And here in The Land of The Free (old, white, rich, climate-change-denying men) we respond by driving more miles in our brand-new, 4wd, urban, gashog SUVs, flying more miles for our quicky-weekend Ego Travel, building ever-bigger, poorly-insulated McMansions, wasting 2/3 of our energy and half of our food, and make ourselves feel good about our (now useless) recycling…
Fossil Fuel Addicts - heal thyselves!
2
I've believed for years that climate change is the only issue worth paying attention to because all of the others from providing health care to reproductive rights just don't matter if climate change becomes more disastrous. Massive civil disruption and near extinction are lining up in a row. Jay Insley had it right.
But I was stunned by the graphic showing anomalies in normal temperature from 1880 to 2019. Jesus. It's gotten so much worse so much more quickly than I had really conceived. Thank you once again New York Times. The graphic should be seen by everyone.
3
Politicians will not care about these issues because it's not something that will bear fruit before the next election. They just let the next one take care of it. Unfortunately, we're already suffering worse and worse droughts, fires, and floods.
1
Humanity has already wasted too many opportunities to mitigate the appalling damages inflicted on nature. And with leadership in many countries including the USA who flatly deny the operation of human activities upon climate, the planet is clearly doomed. Our evil twin in the solar system, Venus, is what we are going to morph into, minus the swinish humans who enabled this irreversible change.
3
The earth has been cyclically warming and cooling for centuries. And yes, the fires in Australia are devastating. Considering 200 people have been arrested for arson, you can't blame global warming for that.
13
@Tamar , could have more than one cause.
4
@Tamar
Australian fire services said only 1.3 percent of the fires are arson.
Besides, no matter how they start these days hotter and drier forest burn faster and hotter.
35
@Tamar
Are the arrests tied to carelessness in a high risk fire season? Or are there hundreds of arsonists in Australia determined to burn it down?
2
I find it incredibly frustrating that when we have 60-70 degree days in January people, including weather forecaster talk about "beautiful weather" or have nice it is bc its warm and they don't have to deal with cold and snow. Until this mentality changes I'm afraid there will be little improvement to climate change. If I said that I drove home drunk from the football game, etc. , No-one would say that's great. We've got to change the way talk about weather and recognize that 70 degrees in Ny northeast in January is the climate disaster in our face that science has been warming about.
2
wasn't even close to the second hottest on record in the contiguous US per NOAA. And the areas that warmed the most are above the arctic circle and we didn't even have temp stations there until post 1950. Sorry, more alarmist hysteria.
1
@Ralphie -- Sorry, Ralphie. The entire planet matters more than local weather variations.
Regarding the Arctic, that amplification of warming was predicted back in the 1960s by climate researchers, and it's happening as they predicted.
Permafrost doesn't look around for a thermometer to decide if it should melt or not. Sea ice doesn't melt because it got weather data from NOAA or NASA, either. All that melting is from warming that also happens to register on thermometers.
Permafrost is melting across the Arctic. Buildings are tilting, roads are requiring very expensive repairs. Villages that had used dependable ice roads for commerce are increasingly cut off. Coastal villages are forced to move since the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice leaves their shore exposed to more pounding waves and erosion. Traditional hunting is less viable without the sea ice they used to hunt from.
None of that depends on thermometers. Your arguments are a sad attempt to ignore reality, Ralphie. The planet disagrees with your opinion.
4
@b fagan You keep ignoring the point. How can we know where this year ranks in temps when we don't have valid measures for most of the planet.
1
Imagine a world without fossil fuels: cars still run, trains still run, airplanes still fly, homes still get heated, electricity still works, on and on - you can see that nothing we use changes - only the fuel source.
What do we get in return: tens of thousands don't die every year from air pollution, our climate stabilizes for the next 10,000 years, we no longer have fight wars over oil, we stop destroying whole swaths of the earth as 'sacrifice zones' for oil and coal, on and on - in short, we re-enter the Garden of Eden, living in harmony with nature as God intended.
5
@Cal Page: Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It's currently not possible to fly airplanes with fossil-free fuel. We need to fly less. A lot less.
As for cars, you can *run* them without fossil fuels -- at least as long as you're not trying to run them in extreme cold or snow. But you can't *build* them without fossil fuel, due to the needs to extracting from the earth the materials to build the car and the materials to build the batteries. (Electricity is just not energy dense enough for mining.)
