. November average has now entered positive territory today in relation to the 1st of the month. This is the first time since the end of August this has happened. Both September and October, and November up to yesterday have stayed in negative deviation throughout. And even this positive anomoly currently looks incresingly likely to be nothing more than a blip.

Could December keep up this trend? Lets hope so!!:)

Climate Expert

We've been looking at 10-11 years of zero temperature change now despite a massive increase in C02. Is that not enough for all the alarmists out there? Somebody mentioned that we are still above the mean temperature. Did it ever occur to you that the last 100 years have been below the mean Earth temperature or that there is actually no correct mean temperature for the Earth.

Danno

Danno wrote: »

The next week or so should see some cold records fall quite handily as two Omega blocks extablish themselves over the central USA and mid Atlantic. A few warm records may be broken to the western USA and western Greenland, however I feel that the cold record breakers will outweigh the warm ones... one to watch indeed.

Thats a hopefull post regarding the omega blocks.
I look at trends rather than specefics beyond 5 days in the models.The trends remain towards cooling rather than warming at the moment.

The next few months will be very interesting hopefully.

TheGreenGiant

Just in response to the Climate Expert. Ok, Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had Curt Data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was IN 1878 or 1941.

By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace - and nearly a full degree warmer than 1880. Nasa are wrong by the way:p:cool:

The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average.

Now, having said that the earth does go through gradual cycles of warmth and cooling. But global data over the span of about 54 years, such as satellite data is not sufficiant enough to give an accurate answer at all. especially when ground based temperatures are recorded in ever growing cities were heat is trapped in by surrounding buildings. you would need an oceanic reading in both the tropics and the polar regions, as well as readings done in mountains and plains and valleys and over the span of about 500 years!!!! Not to mention readings of different layers of the atmosphere! That would be the only real way to prove there is global warming. Not that the sun seems a little brighter today than yesterday or that your pool outside is a little warmer than usual. In my opinion, ocean heat content is the best metric for determining if the planet is warming or cooling; since reliable ocean heat readings are just beginning to be collected, patience is recommended.

Climate Expert

Interesting stuff about all these variations between the measurement teams. I was vaguely aware of some of this.

I just can't see how such a strong political movement has formed from such incomplete measurements.

TheGreenGiant

Indeed, its a bit of a disgrace really especially with Nasa who cut and changed their graphs to make it seem like temperature was going up.:mad: It really misleads people(the general public), but espeically the facts on this issue. But what really grinds my gears is the fact that climate science has been corrupted by politicians and activists, so every single research paper has to be carefully scrutinized on its own merits, regardless of publishers, reviewers, or authors.

Now, the recent graphs show a drop since 1998, and before that there has been an increase in global temperature. GHGs only account less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume, the most abundant been water vapor. The most important anthropogenic GHGs (green house gases) would be CO2 which has increased by about 30% from their preindustrial level. There are other GHGs like ozone, halocarbons and nitrous oxide, but these gases are in such small volume in our atmosphere compared to say oxogen at ~21% that they wouldn't cause that much of a global temperature increase although I do believe they are playing a small role in "global warming" but not enough to make a big impact on our climate. I think the sun, earths orbit and atmospheric cycles are playing a bigger role in the earths changes as of late than putting all the blame on GHGs.

djpbarry

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had Curt Data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was IN 1878 or 1941.

By which you mean 1878, 1998 (the warmest year on record) and 1941 are all local maxima in the data? I'm looking at the Hadley data right now and the annual trend has been pretty much upward since about 1956.

djpbarry

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

...so every single research paper has to be carefully scrutinized on its own merits, regardless of publishers, reviewers, or authors.

You think this is bad thing?

baldieman

Im shocked, all the hieratics on this thread!!!

here's a few interesting links for anyone willing to question the carbon theory.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

Solar Storm Warning

03.10.2006

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] + Play Audio | + Download Audio | + Historia en Español | + Email to a friend | + Join mailing list [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like the quiet before a storm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.[/FONT]

I dont think so!!

1) Abrupt drop in the solar conveyor speed, 2) the increase in the number of days without sunspots, 3) the current very low solar wind speeds, and 4) the linear drop in the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots.

