The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[Magicdirt]

I like the new Av Hutch

[hutch]

I like the new Av Hutch

 

Thanks mate, another bloke called magikF started using my other one so thought it time for a change. this one suits cause I am an old man, pedaling my guts out...going nowhere with authorities looking over my shoulder..

[nabraxas]

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141659.htm

[hutch]

 

 

CRU Monthly Temperature is Constantly Changing.......WHY?

 

The longer I am involved in the global warming debate the more frustrated I am getting with the

CRU temperature data. This is the one of the most commonly cited sources of global temperature data, but the numbers just don't stay put. Each and every month the past monthly temperatures are revised. Since I enter the data into a spreadsheet each month I am constantly seeing the shift in the data. If it was the third significant digit it wouldn't bother me (very much), but it is much more than that.

 

For example, I have two very different values for January of 2010 since September 2010. Here are the values for January based on the date I gathered it.

 

Sep 10th, 2010: January 2010 anomaly was 0.707 °C

 

Jan 30th, 2011: January 2010 anomaly is now 0.675 °C

 

That is a 5% shift in the value for last January that has taken place in the past 4 months. All of the initial months of the year show a fairly significant shift in temperature.

 

Monthly Temperature values for global temperature change on a regular basis.

 

Oddly enough the yearly average seems to stay the same, but the monthly values that create the average are in constant flux. It seems that May of 2010 is the current transition point for the year. The latest data has the early part of 2010 as the cooler version, but past May the latest data is warmer than the earlier data. It is very frustrating to use data that is this unstable.

 

It just isn't 2010 that is in flux. December of 2009 has undergone at least 3 significant revisions in the past 4 months.

 

Sep 10th, 2010: December 2009 anomaly was 0.411 °C

 

November 2010: December 2009 anomaly was 0.473 °C

 

Jan 30th, 2011: December 2009 anomaly is now 0.438 °C

 

This constant variation in the data makes comparing temperatures even a year ago impossible. According to the data available by the CRU, December of 2010 was somewhere between 0.151-0.213 °C cooler than 2009. The current data indicates that 2010 was 0.178 °C cooler than 2009, but it seems likely that this will also change in the months to come.

 

I am going to start saving the full revision each month and will be putting together future comparisons of what should be a stable temperature set. The changes might not seem significant, but the constant revision of global temperature data from the CRU is very concerning as it makes comparisons to past data slippery. If I can't trust the data from December 2009 from the CRU, how can I possibly trust data from December of 1909?

 

 

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/cru-monthly-temperature-is-constantly-changing/CRU Monthly Temperature is Constantly Changing

[cristop]

 

 

CRU Monthly Temperature is Constantly Changing.......WHY?

 

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/cru-monthly-temperature-is-constantly-changing/CRU Monthly Temperature is Constantly Changing

 

 

[cristop]

The answer to the question about the temperatures changing is on the CRU website. It as a frequently asked question. Here is the link:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq

[hutch]

The answer to the question about the temperatures changing is on the CRU website. It as a frequently asked question. Here is the link:

http://www.cru.uea.a...emperature/#faq

 

Thank you for the link... raises more questions than it answers...been used before...been discredited as well before.....I will follow up and show why when A) I have had less red wine and I have the time to go back and find it. I don't have any kind of filing or saving system...Never had a need before and I am confused enough as it is....I will come back...

[hutch]

I really can't decide whether I should hate Al Gore… or thank him for giving me something to write about.

He has caused the spread of more pseudo-scientific incompetence on the subject of global warming (I'm sorry — climate change) than any climate scientist could possibly have ever accomplished. Who else but a politician could spin so much certainty out of a theory?

As someone who has lived and breathed meteorology and climate for 40 years now, I can assure you that this winter's storminess in the little 2% patch of the Earth we like to call the 'United States of America' has nothing to do with your SUV.

Natural climate variability? Maybe.

But I would more likely chalk it up to something we used to call "WEATHER".

Let me give you a few factoids:

1) No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness. One of the hallmarks of global warming theory is LESS extratropical cyclone activity — not more.

2) If some small region of the Earth is experiencing unusually persistent storminess, you can bet some other region is experiencing unusually quiet weather. You see, in the winter we get these things called 'storm tracks'….

3) Evidence for point #2 is that we now have many years of global satellite measurements of precipitation which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year. The AREAS where it occurs just happen to move around a whole lot. Again, we used to call that "weather".