We need to be honest that the path forward includes not flying, and breaking free of the idea that transportation must be in the form of individual-occupancy cars. We need mass transit. Lots of it. Sure, the buses and trains will require some fossil fuel to build, but per person-mile traveled, they will require a lot less.
Electricity -- yeah, we can do that, but we need to understand that even renewables aren't truly fossil-free -- even if they are producing orders of magnitude less carbon for the amount of energy generated. So we need to focus on conservation wherever possible.
As for heating, heat pumps work great -- up to a point. In very cold northern climates, they won't truly heat your home and you'll need wood as a backup. That's why we need to focus on insulation/weatherization, smaller homes, passive solar, and getting used to setting the heat lower.
The world can continue to support human life, but the details of daily life need to change, not just the fuel source.
3
I used to 'believe' in climate change. But once I realized how much the instrumentation used to record the condition of the environment has so drastically changed since 1880... well... it kind of pushes the application of the scientific method in this endeavor right out the window.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm all for the climate campaign as it will move our society/culture faster to an infrastructure where more energy is transmitted by wire than hauled around in liquid form. That change alone is good for absolutely everyone... especially the energy companies! Profits! Huzzah!
2
We are entering uncharted territory. What a lot of people don't realize is that science is conservative, and the IPCC, the international body that meets and summarizes their work, requires consensus with governments and industry, so it is conservative. Uncertainty is not our friend.
We need to stop being wholly owned subsidiaries of marketing and the media-industrial complex. Our conveniences come at a cost. We don't need all this stuff. Humanity has done without a lot of it until quite recently.
We don't need so much packaging. We don't need toxic sterility. We don't need instant gratification. We don't need to blind ourselves to anything but media-driven distraction. Our celebrity and sports obsessions have only become so costly fairly recently. Surprisingly, humanity did quite well without mobile devices just a couple of decades ago. TV and air travel arrived about 1950.
A polarized society based on exploitation and pollution for short-term profit will not survive.
Space travel is fabulously expensive, and this planet is way more hospitable than any alternative, so there's no way out there.
If we don't work together to solve problems, the earth itself will take a hand. It will inevitably reject its apex predator, whose appetites are growing out of proportion to our finite resources.
5
People take on debt to win wars. For example, to win WWII we took on so much debt, the resulting public debt was as large as our GDP. But it was worth it, and we subsequently brought that debt back down as a Peace dividend.
The debt is now again as large as GDP, so what war did it win? I fear, it won the war against climate action. Eventually, everyone will see what has to be done, and shortly thereafter, they'll see the cost of it. We'll need trillions of dollars, just to power our economy as it is already being powered by fossil fuels. The economy will tank just at the thought of that cost. And that's when the fossil powers will force the GOP to insist that the public debt (and private debt as well, which is twice as large) be dealt with first, before taking climate action. The debts the GOP has taken on, during economic good times, in the last 40 years, are astonishing. But as in WWII, they were taken on in service of winning a war. That war was not to defeat the Axis powers. That war was to defeat the US public, once it gets mobilized around the idea of climate action.
3
Reminds of Lorax, as we go about our comforts.
Best figure a place with the least negative impact--because we will do nothing, absolutely nothing until the wolf is banging on the door. We aren't going to handle this any better than the dinosaurs did.
5
Okay, I get it. The show is over. Stop having kids.
It's been a good ride. Now, stop complaining and try to accept the end with some dignity.
2
Temperatures are rising quicker above the equator than below it. Well, since that's where most of the people are, it might be time for a mass migration to South America, Southern Africa and Australia.
2
Would journalists PLEASE use Fahrenheit on graphs and charts? We are in the US and using Celsius minimizes the impact of the data for many Americans.
3
this is a mess. that's all. dead animals, from drought, fire and disease. dead humans soon enough from drought, food shortages and lack of fresh water
2
I live in that relatively tiny blue patch on the map. The one where it’s COLDER than it used to be. When you are living it, it’s very important to look at maps like this and know that your cold based misery is the fluke and that global warming is very very real even if you personally are “ missing out”
4
The comlete data set of natrual forcings including Solar Particles and Cosmic rays have never been factored into the mainstream models and projections. These have an enormous effect on modulating every aspect of earths climate. Their omission leaves - erroneously - anthropogenic C02 emissions to become the focus of policy making. The science is far from "settled". Please broaden your knowlege on the science rather than supporting hysterical headlines and straplines that only benefit political agendas.
1
@Yianni Nonsense. Every effort has been taken to include known natural forcings into climate models as Director Schmidt explained. The data about the warming of the atmosphere are completely consistent with the effect expected from the well-documented increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane which, in turn, are well-explained by human combustion of fossil fuels. The mechanism by which CO2 leads to increased retention of solar energy in the earth's atmosphere is purely a matter of physical chemistry, very much settled science. Some delusional folks grasp at any suggestion that the science about climate change is 'confused' or uncertain because they simply cannot believe or cannot accept that human beings could be responsible for a dramatic, negative impact on the way the earth's natural system's function. Others of a more cynical nature promote these ideas because they are, overtly or covertly, in the pay of the fossil fuel industry or its allies. To which camp do you belong?
4
Notice the map. The warmest areas other than the polar regions are about equi-distant from the equator in the temperate zones. This jibes with Hadley cell phenomena, where warm air pushed out from the equator sinks at about 30 degrees north and south. The air is being pushed further out with global warming, explaining extended drought conditions and expanded desert conditions just beyond previous boundaries. This covers southern California and temperate Australia.
There is also a heightened Indian Ocean Dipole, sending more moist air into the western Indian Ocean and more dry air outwards from the E. Indian Ocean into southeast Asia and Australia.
Warming is also affecting the jet stream, causing more up and down loops, which plays with the day to day weather being more erratic.
Most of the additional heat goes into the ocean. Deep ocean currents work on a 10 year time scale, meaning we still don't know how increased the effects will be when this warming resurfaces. Climate scientists generally give conservative estimates of the heating in store, but the unknowns as we experience them, are beginning to look like they have been under-estimated as to their most severe effects.
It is important to teach the Science of Climate Change. It shouldn't be that people are just aware that 97% of scientists agree on climate change, but that everyone understand the data--the science. The geologic past also shows the melting of the ice caps--also on our present warming course.
6
What is the bottom line climate strategy? More and stronger government. The climate worriers do not actually support or even believe in democracy, they want centralized governmental control; rule by unelected bureaucrats and experts. They do not trust or even like free markets; they want central planning, economic decisions made through the political process (something shown again and again not to work) and equal distribution of goods regardless of effort expended to earn them (separation of input from reward--disastrous!). This is a perfect prescription for economic and technological stagnation. It may look like a good idea in the beginning, as for instance it did in the Soviet Union in the 20s when it seemed like an exciting innovation, but it eventually leads to massive inefficiency, featherbedding, and extralegal (illegal) workarounds all of which come together in the end to produce the corrupt sub rosa politics and economics that finally brought down the Soviet system. As ever, the real answer is laissez faire; leave it alone, let free markets sort things out, that's what produces the best results, but it's not controlled by the politically motivated or the well intentioned which turns out to be the real objection of the left (Democrats, if I may say it).
@Ronald B. Duke -- oh, sure. Laissez-faire, free market gave us the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and led Richard M. Nixon to create the EPA.
Unbridled, unregulated "free markets" led to Superfund sites everywhere in the US.
All that freedom for polluters falls squarely on the taxpayer's dime, as we all pay to clean up all that liassez (or was it faire? I can never keep them apart).
But if you want accurate, fair markets to sort things out, I'm with you.
We'll put a price on carbon to make sure that fossil fuel products that produce CO2 are priced accordingly for the infrastructure damage from flooding. And all the other harms.
We'll make every company extracting mineral wealth from federal lands pay severance fees at full market prices.
We'll make every oil or gas company put money in escrow to clean up their wells after production's complete.
We'll make sure stockholders and executives in coal companies and utilities retain responsibility for the cleanup of toxic coal plant sites, ash ponds, mines, etc.
We'll put coal miners first in coal company bankruptcies, so bankruptcies don't leave taxpayers picking up medical and pension liabilities.
We'll make sure the solar and wind and storage industries pay their way to clean up their products, too, so they start off clean. Of course, the sunlight and wind don't spill. There's no toxic fracking fluids or well water or coal ash, so they'll be fine with the same rules the fossil companies need to face.
2
@Ronald B. Duke
A carbon tax could replace the entire IRS and tax system. That sounds like smaller government to me.
