E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLast year was one for the history books, as a long-term warming trend brought two record highs for each record low between 2000 and 2010. And even more concerning, in the past year there were five record highs for each low recorded. NBC's Anne Thompson reports.
If you found yourself bundling up in scarves, hats, and long underwear less than usual last year, you weren't alone: 2012 was the warmest year on record in the contiguous United States, according to scientists with The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.2 degrees above normal and a full degree higher than the previous warmest year recorded -- 1998 -- NOAA said in its report Tuesday. All 48 states in the contiguous U.S. had above-average annual temperatures last year, including 19 that broke annual records, from Connecticut through Utah.
“We’re taking quite a large step,” said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, which has recorded temperatures in the contiguous U.S. for the past 118 years.
It was also a historic year for "extreme" weather, scientists with the federal agency said. With 11 disasters that surpassed $1 billion in losses, including Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Isaac, and tornadoes across the Great Plains, Texas, and the Southeast and Ohio Valley, NOAA said 2012 was second only to 1998 in the agency's "extreme" weather index.
A long-term warming trend for the U.S., combined with drought and a northerly jet stream, led to the record heat, explained Crouch.
"During the winter season, the jet stream tended to stay further north of the U.S.-Canadian border, so that limited colder outbreaks in the country. It also limited precipitation. So that led to a warm and dry winter season, and that persisted through the spring," he said.
Matt Rourke / AP file
People play in water from an open fire hydrant during the afternoon heat on July 18, 2012, in Philadelphia. July was the hottest month ever on record in the contiguous U.S.
"That warm and dry spring and winter laid the groundwork for the drought we had this summer... . When we have drought, it tends to drive daytime temperatures upward."
The unprecedented warm weather wasn't contained to the United States.
A corresponding rise in global temperatures prompted the World Meteorological Organization to call the rate at which the Arctic sea ice was melting "alarming" in its Nov. 28, 2012, report.
“The extent of Arctic sea ice reached a new record low. The alarming rate of its melt this year highlighted the far-reaching changes taking place on Earth’s oceans and biosphere. Climate change is taking place before our eyes and will continue to do so as a result of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have risen constantly and again reached new records,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said.
Each year since 2001 has been among the warmest on record worldwide, with 2012 likely to "be no exception despite the cooling influence of La Niña early in the year," the report added.
'Horrible' sea level rise of more than 3 feet plausible by 2100, experts say
Watch NBC's special coverage of the 2012 drought
'Wake-up call': Chicago set to break 73-year-old snowless record
NOAA expects to have global data for 2012 sometime in the coming weeks, but Crouch said scientists already know with certainty "it's going to be in the top ten" warmest years ever.
Adding to the extremes: 2012 was the driest year on record for the U.S., with 26.57 inches of average precipitation -- 2.57 inches below average. Those dry conditions created an ideal environment for wildfires in the West, which charred 9.2 million acres -- the third highest amount ever recorded, NOAA said Tuesday.
Other notable climate activity from 2012:
- Snowpack totals across the Central and Southern Rockies were less than half normal.
- July was the hottest month ever on record in the contiguous U.S.
- Tornado activity was concentrated toward the beginning of the season, with large outbreaks in March and April in the Ohio Valley and Central Plains, but the final 2012 tornado count will likely be less than 1,000 -- the least since 2002. "The factors behind that are kind of related to what was going on with the drought. We didn't have these large storm systems moving through the country, so that limited precipitation, and that also limited severe weather outbreaks," Crouch said. What made this year so high on the extreme weather index were cyclones, hurricanes, and the heat, he said.
- Alaska was cooler and slightly wetter than average, and had a record-cold January. "Their January temperatures were 14 degrees below average. Many locations in Alaska had temperatures 30 degrees below zero," Crouch said, adding that Anchorage, Alaska, set a new snow record.
- Hawaii experienced growing drought conditions, with 47.4 percent of the state experiencing moderate-to-exceptional drought at the beginning of 2012 and 63.3 percent at the end of the year. Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the bulk of NOAA's 2012 report because of terrain issues, and because scientists don't have records dating back as far as states in the contiguous U.S.
While NOAA made no meteorological forecasts for 2013, Crouch said the drought was going to continue to be an issue.
"The drought got a lot of attention this summer when it was having impacts on agriculture. More than 60 percent of the country is still in drought," he said. "And if things don't change, the drought is going to continue to be a big story in 2013."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Conn. politician apologizes after saying Giffords should 'stay out of my towns'
- 'Please save us': Teens feared to have fallen through lake ice
- Cops: Fingernail DNA helps catch woman's killer 28 years later
- Teen in crude video about alleged Ohio rape not involved, lawyer says
- New survey helps US companies prove their 'vet friendly' claims
- Oil tanker hits San Francisco's Bay Bridge
- Lottery winner fatally poisoned day after collecting winnings, death ruled homicide
- California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers
- Supreme Court lets embryonic stem cell research go forward
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
... before they are submerged in the new Great Flood as a result of climate change, the last word of the Party of NO (GOP) is still 'NO' - still not believing in global warming.
...the last words of the Democrats are 'told you so'!!
Either way, it's too late.
R.I.P. Humanity!
I refuse to let negativity govern my future and believe that this is yet another fact in the coffin of denial.
We can change, but it depends on YOU and ME to ignore the business-paid denialists and to THINK with our God-given reason and intellect that we can make a difference, one person at a time.
Change starts by recycling, turning off our lights, lowering our thermostat and driving less. It also means keeping our gadgets another year longer and our cars until they hit 120,000. Keep things maintained. Choose cleaner technologies.
Big business doesn't want to change, so you need to force them to change buy refusing to buy their dirty products.
The wind and solar tax breaks were in the fiscal cliff deal. Go renewable energy.
I'm not being paid a dime and here's the question. The "records" in question go back to 1850 - 162 years. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. How on earth (pun intended) can you make inferences that mean a damn thing for a 4.5 BILLION year old planet based on 162 years of data. To categorically state that the warming trend is based on human factors alone is unscientific, unsupported and blatently stupid.
joemike404: Yes, and the earth was unable to support complicated life for about 4 billion of those years.
Civilization has been around only 10,000 years and mankind just under 3 million, which makes us a delicate thing.
The earth will survive. We, on the other hand, may not.
Your choice.
joemike, no one is "inferring." There is an actual science behind what causes global warming. It's not just a bunch of people with thermometers saying to each other, "Golly, it seems to be hotter today than it was yesterday!" Check into basic chemistry.
OH MY GOD!!!! What are we going to do? Wait. This may be a good thing. If it's warming up then we'll burn less fossil fuel to keep us warm. Less trees will be cut down to fire wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Less greenhouse gas emissions. Less pollution. Me thinks there might be more good than bad associated with this global warming thing...
Some here still think the Earth is flat, and deny all science.
I hope they can swim.
@pigotry - don't take it too hard :)
Hey, joemike404:
You do realize that deep ice core samples taken from polar regions and glaciers can show important climate data that is tens of thousands of years old? Like, for example, that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has indeed grown as man's burning of fossil fuels has increased.
No, of course you don't. That wouldn't play into your narrative. Just remember: the scientists gathering this data and postulating cause, effect, and trends are lot smarter than you or me - put together. I'm gonna trust the experts, if you don't mind.
I don't know about you Sven, but I live in Florida and nobody here needs any help being warmer. If it gets warmer though...my electricity bill is high enough thank you
World population is over 7 billion people. That in itself is the problem.
In our 4.5 billion year history, much of the time the climate was uninhabitable for human beings including over a billion years of just oceans and no land.
Scientists are able to study the weather in many ways going back more than 162 years - gases trapped in ice sheets, tree rings, plant fossils, diaries of Medieval monks where there's mention of weather events. I'm not a scientist, but I believe in science. I believe that climatologists know just as much about climate as engineers at GM know about cars - which is a lot more than you and me.
Scientists are saying that the warming that we're experiencing is unprecedented. They say that we will experience a rise in oceans between 1 - 3 ft in the next hundred years.
You can believe scientists or you can believe Rush Limbaugh and a handful of scientists (and I'm talking about less than 2% of climatologists) who are directly paid by the coal and petroleum industry.
Larry-4270157, more scientists than you may realize actually do disagree with what you're saying. They just don't get the press. Instead of just believing blindly what you're told, ask for the evidence. When they produce that...real evidence and not distorted and faulty data...then we skeptics would be more willing to listen.
Tiredoflies - First, you have no idea how intelligent I might be. Second, even acknowledging that core ice samples can help us go back "tens of thousands" of years", what were the carbon dioxide levels 4 million years ago, 157 million years ago, 972 million years ago, etc. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. My issue is the blind obedience to the notion that global warming is the result of human activity. By accepting this notion without question, we automatically limit our responses to the problem. If the cause is human activity then the fix is likely centered on changing current human behavior. Indeed that is just about all "warmists" talk about, the reduction of man-made green house gases. If the warming trend however, is the result of a 5 million year long recurring pattern that we cannot see because we do not yet have enough data then reducing green house gases may be irrelevant. The only option we might have is to accept that the sea level is going to significantly rise. That gives us 80 to 100 years to relocate populations living in areas that will be inundated with water and to move people in the "developed" world away from coast lines. If we believe that we have found the problem then we will believe that we know the solution. If we are wrong, the consequences will be catastrophic.
@amylef, the data was never skewed. Go back and look at the investigation.
Additionally, that was one out of 6 separate strands of data that is being kept.
You'd have to dispel all 5.
You have to look at the rate of change too. They have records going back a long way. The temperature graph is called a hockey stick because the recent trend has been straight up in comparison to past years going back thousands of years.
People can denying all the way until they run out of water and food and they're swimming in a boiling ocean.
Why do you say you're not being paid a dime? Are you some sort chat spammer that didn't get your check last week?
@ Amyleaf: Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed journal articles about climate published between 1991 - 2012, 24 reject global warming. Check for yourself.
amylef: Prove it, and not with links to Fox News. I want to see links to NASA, NOAA, and peer reviewed papers.
Otherwise, you're just part of the problem.
joemike404: "First, you have no idea how intelligent I might be."
I think we figured it out with your post.
Science, science! Who cares-who trusts science? The US of A was built by God and salt of the earth, wise Republican farmers who knew the land and the weather! God would never let anything bad happen to His country. And I for one will wait until the farmers weigh in on any problems with the crops I don't think - huh? what? They what? Oops, never mind.
Steps of the Scientific Method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Steps of the Denier Method:
Listen to Rush Limbaugh
"Believe" everything he says
Listen to what scientists say
Get confused and scared
Listen to more Rush for new "Beliefs"
Just because something is scary, does not mean that it can't be true.
