The big question is, what are we waiting for to do something about this?
Notice the pattern: the rise since the 1880s did not occur relentlessly at the same pace the entire period.
You can clearly see the impact after 1900 of the period of modern industrialization. But there is a pause for 30 years after WWII. What caused that? Was that due to the destruction of the economies in Europe and Japan? And what caused it to restart? Was it the rise of industries in emerging economies?
Since 1970, the temps have already risen one full degree. So, if the expectation is that two degrees will be catastrophic, it will happen faster than anyone expects (within the next generation) if the pace does not pause again.
Whatever! The most important point is that of all the foolhardy actions people might take if they respond to articles like this, is to ask governments to solve the problem, which may or may not exist. If anyone thinks POTUS, Congress and SCOTUS can deal with climate change without making matters worse and costing taxpayers a ton of money as the pols and 'crats pour revenues from climate taxes into the Swamp hole, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn those folks will want to buy. Imagine: the Donald, Ryan, McConnell, Schumer and Pelosi in charge of the weather. Egads! These bozos can't even balance a budget. Gimme a break.
Look at that temperature graph. WW2 caused global warming but all of the atmospheric nuclear testing in following years caused global cooling. The solution is obvious. Nuclear war is not as bad for the planet as we were told. It might save us.
1
Let's place a human population growth graph since 1880 over the one for rising earth temperatures. Surprise! As the human population explodes, the climate changes! Can you have one apex predator's numbers remain under one billion for tens of thousands of years, and then, in a 200 year period, have them grow to 7.5 billion? How could that NOT have an effect on our biodiversity and climate? If 7.5 billion man-eating tigers roamed the earth, destroying everything in sight, how soon would they be eradicated?
3
It's curious that the censors will not post my comment that directly contradicts their doomsday prognostications with factual evidence available to everyone. They certainly do allow people's misinformation and misconceptions to continue however.
It's well known in the southern coastal states that a strong El Nino means a less active hurricane season for the Gulf Coast states. In 2017 there was a non existent El Nino and we had an active hurricane season. So, that means a slight cooling trend. We are also having an unusually cold winter this year in Louisiana. It has snowed twice already, not very much, but even that is rare in these parts. The past two days 29 parish governments were shut down as were several hospitals, schools and businesses. The interstates were shut down. So where are the admissions that the world is cooling off? If a hurricane is proof of global warming then an unusual record breaking cold snap should be evidence of global cooling.
The NYT simply has an agenda to fight Trump at every opportunity even if it means denying the weather.
1
The verifiable sources for your claims, and the evidence of your expertise over that of nearly all the world’s climatologists?
1
Valerie
Look it up.
El Nino's influence on hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
One of the deniers should step up and show us where their famous "plateau" is on that diagram. I'm having trouble spotting it.
"But the climate has always been changing..." Yes, and human ignorance in the face of facts is perennial, too. Wake up! This is not a debate. Climate change is real and it is caused by human behavior. These are facts. It's past time to act.
1
And yet it was below the previous year.
Yes, as the article clearly states, La Niña years are not as warm as El Niño years. 2016 was the warmest year in the records, and was an El Niño year, so it was expected that 2017 wouldn't be as hot.
Yet 2017, below the previous year, was warmer than every year before 2015.
Give credit for where credit is due: thanks Republicans.
Fine presentation opening with a graph that even (some) Republicans can understand.
Well timed to coincide with this event: 2 US-Based Climate Researchers Win Swedish Science Prize-"Japan-born Syukuro Manabe and Susan Salomon are sharing the 6 million Swedish krona ($748,000) prize. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on Thursday cited their "fundamental contributions to understanding the role of atmospheric trace gases in Earth's climate system."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/01/18/world/europe/ap-eu-sweden-us... (NYT short URL does not work)
I add this story from Sweden as the basis for noting that, yes, the Times may find these data important, but it does not find it at all important to report on the technologies and public policies standard in Sweden and the Nordic countries that must be put into practice in the United States if the temperature increase curve is to be flattened at all.
Oil rich Norway plans to reduce fossil-fuel consumption, subsidizing the purchase of electric cars. Sweden and Denmark lead the way in ending fossil-fuel use for heating by creating advanced systems using solid-waste as a renewable energy fuel to heat entire cities. And the Danes have even taken this to West Palm Beach FL where America's only advanced plant is up and running. Sweden leads in the use of advanced heat-pump systems.
Can you read about these in the Times? NEVER.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Sunglassed Emperor penguins could be sunbathing in the center of the Antarctic in the dead of winter and it would still not change the GOP/conservative anti-science rejection of anthropogenic global warming. Heat records will continue to be broken. The experiment with the environment continues unabated. Wait for plan B…wait…
1
It is an incredible scientific feat to be able to determine the temperature of an envelop of chaotically swirling air that occupies billions of cubic miles of space between the surface of the earth and the tropopause. But, even more incredible is the scientific ability to predict the dynamic state of that swirling mass and its impact decades in the future. Kudos to Science!
2
Excuses excuses.....FACT: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 277 ppm before the industrial revolution to 402 ppm today...FACT: this increases is completely due to human activity, and 402 is the highest level in over 1 million years, within the time frame of multiple ice ages and "natural" warming periods. FACT: A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. FACT: It took the earth's biosphere over 100 million years to sequester fossil carbon. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution human activity has mined, burned and released 2,000 trillion TONS of carbon...that's 2,000,000,000,000,000 TONS. (what could possibly go wrong) FACT: the fossil fuel industry has spent BILLIONS of dollars perpetuating the lie that human activity is not responsible for global warming...mainly funneled through "conservative" organizations, like the Heritage Foundation into political campaigns. FACT: the only country in the world to reject the Paris accord is the US under GOP leadership. Select members of the American GOP backed by the fossil fuel industry vs. the rest of the world. By the deniers will tell you the rest of the world is wrong and the Koch brothers, Trump and Exxon are right....You have to be very thick to believe the latter....that the entire world has been deceived by a liberal plot, except for all-knowing Trump.