4) Global average temperature anomalies (departures from seasonal norms) have been falling precipitously for about 12 months now. Gee, maybe these snowstorms are from global cooling! Someone should look into that! (I know…cold and snow from global cooling sounds crazy….I'm just sayin'….)

I could go on and on.

Now, I know I'm not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al's sermons, and say things like, "You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …". Can I get an 'amen'??

But I hope I can still save a few of those out there who are still capable of independent reasoning and thought.

NOW can I go to bed?

 

http://www.drroyspen...ming-snowstorm/

[cristop]

I am not a climate scientist, but from what I have read the factors that influence global temperatures on the timescale of months as opposed to years or decades would include:

1. Solar activity. This goes through 11 year cycles and longer term changes, but it also fluctuates day to day & month to month.

2. Heat exchange between the oceans & atmosphere. Global average temperatures are based on land and sea surface measurements, so deep sea temperatures don't figure. The extreme El Nino of 1998 for example was mostly responsible for the record high temps of that year because higher temperatures concentrated in surface waters of the Pacific were able to discharge their heat into the atmosphere very efficiently. Aside from El Nino Southern Oscillation, other well known atmosphere-oceanic heat exchange systems include the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, the Antarctic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Madden–Julian oscillation. I expect there are others as well. Apart from the direct effects of these systems on sea & air surface temperatures, there are also changes in precipitation and cloud cover. These factors (e.g. snow cover, cloud cover) change reflectivity (albedo) giving a secondary influence on surface temperatures.

3. Volcanic clouds. These are particularly influential if they get into the stratosphere.

4. Seasonal CO2. This oscillates throughout the year. Most of the earths land mass is in the northern hemisphere, so in the northern spring & summer CO2 falls as plant growth absorbs it, then is released as leaves decay in the autumn & winter.

The above factors, and more, fluctuate over different frequencies and time scales. Their individual effects on global mean surface temperatures will counteract or reinforce one another to varying degrees at different times.

On top of all these fluctuations is the +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) degree of uncertainty estimated by the CRU.

People do make regional seasonal forecasts based on the phenomena I outlined above. I don't know if anyone tries to marry them all together to make global seasonal forecasts, let alone monthly ones. That would be a massive undertaking and wouldn't have the economic imperative that regional forecasts have.

Here is another link to FAQs:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html

[cristop]

I don't think anyone ever said that global warming accounts for every weather event. Nor does anyone say we will no longer have seasons; or every successive year must be hotter than the last.

[hutch]

I don't think anyone ever said that global warming accounts for every weather event. Nor does anyone say we will no longer have seasons; or every successive year must be hotter than the last.

 

Woody did!...plus the the IPPC, CRU and countless others have said over and over again that our seasons would be hotter, longer, drier.....Do we have to drag all the old links back out? You know...the ones they were using before the US and the EU got frozen and Australia got its rains back....

That is just the point cristop and what has got me hot under the collar from the start...They did say those things and then others come along and pardon them as you have in the above statement. I want to hold them to account for what they have said but now the just change their terminology to suit....

I wont be bluffed!

Woodies famous quote.....

I'm quite happy to go on the record as believing that the current catastrophic Queensland flooding has been made much worse than it might otherwise have been, by the warming that we've had even just to date. The oceans temperatures off Australia are an enormous heat engine that is driving the evaporation of the water in the present El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation cycle responsible for the rain. If we keep warming the planet, ocean temperaures with themselves warm even further, and instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

 

[nabraxas]

Back in December, we wrote about some theories on why a warmer arctic could mean a colder North America and Northern Europe.

Andrew Freedman writes on Capitol Weather Gang, "The unusually wintry weather gripping Europe as well as the cold plaguing the eastern United States are linked by a historically strong weather system locked over Greenland." Believe it or not, this frigid start to winter in northern North America and Europe may have to do with unusually warm temperatures in the Arctic.

And as Climate Central explained this "Warm Arctic/Cold Continents Pattern," linking the loss of sea ice to the cold northerly blasts.

When the ice melts, it allows incoming solar radiation to warm water and air temperatures, which in turn has an influence on atmospheric pressure and circulation, and may help shift Arctic air southward, while the Arctic remains unusually warm.

Last week, NASA released this map that helps illustrate this point.

weather, climate, blizzard, arctic, feb 1 blizzardweather, climate, blizzard, arctic, feb 1 blizzard

This map of the United States, Canada, eastern Siberia, and Greenland shows temperature anomalies for January 9 to 16, 2011, compared to the same dates from 2003 through 2010...Because this image shows temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, red or orange areas are not necessarily warmer than blue areas. The reds and blues indicate local temperatures that are warmer or colder than the norm for that particular area. The overall configuration of warmer-than-normal temperatures in the north and cooler-than-normal temperatures in the south probably results from a climate pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO).