Amylef-
What are your sources for these "more scientists than you realize"? Who doesn't "get the press"? Even if...IF, what you are saying is true, what does that bring the denial scientist percentage up to? 3%? 4%? Still not even close.
Tell that to the farmers. And when I lived in Oklahoma, my A/C bill was higher than my heating.
Whether one believes that humans have caused the problem, or that it is part of the climate changes that occur naturally or if you believe it is a combination of both -- no one can deny that climate changes have occur ed. The ice cap is melting and oceans are rising. Would it not be in our best interest to continue to study the issue and see if there is a possibility, humans can do something to alleviate the situation? No matter where your beliefs lie, I cannot see that it is in any way not counterproductive to do nothing!
joemike404
How can they infer a conclusion for the climate about a time before they collected records? This is related to the email topics that confused poor Glenn Beck. They use something called "proxy data" to gather climate information about times before they kept records. Things like glacial ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary strata, etc. No, it doesn't tell the whole story, but it absolutely can tell things like was it hotter or colder than normal, was it a dry year?
Just because there weren't people with thermometers does not mean that there is no way to draw conclusions about the weather.
BTW. What had Beck so confused was the phrase used in an email referring to using proxy data to help fill out data for years and locations for which observations were more sparse. The email referred to it as a "trick" meaning "technique" not "deception" as Fox news interpreted the language of the email.
"You have to look at the rate of change too. They have records going back a long way. The temperature graph is called a hockey stick because the recent trend has been straight up in comparison to past years going back thousands of years."
Do you realize how stupid your comment is ? Again, the point was that records to accurately compare temperatures or rate of change don't exist for any meaningful period. The planet is 4.5 billion years old and the whole of human existence is but a immeasurable fraction of that history.
The AGW falsehood was built upon a less than two decade trend (outside normal glacial cycles) which has already ended (no abnormal warming for 16 years).
The global warming theory has already been disproven. To hold on to AGW is to drag modern science and what's left of its credibility down with you.
We should have done something about this in 2002 and in 1992 and in 1982, but the GOP energy companies blocked even talking about it then.
Now it is too late and if something isn't done now, 2022 may be the year of having to think about abandoning the planet.
These changes are happening exponentially. Exponential is be a good word for us all to understand before we have to live exponential climate changes.
Learn what exponential climate change is.
No one is denying that the earths temperature have not risen and fallen over the millennium and there many hypotheses as to why each period occurred (asteroids, supervolcanoes, etc). The discussion point is that this particular warming trend is strongly correlated with Us and our development of technology. Further, the rate of change is pretty fast which makes it critical that if we want to stop it we have to act fast (although personally I think it is already too late for that) or we have to begin adapting.
Humans have not been around when there have been major changes in earths temperature although certainly we have for minor ones which would have impacted humans. However, the earths population was far smaller during those times and much better prepared to be migratory. Today that is so not true. We have a large percentage that live on or near a coast line all around the world. Rising seas from atmospheric warming would inundate many coastal areas....entire countries in some cases. For sure large percentages of major metropolitan cities/regions would lose massive amounts of land to rising seas. It is fine and dandy to say we'll build seawalls but as levees along the Mississippi have shown..... they can fail and fail in spectacular fashion. Plus they divert water elsewhere but water will go somewhere....we humans just manage to change who gets devastated at any particular time.
Even were we to manage a mass migration away from the rising waters on our coasts what will be do with the cities or parts of cities that are left behind. If nothing else the collapse of the twin towers should have shown us that buildings are full of contaminants that can damage the ecosystem. It would probably be stupid as all get out to leave them in place to leak toxins into the water. We already put enough toxins in the seas as is.
And none of this address the impact of change whether on food production, access to potable water, etc.
So, yes the earth has warmed and cooled over millions of years but we humans have not had to deal with it like that and the question is can we adapt.
One way or the other I think some humans will survive but it won't be survival in a world we recognize today.
Our farm manager in Nebraska has worked our family farm for years. We asked him recently what his thoughts on global warming were. He shrugged and said "it's pretty obvious but we don't like to talk about it."
Where's the headline about Europe having it's coldest winter on record in 2012?
(Whoops. Guess that doesn't fit with the agenda...)
The biggest problem we face, as citizens of the World, is our inability to put our petty differences aside and discuss a rational approach to protecting our planet. No doubt I can find both data and actual evidence to support some part of each argument. When it becomes a profit versus protection argument then the game is over and we all lose.
"I feel no greater responsibility as a human being then to be an absolute custodian of this planet. God did not put us on this Earth to strip it and perish, We are here to thrive and protect the only Earth we have"
RFK
Mother Nature... end of story.
Dr. Marcel Leroux - Professor of Climatology, Director
Laboratoire de la Climatologie, Member American Climatological Association.
Author: “The Erring Ways of Climatology,” 2005
Dr. Marcel Leroux - Professor of Climatology, Director Laboratoire de la Climatologie, Member American Climatological Association.
Author: “The Erring Ways of Climatology,” 2005
This book calls into serious question the "science" involved in the current debate - especially the results of the three studies and reports from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Chage).
I don't think anyone is denying that world climate is changing - it always has, always will. What many deny is the rush to form public (global) policy on the data available at this time.
Monkey@Keyboard
One little problem with this theory. Climate change is going to happen whether we speed the process or not!
Those who want to pretend we can "fix" that fact have their heads as deeply embedded in the sand as those who deny mankind contributes to the problem. Eventually we are going to have to address the issue of rising sea levels and everything else that comes with climate change. Anyone who thinks expanding "green" energy here in the US is going to make a bit of difference on a global scale are morons. If you want the air you breath to be a tiny bit cleaner fine, but stop pretending it's a "fix" for a world-wide problem.
Yes, it was hot in the contiguous US. So what. That constitutes 2% of the planet. Yes, it is slightly warmer than it was in pre-industrial times. Again, so what. It was also warmer 1000 years ago, and warmer 2000 years ago than it is now!
There are many cycles, from daily, to monthly, to yearly, to decadal, to many 1,000s and hundreds of thousands of years. They are cyclical.
We have had many ice ages. We (the earth) have come out of every one. Right before each one, it gets hot. Check the records that have been compiled. These are not "skeptics" records, but records that many different scientific teams have created. What caused all these temperature, and yes CO2, swings in the past? Man wasn't here, let alone industry.
Who says that another temp increase of 1 or 2 degrees C is a bad thing? Or even if that "new normal temp" isn't the "intended average. Studies have shown that crop yields are better at elevated CO2 and temp. In fact, during both time periods noted above, 1000 and 2000 years ago, civilization had tremendous expansions due to this elevated climate. During the medeval warm period, grapes for wine was grown in Great Britain!
The alarmists need to scare people now, to grab any kind of headline they can. After 16 years without any statistically significant warming, they realize the end is near.
You probably recall, they even mention it in this article, that the artic had the lowest recorded level of ice coverage! I bet you were unaware, however, that the antartic had the reverse, the highest amount of ice! The alarmists and the MSM only scream certain headlines.
skeptical12345: So, what is your litmus test that tells you there is a problem? Your children dying of hunger and thirst?
Good point. My understanding is, the warmest year on record for the planet as a whole is still 1998. Some parts are currently warmer than in 98 (ex: north america), while others are currently cooler. Focusing just on the continental US to back warming claims is just as fraudulent as focusing only on Europe to back cooling claims.
I'm not saying global warming isn't occurring (I think it is), but I'm not convinced we know the main causes. Even if the main cause is human activity, I don't think we know exactly what activities are causing the most problems or how the earth is really responding to the affects.
Also, one thing that bothers me with many of the climate change discussions is, there appears to be a large contingent in the international arena that are trying to use this topic for a massive redistribution of wealth to poor countries (as in, up to $1 Trillion/year). This type of motive makes me extremely suspicious of any "facts" certain groups publish.
joemike404 in one breath you spout the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Then you ask how we can determine the reason for climate changes based on 162 years of records. How do you think we determined the age of the earth? The climate scientists know what they are doing. The debate has been over for 40 years. The goal is how do we lessen the impact.
No amount of screaming and squawking will get Obama to do anything about global warming. Even he knows he can't add it to the 1,938,294 things that he thinks can be "solved" by taxing the rich. Everyone will be impacted by higher energy costs, and if that happened, he'd lose his class-warfare moniker of "Obama Claus."
Pigotry--- Last words of a conservative as the liberals fade out of sight, I knew they were lying. I certainly remember weather as hot or colder, yet the weathermen of climate change predict catastrophe after catastrophe based on singular weather events or years. I cite for your reference the warmest year I experienced in Duluth, Minnesota in 1979, accumulated snow for the winter, one half inch Dec 24 1978, that was it, temps above normal, the ground freeze level four inches, we built apartment buildings all winter long. This was followed by the coolest summer I can remember, we were still wearing jackets to work in July. Of course I could be like you and try to blame something or some one but I unlike you realize that weather is weather and it will never be controlled by man no matter how much money you shove at it. You are turd with no more interest in your fellow man than the power you can accumulate over them, it is certainly a good thing people like me have fought for your right because if you counted on people like you it would already be gone. For once would you please concentrate on the matters at hand and stop trying to incite controversy among the commenter's. I know lying is your profession but it is not mine or theirs.
Mark Urbo... Did you even read the article? 2012 was the hottest year beating out 1998 in the US. July was the hottest month EVER recorded.
Ice cores allow scientists to determine the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere going back thousands of years. The concentration of CO2 since the industrial revolution has grown by a factor of 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png. Our use and dependance on fossil fuels (releasing ADDITIONAL CO2 that was previously sequestered in the ground) has overwhelmed the natural CO2 sinks (oceans, trees - which we cut down faster than they grow, phytoplankton decrease, etc.) thereby making Earth a much more efficient greenhouse. my argument ignores the impacts of other GHGs like methane. The early climate studies (late '80s and 90's) predicted the EXACT changes to the climate that we are experiencing now. Common sense (as an aero engineer) urges me to recognize the possibility that climate change is being caused/sped up by humans and that we need to act to correct it asap. The the fact that things (scientifically speaking) are NEVER free (i.e. energy) and that equations have to balance also tells me that if we continue to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then there WILL be some sort of fallout (in this case trapping more of the sun's energy on the planet which takes the form of heat energy)
Just here to throw out a few little facts. First it the entice north pole's ice cap were to melt sea level would not rise.We would need significant melting of ice on land in Greenland and Antarctica. Little thing called displacement theory would tell you that. Second the earths average temperature through is life supporting years is estimated to be between 9 and 11 degrees warmer that it is now. Life will go on. Third while people do contribute to poor air quality for breathing in many cities, we have very little if any impact on warming activities. The planet is still on its natural warming cycle after an ice age. The people here yelling that they have read the science are looking a studies that are much to Short to draw any real conclusion. Talk to a geologist is you want the real story. You need someone with knowledge of what earth has been through millions of years no the last 162.
The whole AGW claim hinges on the fraudulent hockey stick by Mann. That graph showed that temps were constant for about a 1000 years, and then the sudden warming. Using this graph to generate standard deviations, you get a very small tolerance for variations before they become significant.
What I need, is a valid study, using a valid temp representation of the last 1000 years, and compare that to current temperature swings. If the current swings are significant, then I believe that something has changed. Not ness. at man's hands, but that something has changed.
The other major failing of AGW theory, after using Mann's graph, they generate a computer model of the earth's climate. They say this model is complete - covers everything. They then compare today's temps and compare to the model. Any difference they proclaim to be due to AGW. Their are so many flaws in this argument. Just think about them. Don't listen to the nut jobs, think for yourself.
Plant more trees, build more water retention infrastructure, use roofing materials that reflect sunshine, use less energy. And quit whining that the sky is falling. Adapt to the change or die out like dinosaurs.
/palmface. People on this board have already told you how SCIENCE can determine things like CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and approximate temperature dating back 1000's of years. The answer you seek is RIGHT HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD cause others have been kind enough to point it out for you. Perhaps you should try reading them...
Bwhahaha. You can say it, but that doesn't make it, nor the science, untrue...
Apparently the ecological fascists will brook no disagreement today.
Our Oceans:
Increasing "dead zones"
Our Fish:
dying from warmer waters and ingesting plastics
Our Wars:
All about Oil
Our fancy packaging:
Trash, trash, trash
1.42
sethr2
The legitimate scientists would tell you that you are wrong on so many levels.
.
.
Okee Dokee: here you go:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/09/silent-ocean-by-jeremy-jackson-scripps.html
what makes that stick fraudulent? Other than the fact that Glenn Beck said so? Newsflash, scientists sometime use the word "trick" WITHOUT it meaning "deception." LOL, I can't believe people still cling to that "climategate" nonsense...
Nah, we just don't have much tolerance for ignorance and the inability to think critically...
I love how the party of fear, democrats, keep on saying they use science, yet all I see is them throwing scare tactics around here. Oh, your children are going to drown in the water and blah blah blah. Our Earth has always gone through cycles, yet libs just want to look at a couple hundred years of data. Sorry, I took climatology classes in college, and the "science" behind global warming is a joke. Yes it is warming, but we have NO proof whatsoever, that we are the ones causing it. Not only that, but the US is not the main contributor. You can thank China for that, but of course after Clinton made them our number 1 trading partner, we dont question anything that they do. Notice how Obama stays quiet on China.
And what exactly is a green job. Any of you libs know. You know driving a diesel truck could be considered a green job right?
Monkey@Keyboard my dear simple simple friend. You do realize that recycling actually puts more pollutants into the atmosphere right? We use more energy recycling. Of course libs just like to think they are doing something right, but never want to take the time to actually investigate the numbers. Thats why they believe that taxing those evil rich people will get us out of the debt, or if we cut military spending. If they took a basic math class, and actually looked at these numbers they would realize just how moronic they are. But they'll just let the government and comrade Obama think for them. To busy screaming about the evil rich contributors and believing in fairy tales like all these oil subsidies. Pathetic
RImom you direct me to a website dedicated to proving climate change regardless of fact and tell me they are real scientists but can find no article to refute any of my facts.
I think you are a little out of your league on this one. Try to disprove one of my facts. I dare you. Oh and be specific.
of course. And your "climatology" course in college certainly makes you more prepared to speak on this topic than 100's of climatologists with PhDs who have spent their lifetime studying this stuff.
Let's see, who to trust? A guy who "took a course in college," or the world's preeminent climatologists with decades of hands-on research, 150+ years of actual, verifiable data, and 1000's of years of inferred data taken from scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed sources.
Yeah, that's a toughie...
JoeMike,
You need to drop the rhetoric you've been fed and do some research on your own through reliable sources and not some political agenda based websites.
The American public has been used and manipulated by skilled political hacks and marketing strategies and it has worked.
Watch this interesting video done by PBS Frontline. Pay close attention to the guys who are the organizers and how they brag about how they have manipulated opinions. They don't care about what is or isn't fact, they just know how to drive opinion and they are pretty good at it. Their cause is about politics and financial gain and has zero to do with what is happening to the environment. They don't really care, so they don't see truth or facts as an impediment to achieving their goals. This is a very revealing look at how the climate change denier movement has been built. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
And just one more thing. Doesn't it seem odd that all the climate change scientists cover the political spectrum, but the deniers are absolutely 100% affiliated with the Republican Party? How is it that factual data about the climate can be political? Do the instruments understand politics? The data about climate change is a massive collection, yet the deniers focus on just a few bits of misrepresented data. The evidence is overwhelming and if you see it as otherwise you have either chosen to do so for political reasons or you have been brainwashed.
DrowningGrover---so using your ideology Einstien who came up with the theory of relativity in college should have been ignored, who is really the brainiac here. You believe everything your read. As far as peer review if they are looking for the same conclusion it does not matter what the real results are. Peer reviewed hahahahaha.
Oh really, by who, you? Hmm listen to this nut/Glen Beck or an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. I'll stick with the latter.
1.51
sethr2
And where is your PhD. and scientific published research papers to validate your claims?
I gave you Dr. Jeremy Jackson...one of hundreds of scientists who have all collaborated on research.
Stubbornly refusing to accept rising waters, destroyed coral, dead fish, erratic storms, and this article....is puzzling.
It's in there in the
part. Please look up the definition of "average". That fact that average global temperatures are steadily increasing does not imply that every location on the planet will be the hottest that it has ever been on every day of the year.
DrowningGrover,
Lol, if you think they are actual scientists that is your first problem.
Inferred data.
Have you read these journals? I have. Nothing scientifically rigorous about them. More holes than Swiss cheese or a brain of a lib.
Listening to them on climate change is like listening to a lawyer tell you you need a lawyer, or a car salesman tell you you should buy his car. Stop being a sheep and think for yourself. No more relying on comrade obama.
1NewDay,
Why do only Republicans question it. Well its not just them. Im not a republican, but I simply dont just do as Im told. Libs just tend to believe whatever their fearless leaders tell them to believe. Look at oil subsidies, taxing the rich, what Mitch McConnell said, etc. They are told something by their news or political leaders and blindly follow them off a cliff.
Irvmani
You said the warmest year was 1978 and at the same time I lived in Buffalo, NY going to school. The winter of 1976-77 we had 200 inches of snow and had a blizard then in the winter of 1977-78 we had a mire 195 inches. It is just weather.
But then, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News would just scream "distorted and faulty data!", you would buy it because Rush said so...and we're back to square one. Skeptics are never going to listen...except to the right wing media, bought and paid for by Big Oil...
Here is an interesting link... kinda blows the 162 year theory out of the water.
Funny how illogical people such as DG_W always bring up Fox News and Rush. Yeah, we dont believe you morons because we only listen to them. There are many of us who never watch nor listen to neither of those 2 things, but we have 2 brain cells to rub together at least so we dont just follow the leader.
to the people who think the link between people and gw is arbitrary inference: the link is CO2 and fossil fuels. We know how much CO2 we are taking out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, natural gas. We also know the chemical nature of CO2, i.e. it's ability to absorb heat (for, um, 150 years).
If you walked into a house and saw a dead guy with a hole in his chest and fresh blood all over the floor and saw another guy holding a gun (which later is found to match the bullet in the dead guy's chest) which has been recently fired and that guy has gunshot residue on his hands, nobody else in the house (and there is snow with exactly one set of prints going into the house, no prints going out of the house, the guy with the gun has wet shoes, and no evidence anybody dropped from the sky to the roof, I suppose you could say there is some doubt as to who shot the dead guy. But not reasonable doubt.
CO2 is the smoking gun here, and we know it is humans firing the shot.
One can only hope that the idiots who see every news item, regardless of the subject, as an opportunity to bash and point fingers at people who don't subscribe to their views will be the first to go.
@ Eric:
Some here still think the Earth is flat, and deny all science.
I hope they can swim.
Better yet. I hope they can farm.
MrBurns
That's about all the brain cells you have. Limbaugh and Fox aren't even the source of the climate change denial. It is a campaign heavily financed by the petroleum industry, just as the campaign of denial of the dangers of smoking was heavily financed by the tobacco industry, and for exactly the same reason: profit.
Well, now the global warming is so obvious, everyone can notice it. I moved up north in 2011 and was disappointed in how little snow there was. This year we had some, but now it has been above freezing for days. I wonder if there will be any more snow. This isn't the north I was told about.
I think farmers better install their sprinkler systems if they want crops this year.
I think the new drilling practice of "fracking" is a contributing factor because a lot of pollutants are put in the air during the drilling process. They say natural gas burns cleaner. The bad news is that it is highly polluting to get it out of the ground. It is time everyone googled it or did a youtube search, because it is already in many states and may come to your state soon. Check out "Gasland the Movie" to learn more. Do not believe the lies of the gas companies. They are running ads saying the process is safe. It is not. Bad stuff is happening in many places already.
We humans better change how we do things pretty soon or we will have no liveable earth soon. I feel sorry for anyone under 25 because they may actually see the final end of the earth.
I thought AGW was real until I saw that most of the posts were collapsed. Then I knew AGW wasn't real. Untrue posts are always collapsed. That's nature's way of making sure that everything on the Internet is true.
Houston,
That's about all the brain cells you have. Limbaugh and Fox aren't even the source of the climate change denial. It is a campaign heavily financed by the petroleum industry, just as the campaign of denial of the dangers of smoking was heavily financed by the tobacco industry, and for exactly the same reason: profit.
Actually the source is people who dont blindly follow bad "science."
And Gore wouldnt profit from carbon credits? Do you honestly do no research. All this big evil oil company bs makes you guys seem like children.
Let us not talk (think) falsely now. The hour is getting late.
How do you know it's bad science? A plurality of scientists -- at least a plurality -- who have registered an opinion, based in fact, have stated that climate change is real. And it is climate change; global warming is only part of it.
Who stands to benefit by denying it? Your "big evil oil". So naturally they simply deny, deny, deny. How do you know that Al Gore profited from oil? Can you find one non-right wing website that says so?
I'm sure you have an explanation for the depletion of the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/29/more-on-noisy-data-from-grace/
Don't let facts confuse you, though. Check with BP and Exxon Mobil first...