4
...Based on average temps from the late 1800s? No wonder people question the integrity of scientists and others who push global warming theories. That is a very limited data set to use as a benchmark average and quite worthless to extract a conclusion from.
2
It's a combination of direct observations and proxy data. There are plenty of proxy data available from the last couple of hundred years that give us very accurate air temperature values through calculation. It would amaze you to know that we also have proxy temperature data, without observation mixed in, of course, going back not only tens of thousands, but also hundreds of millions of years. Climate change is very highly researched and well understood.
2
Not only is the sample size of a few hundred years insufficient, but from what I've seen, the studies do not control for the impact of population growth. Rather, the studies tend to focus exclusively on first world carbon emissions, while ignoring the developing world's rising population and deforestation and destruction of wetlands.
Michael, you haven't seen much of the science for you to make such claims. Greenhouse gases spread globally, and the genuine scientific literature discusses increases and also documents sources. You might be surprised that the researchers are well aware of China's coal-driven industrialization and China passing the United States several years ago as the primary emitter of fossil-fuel-based CO2. The international trends in emissions have been well covered in science, media and business - for example, download a spreadsheet and explore BP's statistical review of energy - they have a tab for CO2 emissions for all nations.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-revi...
The scientists also have been documenting CO2 emissions from deforestation in developing nations, wildfires, and the contribution of agricultural and land-use practices, too. Check here under the UN's Framework on Climate Change site.
http://unfccc.int/land_use_and_climate_change/items/8792.php
Population is secondary at this point to how energy and food are procured. Stabilizing population also appears to depend on increasing living standards above a minimum level for people in any nation to stop producing children above replacement level.
Every day at my Federal workplace I see the endless stream of Global Entry applicants most of whom will be taking an international flight in the very near future once processed. Every flight spews huge tons of kerosene soot and other particulates as well as massive amounts of carbon per passenger into the blue Empyrean. Do any of these people care? Apparently not. Even though the Chicago area is overlaid by a huge efficient network of passenger rail, how many people insist on driving their car everywhere, when they could easily have taken a train? All these microscopic factors of human behavior add up to a pollutant burden that is now unsustainable but since Fox News says that global warming is liberal propaganda, one supposes that Americans will do their part to doom the planet.
2
Global warming was on the ballot. Trump won. It is a Chinese hoax. Elections have consequences.
1
This is why people don't trust the climate alarmist narrative. "Shockingly", after historically string El Ninos, it takes a minute for temperatures to come down to previous levels. Dane happened with the strong 1997-1998 El Ninos. To pretend this doesn't happen and temps immediately plummet to previous levels is purposely misleading. Shame on you.
2
For your comment to have any validity, then the recent El Niño should have lifted global temperatures back up to a peak last seen in 1998. But darned if I see any "plummet" that lasted more than a year or two after 1998 in the data. Instead, it looks like 2005, 2009 and ALL of the years since 2013 were warmer than 1998.
As in, something is preventing a return to previous levels. Now what could that be?
Show us a long-term return to "previous levels" after the 1998 El Niño, please. Otherwise, shame on you.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12...
I plugged the data from NASA into Excel, then generated a graph and a trendline with a 95% correlation. It shows us reaching the dangerous 2 degree threshold around 2040. Thats only 22 years away.
2
Scary. We might be alive to experience this. Our children? Inevitably. What do we teach them? How will they survive in a world of uncontrolled heating and the unprecedented storms, droughts and floods it will unleash?
The earth cannot survive any more green initiatives. Please let it stop.
Millions of acres of land for 'green' ethanol (40% of US corn vs 38% for feed)
Carolina/Poland/Canada are chipping old growth forests for EU 'green' targets.
Brazil has millions of acres of sugar cane planted for 'green' ethanol.
The Asian tropics are being leveled to provide 'green' biodiesel.
Millions of acres of land ruined with 'green' industrial turbines.
Millions without vital electricity as projects to electrify nations fall apart.
1
Funny, Tom. While corn ethanol is a dud, I find it amazing that you claim land is "ruined" when a farmer leases about 1% of their cropland for revenue from wind.
Here's a green message the coal industry really dislikes as a huge nation electrifies - the URL has the message right in it: https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-cancels-mega-plans-to-build-...
And from the International Energy Agency
Electricity is “the new oil” and the effect of increasing global electrification is having a “very deep rippling effect for the power sector”.
"On electric vehicles, she presented some startling predictions. She said that the number of electric vehicles on the road globally would rise from the existing 2 million to 50 million by 2025 and nearly 300 million by 2040. “Spectacular growth,” she said.
In the World Energy Outlook – which this year reaches its 40th edition – the IEA highlights three other global trends alongside electrification: The US is the world number one in oil and gas; solar PV is on track to be the cheapest source of new electricity in many countries; and China is switching to a cleaner energy mix.
The IEA says that “these changes brighten the prospects for affordable, sustainable energy and require a reappraisal of approaches to energy security”."
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/11/iea-spotlights-deep-...
Welcome to the curve of the hockey-stick, where positive feedback accelerates accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
1
The decadal average is more indicative than that of one hot year. This year might be one of the coolest on record. Yime will tell.
There's no possible climatological mechanism of action that would put 2018 among the coldest years on record since 1880. It's very out of touch with reality to think that's at all possible. Can you explain how heat in the atmosphere would just suddenly vanish all over the globe instantly?
1
There must be a way! Else there would be no annual variations in the global average--and such variations have been substantial.
Decadal averages vary too. See, e.g., https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
I think people are forgetting the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, it is hotter. That energy is coming from inside the Earth. It has been transferred to the atmosphere. The tropopause will hug this energy so it eventually returns. Yes, most of humans will be dead, but the Earth will slowly cool. Relax.
"Yes, most humans will be dead...Relax."
I think you're missing the point here. Plus, the heat isn't coming from inside the Earth; it's coming from the sun and being trapped by the Earth more than it should be because of artificially heightened CO2 levels.