1) Drop in Solar Conveyor Speed
I have not heard why there was an abrupt change in the solar conveyor speed in 2006 or what the implications are of the abrupt change in solar conveyor speed on the solar cycle. (i.e. There must be a physical explanation for what abruptly slowed down the solar conveyor speed in 2006.)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

Quote:
May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
Quote:
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

2) Days without Sunspots
Hathaway’s recent comment that solar cycle 24 is not unusual, did not answer the question why the solar conveyor speed suddenly changed.

Hathaway’s comment was that the number of sun spotless days for cycle 23/24 is not unusual as compared to other solar cycles. Say for example solar cycle 18 which ended in 1956 and was followed by a large solar cycle, solar cycle 19 as per your attached thumb nail graph.

It is my belief based on what I have read that an abrupt slow down in the solar conveyor speed indicates a deep solar change. As there was not an abrupt slow down in the solar meridian speed for cycle 18/19 there is no reason why cycle 23/24 would be the same as cycle 18/19. In fact as far as I am aware there has never been an observed abrupt slow down of the solar meridian speed.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ycleupdate.htm

3) Very Low Solar Wind Speeds
I had read that solar physicists thought that the minimum the solar wind speed could reach was around 300 km/sec. As noted the solar wind speed is currently 271 km/sec which is the lowest measured.

4) Linear Drop in the Magnetic Field Strength of Individual Sunspots
As far as I am aware there is no explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is linearly dropping.

Based on Penn and Livingston's observations (see above) if the trend where the magnetic field strength of new sunspots continues to drop there would be no sunspots post 2012.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/gale-force-winds-and-snow-hit-nsw-20081123-6en3.html
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RarelatewintersnowfallinBrazil.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7596134.stm

In February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming. The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.
This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.
The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

Danno

http://www.slf.ch/lawineninfo/schneeinfo/hsm/index_EN <<< Swiss Alps snow way above normal.

TheGreenGiant

djpbarry wrote: »

By which you mean 1878, 1998 (the warmest year on record) and 1941 are all local maxima in the data? I'm looking at the Hadley data right now and the annual trend has been pretty much upward since about 1956.

Ok this is the Hadley graph I am looking at right now.

TheGreenGiant

djpbarry wrote: »

You think this is bad thing?

No I never said it was a bad thing,I think its a very god thing that research papers are reviewed carefully and scrutinized as this is the only way that this problem is going to be sorted.

TheGreenGiant

"February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming. The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.
This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.
The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet."

Yes, I bought this book and it was very interesting. I remember actually, Henrik spoke on Morning Ireland around the same time the book was released and the research his team were carrying out seemed very intriguing indeed.

djpbarry

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

Ok this is the Hadley graph I am looking at right now.

That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

No I never said it was a bad thing,I think its a very god thing that research papers are reviewed carefully and scrutinized as this is the only way that this problem is going to be sorted.

Sorry, what "problem" is this?

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

Yes, I bought this book and it was very interesting. I remember actually, Henrik spoke on Morning Ireland around the same time the book was released and the research his team were carrying out seemed very intriguing indeed.

The evidence for a causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is, at present, rather weak.

TheGreenGiant

djpbarry wrote: »

That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?
Sorry, what "problem" is this?
The evidence for a causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is, at present, rather weak.

yes, that would be correct. Oh, it was something you had replyed back to me earlier on in the discussion. True, the evidence at this moment in time is fairly weak. But we must remember, these scientists are not long researching for this link that might be causing part of the Earth's problems at this moment in time. More time on this matter is needed to see if anything else more defining might break through.

Climate Expert

That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?

Unless you can predict the future then nobody can say whether we are in a local minimum.

djpbarry

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

True, the evidence at this moment in time is fairly weak. But we must remember, these scientists are not long researching for this link that might be causing part of the Earth's problems at this moment in time.

I'm not sure about that. Measurements of cosmic rays have been made for quite a long time now. There is no evidence of any downward trend that coincides with the warming trend of the past few decades.

djpbarry

Climate Expert wrote: »

Unless you can predict the future then nobody can say whether we are in a local minimum.

You'll note that I used the word "appear".

TheGreenGiant

If anyone is interested, I bought a book there today, (took a week to order,but well worth the wait:D) on Climate Change. It cost 120 Euro which I thought was pretty decent. The name of the book is: Climate Change 2007 Migration Of Climate Change and the author is Cambridge University Press. Would really recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject