The earth warms up, but Congress won’t act on climate change

How hot does it have to get for the climate change deniers to admit global warming is caused by human activity?

From David Leonhardt’s excellent column in the New York Times on Tuesday:

All the while, the risks and costs of climate change grow. Sea levels are rising faster than scientists predicted just a few years ago. Himalayan glaciers are melting. In the American West, pine beetles (which struggle to survive the cold) are multiplying and killing trees.

According to NASA, 2010 is on course to be the planet’s hottest year since records started in 1880. The current top 10, in descending order, are: 2005, 2007, 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001 and 2008.

Hot is the new normal.

Still, John Kerry is throwing in the towel on his comprehensive climate change/energy bill, which is no great surprise. Despite the horrendous oil spill in the Gulf, despite signs of a warming planet all around, the GOP is full of climate change deniers and the Democratic Party is full of politicians too afraid of the mid-terms to tackle the issue.
We’ll keep roasting and the oceans will keep rising for a long time.

53 comments Add your comment

Auburn fan

July 22nd, 2010
5:08 pm

Its those Right Wing Bullies again. Remember the vast Right Wing conspiracy dreamed up by Hillary to deflect attention away from Billy? Same deal here. Its those pesky Republicans.

Scout

July 22nd, 2010
5:22 pm

Cynthia:

Call Al Gore for guidance but don’t interrupt anything.

The End Is Near

July 22nd, 2010
5:28 pm

OK you folks, I do NOT want to hear any of you complain about the price of petro (remember we do NOT need to invest in alternative energy). Nor do I want to hear a peep out of you about the weather or climate…ever…it’s ALL NORMAL!
Oh Boy, this is going to be GOOD!
The Man in Black

You Asked

July 22nd, 2010
5:39 pm

Congress will act on climate change. They are still persuing clean technologies and insentives to weatherproof buildings.

They just aren’t pushing the cap and trade section which had more to do with re-distribution of political power and wealth than it did with actual reduction of greenhouse gasses.

Don’t confuse climate deniers with people who think congress doling out pollution permission slips for $$$ is a bad idea.

You Asked

July 22nd, 2010
5:44 pm

…and yes I know I can’t spell worth a darn. Sorry for the pains I am causing all current and former English teachers.

BenFranklin

July 22nd, 2010
5:52 pm

I guess we should pray for more cold, right? I know: let’s hope there is another Little Ice Age and we end up with shorter growing seasons and less corn for ethanol!!!

booger

July 22nd, 2010
5:58 pm

Cynthia,

You do realize there are any number of groups who study and monitor global temperatures, and all have different results. These numbers are one group’s opinion. Remember last winter when you were explaining the difference between weather and climate. I suggest you take your own advice.

barking frog

July 22nd, 2010
6:02 pm

No one can deny the climate is changing! Some people think we can change the change
and others do not. Thus the debate.

Mr Right

July 22nd, 2010
6:15 pm

It’s Al Gore causing the warming with his massages !

dougmo2

July 22nd, 2010
6:16 pm

And you can thank Robert Byrds replacement.I guess West Virginia got a real Senator instead of a rubber stamp for the democrats. BTW last I checked, the oceans wre not rising, I went to Savannah and the tide was at sea level. Also the reason it is hot is called summer. My three year olds know this, why don’t you?

booger

July 22nd, 2010
6:21 pm

The New York Times is not exactly a great source for many of us. I get the NYT and last week there were three feature columns on why private industry is not hiring. Many economists and Harvard professors were referenced, but in three columns, not one writer spoke to a manager of a private company to ask their opinion. This is a media source totally out of touch.

Scout

July 22nd, 2010
6:32 pm

Mr. Right :

No, but Mrs. Gore is causing them with her temper ! LOL !

William Haider

July 22nd, 2010
6:43 pm

booger,

Well, it seems to me that there’s not any number of groups but rather Scientists, like 97% of active climatologists and their followers who belief in anthropogenic GW on one side and the deniers, mostly bad scientist recycling the same misinformation, a few minions of the carbon extraction industries and their followers on the other.

JohnnyReb

July 22nd, 2010
7:19 pm

This is good news for the economy and common sense. Let’s see – tax me more, and take my money which you have forced from me to subsidize other American’s who won’t be able to pay their higher utility bills and also to pay third world countries to grow in a green friendly manner. That’s another progressive redistribution scheme and should be a no-starter in anyone’s book.

Drifter

July 22nd, 2010
7:21 pm

The fact that we’ve just come off the coldest winter in my lifetime (and yes I’m old) doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening and the fact that we’re having a hot summer doesn’t mean it is. When anyone asserts that it does, I stop listening to anything they have to say on the subject. You should too.