1
Pilot, thanks for the "it's the earth" joke. Explain why the deep ocean, touching the earth, is the coldest part of the ocean. Also why the ice caps don't slide off Greenland and Antarctica where they've been for millions of years.
Speaking of the conservation of energy, the tropopause is just a boundary in the atmosphere, so it can't hug anything. Now I'll show you what hugs the infrared that Earth gives off after being warmed by sunlight - it's CO2. The increase in energy over a decade due to increased CO2 levels has been measured. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Please end the incessant computer-driven models of climate fluctuation and weather phenomena. Meteorology has become less and less empirical and more theoretical, hence the inaccuracy of forecasting across the U.S. What is amiss on a weekly, if not daily basis, becomes completely bogus regarding long-range forecasting, let alone attributing causation. Check with geologists before climate change aka global warming becomes another flat earth pronouncement accepted as fact for centuries, again based on fear of what lies beyond human control and in this case, human manipulation. By the way, record cold this winter in the northeastern US. It’s past time to chill.
2
Addendum [all quote, extract] from "insurance broker Aon Benfield: Preliminarily, here are 2017’s billion-dollar weather disasters":
Hurricane Harvey, U.S., $90 billion
Hurricane Maria, Caribbean, $60 billion
Hurricane Irma, Caribbean/Bahamas/SE US, $55 billion
Wildfires, US (California), $9.4+ billion
Flooding, China, $7.5 billion
Drought, Southern Europe, $6.6 billion
Flooding, China, $4.5 billion
Typhoon Hato, Macau/Hong Kong/China, 3.5 billion
Severe Weather, US Rockies/Plains, $3.4 billion
Flooding, Peru, 3.1 billion
Severe Weather, US Plains/Southeast/Midwest, 2.75 billion
Drought, US Plains/Rockies, $2.5 billion
Drought, China, $2.5 billion
Tropical Cyclone Debbie, Australia, 2.4 billion
Severe Weather, US Midwest/Plains/Southeast, $2.1 billion
Wildfires, US West, $2.0 billion
Severe Weather, US Midwest, $2.0 billion
Severe Weather, US Midwest/Plains/Southeast/MS Valley, $2.0 billion
Drought, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, $1.9 billion
Severe Weather, US South, $1.9 billion
Severe Weather, US Plains/Midwest/Northeast, $1.55 billion
Severe Weather, US South, $1.3 billion
Typhoon Damrey, Vietnam, Philippines, $1.0 billion
Typhoon Lan, Japan/Philippines, $1.0 billion
Tropical Storm Nanmadol, Japan, $1.0 billion
Winter Weather, US Plains/Midwest/Southeast/Northeast, $1.0 billion
Severe Weather, US Plains/Rockies, $1.0 billion
Wildfires, US (California), $1 billion, 2 killed
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/noaa-earth-had-its-third-warmest-year-...
4
@ Susan Anderson - Susan, good list bearing on at least 2 and maybe 3 related subjects the Times should be reporting on.
1) The list expresses costs in USD. What would those costs have been if the US regions hit by the two most recent hurricanes had been built to reduce flooding and to have preparation at the level as descibed for Cuba in the current My Perfect Country series at BBC World Radio?
2) Every so-called "natural" disaster events will be made worse with temperature rise, not a one less dangerous. We should be given examples.
3) The Times should be giving readers much better information about renewable energy approaches that end fossil-fuel use than it gives them.
Larry L.
1
Yes Larry, the people I hope to reach may perhaps hear the language of our currency. Indeed, if we could all agree that this is a growing problem that needs us all to work together, we should be talking about solutions.
I regularly keep up with the wunderground comment section linked here, because it gives me a view of the world's weather extremes from a less US-centric base which includes a lot of meteorologists who know a lot more than I do.
1
Susan -- dollar denominated measures of any type of disaster are almost meaningless. Two factors tend to elevate the cost of a natural disaster regard;es of whether CC is a factor -- 1) inflation/ 2) the number of people living in areas prone to events like fires and hurricanes keeps increasing without a comparable increase in measures to mitigate the damage. In 1980 for example, Hurricane Allen threatened Houston, it was one of the largest and most powerful storms on record. It finally made landfall near Brownsville -- and caused a grand total of $600 million in damages. It was one of the most powerful hurricanes on record, more powerful than Harvey but it hit a lightly populated area.
If you look at the coastal regions of the US prone to hurricanes -- the populations have exploded since the 1930's. Houston for example, had lt 300k in population in 1930, today it's over 2 million and the metro area is over 6 million. And inflation? Since 1930 prices have gone up 1365% according to the bureau of labor stats.
Or take Florida... in 1930 it's population was 1.5 million. Today it's nearly 21 million.
Sort of fake news -- not to minimize these disasters but the costs of natural disasters will increase regardless as long as people keep moving to coastal areas, fire prone areas, and as long as there is inflation.
1
It is worth noting that none of those who spoke out in support of Mr. Trump's ‘Vision, Chutzpah, and Testosterone’ mentioned his climate policies.
9
Thanks for the article, but it leaves out one tiny detail: water holds 4000 times as much heat as air. So, if it weren't for our oceans sucking up tremendous amounts of heat, the current atmospheric temp would be 65degF higher than current temps. Check out the "Ocean Warming" report on the net. Unfortunately for the fishes of the sea and humans who eat them, a warming ocean is less able to absorb O2 and the ocean off of Southern California is losing up to 50% of its former O2 content. Heard about the dying corals? Same for CO2, which is acidifying the oceans and preventing shellfish from forming shells. What oceanographers don't know is how much more heat or CO2 the ocean can hold and how the rate of absorption may change. We are playing with fire, solar fire, and somebody's gonna get more than their fingers burned. As Paul Harvey used to say: "and that's the rest of the story". Stress R Us
12
When they have the intellectual honesty to also show us the un adjusted data (which shows cooling over the past 80 years and dramatic cooling over the past 16 years), then I will give them the respect of listening to their arguments. Otherwise they are just playing politics.