So while the beginning of January was unusually frigid down in most of the country, temperature at higher latitudes were abnormally warm. So warm that residents of Iqaluit, the capital Nunavut in far northern Canada, had to cancel their New Year’s snowmobile parade. So what exactly is this Arctic Oscillation, anyways? I'll leave it to NASA to explain:

The AO is a pattern of differences in air pressure between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. When the AO is in “positive” phase, air pressure over the Arctic is low, pressure over the mid-latitudes is high, and prevailing winds confine extremely cold air to the Arctic. But when the AO is in “negative” phase, the pressure gradient weakens. The air pressure over the Arctic is not quite so low, and air pressure at mid-latitudes is not as high. In this negative phase, the AO enables Arctic air to slide south and warm air to slip north.

The big question is how exactly this Arctic Oscillation is being impacted by loss of sea ice and generally warmer surface and ocean temperatures. NOAA's recent "Arctic Report Card" is the best resource so far for answers. The very basic formula seems to be: warmer Arctic temperatures lead to loss of sea ice in the Arctic, which leads to changes in air pressure and wind patterns in northern latitudes, which very probably lead to colder temperatures and more severe winter storms across North America and northern Europe.

http://www.good.is/post/yes-even-the-great-groundhog-s-day-blizzard-of-2011-has-ties-to-climate-change/

[Slybacon]

THE BIG PICTURE: CYCLONE YASI STRIKES

CYCLONE YASI is probably early real-world evidence of scientific predictions that global warming will lead to more extreme weather events, according to the government's expert climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut.

He says that if it is, given the evidence that global warming is tracking at the highest end of international predictions, then future cyclones could prove that we ''ain't seen nothing yet''.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Ross Garnaut ... said it could be that "we ain't seen nothing yet". Photo: Justin McManus

Professor Garnaut said scientists and climate change modelling had predicted global warming would lead to more frequent extreme weather events, including cyclones and bushfires.

The prediction of more extreme storms already appeared to be verified by data from the north Atlantic. While there was not yet sufficient statistical data to prove more frequent extreme cyclones in Australia, ''there is no reason to think the physics will work differently in Australian air than north Atlantic air'', Professor Garnaut said.

''I would say the odds seem to favour the proposition that cyclonic events will be more intense in a hotter world and bear in mind … if this is the case we are just at the beginning of the warming process, the warming since pre-industrial times is 1 degree, the science says without mitigation … that first degree is just the beginning, and so if we are seeing an intensification of extreme weather events now, you ain't seen nothing yet.''

..Professor Garnaut is revising and updating his 2008 climate change review for the Gillard government and the multi-party climate change committee. He said that since his 2008 review the scientific evidence for global warming had become stronger.

''All the measurable impacts are tracking right at the top of the range of possibilities … or in some cases above them … there is no major area, unfortunately, where sceptical views of the science can draw any strength from the peer-reviewed science, the real science, that has been done in the past five years - all of the evidence appears to be in the other direction,'' he told journalists yesterday.

This week the Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce attacked the Greens for linking increased extreme weather events with climate change because cyclones have occurred for hundreds of years. The government hopes to legislate a carbon price by the end of the year.

Couldn't see that coming..... Angels don't play this Haarp

Edited February 3, 2011 by Slybacon

[hutch]

Couldn't see that coming..... Angels don't play this Haarp

 

Yet everything Garnaut said it was was wrong..It wasn't the biggest, it wasn't the most devastating it wasn't out of the ordinary at all....It was just a tropical Queensland cyclone the likes this part of the planet has been experiencing ever since there was weather. Whats with his crack "you ain't seen nothing yet" More scare tactics from Government advisers. The man is a crook and a liar and should face trial when this all unravels. The meeeedja beat it up horribly. Sent all their best reporters into harms way only to look like rubber neckers... and now look like gooses with little to report. The locals just get on with it.... All alarmists should be taken out back and given a stern lecture if you know what I mean.....What is just as bad as alarmists in my view is REPEATERS.....Sprout the same rubbish without any proof other than "He said so"

I read somewhere and I will dig it up if someone wants but it has been proven that we have the same precipitation around the world year in and year out. It just falls in different places because of weather. Weird isn't it

Dear Professor Garnaut: we’ve seen it before, so stop acting so shocked

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dear_professor_garnaut_weve_seen_it_before_so_stop_acting_so_shocke

Edited February 3, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

850 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of AGW........ not a misprint...850....