1
According to this temperature data in article, I cannot accept the situation whether the average of temperature is gradually higher or not. Because these data don't describe the comparison of specific each month, but show roughly "each year" from 1880 to 2019. Almost people would like to know the data which explain the comparison of temperature change of each month from 1880 to now .
For example, this sentence, " nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than the average from the middle of last century", is unclear.
I want to ask what specific season and month comparing is.
Of course, I concur the earth faces the global warming. However, the data seems just a nominal "surface and superficial data". Some people believes the global warming is conspiracy. For the sake to persuade these people understand, the data should be convincing and understandable.
1
We need nuclear power. Rather than eviscerate research on nuclear engineering, we should increase it. Nuclear plants should be expanded and not closed. Whether plants are closed or not, they remain sites of risks that have to be managed. Inspections of current plants should be intensified.
Nuclear power is not the answer by itself, but natural gas is not either. Natural gas is only the latest cheap carbon.
1
Please note equal warming from 1900 to 1950. Much lower co2 concentrations than today. Suggests co2 was not the driver.
1
@Buster Dee:
Please note millions of hours of scientific research suggesting otherwise.
4
@Buster Dee I have no idea what the basis is for your inference that there was 'equal warming' from 1900 to 1950. Equal to what? The warming from 1950 to today? That certainly is not only not true (try re-reading the article and re-examining the graphical displays) but is almost incomprehensibly confused. Here are some facts: (1) the atmospheric concentation of CO2 has increased dramatically due to human and (2) the mechanism by which increased CO2 conxcentrations lead to a warmer atmosphere is an indisputable fact of physical chemistry, not some airy theory about the supposed benefits of 'economic liberty'.
2
@JC compare 1900-1950 with 1970-2020 in the graph
I guess the 1,600 new coal-fired power plants being built around the world won’t help. China and India are leading the construction boom.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/despite-paris-agreement-china-india-continue-build-coal-plants/
3
@John
So, since the local increase of coal plants lead to the global increase in atmospheric CO2, perhaps the answer is to help India and China to increase renewable energy sources.
It does not matter where the CO2 comes from--we have to reduce it.
3
Ever? “On record” and “ever” are separated by millions of years.
1
Scientists are a conservative bunch. They wrongly thought that by keeping their climate forecasts and warnings on the conservative side that they’d get more respect They we’re afraid of being seen as Cassandras.
Here we are, wishing we’d listened 20 years ago
when the actions needed would have been easier. Plant trees, save forests, support wind, solar, electric cars and hope for the best.
6
The way things are going the really, really bad stuff will occur in the second half of this century which is why Trump ordered climate predictions by government scientists only up to 2050. It's taken about 50 years for the temperature to increase by 1C but an increase of another 3C or more is possible during the next 80 years. Sea level has increased three-fold over the last 50 years or so but is still only on average 3-4 mm a year. But this rate could certainly increase by three-fold again or more during the rest of the century. Nobody is sure how much increase in global warming can occur before global civilization would begin to collapse but beyond 4C seems to be where the real concern starts. That could occur this century but more likely during the next century. Despite all the unknowns anyone but a right wing radio talk show addict should realize that big changes are necessary, particularly ending the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
3
Scientists try to sound reasonable, and thus warn their ultimate paymasters, politicians, that temperatures will rise. But they are prudent, and don't want to sound alarmist, so they eschew dangerous inputs they can't predict, roll out averages.
However, this is not what they should be doing. In aviation, or rocket science, engineers try to determine the worst possible case… to avoid it.
Climate scientists, when warning about possible climate evolutions, should consider the worst possible cases. They are not doing this presently.
What is the worst possible case? That the present warming will trigger natural heating mechanisms, and other disasters.
First, there are billions of tons of methane ice on the Siberian continental shelf, which is gigantic. At some point, when the ocean is warm enough, they will release. Methane is more than 25 times more entrapping to infrared than CO2.
Second, and worse, the CO2 going massively in the ocean, turns to carbonic acid and kills oxygen making plankton. That, in combination with increased oxidation will bring a decrease of the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Oxygen content is already collapsing in the ocean, to the point of creating "dead zones" which fishes such as marlins have to avoid, lest they die of asphyxiation.
So this is not just about "warming". What we are witnessing is a mass extinction through a collapse of the biosphere, as happened last 65 millions years ago. It would be good if scientists said it straight.