6
To John and others who doubt the gov'ment temperature records - If you are really interested in looking at "un adjusted" data, dive into the NASA and NOAA websites - you can definitely find all the raw data you want. But for an easier path, simply take a look at the Berkeley Earth project. They describe themselves as "an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available."
You may wish to start some easy reading about them at WIkipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Note that they are partially funded by the Koch Brothers.
At their website, they provide ALL of the raw data, describe all of their methods, and provide simple short as well as complex long reports.
Here is their bottom line conclusion:
"Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years."
1
Yeah? Sources? Links?
2
Land-surface temperature records starting in 1757? Seriously? Massaging data is one thing. No data is another.
1
The greatest risks to our national security are: 1. a loose nuke; 2. climate change.
Weather disasters in the U.S. cost $307 billion last year, according to NOAA. Likely, the new normal. Another aircraft carrier or stealth fighter, which are enormously expensive, provides us nothing against these risks.
5
I weep for my grandchildren.
4
Too many people are too shallow or self contained (dotard-in-chief included) to understand that what we see and experience is weather, which we can't control; and that which may doom us is climate, which we are changing.
Climate change has always been around, but we are accelerating it, but it can not be studied by watching the weather, it needs science.
Sad that so many people seem to only accept science which they don't understand when it benefits them.
2
Many people think pre-science goatherds had more insight into nature than modern scientists.
Wow. If that was a graph of your PSA score over the years, you would definitely be doing something about it. It's not some stupid graph, it's your future life.
...or, in this case, the lives of 9 biliion people.
7
$300 Billion in damage and a clear warming trend. Now can we talk about doing something?
6
It is an underestimate. Puerto Rico alone will default on close to $100 billion of debt.
Gee, it's funny how just around the time we ramped up, the warmth has not stopped it's upward trend. If you deny this, then there is no hope to bring you back to the side of logic and decency. You are living in your own fantasy world. "Oh we've had ice ages and increases before...it's natural!" Correct...over the last dozen millennia, and depending on when the ice age was, the temperature did rise. But not like this. This drastic, this is despicable, and this is going to destroy our world.
6
OK. I'm convinced. Now what should we do about it? Let me guess - increase my taxes and this will magically cool the planet. OK. I'll even agree to that. As soon as all the mega-millionaire and billionaire liberals like Matt Damon, Zuckerberg, Buffet, DiCaprio start giving their money away first and stop flying around in private jets and living in huge heated mansions burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Or, I'll give them another option. They can stop lecturing us until they change their behavior first. Until then, pipe down about global warming. BTW, it's freezing cold here in VT.
4
Just mandate that we move away from fossil fuels. Not many taxes involved in that. Plus, there was $Billion dollars in damage done by environmental disasters last year, so your spending your tax dollars on the result and not the cause is OK.
6
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Nope, increasing taxes is not the magical answer. And Buffett is on schedule to give away 99% of his fortune to foundations. I'd have to check to see how much of that concerns energy an climate. Or you could. Zuckerberg is also giving away 99% of his Facebook wealth. As Casey used to say, "You could look it up!" Not sure why you're focused on DiCaprio and Damon, but they have foundations and both list environment on their supported causes. Are you sure their houses are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels? You're sure they have not changed their behavior? Anyhoo, enjoy VT.
4
Jerome,
The reality, and the risks, of anthropogenic global warming don't depend solely on the consumption habits of wealthy people. AGW is a "Tragedy of the Commons"(try this recent News Feature in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: pnas.org/content/114/1/7.full). It results from the *rational* economic choices of every energy consumer, i.e. you, me and everyone else on Earth. We *all* socialize as much of our private marginal cost as the 'free' market will let us get away with. For example, when we buy a gallon of gasoline to run our crosstown errands, the price we pay doesn't include the incremental cost of the global warming our emissions cause.
Global warming will only be capped when we stop burning fossil fuels because alternatives are cheaper. That's why 'market-oriented' economist recommend a national revenue-neutral carbon tax, like Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff (citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend). It would internalize (re-privatize) a fraction of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels into the prices consumers pay for them, thus eliminating the market advantage fossil fuels have over 'renewables'. It would leave the fee and tariff revenue in consumer hands, so that market forces could then drive the build-out of the carbon-neutral US economy within a few decades.
BTW, whoever told you 'global warming' meant Vermont wouldn't get cold in the winter anymore was trying to fool you.
9
We saw this coming in the 1960s. Richard Nixon established the EPA to work on the problem. This latest Republican is tearing it down, climate be damned.
In all the world, only the American Republican Party denies human causes of climate change. But change is in the air.
Last year cost more than $300 billion dollars for climate related disasters. When it costs us more to ignore the environment than it does to support it, even the Republicans will have to admit reality, for a refreshing change.
12
Yet zero coverage of this seemingly important scientific paper.....go figure.
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not...
3
I’ve read coverage of this paper in several media outlets over the last couple days. So “zero” coverage seems a bit hyperbolic.
Also, what did you take away from the article you posted above? That AGW is fake news and everyone worried about it is a chicken little?
This paragraph from the article you just posted stood out to me:
“How effectively the world slashes CO2 and methane emissions, improves energy efficiency, and develops technologies to remove CO2 from the air will determine whether climate change remains manageable or unleashes a maelstrom of human misery.”
3
Whew! Worst impacts - possible end of human civilization on many parts of the earth's surface - avoided. Horrible impacts still possible. Things are looking up!
And your point is? The article you link to, which reports on the predictions of a climate model, doesn't contradict the measured anomalies shown here. On the contrary, it just says IPCC (which aggregates results) predicts a temperature rise between 1.5 and 4.5 C by the end of this century, whereas the new study narrows that to 2.2 to 3.4C. That's still very problematic!
3
I think truth and science were officially banned by the Trump administration. Apparently someone screwed up.
9
Last Summer I camped 3k ft and later at less than 1k ft in the Gifford Pinchot Natl Forest and all the douglas fir trees were losing their leaves in July into late August. Trees stop fixing carbon when conditions are like that so droughts make trees weaker which allows more trees to get killed by beetles and other agents.