Reality Check

July 22nd, 2010
7:22 pm

EARTH TO MS TUCKER!!!

IT’S THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER!!!

BACK IN FEBRUARY, WE WERE FREEZING OUT YOU KNOW WHAT OFF!!!

CLIMATE CHANGE = GLOBAL WARMING = WEATHER!!!!

Hootinanny Yum Yum

July 22nd, 2010
7:24 pm

Unemployment numbers continue to increase (metro Atlanta up to 10.3)
Fed watchdog says that home foreclosure bailout not working
Charlie Rangel charged with multiple ethics violations

And the best you can do is beat the global warming drum?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

July 22nd, 2010
7:30 pm

“despite signs of a warming planet all around,”

Here’s your sign.

Mallory

July 22nd, 2010
7:32 pm

Obama is being bullied? Kerry is throwing in the towel?

You sound a little disappointed in your “providers” Ms. Tucker.

Feeling shortchanged are you?

F. Sinkwich

July 22nd, 2010
7:38 pm

Even if rightwingers like me might think that the climate is getting warmer, there is absolutely no evidence that man has had anything to do with it.

So how is man going to fix it?

Can’t.

Thanks for asking.

Abrazos

July 22nd, 2010
7:42 pm

If you follow the money, you will find that the public global-warming deniers are bankrolled by lots of big bucks. Some, like Dr. Fred Singer, were the same guys who were hired in the 1990s by the tobacco companies to cast doubt that nicotine was addictive. Not to prove that it wasn’t addictive, mind you, but just to cast doubt or “nothing to worry about.”.

Upton Sinclair said it best: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

allen

July 22nd, 2010
7:52 pm

Even assuming anthropogenic global warming to be a fact, the bill being proposed had nothing to do with solving the problem and everything to do with making money from its perpetuation. You can argue about the existence of the problem all you wish to, you cannot solve the problem unless you develop a way to produce power IN QUANTITY without burning fossil fuel.

F. Sinkwich

July 22nd, 2010
7:52 pm

Abrazos, I’m trying to think of a lamer argument I’ve ever read on this blog than the one you just posted, but I come out blank everytime.

And that’s saying a lot.

Me Be Warmin'

July 22nd, 2010
7:55 pm

Sorry, but anyone who posts on this board, and that include Ms Tucker, has absolutely no idea of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” when it comes to ‘global warming;. The simple FACT is that there are thousands of “climatologists” out in the world – half believe humans are causing the Earth to warm up, and half believe it’s mother nature.

Neither group can prove their claim beyond reasonable doubt. Last time I checked my earth science books it mentioned something about glaciers growing and remalting multiple times in the past 120,000 years – sometimes fast, sometimes slow. It also mentions a recent “little ice age” where glaciers suddenly started growing, not melting, and scientists have no idea why.

Sure, they have a dozen theories, but no single fact. The point I’m making here is that in the next 3 hours there will be 200 posts with the same dozen people throiwing “you’re stupid” rants at each other and still the cause will be unknown.

So, I recommend getting yourselves a beer, head to the pool, and chill out for a while. By this time next year either the earth will be: a) Warmer b) cooler – pick your projection – it will be as accurate as the current 3 day weather forecast.

Abrazos

July 22nd, 2010
7:58 pm

F. Sinkwich, I apologize for speaking over your level. I should have considered the audience more carefully.

Metro Coach

July 22nd, 2010
8:11 pm

What on God’s green Earth(sorry to insult your atheist, anti-Christian sentiments) does the oil spill have to do with global warming, I mean, global cooling, I mean, climate change(that’s the current name for it, right?)? How does one affect the other?

Grumpy

July 22nd, 2010
8:12 pm

Want to push the economy all the way over the cliff? Go ahead and pass cap and trade.

Peadawg

July 22nd, 2010
8:18 pm

Aw, Cynthia. Is the Sun bullying Obama like the Republicans were earlier?

Don't forget

July 22nd, 2010
8:30 pm

Metro coach, the oil spill has nothing to do with global warming but it illustrates another benefit of moving away from fossil fuels as soon as is reasonably possible.

Not My Real Name

July 22nd, 2010
8:36 pm

Huh…. Not a race-baiting topic by CT?

Ok.

I’ll go for this….

The world gets hotter and the world gets colder.

Cap-N-Trade is merely another tax on you, the bloggist.

Hurricanes will happen, so will floods,so will blizzards.

“Hairy Reed” just got his reed lubricated with butt grease.

An Inconvenient Stiff Member

July 22nd, 2010
8:45 pm

Al Gore invented the internet don’t you know…….