To those whom think that climate change is not caused by Humans.....YOU'RE RIGHT.....BUT.....we have our foot on the gas and are accelerating a natural process. Global warming leads to ice ages, ice ages give way to global warming, the Earth has been through dozens of these cycles. The issue is that carbon dioxide levels have never been above 4 parts per million as it is today not to mention that the oil & gas industry belches Methane into the atmosphere and it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide is as a greenhouse gas.
I live in north central Texas (Fort Worth/Dallas) and our lakes here are 10-15 feet below normal, for the 10th year in a row!. The winter wheat crop has mostly failed, again, due to lack of rain. Cattle ranchers have either moved their herds north or sold them off to slaughter, again, because there is not enough water to sustain their herds! Wildfires have been horrific the last few years. Most people in Metro areas are on water restrictions and cannot water their lawns in the summer time.
I grew up here in the 60's and 70's and it was NEVER like this. Hell, the Mississippi river barely has enough water in it to support barge traffic! The winter wheat harvest in the mid-west makes its way to market via the Mississippi river!
Hurricane's Katrina and Sandy were biblical in proportion folks! Many scientists believe that the Atlantic conveyor is going to shut down due to all of the fresh water runoff from the Arctic ice cap and Greenland, if that happens an Ice Age will be upon us in a big fat hurry!
If you can say that this is normal then you are truly in denial. Human activity IS the root cause for this mess!!
According to American Physics Society The argument for global warming is that over the 150 years the data shows a in temperature from 288.0 to 288.8 degree Kelvin. this number is not in disupute, the discussion is weather this .8 Degrees Kelvin is man made or not.
Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a
remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly
yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of
our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. This was copied and pasted directly from Nasa Science solar variablity page. ( for the guy that wanted Nasa reference ).
National Geographic did a piece about the sun and solar flares last year. Being a chemist I found that article interesting and did further reading on the sun ( that is how I found the NASA reference) The sun currently is at the highest activity of its 11 year cycle with extreme flares occuring ( some of the largest recorded ( look at NG pretty cool pics) if One of these flares happens in the direction of the Earth it would take 8 minutes for the effects to be felt here on Earth.
The sun and its effects on the earth are far greater than cow farts and fossil fuels. I have spent 7 years studying chemistry and environmental pollutants, and using biological systems to clean the envirnment. I have not found one Scientist that has said that man is the cause of global warming.
Doesn't it strike anyone funny that NASA Science.com, Hubble website, American Physics Society. All came up with the same temperature varience, and yet they were talking about two different things, namely the Sun and the Earth.
I have an Idea, it could be possible that the Sun and its evergy could effect the Earth and its tempurature. But then again that seem crazy becuase when the Sun shines on China and I'm asleep the temperature is just the same as it is mid day ( or not).
I still have not even met a Scientist that believes CO2 is a polutant. You know the thing needed for all plant life to grow.
The Ice Age Is Coming The Sun Is Zooming In. Engines Stop Running The Wheat Is Growing Thin. A Nuclear Error But I have No Fear Cos London Is Drowning And I Live By The River!
RIP Joe Strummer!!
I find it extremely amusing that so many of the "Global Warming" crowd look down their noses at those very, very few(I would estimate a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand, out of an est. 7 Bil) who, according to THEIR Religion, think the world is flat. And correlate it to anyone of a religious nature to presume they to think the world is flat. I.e., only atheists KNOW the world is round. (if you don't think global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, you must believe the Earth is flat)
At the same time it is very easy to describe their belief in man made global warming as a religion as well.
And they use the same logic to conclude that global warming is a man made phenomena. I read a paper when I was in college back in 1984, and I think it is still the most educated paper on the subject I have read. But the conclusion or the warning was of accelerated global warming do to green house gasses.
So, even if we were to crash the whole economy to satisfy the left wing nut jobs, we would still have to deal with global warming.
As far as the warmest year on record goes, my guess it is still part of the natural weather patterns. The weather is cyclical(roughly a seven year interval, between dry years, interspersed with wet ones). We have had droughts in the past, the Dirty 30's come to mind, during that period though north central Kansas had their record flood in '35. The closest it has come to breaking that record was in '93.
the difference of course being that Einstein had pretty much already exhibited his genius with the photoelectron effect (which is what he won his Nobel prize for, NOT relativity) and that when he proposed relativity he also proposed an exact, and rigorous experiment that could be undertaken to prove it (and when the starts literally aligned a decade or more later the experiment proved him correct).
Why aren't they actual scientists? Of course they are, and the PhD diploma on their office walls prove it. Regarding inferred data, what I mean by that is we don't have a mercury thermometer temperature readings from 10,000 years ago, but we DO know that an equilibrium exists between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 deposited in ice cores, and therefore we can use ice cores to accurately determine the exact concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere going back 1000's of years. Science can do so pretty nifty little things.
And as far as reading the journals, I DO read them, mostly cause I also publish in them, seeing as how I have a PhD in chemical engineering and publish my work in scientific journals quite often...
Yes, its warm, but this is the coldest year in 35 years for the winter in China....I guess that cancels it out. More selective data from scientists who have an agenda to get more money for research. I heard a guy on TV say that Australia will be swamped in the next few years.......let's see, ocean rose 7.6 inches in the last 130 years, but Australia will be swamped very soon....yeah that makes sense...sure! NOAA predicts the oceans rising by 12 inches by the year 2100, but they are using the satelite data which does not match the down to earth, real tidal gauges that are relative to the land...not relative to outer space, and if you take that data, and regress, 99.5% correlation , use quadratic second order, you get about 8 more inches by 2100, and we will all be dead, but the ocean will be 8 inches higher....IF.....this continues on the way it has. I really like Al Gore's graph showing the last 130 years, but he does not show the rest of the graph showing the last 4,000,000 years...WHY....because everyone would laugh at his analysis then. That is the common folk, without PHd's but who have common sense, and know a crock when they see it
@ DrowningGrover
Not saying you are. I am just saying, some of the dumbest people I have ever met are PhDs. Oh they have the book smarts, and can regurgitate all matter of data and information. But they truly lack any real world application. And worst of all, the won't admit they were ever wrong.
You know what BS is right, MS - more of the same, PhD- piled high and deep. ;-)
Let's just say given the history of "Scientist", a healthy dose of skepticism is not out of order.
And I add, I like my eggs scrambled with a side of bacon. and have for over forty years.
And Alaska has had a cooling trend since 2001. So what. There have been cycles of hot and cold since the beginning of time
Yes, but the addition of lots of CO2 to the atmosphere is making the Earth hotter and hotter.
Instead of disbelief, let's try some solutions that make some sense.
Eric - solution; move inland.
Eh, there is no cooling trend. Where did you get that from? And besides, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. You can't point to past cycles and expect them to mean anything. I can't point to lots of news stories about drunk drivers causing wrecks, but I can't infer from that data that only drunk drivers will have a crash.
I'll have ocean front property here in Colorado.
Blah blah blah. Global temperature is cyclical blah blah blah.
That is true. HOWEVER, life needs time to adapt to those changing circumstances. The Earth's climates are changing faster than its life can evolve to overcome it. We are watching as the biodiversity of our planet is rapidly shrinking.
In the end, are higher oceans inherently bad? No. But warmer and more acidic oceans are bad when they occur over a period of 100 years, as opposed to the normal cycle of tens of thousands of years
Today's award for the most inane and overused denialist statement.
STyro-
Study shows Alaska got colder from 2000 to 2010
A recent study by scientists with the Geophysics Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks shows that all of Alaska, except for the coast of the Arctic Ocean, recorded a strong trend of cooling temperatures between 2000 and 2010.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/search_results?q=alaska+cooling+trend#storylink=cpy
Hotter and hotter Eric? Every year they post this crap and six months later it all gets retracted. We've had no significant warming for sixteen years. Enjoy the food industry, nobody is interested in your climatology degrees anymore. Statistically speaking, you nuts should guessed correctly by accident by now.
Palm readers have a better track record at predicting the future than climatologists. It's all crap.
Don`t know why you would say "Alaska" has had a cooling trend. Small parts perhaps but the reality is that the permafrost is thawing out all around the state. Ask the Inuit.....they will tell you. Arctic Ice is disappearing which is already leading to tension amongst the countries who are claiming the oil rights.
FrugalDemocrat
Talk about blah, blah,blah.
99.9% of species to have existed on this Earth are gone. Many, if not all, that are here now will eventually be gone. Replaced by new species continuing a cycle that has gone on for 4 billion years. If you think mankind has the ability to significantly alter that process you are only fooling yourself.
Backcountry you were going good until :
That is absolutly not true. We have effected the environment on both large and small scale. No value vote for you.
Greg-2438150
"Scale" is relative. If you use the past 10, 100 or even 1000 years as your scale, then you can say we've had a large impact on the environment". But the Earth is 4.5 billion years old having sustained life in some form for 4 billion of those years. On that scale we have had less impact on the Earth than a flea on an elephant.
The VAST majority of the 99.9% of species to have gone extinct were gone LONG before we came around. That process will continue despite our best efforts so as I said (using the entire Earths history as a "scale") mankind does not have the ability to significantly change that process.
That's just not true The rate at which the earth is warming has been proven to be directly related to human useage of fossil fuels.
People never pay attention to Alaska, which has continually be cold for many years. This year is one of the coldest years recorded. It is also shown throughout history that Earth goes through hot and cold temperatures. This is proven since there used to be a gigantic glacier in the mid west that melted and created the landscape. Then another ice age hit and then ended creating more of the landscape we see today.
Thats a bunch of bull..since we live here in Alaska...last two months have been record colds. This earth is older than just a few years and has been through many extreem changes and will continue to do so through no fault of man....ps...are polar bears are the most protected animals on earth.
That's just not true The rate at which the earth is warming has been proven to be directly related to human useage of fossil fuels.
Proven to be directly related? No it hasn't Greg, not by long shot. Show us the data if you think this true.
Here is an interesting link... kinda blows the 162 year theory out of the water.
Carbon now has the power to steer the jet stream! Its evolving! Meanwhile, locally, my ass is hotter than it has ever been due to a North to South migration of jalapeno peppers.
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST MONTH EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
According to NOAA July 2012 was the hottest month in the contiguous USA since recording began more than a century ago. The average temp was 77.6 degrees a full 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20th century norm. This spring was the warmest on record by 5.2 degrees
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST YEAR EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND 2012?
The warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the US the 14th consecutive year with above average temperatures
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST TEN YEARS EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The 10 hottest years on record with nine occurring since 2000, with 2012, 2006 and 1998 and now 2012 the hottest
WHAT PART OF MELTING ICE CAPS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
An enormous mass of ice, four times the size of Manhattan broke off from northern Greenland and slipped into the sea the biggest in 50 years. On July 8, 2012 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet’s surface had thawed –a typical summer. But four days later in an extreme melt event almost all the ice sheet had thawed. A freak event that hadn’t occurred in at least 150 years.
The Arctic ice cap reaching a record low volume has lost as much as 40% of its area in summer as 30 years of satellite data shows.
WHAT PART OF EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The deadly European heat wave of 2003, which led to thousands of deaths
The fiery Russian and Middle East heat wave of 2010, which led to thousands of deaths
The catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011resulting the largest fires in AZ. History
The fire season is now increased by 78 days.
Mega floods displacing millions around the world
The number of weather disasters has tripled in the last 20 years
Record snowfall in 2010 followed by record rainfall and floods and then the worst drought in 50 years in 2012.
Superstorm Sandy 2012
WHAT PART OF ESCALATING FOOD PRICES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Floods, fires, drought taking food crops off the global market a 5.2 billion lose in TX in 2011
Drought this year on the Midwest the corn crop all but ruined while the USDA predicts a 3 to 5 percent increase on everything from cereal to steak, some economists believe price hikes will come closer to 10 percent.
WHAT PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Hotter oceans are making corals pale and sick 95% of the world’s reefs are likely to be severely damaged
WHAT PART OF A MILITARY INTEL REPORT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Drought, floods and a lack of fresh water may cause significant global instability and conflict in the coming decades, as developing countries scramble to meet demand from exploding populations while dealing with the effects of climate change, U.S. intelligence agencies said in a report released March 2012.
An assessment reflecting the joint judgment of federal intelligence agencies says the risk of water issues causing wars in the next 10 years is minimal even as they create tensions within and between states and threaten to disrupt national and global food markets. But beyond 2022, it says the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism will become more likely, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. (Nuclear armed Pakistan has already been destabilized by severe flooding caused by climate change)
WHAT PART OF SCIENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Global warming has been endorsed by EVERY National Academy of Science of every major country on the planet
Every Major Scientific Society related to the study of global warming
98% of Climate scientists throughout the world
3,000 of the best scientific experts in the world as “unequivocal”
All the complex computer climate models show climate change
WHAT PART OF MATH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
90million tons of heat trapping emissions dumped into the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours with 20% of the pollution still here 20,000 years from now
Global warming gases in the world’s atmosphere are rising with concentrations up 29% since the start of the Industrial era. Carbon Dioxide gases up 39%
No longer can the deniers point to a single weather event as having numerous causes by simple asking the question how likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming the new statistical research proves that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal but pure climate change
WHAT PART OF COVER UP DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The polluter and Ideologues finance pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about is real and what is false.
Buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians have made legal and can now be made in secret
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on misleading advertisements Hiring 4 anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives
The tobacco industry did the same thing and the deception went on for decades
The script was leaked in 1991 in an internal document the largest global polluters spelled out their strategy: “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” so undermine the public’s respect for science and reason and leaked documents from the Heartland Institute The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more."
Come up with some new propaganda Witchking. You are getting boring
Greg-2438150
Clearly your definition of "significant" varies from mine. Considering the major climate changes our planet has experienced in the past a couple of degrees just isn't all that much. Once again, it's all relative.
Does anyone here ever ask themselves, "how do I know?"
I am absolutely certain that not one person who posts here has gone to the raw data, or built computer models, or conducted a single experiment relevant to climate science. Every single last one of you is relying on something you've read.
Well, I take that back. There always seems to be one commenter who mentions how much snow he has in his front yard. So there's that.
I am also almost as certain that none of us here has actually read a published, peer-reviewed climate study. We are relying on reports about such studies written by journalists or activists. And even if any of us has actually read a set of competing peer-reviewed studies, I very strongly doubt that any one of us has the credentials to make a judgment between the two points of view. Again, we are relying on someone else who has done that and reached a conclusion, and we've each decided which of the competing conclusions we accept.
So the next question you should ask yourself is "who wrote what I relied on, and why did they do it?" Did they have an economic or political motive to reach one conclusion or the other? And I suppose a subsidiary question is, "do I truly believe that there is no such thing as an objective researcher -- that there are no honest scientists?" If your answer to that last one is "yes," I would be very interested to hear how you explain that. Do you do your own job with integrity?
And I guess I'd like to add a question to ask you. Was there ever a time, back at the beginning of your thinking about this, when you were a genuine carbon-emissions-contribute-to-global-climate-change "agnostic"? Did you give equal and serious consideration to both sides of the issue before taking your stand?
I was an agnostic on the issue to start with. But I have to tell you that what I see is that -- while there are imperfections on both sides -- the voices saying that this is happening and that we are feeding it are more diverse and include many with no obvious axe to grind, and are loaded with just piles upon piles of evidence to support their conclusions, while the deniers always trace back to those with political or economic interests in denying AGW. So if you forced me to choose between the two (and every once in a while, I do have to choose, i.e., when I vote) I'm going to put my money on the AGW crowd.
But I don't profess to know. So, why do you?
Really, Ron?
Well, why don't you head over to MY favorite read: The Journal Nature. It happens to be a peer reviewed journal, which you can even read on the toilet.
Oh, and look. An article related to global warming: http://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-untamed-carbon-1.12161.
Have a good time!
Really, Monkey?
While it is evident that we don't disagree about the underlying issue, nevertheless I'm sorry if you intended to link me to a peer-reviewed study, because only a link to an article came through in your post.
I'll chalk it up to the quirks of Newsvine.
Good. because if it had to be global warming, that means it should be colder, right.
Global warming means warmer in some places, colder in others, but more extremes in general.
It's global climate change. Some places will be warmer and some colder until the ice from the poles stops circulating around (that is, when it is completely melted).
Put a piece of ice in a drink, stir it around. The liquid closer to the ice is colder. Soon all the ice melts and the drink gets warm.
It's happening, faster than folks thought.
The more extermes:
So we count "extreme" weather by a given dollar figure ($! Billion or more)? Ever hear of inflation?
How about the cat 5 tornado that touches down in remote farmland, as opposed to the one (cat 3) that takes out a city center? One is "extreme," the other not?
Always question the obvious in the press, and anything that comes from the government!
When the temps didn't keep going up, the term global warming change to climate change. That didn't seem "catostrophic" enough, so now it is supposed to imply severe weather.
Check your facts. The trends are not in favor of this either. Weather has not gotten more extreme. Headlines are one thing, facts are another!
The trends are in favor of warming. More extreme storms are becoming more common.
Watch the weather channel.....
So we count "extreme" weather by a given dollar figure ($! Billion or more)?
No!??? Extreme refers to the number of some types of storms, their size, and intensity. You don't see weathermen describing a hurricane as a $10 billion dollar storm. They refer to it's size. It's energy. The temp of the waters it's forming over, because warmer waters provide the storm with more moisture and energy. You people say some foolish things just to be disagreeable.
The weather is no more extreme than in the past. I know the "theory" proffered by the "experts", you know, the 97%, says otherwise, but can not provide any proveable links
Only 2% of scientists don't believe in global warming......
Cigarette companies said that cigarettes didn't cause cancer too.......
Eric-913730
How convenient hehe. Why not call it global warming in the summer, and global cooling in the winter. That way it isnt so confusing!
That's right Teabaggicans, thread-collapse Global Warming out of existence. :D
ROFLMAO You guys are pathetically-hysterical. :)
AHHHHHH I'm melting, quick some one put out the fire...
Maybe if it warms up enough a few worthless political hacks will go the way of the dodo and we can start over fresh.
No, not really...it means more energy in the system...therefore more turbulence and more extremes of every kind. Ultimately, it will mean an Ice Age. This is the part you rarely hear...when we have de-salinated the ocean sufficiently (from melting the Polar Ice Caps), the ocean currents will change and severely effect the weather. An ice Belt around the middle of the Earth is a likely result. Imagine the effect on civilization if everyone has to uproot and move to the relatively warmer North and South Poles !
If you want to see what the reinsurance industry thinks about climate change and it's impact on losses check out the North America executive report at this link:
http://www.munichreamerica.com/ks_severe_weather_na.shtml
They think there's a cause and effect and we're all paying for it.
Denial doesn't change reality, nor does poking fun at the science.
To those whom think that climate change is not caused by Humans.....YOU'RE RIGHT.....BUT.....we have our foot on the gas and are accelerating a natural process. Global warming leads to ice ages, ice ages give way to global warming, the Earth has been through dozens of these cycles. The issue is that carbon dioxide levels have never been above 4 parts per million as it is today not to mention that the oil & gas industry belches Methane into the atmosphere and it is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide is as a greenhouse gas.
I live in north central Texas (Fort Worth/Dallas) and our lakes here are 10-15 feet below normal, for the 10th year in a row! The winter wheat crop has mostly failed, again, due to lack of rain. Cattle ranchers have either moved their herds north or sold them off to slaughter, again, because there is not enough water to sustain their herds! Wildfires have been horrific the last few years. Most people in Metro areas are on water restrictions and cannot water their lawns in the summer time.
I grew up here in the 60's and 70's and it was NEVER like this. Hell, the Mississippi river barely has enough water in it to support barge traffic! The winter wheat harvest in the mid-west makes its way to market via the Mississippi river!
Hurricane's Katrina and Sandy were biblical in proportion folks! Many scientists believe that the Atlantic conveyor is going to shut down due to all of the fresh water runoff from the Arctic ice cap and Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean (it changes the salinity of the water thus it's fluid dynamics), if that happens an Ice Age will be upon us in a big fat hurry!
If you can say that this is normal then you are truly in denial. Human activity IS the root cause for this mess!!
Eric,
It does not matter whether the earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature, there is going to be colder spots and and hotter spots.
Look at the ice records. What they show is that the earth warms a various rates on a 13,500 - 15,000 year cycle, whether carbon increases or not. These "scientists" have a tendency to take a section out of the cycles that favors there opinion and at a scale that the eye really cannot read everything that is going on, only what they want you to see.
What is most interesting is that the temperature rises slowly over the given period and then drops in just a few decades. Don't see that huh?
Look at individual cycles overlayed with carbon and you will see that temperature rises ahead of carbon as much as carbon rises before temperature rises as much as temperature and carbon act totally independent. This is a FACT dude!
The global cooling people do exactly the same as the global warming people. Take a piece of the record that agrees with what they are promoting and making money off of and claiming it to be the whole truth when it isn't.
In the "flat earth" days, they thought the earth was flat because if you sailed east or west, you would only be seen again if you turned around.