Later I traveled down to California and camped in the Trinity Natl Forest where all the lodgepole and ponderosa pines looked mostly dead and dying at all elevations. I hadn't been there for decades so the contrast between what I had seen before and last Summer was really stark.
Washington and Oregon had so much bad air from the fires for so long (two months) that it was really miserable. There was no getting away from it either.
In Santa Barbara I used to see Coulter pines on the peaks above town, La Cumbre Peak especially, but over the last four decades they have almost disappeared. Monterey cypress was common along the coast and they're nearly gone as well. Cypress trees need water to reproduce as the male gametes swim to the female so droughts have nearly decimated Monterey cypress in S. Cal. Construction in SB has killed a lot of trees off but Coulter Pines were too far away from any construction sites for that to have any impact.
Somebody replied to me that it won't be catastrophic but since it's slow the changes aren't obvious unless one has the training to see them. Well, it's a catastrophic and soon you won't need any training to see it.
42
Good article.......though not sure what we should assume here. Hasn't climate change always been a part of our Planet since it was formed?
Also......for all the Trump bashing persons out there, try being personally more environmentally responsible. I see plenty of mindless persons idling their cars in their street-parking-spot in Manhattan to keep their feet warm on a cold day. A total waste of fuel and adding to the planets CO2.
There should be a plant a tree drive in Manhattan but our Mayor is too busy traveling to Iowa or forming committees to study statues.
Thanks
6
We know what mechanisms cause and account for observed climate change going back tens of thousands of years, and even somewhat on a larger scale, using proxy data from ice cores, etc. The current trend is unexplainable by anything but human CO2 emissions.
1
Death has always been a part of life, so I guess we should assume that reducing automobile fatalities wouldn't lead to longer lives. What is it about the use of analogy as a tool of reasoning that eludes conservatives?
No thank you.
1
Making changes to one's personal habits to be more environmentally is essential, but so is "bashing" Trump and resisting to the nth degree every possible move by his corrupt administration to destroy our environment, both American and global.
It is only the mindless persons who are continuing to support or excuse Trump or his corrupt minions like Zinke and Pruitt or the Republicans in Congress.
So start a plant a tree drive in Manhattan. Why wait for your mayor to do that?
Global Warming is not coming, it is here and it is likely to get worse. Global temperatures are rising as we speak. These rising temperatures will make the hurricanes worse in the Gulf and in the Southern Atlantic. It will make the hurricanes bad in the Caribbean as well as in the Gulf Coast and Southern Atlantic Coasts of the United States. The Northeast used to be protected against hurricanes by the cold waters of the North Atlantic, but now that the waters of the North Atlantic has warmed, we are no longer protected. Hurricane Sandy was an instance of this. The hurricanes on the Northeast Atlantic are unlikely to be as bad as the hurricanes in the Gulf, the Caribbean and the Southern Atlantic but this is scant comfort to the victims of hurricanes in the Northeast. Global warming is already making the forest fires and mudslides in California worse and it will get worse as global warming gets worse. All low lying land is likely to be submerged. Scientists have predicted that Manhattan Island and the entire state of Florida will be submerged. What will happen is that there will be more and more frequent and worse flooding until the residents of the low lying land abandon that land to the sea. When that will happen is anybody's guess. But it is coming for sure. This is a global crisis, not just a US crisis. The world has united in the Paris Accord to work against global warming, buy our President, in his infinite wisdom, declines to participate.
13
I'll let you tree hugging liberals keep your so called 'facts' about air and whatever so long as I get to keep both my Chevy Silverados AND my camouflage painted Humvee
3
Yep -- it's all about you! How do you think we got here? Thanks for you self-acknowledged contribution. Put you name at the end of the list when resources (water, air, food) are restricted or lost.
9
The next El Niño year has the potential to jump the curve ahead, just like the last one did. The years where there is some surface cooling don’t mean that there is overall cooling (or some sort of reversion to the mean), but that the accumulating heat is hiding somewhere else in the system, likely in subsurface waters. The El Niño phenomena allows the hidden heat to reveal itself and enter into the weather patterns where it influences the temperature, humidity, wind and rainfall that we experience.
5
Missing from this article is a sobering statistic that CO2 levels rose at the fastest recorded rate last year.
We have not yet begun to take climate change seriously. In typical human fashion we seem unable to react until crisis is upon us. Even the bizarre weather of late has not been enough to stir the masses to action.
I have many highly educated, liberal friends who believe in global warming but who think being liberal and angry at Trump is enough. They still fly to far corners of the globe for vacation, they still eat red meat by the pound, they still produce children based on their personal desires.
I suppose we will carry on, lurching from crisis to crisis, always lamenting "why us?" We forget that nature is utterly indifferent as to whether our civilization survives or not.
56
The problems you mention about people not taking personal responsibility are exactly what we have a government for. When each person contributes <1/7,000,000,000th to the problem, nobody in their right mind would expect individuals to believe their individual actions would make a difference. Government restrictions on the behaviors you mentioned could make a difference. And so could the corporations who contribute much more to climate change than any individuals ever could.
Liberals give a good talk- conservatives just deny. What is happening now is frightening. The climate is essentially shot. The inertia in the climate system is like shaking hands with the devil- the changes in the atmosphere are only NOW beginning to be seen.
1
There are several reasons that 'Global Warming' is not legitimate. The secular reasons are something as simple as name calling. Belittling the opposing views will never be scientific. Simply allow for proper debate among scientists minus political dogma and then maybe you will be able to see the flaw in your reasoning. Also, the amount of money being thrown into this without having a full and complete discussion of its actuality is the driving force behind all the political posturing. Ultimately, without proof, the Climate Accords forces America to follow strict guidelines with the two largest populated countries, producing the largest amounts of pollution to not be held under the same scrutiny. Therefore 'Global Warming' is easily considered a globalization tool. Limiting the growth of the USA is not going to happen without other nations limiting their growth as well. Finally, the non-secular reasoning is far stronger than all the previous statements. Both Christian and Jew believe that God is in control of the climate. There is even a conversation in the Bible where God says "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." As Bible believers will tell you only fools don't believe in God and they will never agree with scientists, seeing as the majority are atheists.