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., comment at RealClimate.org

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[hutch]

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region's coldest weather in six decades.

Serengeti Zoo owner Alberto Hernandez says 14 parrots, 13 serpents, five iguanas, two crocodiles and a capuchin monkey died. He said Saturday that power failures cut off electrical heating at the zoo in the town of Aldama.

Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.

Power outages have affected much of northern Mexico, forcing factories and businesses to close. Dozens of people are in shelters. Schools have been closed in Chihuahua state but are expected to open Tuesday as the weather warms.

 

http://www.google.co...0c5ffb3ebb54a5a

[Slybacon]

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/how-the-world-temperature-%E2%80%9Crecord%E2%80%9D-was-manipulated-trough-dropping-of-stations/

[Slybacon]

Mysterious Green Goop Falls From Sky in NY

20/01/2011 18:51:32

Posted on January 20, 2011 at 1:26pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/367/761/Mys..._Sky_in_NY.html

(Via)theblaze.com

It looks like something out of a “Ghostbusters” movie. A mysterious, and smelly, greenish-yellow goop fell from the sky in upstate New York last week. The FAA denies it came from a plane (blaming birds), and now the town is puzzled as to what it is:

ABC News reports:

Initial suspicions focused on “blue ice,” the frozen human excrement known to fall from passing jetliners, but the FAA investigated and quickly dismissed that possibility.

“The local flight standards inspectors investigated the situation and determined it was not from an aircraft,” FAA spokeswoman Arlene Salac told ABC News.

The Amherst Town Supervisor’s Office said that they are looking into the situat.

More from Barracuda

 

[hutch]

The answer to the question about the temperatures changing is on the CRU website. It as a frequently asked question. Here is the link:

http://www.cru.uea.a...emperature/#faq

 

The link Slybacon just put up would be a good place to start...shows clearly the doctoring of data to suit...

I do hope people are jailed for fraud over this some time down the track. Its wrong and unjustifiable...

[Slybacon]

New Zealand Climate Scientists Admit To Faking Temperatures: The Actual Temps Show Little Warming Over Last 50 Years

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/new-zea...arming-ove.html

Read here and here. Climate "scientists" across the world have been blatantly fabricating temperatures in hopes of convincing the public and politicians that modern global warming is unprecedented and accelerating.

The scientists doing the fabrication are usually employed by the government agencies or universities, which thrive and exist on taxpayer research dollars dedicated to global warming research. A classic example of this is the New Zealand climate agency, which is now admitting their scientists produced bogus "warming" temperatures for New Zealand.

"NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century. For all their talk about warming, for all their rushed invention of the “Eleven-Station Series” to prove warming, this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960. Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were falling during that period.....Almost all of the 34 adjustments made by Dr Jim Salinger to the 7SS have been abandoned, along with his version of the comparative station methodology."

A collection of temperature-fabrication charts.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fak...mperatures.html

[hutch]

Your links are not working mate but that is fucking HUMONGOUS news.......

Hang their heads in fucking shame....jail time I reckon and lets invoke sharia law...nothing is too good for this scum......Look what it has done to the NZ economy....

[Legba]

The Link for the NZ Story

[Slybacon]

London heath flooding could kill thousands, experts warn

Ross Lydall

21 Jan 2011

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...experts-warn.do

Thousands of Londoners could die if the capital is hit by a catastrophic downpour, a study has revealed.

Floods would cascade off Hampstead Heath and into homes from Finsbury Park to Kilburn, sweeping people off their feet and causing huge damage.

Experts say the danger would be on a scale comparable to floods that destroy- ed the Cornish town of Boscastle in 2004 and devastated Cumbria in 2009.

Heath superintendent Simon Lee said: "On loss of life, we are looking at four figures. It's a very significant risk."

The threat emerged after heath bosses revealed that £10million of repairs were needed to meet new flooding laws and prevent the 18 ponds bursting their banks. This could take three years.

Hydrologists simulated the effect of a "once in 10,000 years" downpour and were shocked at the potential damage if a deluge came rushing off the heath.

A catastrophe would be caused if 5.3 inches of rain fell in four hours. The water would pour down railway tracks to Kilburn and King's Cross.

Homes on the heath's eastern edge at Dartmouth Park would be worst hit and the floods would surround the Royal Free Hospital. A downpour in 1975 saw 6.7 inches of rain - but that fell over 19 hours, lessening the damage although still flooding homes in Gospel Oak. At the storm's peak, 3.1in fell in four hours and breached the ponds' defences.