AGW the same thing except what they are doing is taking things like weather patterns and persistently claiming it is all caused by AGW, no matter what the occurance is. This is how you stack the deck in your own favor. Gain the focus front and center and point people in the direction you want them to go, which of course, benefits the person(s) doing the directing.
Well said Kevin in Texas. Look back at the cycles in the Ice Records. Temperatures reach in a certain range, and then fall in just a few decades. There is plenty of evidence that our circulation of the ocean works this way.
Since global warming isn't mentioned in the Bible, it must be false -- or at least that's what my crazy neighbor tells me.
DB Akron - for your information:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
I'd be interested in seeing some sources to back up your claims.
DB AKron (one vote for cool) good post and heartily agree. I get pretty tired of the "slope up" picture of aggregate world temps when you stretch the graph to include ALL the temps (since records started to be kept) you see a UP n Down graph with little change. Every leading indicator that has been posted shows No GW.. Sea rise estimates are phony... just not credible....
The problem?... this is the exact period in which all the models use to "project". 1880 (how accurate is that?) to 2000 with a projected increase to 2100??? Now I'm a Creationist.. so my "science" coupled with my belief in God garners criticism... I understand that... got it! But when the Science conflicts with incomplete data, the HCGW arguments doesn't hold water.
What a surprise,Backcountry, DB Akron, Kornfed almost all the normal oil corp naysayers are here, all we are missing is Witchrunner and JHawke and most of the contingent of big oil and chemical backers will be here.
Deja Vu
Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States and especially eastern California and the west of Great Basin. Alaska experienced three time intervals of comparable warmth: AD 1–300, 850–1200, and post-1800. Knowledge of the North American Medieval Warm Period has been useful in dating occupancy periods of certain Native American habitation sites, especially in arid parts of the western U.S. Review of more recent archaeological research shows that as the search for signs of unusual cultural changes during the MWP has broadened, some of these early patterns (for example, violence and health problems) have been found to be more complicated and regionally varied than previously thought while others (for example, settlement disruption, deterioration of long distance trade, and population movements) have been further corroborated.
Well, the growing season will be longer than usual. And resort industry will cash in not to mention the makers of sun screening products, and don't forget clothing designers too. So stop whining!
Let's get real (scientific) about 'Global Warming' for a moment.
The average temperature has been consistently rising for the last 20,000 years – for example, here's a quote from Wikipedia; “"Sea level reached 120 meters (394 feet) below current sea level at the Last Glacial Maximum 19,000-20,000 years ago." (Link below) In other words, sea level has been rising fairly consistently for the last 20,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Sea_level_and_dry_land
As the temperature rises, it creates a natural 'feedback loop' wherein the ground releases massive amounts of Carbon that had been trapped, which further increases Greenhouse gases, which accelerates warming even further. This has been going on for the last 20,000 years – long before the 'Industrial Revolution', and it follows a very consistent pattern of Ice Age cycles that repeats itself about every 100,000 years, with temperatures rising quickly over about a 20,000 year period, and then peaking before a dramatic drop in average temperatures.
We are currently near the point where the Earth seems to naturally 'cycle itself' into a very dramatic cooling period, which will devastate civilization on a massive scale that dwarfs recent events such as the 'Little Ice Age' that caused tens of millions of deaths from starvation and disease. (Link below);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE GRAPH BELOW, and consider where we are in this current cycle, you should ask yourself “Do we want to interfere with this natural cycle in an attempt to speed up the cooling process, when that might actually start a new Ice Age that could kill billions of people?”
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+ages+charts&qpvt=ice+ages+charts&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=C1EE90F2F0D6C7B90186B717BE365116A3DA8EF3&selectedIndex=12
Golly, Roy - thanks for your insightful analysis backed up by wikipedia. I'm sure that all the climate scientists in the world are now slapping their foreheads at their collective oversight. I'm sure a Nobel Prize will be coming to you soon.
Gumps "Golly, Roy - thanks for your insightful analysis backed up by wikipedia. I'm sure that all the climate scientists in the world are now slapping their foreheads at their collective oversight. I'm sure a Nobel Prize will be coming to you soon."
If it's awarded like Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, I'll send it back. The CHART I referenced is a scientific study, with references - not from wikipedia. If you don't like wikipedia for information on the "ittle Ice Age, here's a more 'scholarly' link;
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
But I think you are missing the whole point - The Chart does indeed show a close relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures, so I am not denying that mankind has had a effect on average temperatures. The point I was making is that the earth-wide temperatures have a very distinct cyclical nature, and we seem to be at the end of the most recent rise in temperatures, and we may soon head into the beginning of a new ice age. If you bothered to actually look at the Chart, I think you would see what I mean.
But I guess it's easier to criticize than actually analyze.
ROFL
/SNAP
There have been cycles of denial and acceptance since the beginning of time. Nobody knows why, it's just best guess.
If you're facing the catcher and everyone in the stands is screaming for you to duck the fast ball coming your way, do you choose to listen to reason or be a denialist?
After you've ducked a hundred times and no ball ever came, you're a candidate for gullible and stupid schmo if you keep ducking.
If you want credilibility, there's this requirement you have to be right at least once.
TeaRunner: You only takes once to get knocked out.
Monkey@Keyboard,
Is that why you and the rest of the libs simply keep your head buried in the sand?
Kind of like the boy who cried wolf,,, until the wolf ate him.
We can easily outrun the wolf.
Monkey@Keyboard
Here is a prime example of ignoring other factors...is this a home or away game?
What other factors could there be?
1. Ball streaming towards head.
2. Head refusing to duck.
Anything else is just chatter.
And MrBurns, there's nothing liberal or conservative about wanting your species to survive.
This is a quote from and earlier article on "glacial melt" from NBC:
Helped by computer simulations, the scientists reconstructed a record of temperatures stretching back to 1958 at Byrd, where about a third of the measurements were missing, sometimes because of power failures in the long Antarctic winters.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/23/16110168-west-antarctica-warming-much-faster-than-previously-believed-study-finds
I'm reposting this comment which was collapsed by the by:
You know... I get criticized for my "lack of hard science" to promote my facts..... So according to the article they are basing current warming trends on computer simulations (with long black out periods) and using that to predict a certainty.. If I turned in a paper with a third of the info missing... I would get an "F".
Oh yea... no biased "fuzzy" science here... nope just hard facts... (Sheesh)
#3.4 - Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:12 PM CST
What a shock. Let's just keep sucking up the planet's resources and blasting pollution and crud into the atmosphere. I'm sure this global temperature increase thing is no big deal. I mean, really...the planet was specifically created for 7 BILLION people...maybe even 10!! C'mon everyone. Who cares.
(sarcasm aimed at GOP retards)
That's right! (sarcasm continued).
Everyone wants this car right? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6v_nrf9nFQ
6000 SUX commercial from Robocop.
So what are your solutions Troy?
He will melt with the rest of the libtards making way for a new master race of humans that don't mooch, and don't blame or complain.
There are only two groups of people who refuse to believe in global warming: those who stand to profit from denying it, and those who are stupid enough to believe the lies of the first group.
And what about those who want to profit from the snake oil. Carbon credit salesmen(Gore)comes to mind.
Too easy, onermailliw!
You forgot the third. People who trust actual science. And not scary hocus pocus from climatologists who are about as credible of scientists as astrologists, palm readers, and people who think they can turn stuff into gold.
Why should we believe in hysterical alarmists like you Styro?
MrBurns -
Egad! Does that mean the alchemy kit I ordered on ebay was a hoax?
That was the third one I was trying to think of. It was on the tip of my tongue. But yes. lol
Very well said Styro! Hit the nail on the head.
Good thing those astronomers are better scientists than those atmospheric scientists.
Or all you deniers would have to still be planning the end of the world in 2040 from a 450km wide asteroid. Then there is all that history of guys like Salk giving all those kids polio virus so people would like his vaccine better. Then there was all those physicists in the 30's keeping the bomb a secret until the 40's, because they wanted to set back the Japanese physics program. Ya sure, thousands of climate scientists have collaborated on a global head-fake so that they can make 5-figure salaries and spend every weekend for years in a 20-below lab sampling ice core.
I think its about time that scientists, like me, kept the deniers from scientific benefits. Not all of them mind you, just the ones necessary for life. Science isn't a Chinese menu. Either you believe in the process, or you don't. If you are the latter, don't worry, there are lots of tribes in Africa and the Middle East to back you up.
Stages of climate change denial:
It's not happening.
It's happening, but it's not us.
It's happening, it's us, but it won't be bad.
It's happening, it's us, it will be bad, but there's nothing we can do about it.
Maybe there was something we could have done about it, but it's too late now.
Perpetuation of climate change hoax:
It's not happening. - It's always been happening since the dawn of time to the present & on into the future.
It's happening, but it's not us. - Anthropogenic Global Warming effect is so infinitesimal as to be far less significant in the scheme of solar & geothermic forces on the climate of Earth that it is essentially not us.
It's happening, it's us, but it won't be bad. - Humankind is not causing global climate change & humankind is not going to be able to stop global climate change no matter what is/is not done in that regard. Only an ego of megalomaniacal proportions (Uh, let's say that of...Al Gore!) would believe that humankind was that significant in the scheme of all that is the universe.
It's happening, it's us, it will be bad, but there's nothing we can do about it. - Please let me know when humankind stops volcanoes from erupting, earthquakes, hurricanes &/or tornadoes from occurring, or successfully/accurately forecasts/predicts the weather for any location for just one solid week even & then maybe I will begin to listen to the irrational, illogical, unscientific spewing of nonsense from the global climate change hoaxers.
Maybe there was something we could have done about it, but it's too late now. - The only thing that any of us can do is to prepare for whatever Mother Nature has in store for Earth & realize that believing in your religion of Scientism is pure unadulterated folly, your right to worship what you choose to worship, but not anyone else's responsibility to fund, especially by the far-left's mandate.
You forgot a couple there, Biker -
Establish carbon credit excnages - that'll help.
Send money from richer countries to third world nations - that should remove a significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere.
Increase the price of everything - because that will cool this old planet. BTW - do we want a cooler planet?
Brilliantly stated, Rhea!
BikerMick- everything that you try to argue is wrong. Try reading some legitimate books on climate change, look at the NASA website, and start to understand how the evil "climate change hoaxers" actually came up with the present conclusions.
Brdman707 -
Now where is BikerMick going to find time to do all that? I mean, he's got those goalpoasts to keep on shifting. That's hard work, that is.
BikerMick is right. Exactly what do you climate change hysterics think can be done about this "problem". The Treasury is all tapped out thanks to Obama.