1
Where to start... Science is the stuff that persists whether you believe in it or not. You clearly do not, so you are throwing up arguments aside from the data in order to convince others of your feelings.
Money is used to drive research, which is still accumulating 95:5 that we are seeing fluid warming, climate change, and accompanying change in local conditions, storms included. It does correlate to human activity, and removing interfering variables through factor analysis, the evidence persists with no reasonable competing explanation.
As for actions to be taken - the Kyoto agreement, the Paris accord, etc., move in the direction of reversing these effects. Any other direction would worsen things. In addition to those agreements, China has moved ahead on its own limits, while the US has decide that if anyone else is not moving as fast as we are, then we will stop moving. Logistically, mathematically, ethically that makes zero sense on its own, and there is no reasonable competing reason to do so.
You are confused about the concept of "proof". Science works on the best available data and tested hypotheses. What you end up with is an explanation that is solid enough that no reasonable mind would conclude otherwise, and you progress down that path.
Finally, you would be surprised to know how many scientists are actually people of active religious backgrounds. Science and religion operate in two different domains, and do not necessarily clash.
12
Wow, Mr. Venzant. You've got everything but science to support your claim that "'Global Warming' is not legitimate".
Belittling unscientific views of a scientific finding may not be 'scientific' strictly speaking, but the NYTimes isn't a scientific venue. In any case, argument from false facts and fallacious logic should always be belittled, IMO. And while I'm trained as a scientist, I never made my living as one. I have no qualms about belittling your views. From your comment, Mr. Venzant, it's apparent you are blinded by your religion. Sadly, that doesn't exempt you or anyone else from basic physics.
11
Man! For a second it seemed like you had an argument there. But then of course you had to get eschatological. "God is in control," huh? I guess He's dead set against us mortals exercising our free will to keep the planet livable?
3
You have a petri dish with a culture medium in it (food and such). You place bacteria in the dish. They grow and multiply as their genetics demand. Eventually they run out of resources and they all die. Humans can no more stop themselves from consuming everything until they die than the bacteria in a petri dish. Collectively and politically humans are just not that smart.
On a side note, I have been working out and eating healthier. I'd like to live long enough to see the end. It will be a very interesting time to be a human. We will have all the tools we need but none of the will to do anything about it. Kind of like a mass suicide. I want to see how the cults respond.
4
All I can say is thank God we have Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy
1
Perhaps a typo occurred when setting the title of the article? Shouldn't it read: "Earth's Warning Continued in 2017..."
2
As the eastern U.S. has frozen, the rest of the world has been baking.
Human--caused global warming theory correctly predicted that extremes will be greater, even as average global temperature increases.
The media, including the NY Times, have been also entirely focused on the cold, ignoring warming.
1
Driving down the road, you pass a hundred people. 97 of them are warning you the bridge ahead is out. Three of them are telling you the bridge is fine. What do you do?
Trump's answer? Floor it.
27
The climate is always changing, irrespective of humans.
To talk about records since 1880 is kind of a joke, because it excludes the other 5 billion years of Earth's history
A continued warming trend will bring opportunities as well as risks. The net effects remain unknown.
9
The other 5 billion is included as much as we have records for, based on core samples and chemical analysis of geologic and fossil records. It's not just since 1880, but that's as long as we've had physical thermometers in multiple locales.
The change is not irrespective of humans, the recent changes follow, on a coarse and fine scale, the amounts and rates of fuel effects from humans. There is no other defensible explanation.
As for your claim that there will be opportunities, they are not the sort that people will welcome. They involve the potential relocation of millions of people to places they do not care to live, and the destruction and rebuilding of trillions of dollars of infrastructure, the funding for which cannot exist under any viable economic model.
When a million pioneers had a choice of where to live, and they found better places, they could move with little effect on the rest of the country. The point of inflection on the US population graph is the late 1800s - the last time it was feasible to see large scale migration. The population is now north of 300M and you will not move half of those willingly without a major disruption to life, income and commerce.
5
Tell me, is ignorance truly as blissful as they say it is?
The continued rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a man made phenomenon. The proof is in black and white that increased CO2 causes the retention of heat. It is true that temperatures fluctuate in natural cycles and there have been cataclysmic climate changes in the past due to natural causes such as volcanic activity which dumped, you guessed it, huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no denying that man is dumping enormous quantities of the gas into the atmosphere on a daily basis.
The only opportunities that global warming will offer, will be to people in inland states that will have beautiful new coastlines.
Maybe that is part of Trumps plan. He can build luxury hotels in areas that will someday become beach resorts.
3
The net effects may remain unknown but it is obvious that people from poor countries will be disproportionately affected. Given the fact that the US refuses to accept tens of thousands of refugees from countries which have been destabilized by our own military intervention, what are the chances that we will welcome billions of climate refugees from the third world. Pakistan and India, which would bear a large brunt of the negative effects, are nuclear powers so it is unlikely that the outcome of global warming will be anything but disastrous. Unlike naturally occurring climate change, which we cannot control, we have a chance to address the problems before they become dire.
1
sure, if you believe the global temp records. But consider that for most of the globe there were few land based recording stations -- with the exception of the contiguous US - in 1880-1899. So Africa had 40 or so temp stations prior to 1900 (per Berkeley Earth), most on coast, in populated areas that have grown since then. Ditto S. America, Asia, Australia, most of Russia, the poles, Greenland... None of the stations in existence then were there to measure global temps nor did they use common methods. The interiors of most continents had no stations. So using the baseline 1880-1899 is simply silly. It's saying here's what the temps are today vs what we think they might have been at the end of the 19th century. And the # of global ground stations today is still small.