Mr Lee said: "Because it's very heavy clay, water goes through at quite a rate. It's very unlikely but the problem we have got is that there is a chance the dams might fail in their current state.

"The implication is severe flooding in urban areas. A huge breach would see those houses close to the heath inundated immediately.

"The issue is the speed of the water. Even at only one foot deep, if it's travelling at speed it will knock people off their feet and sweep them away."

City of London Corporation, which manages the heath, plans a 10ft clay mound between some of the Highgate ponds to act as a "mini Thames Barrier" and hold back water from the northern ponds and Kenwood.

The work, not due until next year, would cause short-term damage to the look and ecology of the heath, which attracts eight million visitors a year, and close the ponds to swimmers.

The £250,000 study says that if flood defences are improved, potential loss of life would fall to "double figures".

[Slybacon]

Flood defence funding cut by 8%

9 February 2011 Last updated at 17:45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12402284

The government will spend £2.1bn on flooding defences in England over the next four years - a cut of 8% from previous periods, Environment Minister Richard Benyon has told MPs.

The money will go towards 108 projects already under construction and 187 schemes under consideration.

But projects in Leeds, York, Thirsk and Morpeth have been put on hold.

Mr Benyon disputed claims from shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh that schemes had been cancelled.

Responding to an urgent question in the Commons tabled by Ms Creagh, he said better protection was being provided to more than 145,000 homes.

He added that just because projects were not included in his announcement it did "not amount to the government cancelling schemes or saying that any particular scheme cannot go ahead in the future".

The Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West, Greg Mulholland, and the Labour MP for Leeds East, George Mudie, both criticised the decision to shelve flood defence work in the city.

Mr Mudie said: "Leeds city centre came within centimetres of flooding in 2000 and had numerous near misses. This is the largest city in the north and it cannot be allowed to be knocked out by flooding."

Morpeth in Northumberland was badly hit by flooding in 2008 when the river Wansbeck burst its banks and 1,000 homes were inundated.

The Labour MP for Wansbeck, Ian Lavery, asked for reassurances for his constituents.

But Mr Benyon said: "No schemes will have been cancelled. All defences already under construction will be completed.

"It's the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time," he said.

He said funding for projects expected in 2012-13 was under review.

"We have protected front-line services, such as forecasting, warnings and incident response, and the maintenance of existing defences," he said.

He said the Environment Agency was being asked to find 15% in efficiency savings as part of efforts to concentrate funding on front-line protection.

Among details announced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) were 39 new flood and coastal defence projects in England.

Of the new projects, 21 would provide additional protection to more than 13,000 households at risk of flooding, Mr Benyon said.

One of them was £5.7m to be spent protecting 182 houses in Keswick at risk from flooding of the River Derwent.

The remainder mainly relate to repairs to existing defences.

Among the schemes going ahead are:

Shaldon, Devon - £8.4m scheme to protect 450 properties.

Pevensey Bay, East Sussex - providing protection for 17,000 homes along the coast between Eastbourne and Bexhill-on-Sea.

Nottingham - £51m scheme to protect 16,000 homes and businesses along the River Trent.

Redcar, Cleveland - £25.5m scheme to reduce risk of coastal flooding for 1,000 properties.

Felixstowe, Suffolk - £10m scheme to reduce risks posed to 1,600 homes and businesses.

Upper Mole Flood Alleviation Scheme, West Sussex: £15m project to protect 1,000 properties in Crawley and Horley.

Insurance premiums

The shadow environment secretary said the government had cut the flood defence budget by £95m this year.

Ms Creagh said capital funding for flood defence had dropped from £354m to £259m in one year.

She said: "The Tory-led government are taking a reckless gamble with people's homes and businesses by cutting the flood defence budget by 27% in cash terms.

"We know that Leeds has lost out and people across the country face an uncertain future as they wait till next year to hear if their schemes will proceed or be cancelled.

"When Labour's deal with insurance companies to guarantee universal insurance runs out in two years' time, we must not end up in a situation where homes are uninsurable or insurance premiums are unaffordable."

The Defra announcement comes a day after a government-commissioned report warned of the potential impacts of climate change, including flooding of drainage networks and increased damage to buildings from storms.

The report, from the Engineering the Future - an alliance of professional engineering bodies - concluded that complete protection against climate impacts will not be affordable, and society would have to decide what levels of prevention should be funded for various types of threat.

[Slybacon]

What happened to Wood Dragon?