Burying your head in the sand seems to be a cottage industry of those on the right.
Why is the Republican Party the only conservative-leaning major political party in the world that continues to deny climate science?
I wish I knew the answer to that, but I'd bet that the continued denial of Global Climate Change is lining someone's pockets.
It boosts the market for sand. That's why we invaded Iraq. They have a lot of the world's sand reserves. It's not complicated.
Sad to say, but you can blame the GOP denials directly on Al Gore. Not because he was wrong, but because his movie turned what had been (yes, even inside the Beltway) a scientific discussion into a political one and combating global warming became associated with the "liberal left" instead of with science. Congress was actually on the verge of real action prior to the movie. Watch the "Frontline" episode about this and you will curse Al Gore, whether you like him or not.
Sorry, Bob - but to blame Gore for the intransigence of the right on climate issues (for 'politicizing' them - LOL!) is akin to blaming the rape victim because they "asked for it".
If what you state is even remotely true, then the Republican Party is willing to damage EVERYTHING - economy, national soveriegnty, our very lives and those of our progeny - because the cause of climate change was brought to the fore by a Democrat. Would they rather leave the planet unihabitable in order to score political "points"?
If that kind of purile, churlish, 'scortched earth' attitude prevails among those who are purported to be adults, then we are all in serious trouble.
Let's also not forget that many R's are WELL paid by the API and other "dirty energy" lobbying groups. So maybe it's less a principled stand, and more of an attitude of personal economic enrichment that is the REAL problem here.
Everyone now knows that the entire hoax that is Global Cooling (1975),...NO, Global Warming (Al Gore jumps on board the progressive, liberal, $green$, new-world-order, one-world government bandwagon),...NO, Global Climate Change, is designed to line the pockets of Al Gore & that ilk. There never was a scientific "consensus" & whatever consensus the far-left believed existed has been proven wrong with steadily increasing scientific evidence that AGW is/was never a significant factor in whatever global climate change has occurred since the dawn of time. How nice to purport that something exists & we've got to legislate/regulate/charge the citizens of Earth in order to stop what we can have no effect on either way & allow the money to fill Marxists pockets knowing that it can neither be proven/disproven with 100% veracity. Global Climate Change is a religion that you or anyone is welcome to believe, but no one is welcome to mandate that I or anyone else pay for it.
TiredOfLies,
"Would they rather leave the planet unihabitable in order to score political "points"?
Yes they would! What Bob said is true. They would blame the rape victum! I believe there are people that believe if it's "God's will", than let it be. We ARE in serous trouble!
The AGW crowd does not use science, or the scientific method. That method - postulate, predict, test, correct has worked for hundreds of years.
It does not apply to Global warming. The IPCC has made predictions. Every single one of them have failed miserably. Every one. Instead of revising the theory, its always revise the excuses - there was an inordinate amount of "cooling" due to aresols, it was dust. When the IPCC gets there predictions in line with reality, maybe people will pay attention.
It is all about wealth re-distribution. From the "developed" west to the "undeveloped" countries, through the UN (who no doubt will keep some of it.
The starting bidding at this years COP18 was $100 Billion/yr.
But no, it's not about the money.
Just an FYI, but the scientific community never called for a "coming ice age" or "global cooling" in 1975. And the term "global warming" is still accurate, it's just been updated to "climate change" so that ignorant fools can't stand outside on a cold day and yell, "see, it's not getting warmer globally."
um, as a matter of fact there is.
/gasp, I know!
Why is the Republican Party the only conservative-leaning major political party in the world that continues to deny climate science?
That answer is easy! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ because they are funded by the oil companies.
tiredof lies - because they can - they have the southern / midwest block believe they are on board with the jesus fairy tale - which they are thick headed enough to believe in the first place - and really thats enough- make someone believe you believe in the same nonsense and they will back you on anything - the biggest problem with religion is it makes a virtue of not thinking
Fact 1: The oceans have risen 7.6" since 1880, check NOAA if you do not belive me
Fact 2: If you do a second order quadratic regression analysis on the real data from NOAA you get a 99.5% correlation and find that by the time the year 2100 comes around the oceans will have risen another 8 inches. NOAA says 12 inches by 2100....they are taking a negative case using the satelite numbers since 1993 which do not agree with the tidal gauges used since 1880. I will be dead, but my house at the beach in Florida will be fine. The scientists, like all physicists and engineers have perfect math that they base upon erroneous assumptions i.e. what if everything goes terribly wrong, and is the worst, then they present this data as though it were fact. The worst case from NOAA was
Fact 3: This has been the coldest winter in 35 years in China, please check the internet for verification
Fact 4: The ice melt in area is not highly relevent because the ice over most of the artic sea is 6 feet thick, not 2 miles thick as it is in Greenland, so of course we see greater retreating of the very thin ice (6 feet thick). In other words, if it takes all summer to melt the ice over the artic sea at 6 feet thick, how long do you think it will take to melt the ice over greenland at 2 miles thick. Scientists neglect to note this important point.
Fact 5: Al gore shows 130 years of a graph that goes back millions of years . Temp rise since 1880, about 1 degree F, temp rise since 1200AD is the same at 1 degree F
The climate change crazies don't believe in real science, only faux, junk science.
67 Bonneville Guy,
You should do some research on how much ocean levels have risen since the end of the last Ice age.
Ha ha, ha ha ha
At the current rate of melting, it would indeed take 1,000 or more years to melt the Greenland ice sheet, however the rate of melting will increase significantly if temperatures continue to rise. Thermal expansion of the oceans must also be considered; a global sea level rise of 3 feet by 2100 is entirely plausable.
Are you denyers getting it yet?
Gee -
Denial of "Global Warming?" Then we will change to scare to "Anthropomorphic Climate Change."
NO scienctist has proven how much humanity is adding to the undeniable change, nor is any willing to even claim to know.
But let's formulate global policy because: "It might be too late, later!"
12 of the warmest 13 years in the last 162 years have occurred since 1998. I hate this phrase, but "just sayin'..."
Warmest on RECORD,, and we ALL contributed.
too bad we can't let the deniers suffer the most....
How soon till we hear how this isn't evidence of global warming? 30+ years of an ongoing trend and the deniers seem to believe it's all bad data.
They seem to be able to deny anything and everything. Did Romney really lose?
They'll still be denying when they suck in their last HOT breath.
I'm looking forward to some warmer weather, time to purge the earth of moochers.
lets get something straight here, this is the warmest year WE have directly measured. So we are using a sample size of ~350 out of ~5,000,000,000 years. That is a sample size of .000007%
To say it another way, that is like saying you are the smartest person to ever live because you spelled the word "the" correctly 1 time in your lifetime.
We already know that the CO2 levels, average temperature and average ocean termperature was much higher in the time of the dinosaurs.
The Earth is still in a warming period from the last Ice Age, do suggest that we as a species can affect the Earth's natural cycles is incredibly self centered.
You continue to deny scientific facts which is your right.
We have cored samples of the Earth's ice and soil we know the concentrations of CO2 etc and the temperatures and a lot of other data.
On Rhea-1300273's 5 scale standard of climate denial, gbreault85 is a 4.
yeah, this is true. And because of this, THE FREAKING PLANET FAVORED REPTILIAN LIFE FORMS OVER MAMMALS!!!
Doesn't bode well for us if we return to those average temps, seeing as how well, you know, we're also mammals...
from what I've read, tribolites really aren't that tasty. i'd rather keep the mammals and the grain crops around even if a nice fern is a treat once in awhile. and what about those gigantic mosquitoes?
gbreault85,
There are relatively reliable proxies for determining how rapidly CO2 rose during previous interglacial periods compared to now. The proxies are pretty much in agreement for the periods between Ice Ages prior to the current one. The rise of CO2 during the present interglacial was following the same trend until approximately 150 years ago when the slope of the increase suddenly became much steeper and the steepness has continued to increase. The onset of the faster rise in CO2 compared to previous interglacial periods coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Unless you deny that the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere is a major driver of global temperature rise, you are drawn to the conclusion that human activity has accelerated the warming trend over what was seen in previous interglacial periods. Now it could be that human action is only accelerating a natural process and the world will not exceed the temperature peaks of previous interglacial periods but if the CO2 levels continue to rise above any seen in previous interglacial periods we could be in a whole lot of trouble in the far future.
Even if it's not too late, it's Obama's fault anyway. (Did you know he was born in Kenya???)
Are you sere it's Obama's fault.....I thought I did it....
I think it's pretty simple. It's in the 80's this week in FL... and yes... I know... it's supposed to be hot here... but not supoosed to be in the 80's... in the middle of winter?
It's just a fluke...you'll get snow tomorrow.....(sarcasm).
Did I do a good job of imitating a denier?
Sid. How long have you lived in Florida?
I've lived in Florida my entire life, and have not known a "winter" to not have temperatures in the 80's in central and south Florida at some point during the season.
Usually Late Jan and early Feb is when Florida gets it's real cold fronts from the north and west.
Oh and Sid, from the end of Oct to now (early Jan) there had been NO days in the 80's. Many were in the low 70's, some in the 60's, and about a week or two worth of temps below that. Despite the temperatures this week, this winter has actually been cooler in Florida.
I sure have seen Temps in the 80s in North Fl....This Winter and Fall...
I'm pretty sure the Weather Is recorded and published....
Sid I have lived in Florida for 23 years and seen many, many days in the winter, every winter, above 80 degrees, now and decades ago. The ocean rises about 1/8" per year and at that rate my house at the beach will be swamped in about 350 years. Note, there is a big difference between Nothern and Southern Florida in temperature. The hottest temperature I ever experienced was 98 degree in march in Boca raton, in 1986. I had one guy ask me what do I know about hurricanes......give me a break. And BTW, hurricane Sandy, as every Floridian would tell you was the worst of all things except wind. it was oncoming wind on to very low lying land, at high tide, wind was moderate for a hurricane. If New York and New jersey were about 10 feet higher along the coast, the damage would have been probabnly 1 - 2% of what it was. It is the water that does the most damage. Katrina, another good example, actually low winds (relatively) at impact, broke the dyke and the slow moving water flooded New Orleans...that did the damage...a lousy dike, not global warming
Not this Sh!t again.
"Not these facts again".
The sky is falling the sky is falling.
Didn't Al Gore say that the coastal cities would be underwater by this time.
Um. Overall, 2012 is being reported as the coldest year on record worldwide. It's the 16th year in a row that the average earth temperature has DROPPED. Yes, we did see a hot year in the US, but one year is certainly not indicative of global warming or climate change as preached by the doomsayers. In the 16 years prior to this period, the temperature did rise, less than 1 degree I believe. Go back to the 1970's and look at all the predictions of a coming ice age.