Contrast with the US. According to Berkeley, the US has over half the ground temp stations today and had more in 1900 than Africa, Australia, Asia, the poles, combined. Surprisingly, The US temps are much different than global, with much of the US showing no warming at all from 1895-2017. And most of the areas that show warming are those that have had large population growth.
So while the US weather station array may not be perfect, it is far superior to most of the rest of the world. The US shows year to year variation. While it is true the years 2000-2017 are warmer than the prior century, the avg temp was 53.5 -- in the 1930's the avg temp was 52.84. Pretty scary right?
8
Perhaps you need to read the totality of BEST's work and conclusions, and look into the effects of a +0.66 deg F change, and not just for land.
3
Why not write a paper on your theory rather than just commenting in the newspaper? If you are correct you would become the most famous person in history and win the Nobel prize in physics. But you won't do it, will you, because you know perfectly well you are wrong.
Paul -- it isn't a theory. Here's a link to Berkeley Earth. I've got it set to Africa -- you can see on their logarithmic scale that there's about 40-50 stations in use by 1900, closer to 10-15 in 1880. You can also under the header "long temperature stations" click on more stations and get the entire list of active stations. You can easily see their location (almost all coastal) and detect some issues some stations like breaks in service. You can then at the top row of links click on results by location. It will take you to a global map -- you can click on other continents.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/africa
What I'm saying is no theory. The temp stations in most of the world prior to 1950 (and even to some extent nowdays) poorly sited (not random, mostly along the coasts), poorly monitored and the changes in temp from the 1880-1899 time frame are based on estimates and extrapolations. It really isn't much more than sampling theory. The land temp station distribution didn't provide for adequate sampling in 1880-1899 and probably doesn't today either.
At least an intelligent President (that is, Emmanuel Macron) is supporting US science on Climate Change with grants and funding. The sad one in our Oval Office is too busy building golf courses and raping the environment. Get him out!
10
Not according to this website
http://www.temperature.global/
I don't endorse the site only offer it as evidence for the defense.
of course, wonderful, why am I not surprised?
1
Yes but someone emailed me pictures of snowmen so that's proof right that the earth isn't warming? Right? Right?
3
Donald Trump,
Your doctor claims your cognitive ability is not compromised. So why can't you understand that climate change is real?
15
If this is a Chinese Hoax, it's a really good one.
4
Looks an awful lot like a hockey stick. If only we'd been warned.
3
But it is all a Chinese hoax, this global warming thing. So sayeth our Dear Leader.
2
“My guess is that 2018 will be pretty similar to 2017,” he said.
This is not very encouraging. Consider the Hurricane Harvey had a catastrophic impact on Houston in 2017, I don't know how the Houstonians & its real estate market will survive another blow like that. Of course, that will surely take Houston out of running for the 2HQ for Amazon. In the distant future, I wonder when NASA will decide to move its operations from Houston to some other places. "Houston, we need help" will become a historic statement, and will not repeat again in the future. What a shame.
Anyway, every country in the world is doing something to curb the emission of CO2. I sincerely wish we are doing the same instead of pondering & debating it again and again.
20
The permafrost is thawing which is throwing more methane (more dangerous than carbon) into the atmosphere at the top of the world which increases the feedback loop and on and on it will go until we are all dead. There will be a lot of misery before we're all dead.
It's too late and talking about it won't make it any better. We are, through our own actions, committing slow suicide. But what can be done now with Trump in office. We will be losing years when, if we thought we had a chance, we could be at least trying. But we're not even trying, we're slipping into the new American Dark Age. Since we are the cause for most of this, it's doubly evil.
It's too late now.
14
Sadly, too late. Too late. Life on Earth will survive, but not as we know it.
11
For decades, the planet's oceans have been acting as sponges, absorbing excess carbon and becoming more acidic in the process. Those sponges are now far more saturated, and when our poor oceans can no longer absorb any more of the gasses we've emitted, we'll really find out how rapidly global temperatures can climb.
Perhaps we're on the verge of finding out now.
Thank you to everyone who has done something real to combat climate change.
If there had only been more of you....
8
There was in fact a moderate La Nina, which has a cooling effect, in 2017 that has continued this past fall and into our current winter. Despite this La Nina there are warm temp recorders being set all over the globe.
While the science/evidence shows a warming the science deniers, who's only plan is to create enough doubt so they can continue to profit, point to cold snaps in regional weather as proof that the planet is not warming. This is ludicrous.
In fact these cold events are further proof of climate change. Specifically the impact to the Arctic jet streams which are now destabilising at an alarming rate. These extreme events, cold and warm, are just another indication of the impacts of human caused climate change.
Its time for America to step up, put on its big boy pants and get with the program. If the Republicans, now the party of extremists, is not willing to do it, get out and vote for people who actually understand and believe in science. Your children will thank you.
10
Unfortunately Trump doesn't read. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't care about global warming.
15
I am pleasantly surprised we can still get this type of report from our Federal Government.
Of course, it's probably just an omission on the part of someone in the Administration that led to the scientists being able to put this out. I assume he/she will be reprimanded and they will be forbidden to report on it again.
35
Of course, our stable genius would not understand all this scientific information.
Oh right, he does not believe in science but only in fairy tales, stories on fake news Fox and in his own tweets and his trumpian wisdom that climate change is a hoax. Feels so much better than to do something about it. If he loved his country, or at least his youngest child and his grandchildren, he would be paying attention and act. But, he has no attention span either. So, we are doomed.
5
It is impossible to explain how the most technically advanced nation on the planet elects people who are anti-science. People who refuse to look at what the data is saying, or are willing to recognize the mounting environmental damages.
At some point things will "click" for an overwhelming number of people, and this long national nightmare will end, but by then it may be too late. The real disaster will be upon us. We will have hurt, irreparably, future generations, our children, their children and all that follows, if humanity is so fortunate to survive what's ahead.
3
There's a very simple and effective solution to Global Warming. If everyone of us turned vegetarian, we can reduce our carbon foot-print by 15% overnight. Cattle industry take up vast expanses of land (to grow fodder as well as to house cattle) which can be turned into forests that act as carbon sinks. So take charge, instead of waiting for some World Leader to pass some sweeping law.