Free Speech Sucks!

Joe

July 22nd, 2010
9:02 pm

I am sick and tired of you dribbling idiots on the left. What the hell do you think Congress could possibly do to change Nature??? I think the majority of the public now understands that the sole purpose of so called climate legislation is that it will be yet more tax on the American people. The dems are already going to let the Bush tax cuts expire which will affect every American household. All I can say is. Good riddance in November!!!!

Joe

July 22nd, 2010
9:08 pm

Me Be Warmin’ that is an excellent post. I agree no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt either way. One fact for sure is that demoncrats are trying to push their agenda because it will create more tax revenue. More tax revenue means more entitlements. More entitlements mean more voters who will vote dummycrat so they can keep them….

verboten

July 22nd, 2010
9:54 pm

I for one don’t deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I’m at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a car with decent gas mileage (albeit 11 years old–trading the footprint to produce a new car vs the slightly better mileage I could get with my next car, which will be a Jetta TDI), and we’re planning for our retirement house to be as off-grid capable a possible.

On the other hand, the earth has gone through severe climate shifts even within the last few thousand years–none of which were precipitated by man-made pollutants. 11,500 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with 1-mile thick ice sheets. Yet that ice all melted. Why? Was the ice an aberration (no) or was the warming an aberration (no)?

What is the earth’s “correct” temperature? If the earth was cooling and glaciers were expanding and the seas retreating (as ice build-up captured more and more water) would these same scientists and politicians be recommending that we burn more stuff to put more CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is water vapor–the #1 grenhouse gas by a 7-1 margin–never mentioned? What caused the medievel warm period when olives last grew in England and Vikings last lived on ther shores of Greenland and silver mine sin Sweden were not covered by glaciers? What caused the subsequent Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freezing solid every winter for 200 years, and farms and villiages in northern latitudes were destryoed by expanding glaciers?

At Copenhagen, AGW crowd lamented sea-level rise: “Just two years ago, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a worst-case scenario rise of 59 centimetres. But the accelerated melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland caused by faster warming means the worst case is now put at 1.2 metres. ” When? By 2200…

Current satellite data going back to 1993 has sea-levels rising about 3mm per year. The average, based on a set of tidal measurements over the last 220 years is 2mm/yr. About 8500 years ago the largest lake in the world, Lake Agassiz, which once covered almost half-a-million square kilometers (about 180,000 square miles) of central Canada simply drained, virtually overnight in the geologic timescale, into the Arctic ocean. “The last major shift in drainage occurred about 8,400 calendar years before present (about 7,700 14C years before present). The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz contributed an estimated 1 to 3 meters to total post-glacial global sea level rise. Much of the final drainage may have occurred in a very short time, in two or one events, perhaps taking as short as a year.”

In India, we find that “Useful data on sea level fluctuations have been collcted during the present expedition. Three wavecut benches were encountered at depths of 11.22 metres, 4.6 metres and 1.34 metres. The proto-historic city was built on the lowest bench, the early historic and the medieval townships on the higher benches. The island of Bet Dwarka, 30 km north of Dwarka, which is also famous as the pleasure resort of Sri Krishna, was connected with the mainland between Otha and Aramda. The reclamation referred to in ancient texts was made in this zone when the sea level was lower 3,500 years ago.”

The sea has risen 120m over the last 20,000 years, albeit with virtually all of that rise taking before about 5000 years ago. All without the help of man–and stable sea level is a recent phenomena.

I’m not against “doing something” and certainly agree that pollution is bad. I’m just not willing to agree that the proposed so-called cap-and-trade legislation is going to do anything about pollution, and if it does have aminor impact on pollution, will it do so without crippling our alreadywounded economy. And further, I think that the cap-and-trade bill expects some magic technology to spring into being simply beucase the bill mandates it–how else to get 65% reduction in emmisions from coal-fired plants (except to shut them down). Why not mandate 500MPG cars (and $1M/year unemployment benefits to stimulate the economy)? So while I’m willing to “do something”, I’m not willing to put my faith in a demonstrably ineffective Government, nor am I willing to live in a cave, naked and eating dirt (but my carbon footprint would be pretty low if I did), nor am I willing to cripple our economy.

verboten

July 22nd, 2010
9:56 pm

I have some exposure to some of the models used by climate researchers at NOAA. I can tell you, the models are frequently ad hoc and contain numerous fudge factors and corrections to massage the data, throw out outliers, adjust this term during this time period, that term during another time period, etc. Many temperature measurements are based on proxies–e.g. assuming tree rings are wider during higher temperatures, but there’s simply no way to determine how much wider per degree C, nor whether

I’m not saying that their models are wrong, just that I understand enough of the math, and have implemented models like these before, to know that a minor mistake in a fudge factor meant to allow dissimilar measurements to be used as if they were from the same dataset can make a huge difference in the validity of the model. Not to mention simple errors in implementation that can have the results “look right” but still be completely wrong.