12
Climate historians know that the earth , currently , is in a short interglacial warming period,
Have a look at this graph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png/450px-Ice_Age_Temperature.png
With clock work regularity ice ages have returned after brief
- by geological standards - interglacial warming periods of about 30 000 years. During which the temperature is about 10 degree F higher than the long term average
It is precisely such period in which we are currently in.
In 10 to 15 thousand years much of the northern US will be covered again by a 1 mile thick sheet of ice. As it was for most of the last half million years
That is - unless climate change intervenes
4
@Climate Historian
Disagree. The ice ages climate cooling was caused by over sequestration of carbon in fossil form. As these have been released back into the atmosphere, ice ages will recede into the geoclimatic record.
3
Some days this infuriates me; other days it depresses me; and occasionally it comforts me.
Nature seeks balance; if humans won't pay attention to the data and restore balance, then Nature will get rid of humans, and the flora and non-human fauna can again have an abundant, safe planet.
3
My thinking is that we humans will adapt, and without great difficultly.
I am distressed, however, by the effects upon the species with which we share this fantastic globe of ours.
1
@BayArea101:
Difficult to adapt to a dying ocean and agricultural failures; there are some things that we are unable to adapt. It's not just about building infrastructure as a recourse to rising seas. . .
4
We survived 2016 and now it’s cooler? Tell me the end is near. But wait, isn’t 2016, the hottest year ever, when Obama finished his eight year term in office and Trump began his? Thank you Donald J. Trump for the slight welcome relief.
1
@John Doe
2016 saw a strong El Niño which spiked global surface temperature. 2019 had no such help.
Take a gander at this graph of global surface temperature from 1880-2019 see if you spot the trend.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200115_Temperature2019.pdf
1
Thank you @John Doe for the joke suggesting that Mr. Trump can control the climate.
2
One of the most important things that we go do now is to elect a Democratic president who will actually take major steps to combat this crisis. Personally, I’m backing Warren because she has the most comprehensive and well thought out climate plan. Next fall, I hope that everyone who cares about the climate will take an active role campaigning for the Democratic nominee.
5
"The five warmest years on record occurred in the last five years"
Even a Flat Earther Global Warming Denialist may have to admit that our manmade fossil-fuel joy ride isn't working our great.
Support candidates who support subsidizing solar-wind-geothermal-hydro-biomass and other alternative green energy development.
Punish candidates who support the continued subsidy of Gas Oil Petroleum-Greed Over Planet-Greed Over People-Grand Old Pollution GOP environmental collapse and ecocide.
Decent Americans do not vote Republican.
November 3 2020.
156
@Socrates - No the hardcore denialists won't won't admit it.
But everything else? Spot on.
7
@Socrates
'Decent Americans do not vote Republican.'
Decent / reasonable people do not write such things.
4
@Socrates
Disparaging a person's character will not help them change their attitude. There are many decent people who are in denial about climate change.
When my father was dying of Parkinson's, I denied it, telling myself he would improve. It was just too painful to think about.
The projections of what climate change will do to the planet are terrifying and, for many, overwhelming.
Rather than belittle deniers, we need to convince them we can avoid the most dire predictions if we all work together.
3
Look at the chart.
The temperature rise went parabolic in 2011 through 2016.
Yet, I don't recall Obama being blamed for "destroying the planet".......and NYTimes readers insisting that Obama be "voted out of office" in 2016 for the "sake of the planet".
The delusional blaming of Donald Trump for anything and everything by the NYTimes readership has become laughable.
1
I suspect the impeached fake president Trump figures he can solve this problem with a sharpie.
2
One thing that should stand out from the graphics, if we have another decade like the last one we're really in for hell on earth. And there is nothing to indicate any great moderation is forthcoming, in fact the opposite.
3
We are toast. We need not be. We know how not to be:
No fossil fuels
Renewables only.
Contraception for the third world, and as Paul Erhlich said, have only one or two children is the biggest thing you can do.
Eat less meat
Fly less
Dont listen to News Corp.
But the tragedy of the commons, and the industrialisation of the third world means that we are toast.
6
2019 was also the peak maximum of the solar cycle....but that doesn't seem to scare people into being taxed so guess no one cares.
Storm and high winds each week this summer into fall. Seems like the new normal here in NJ.
1
Lets encourage couples in our country, and around the globe, to have no more than the 2 children who would replace them.