No wonder so many of us look at all the nonsense and say: yea right.
Did you read the article? Post your sources.
Global Highlights
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Your post is typical of the intent behind the leaked e-mails about global warming. Rather than looking at all data, lets' only release the months, regions, and years that support man made global warming, and just be silent about the data that doesn't support the theory.
If the perfect theory is correct, every year should be the warmest on record beacuse man made carbon emmision have gone up not down every year since 2000. However, the world wide temperatures don't seem to support this man made theory.
Since 1998 the temperatures have leveled out and have actually decreased slightly, they have not gone up. And the global temperature for 2012, when finally released will be less than 1998. Apparantly the very cold year in Europe and Russia will balance our very hot year and the resulting year globally will only be in the top 10. Of course none of the "scientists" are talking about what happen in Europe and Russia, and good luck trying get any data out of NASA or Noaa.
"NOAA expects to have global data for 2012 sometime in the coming weeks, but Crouch said scientists already know with certainty "it's going to be in the top ten" warmest years ever."
How shocking - after a period of significant global warming, every year will be relatively hot even as the temperatures start decreasing.
I am not a "denier", the earth has gone through a significant warming period, I just am sick of the environmentalist trying to exploit this crisis by calling it "man made" and implying that we control the temperature. Just because two events occur at the same time does not prove causality, it is circumstantial evidence at best. Its a long way from being a suspect to being proven guilty. I have yet to see any evidence other than this weak circumstancia evidence that this warming episode is man made.
If you read the article in question...
... oh wait, I see Eric already covered this nonsense...
But you are a denier if you don't believe what the climate science community is saying. We aren't "controling" them. We are causing them. Big difference. If you don't believe man can cause it then you are ignorate of the truth or like to live in denial.
Eric,
You do realize that nothing that you said, countered what he said right?
We are the first generation in history to believe that climatic warming is a bad thing.
In a warmer world, less energy is needed for heating and transportation, resulting in less air, land, and water pollution. Snow and ice that seriously hamper movement and increase the costs of land and water shipping are reduced. Roads, bridges, and other infrastructure maintenance costs drop, as there would be less freeze/thaw and ice damage. Clothing expenses obviously reduce in a warmer world, and construction costs plummet as less insulation is required in all buildings.
The benefits of warming are especially prominent in agriculture. Longer frost-free periods will extend growing seasons as well as the extent of agriculture in middle- and high-latitude regions. More and greater varieties of food are then possible in areas that are currently agriculturally marginal.
Contrary to the assertions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a warmer world is a wetter world with less, not more, droughts. This is because evaporation increases with warming, putting more moisture into the atmosphere.
This week, we’ll be hearing in The Dirty Weather Report from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project that global warming will lead to more extreme weather. This is wrong. In the exceptionally unlikely event that the world warms significantly due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker mid-latitude cyclones in a warmer world — less extremes in weather, not more. Rising global temperatures would produce a tranquilizing effect on weather, something we would all welcome.
Far more people die due to excessive cold than due to excessive warmth. Cold weather is obviously much harder on our bodies than is warm weather. That is why people retire to Florida or Arizona, and not Alaska.
History demonstrates that warming has been good, and cooling bad, for civilization. That is why geologists named past warm periods “optimums” and cold times “dark ages.”
Wish I could believe you, since you make such an effort to sound reasonable and scientific. But I can't. You seem to be defending global warming simply because you can't get away with denying it.
Wow, you are so right...we should absolutely focus on the positives that bad things produce.
If I pee in your bathwater, you will not have to run so much warm water into the tub. Add a little bubble bath, and the urine stream will foam it up quite nicely. If you like, I could take some vitamins the day before, and your bath will take on a pleasing golden hue. Clearly, there are far more advantages than disadvantages to getting p*ssed on.
Good post, Jen06. This nifty warming period we've enjoyed for the last 10,000 years could go away rather quickly. And if you look at the last 100,000 years, we are long overdue an ice age.
If that happens, we'll all be praying for global warming.
Analyze and adapt, people. This is how humanity survives.
Now if you want to discuss over-population, that is a whole other problem.
Styro: You figuratively hit the nail on the head!
The problem is that too much warming is not a good thing overall for human civilization. Just sea level rise alone will be massively disruptive. Models predict that some areas will become wetter and flood more often, other areas will become drier on average. Excessive heat waves can kill, as can the spread of tropical diseases. And no, we're not overdue for an ice age. The Earth is still in a favorable nearly circular orbit, and will remain that way for thousands more years.
Wooo..."EXTREME". Yea...right...floods, hurricanes, tornados, etc have never ever happened before...they're extremeeeee.....wooooo
Yes, and don't forget Earthquakes, they are our fault, too. But it's all those cow farts that are causing it.
The only thing this country needs is no guns and everyone to believe in global warming. Once we achieve that there will not be a single care. Utopia is just that far away. Can't you feel it? Can't you see it? Maybe we can go back to living in caves and just use sticks to kill each other and not have fire while eating roots and berries. That will be a good life
UGH, me make fire!
"The ice age is coming the sun is zooming in. Engines stop running the wheat is growing thin. A Nuclear error but i have no fear cos London is drowning and i live by the river!!"
Love you Strummer! RIP
When considering climate change, you can't say any single day being extra hot or extra cold or any particular storm is proof of global warming or global cooling. However, you can identify trends in the data which is what all the reputable scientists do.
Detailed records of global temperatures have been kept since 1850.
Of the top 20 hottest years on record:
- None have occurred before 1980
- 2 were in the 1980s
- 6 were in the 1990s
- 11 were in the 2000s
2012 is forecast to be the hottest ever recorded
THAT is proof of global warming.
*sources: The Economist & Met Office, UK
However when people purposely modify data to show a trend you no longer can feel confident in the data you look at. Why don't you try to get the actual data before it has been modified instead of just quoting others who quote others who have an agenda? Why don't you look into why they won't release the actual raw data and instead use complex formulas to modify it before they let anyone have it? Go ahead, get the raw data. I triple dog dare you, sir.
The sources I have quoted as far as I know do not have any financial stake in this fight. Feel free to post proof that they are corrupt, or share your own sources if you wish.
And we all know how accurate the MET Office, UK is right???""
They haven't gotten a forecast right in at least 10 years!!!!
Have you actually checked their prediction record?
Of course not! You just believe the latest from them, though they've been wrong every year!
This planet will spit us all out when it feels like it. Everyone that thinks they can actually control or manipulate the planet and the constant changes it has been going through for eons is delusional - at best.
I bet Joe was also certain that the polls were all wrong and Romney was going to win in a landslide!
Forecasts are MUCH, MUCH different from recording and processing weather data after the fact. That is apples and oranges, sorry. Past data is historical, future data is hysterical.
detailed records of earth's climate have been kept for eons.
just not always by people.
True SRMcMahon but if you compare what is happening now to previous interglacial warming trends you can see significant differences in the rate of warming that happen to coincide the the onset of the Industrial Revolution and rapid, compared to previous eras, rises in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
HeyMikey--exactly. And it was in the mid 1800's. I think, that the heat capacity of CO2 was measured, and we know where the CO2 is coming from.
More BS from people who have no idea what they are talking about. The fact is: records have only been kept for a MUCH MUCH shorter time than the time period they were NOT kept. There is absolutely NO way to determine what the weather patterns were hundreds/thousands of years ago. So quit saying that the sky is falling (or warming, in this case). There are ALOT more pressing issues in the world today. This is all hype being made up by a few that want to get rich off of it.
as a matter of fact, THERE IS. But then again, you'd have to be a climatologist, or at least one versed in science to know this...
DrowingGrover,
A climatologist is not one versed in science. Its like saying sociology is a science. Its cute I guess.
sure there are. pollen grains. eqyptian grain sales and tax records. fossilized huge fish in Kansas stone (golly gee, how did they get there?). stuff in the stomachs of frozen mastodons. glacial ice core samples. . . the list goes on and on and on. . . .
have to say i enjoyed the non-winter of 2011-2012, after a few horrible winters when those Alaskans didn't keep their cold up north (due to partial collapse of arctic atmospheric circulation). can't deny it. BUT you can't assume that global warming will happen in a way that makes it easy for people. Longer growing season? but what about drought? or an early spring that gets crops started and then suddenly a freeze that kills growth points or fruit flower buds? (and if you don't put in your ground crops early during a warm spring, you might not have enough moisture to get the crop thru to harvest later on).
Jeepers creepers! What ever shall we do? Maybe if the temperature gets a little higher, the useless land in Siberia, northern Canada, Alaska, northern Europe will be able to be used to grow crops. And maybe instead of it being so cold in the northern USA and in Canada, northern Europe, and in southern Chile and Argentina half the year that people have to burn fossil fuel to survive, it might be a welcome relief to have a little natural heat. If sea level rises a foot, the worst result will be that some of the spoiled "royalty" and priviledged with multiple beach front homes might have to grab some land a little farther back and move their palaces
.
well, a bunch iof that useless land is permafrost which just gets mushy when thawed. . . and then releases large amounts of methane, ramping up the GW. be careful what you wish for
I don't think the entire financial district in Manhattan is some spoiled royalty with beachfront homes. It got hit pretty bad from the Sandy surge and further rises in sea level will put much of lower Manhattan below sea level.
Well we have our once a week story about the climate. Next will be the thrice a day story on gun control.
I can go back and look at this years temperatures in this region of our state and no it was not the hottest on record nor was it extreme. while we had a large amount of rain compared to what most remember in recent past, it is on par with the historical averages that are on file. Before a "journalist" and I use that word very lightly as true journalism is dead, can make a the statement they did in the headlines, maybe they should do research and not trust other "journalists" There is not sufficient data that is required to make these blanket statements. Before ou argue, I am an engineer who deals with environmental issues.
quad,
You know the difference between local, large area and global averages, correct?
We know things are getting drier and hotter and more violent than before. I want to know why.
Is it man made or is it a random weather pattern. Don't we have enough scientists, weather experts, statisticians, etc..., to get an explanation on the cause of this change if any cause is to be found, and regardless of party affiliation? I think so.
Let stop the toying around and the unnecessary yapping and get our explanation squared and decide then what we should do.
Statisticians only want to work with real scientists, climatologists do not meet this requirement.
MrBurns: Ah. The old "Ad Hominum" attack. If you can't attack the science, attack the scientist.
Well, statisticians work with data. and I bet there is plenty hard data available for temperature, precipitation, CO2 level, human population growth, oil consumption, forested areas etc..
I think it is very do-able. What? Am I going to have to do it myself too? What do I pay you for people!