For example consider the story told by the data that turned out to be wrong. wattsupwiththat dot com/2009/08/27/spencer-noaa%E2%80%99s-official-sea-surface-temperature-product-ersst-has-spurous-warming/

In this case, they found out that their ERSST model was producing warmer, by about 0.2C, results than other instruments. It turned out that in 2001, the satellite providing the data was boosted to a different orbit, and the model failed to take that into account. It took 10 years before anyone thought that there might be a problem! Up until then, everyone apparently assumed the earth had warmed by 0.2C suddenly in 2001. Worse, they assumed that the data for 1971-200 was wrong and massaged it to fit the 2001+ data. “In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971–2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971–2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001″ (Journal of Climate).

Just the abstract to that particular paper reveals how fragile the models are, nbeing based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data.

www dot ncdc dot noaa dot gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/xue-etal.pdf

“SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr.”

How can a normal be updated–the data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitmacy of the alteration.

“Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854–2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870–1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed.”

This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).

“Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST.”

Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be a ble to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and “correct” it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite.

Port O'John

July 22nd, 2010
9:59 pm

It’s hot in here.

Reserved

July 22nd, 2010
9:59 pm

I say do nothing and let future generations pay the price. They’ll be paying for everything else anyway….

Sam (The Cool 1 )

July 22nd, 2010
10:35 pm

The Cisco Kid likes hot weather. Why shouldn’t we?

Surprise

July 22nd, 2010
10:50 pm

Looks like a bit more than the earth is warming up. So, CT — let’s see how to place the blame on the GOP, Bush, or Foxnews. Of course your Journolist pals will give Rangel a free pass or cry ‘racism’….

WASHINGTON — A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.

Mr Charlie

July 22nd, 2010
11:39 pm

I am pretty sure between saving our economy, taxing the rich and giving to the poor, creating racial harmony, creating jobs, and providing health care to evey person on the planet how can find their way to our country, Obama can fix the weather too.

Obama sugarcube tripper

July 22nd, 2010
11:58 pm

THE SUN was recently in a UNUSUALLY LOW SUNSPOT CYCLE ! = (the cold winter we HAD).

Consequently, Scientists predicted that we would have an EXCEPTIONAL HOT SPELL following…
as is TYPICAL at the begining of all NEW SUNSPOT CYCLES !

leave it to a -democrat fear monger- to make a grab for more control …
(r e d i s t r i b u t i o n)

Scout

July 23rd, 2010
12:21 am

Cynthia:

Maybe Congress should just turn the “world thermostat” down and cool everything off ?

RevPettibone

July 23rd, 2010
4:01 am

Ms Tucker….

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the notion of liberals being compassionate and conservatives as less caring. Though the mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible, what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.

Paul Pierett

July 23rd, 2010
7:59 am

How hot does it have to get?

When Washington D.C. Is planting palm trees on the White House lawn?

Sir Richard Gregory proved nearly a century ago that sunspot activity matched the water levels of Lake Victoria, Kenya, which is the head waters for the Nile. His work can be found in Sir James Jeans book, “Through Space and Time”.

We are in a solar minimum, and, since 2003 the overall precipitation began to drop and by 2007, the number of hurricanes and tropical storms began to drop as well. Atlantic Basin tropical depressions, tropical storms and hurricanes supplement our precipitation in the Eastern part of the USA.

It is difficult to have the numerous storms predicted for this year during a year with low sunspot numbers. This solar minimum will affect our precipitation for the next 30 years as well as cool the planet which began ten years ago.

Global warming alarmists and global warming deniers will both learn a difficult lesson in the near future.

The closer you get to August the chances of hurricanes grow like a weed.

As of two days ago,

August is known as far south as Aruba as the start of hurricane season. Not this June to Nov. Garbage NOAA puts out.

When there are few sunspots, It has something to do with the position of the Sun leaving the North Atlantic and hovering over the Atlantic waters for 40 days until August and then it beats on the area for another 60 days. Kinda Biblical.

Also the Atlantic moves in a Clockwise motion.

The Sun left the Arctic Circle 22 June. It is now 30 days X 69 miles or 2100 miles south of 63 degrees north or 33 degrees south of the Arctic Circle.