27
Millions of acres of land for 'green' ethanol (40% of US corn vs 38% for feed)
Carolina is chipping old growth forests for EU 'green' targets.
Brazil has millions of acres of sugar cane planted for 'green' ethanol.
The Asian tropics are being leveled to provide 'green' biodiesel.
Millions of acres of land ruined with 'green' industrial turbines.
The earth cannot survive any more green initiatives. Please let it stop.
1
There's a very simple and effective solution to Global Warming.....phase out fossil fuels ASAP and replace them with alternative energy sources...becoming a vegetarian is a bandaide solution to a massive laceration.
1
"Let everyone eat soybeans"? Sounds dictatorial to me. But clearly it will be necessary if the Earth is to be populated to its limits.
Trump's refusal to recognize global warming as a problem and invest in mitigation like clean energy will cost us much more than the investment. For example, investments in new technologies mean returns on the tax payer's dollar in terms of jobs and tax revenue while payment for disaster relief is just to return things to normal. It's a lose lose for Trump and America.
5
Politicians are quick to point out a causal relationship between sugar and obesity and support taxation to reduce sugar intake and yet no similar causal relationship or taxation between climate change and a person's health and well-being. It's not logical but then again neither is our overall lackadaisical attitude towards climate change. Politicians know to trust what people do and not what they say and what we've collectively demonstrated is that we are not willing to make the hard personal sacrifices necessary to halt climate change.
Look at us. The stock market is soaring. Bitcoin is the new tulip. Every new house and condo and apartment are "luxury" offerings. BMWs, Mercedes, and Cadillacs are about as rare a sight as a Trump tweet. Things are great.
While basking in all this greatness I imagine reading this article as a 20 something or 30 something where the future isn't some theoretical place someone else will have to live but where they will have to live. How does news like this affect the decisions of those who are thinking about where they might live, whether to buy a house or not? Despite all the current good news there is real concern for the future. Do you risk buying a house where living could grow to be untenable? Does the foundation of the economy falter as agribusiness loses land?
People talk about less water in some places, higher sea levels in others, but millions will be making life decisions on smaller scales about broad swathes of our country that will have a large cumulative affect on our economy.
It might be time to start thinking about a wall alright. Judging from the predictive maps a wall at the Hudson River looks like a good start. Canada might want to start thinking about that wall as well.
6
That graph is amazing and the trend is obvious enough for a 2nd grader to comprehend. However, all other issues aside, something caught my eye and peaked my curiosity: if you ignore everything after 1980, then 1940-45 were relatively warm compared to the rest of the century, and 1944 was the warmest of all. Is this a coincidence, or did WW2 literally warm the climate? It's not hard to imagine that so many burning cities would have an effect, but I've never heard about this before and find it quite interesting...
1
The trend is disturbing. Somebody should input this data into a spreadsheet, and then do a mathematical trendline showing where we';; be in 10, 20, or 50 years. That's what parents and grandparents need to know.
1
The on the only thing that is going to save our species is if humanity begins to work together at very localized solutions. Each one of us must begin to work at making the coming transition as easy as possible. This means using Permaculture as a road map, food forests must be planted now, aquaculture must be learned and appropriate technologies must be taught! There are pathways to guide us if we want human culture to be permanent!
Get invested, involved and busy!
1
Sadly, there are those who refuse to deal with this problem by considering nuclear energy and geo-engineering.
1
Fossil fuel-based global warming is real.
Coal, oil, natural gas, methane and other extracted gases combine to shoot 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere EACH year.
Do the math.
38 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If you think adding 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year has no effect on the atmosphere, you probably need to take a math and science course.
We have solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and other developing energies at our disposal...and they are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels...and they are much cheaper when you factor in the catastrophic costs of fossil-fuel-based global warming.
Lift your heads out of your filthy coal mines and oil wells, Randian-Russian-Republicans....and look up at the beautiful sun, the wind, the ocean and your grandchildren that you are killing with your petro-greed.
Evolve !
49
Fossil fuels, tax cuts and de-regulation - that's all that Republicans want and care about.
7
These scientific models and predictions were back in the 1980's.
Why are we surprised at all about any of this?
The warnings were given and subsequently ignored.
I strongly believe we are beyond the point of return.
The CO2 made today takes about 40 years to build up in our atmosphere.
In 40-50 years time it'll be a broken, overheated planet.
We did not listen then what makes us think we will today?
Plus developing countries all want what we have, including cars.
Our world's population is about to be culled. In a not so nice way.
29
KM,
Thank you! This is only news because so many are ignorant of history. In fact, it was first proposed that the Earth's atmosphere keeps its surface temperature warm enough to support life in 1826. CO2 was demonstrated to be a principal heat-trapping gas in 1859. The first laboriously hand-calculated model of anthropogenic global warming was published in 1896.
With nearly 2 centuries of climate science supporting our understanding of AGW, the motive for rejecting it can only be denial in the psychological sense, "in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Denial may be understandable, but it's not respectable, even if only the denier is affected. Unfortunately, anthropogenic climate change affects literally everyone on Earth.
3
Climate change is one of the main reasons I oppose unlimited, unregulated, illegal immigration. The northern countries will be overwhelmed with the refugees of the equatorial countries. And it's pretty much too late to do anything but Nelly bar the door.
3
Why aren't you publishing the numbers of the record temperatures? Is it so hard just to print a few digits? Strange, records without the numbers...
2
Areader....there are plenty of numbers available on the NASA website if you're really interested; the NASA website is one of the few government web sites that the Trump Administration has not yet shut down for telling for the truth.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/NOAA-NASA_Global_Analys...
34
@Socrates,
Why is it so hard to publish a few digits HERE?
Could you please cite those record numbers for last years? Thank you.
1
The NASA numbers are right there on the graph... 2016 was ~1.2 C above the late 19th century and 2017 was ~1.15C warmer.
4