In other words, the Sun is arcing over Tennessee about now.
By August, it will be prime for Florida hurricanes in a solar minimum.

Paul

Big Jim

July 23rd, 2010
10:41 am

As long as we elect businessman as our representatives,they
will continue to make decisions based on their wallets.

Don’t expect the transition to clean energy and a “green”panet to
be smooth.What politician will sacrifice their bottomline for the
planet?Maybe a Green Party or Libertarian candidate.

The two party system is the Master, and all citizens play the role
of Kunta Kinte.Let’s get back to work people,politicians are relying
on our money!

ClimateGate Rules

July 23rd, 2010
3:28 pm

I heard that Tipper Gore is divorcing Al because her globes weren’t getting enough warming.

ctucker

July 23rd, 2010
3:34 pm

ClimateGateRules, That’s pretty sophomoric and not welcome here.

ClimateGate Rules

July 23rd, 2010
7:07 pm

Well, you generally ignore serious posts, unless they’re from some fellow liberal rattling off statistics, so at least now I know how to get your attention.

But hey, if you really want to have a serious discussion about so-called climate change, why don’t you consider that one of your card-carrying Warmers, Phil Jones, admitted in a recent BBC interview that:

1. There has been no significant global warming in 15 years.
2. His historic climate records were not well organized.
3. The Medieval Warm Period may have been hotter than the late 20th century, which would drive the final stake in the one-sacred “hockey stick” graph.
4. There is no scientific consensus about climate change.

What’s especially amusing is that many of the same people who dismissed last winter’s East Coast blizzard are now trying to make a big deal out of a hot summer.

I’m also amused at the fact that you find significance in the phrase “the planet’s hottest year since records started in 1880.”

Let’s see … the planet’s been around how many centuries, and we’re supposed to get worked up over this mini-anomaly? Come off it, Cynthia, in the entire scheme of human history, “the hottest year since 1880″ is about as big a deal as being “the smartest guy on The Bachelor.”

TGT

July 23rd, 2010
9:30 pm

Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself: (If it is sick!)

Stanford University physicist Robert Laughlin says governments – and people generally – should proceed with more humility in dealing with climate change. The Earth, he says, is very old and has suffered grievously: volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation “and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict.” Yet, the Earth is still here. “It’s a survivor.”

Writing in the summer issue of the magazine The American Scholar, Prof. Laughlin offers a profoundly different perspective on climate change. “Common sense tells us that damaging a thing as old as [Earth] is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish – like invading Russia.” For planet Earth, he says, the crisis of climate change, if crisis it be, will be a walk in the park.

Relax, Prof. Laughlin advises. Let it be. “The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we gaze into the future,” he says, “not because it’s unimportant but because it’s beyond our power to control.” Whatever humans throw at it, in other words, Earth will fix things in its own time and its own way.

Prof. Laughlin is the co-recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize for physics. Brilliantly imagined, incisively expressed and vastly entertaining, Prof. Laughlin’s essay on climate change (What the Earth Knows) has been adapted from his forthcoming book on the future of fossil fuels. (His 2008 book, The Crime of Reason, documented pervasive government and corporate “sequestering” of scientific knowledge.)

You can’t discuss climate change, Prof. Laughlin says, without looking backward across geologic time. He puts ordinary rainfall into perspective to illustrate the point. The rain that now falls on the world in a normal year measures a metre – “about the height of a golden retriever.” The rain that has fallen since the beginning of the Industrial Age measures 200 metres. The rain that has fallen since the age of dinosaurs would fill Earth’s oceans 20,000 times. The rain that has fallen since oxygen formed would fill the entire world 100 times.

Yet, the amount of water in Earth’s oceans hasn’t changed significantly in all of this time. In Earth’s most recent glacial melting, 15,000 years ago, the sea level rose by one centimetre a year for 10,000 years – and then abruptly stopped. The heat required to produce this melting was 10 times the total energy consumption of all human civilization.

Excess carbon in the atmosphere? It happens all the time. And Earth deals with it. Anything that humans do to mitigate it will be a waste of time. Governments and citizens delude themselves when they think they can make a difference.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 25th, 2010
10:19 pm

Cynthia will soon be retracting her claim of “global warming” after she reads this (if she’s going to be consistent):

Peru Government Declares Cold Wave Emergency in 16 Regions

LIMA – The Peruvian government declared a state of emergency because of the cold wave gripping a number of districts in the nation’s 16 regions, according to an urgent decree published Saturday in the official gazette.

The decree covers all districts of the country more than 3,000 meters (9,800 feet) above sea level, as well as three regions in the Peruvian jungle that have registered strangely low temperatures in the last few weeks.