4
this is still "rogue weather reporting" from the NY Times. it seems to be an editorial policy.
what would real climate change reporting look like? it would give you a very clear picture of the policies, the alternatives, and the players on each side of the finance, the politics, the media and the grassroots.
this is a struggle for the future. instead, we get heat maps.
look, all climate reporting is good climate reporting. but the subtext here is that we just have to get less of some gasses, get a blue sky extraction technology up to scale, eat less meat, and job done.
we have to change *everything* about our lives -- how we commute, transport goods, heat our homes, do our jobs, build structures, make clothes, grow food, and more. we have to recognize our immoral pretense, the shallowness and vanity of our little lifestyle quibbles and feuds. we have to develop a seriousness about our place in history and our legacy to every single future human being who will ever live on this planet. we have to do more with less, and make it a change for the better.
i think an existential challenge the scope and gravity of climate change would be very good for our culture to acknowledge and tackle -- as we would rise against a foreign invader. but the current mood is a form of cowardice with its feckless hopes and trivial quailing. we have become a suspicious, petty nation, addicted to apathy and luxury. if the worst does happen, then we roundly deserve it.
3
If you think this is bad, wait until you see the next IPCC report based on the latest climate models. It is going to be horrifying.
2
So, it was less hot than 2016? Planet cooling. I like that. COs emissions peaked in the US, per capita, in the 1970s, and are down 12 percent overall since 2005.
Now, if only we can get out of that Barack Obama deal that allows China's CO2 emissions to spike like a hockey stick for another decade, then only requires "voluntary" reductions.
Perhaps Trump can work the same magic as he did on trade with the Chinese.
3
Nice map of the world showing the temperature changes...if only the scale would indicate whether it is in degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius.
@Richard:
Lazy Americans not able to convert, or lazy Americans not able to conform to the rest of the planet. . . You choose.
Interesting the warming is following the predictions of those climate models Trump and Trump patrons in the Fossil Fuel loving GOP call fake, or some sort of Chinese Conspiracy.
The first lithium battery developed by Nobel Prize-winner Stanley Whittingham was funded by EXXON!
The first mass-produced photovoltaic cells were sold by ARCO (now part of BP).
Lets stop this ignorant blaming of the energy companies for a problem that WE ALL HAVE CREATED!
1
If anyone wants to learn about the temperature record and how robust it is, please take a look at the following video. It provides the basis of temperature measurements and a bit of analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKQiyBkt4Vs&feature=youtu.be
A lot of people think that global warming will lead to a lot of deaths, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.
But that's stupid. When you think of how resource scarcity will lead to economic collapse and economic collapse will lead to political collapse, it's more likely that hundreds of millions of people will die. Maybe billions. And once that many people die, humans will pump less carbon into the atmosphere. The solution to global warming is global warming.
2
You think that's hot? Here in the States, it's an election year. Hold tight.
How much more data do climate change deniers require to know that we are creating a nightmare environment for our children and grandchildren? The time to act is now. While you can do your part at home to recycle and reuse, etc., please also tell your governmental representatives that you want action.
43
@Barbara.....and how much data do you need about the emission of 'greenhouse gases' , primarily water vapour into the greenhouse layer at 30,000 ft? Refresh your memory on whats in the layer and how it gets there, and then review the description of diurnal temperature differences. When the earths heat is radiated into outer space, we are cooled by 2-3 degrees every night. The primary gas that blocks this exchange is water vapor from Jet exhausts; not CO2 which has little effect because at 30,000 ft the concentration is minuscule. There is a very positive correlation with the rise in temps in the 80's with the huge increase in jet plane traffic. This has been recognized in U.K. and by the Swiss meteorological associations. And if you need more proof, grab that C02 fire extinguisher off the wall and open it up. Now watch where the gas goes...is it up to the ceiling in the Greenhouse layer or down to the floor? here's a hint CO2 is heavier than air and always has been.
1
@Barbara : With respect, you missed the crucial at-home stuff.
Use less of everything. The manufacture and transport of everything requires energy. Reduce is even more important than recycle.
Set your thermostat no higher than 64F in the winter and no lower than 76F in the summer (use fans to blow the air around, and you'll be comfortable; I live in the muggy mid-Atlantic *and* have hot flashes, and this works). Or, do w-o AC, which I did when moved to a shadier area this past summer. Yes, I was hot some days -- big deal!
Drive at least 20% less than you do now. For ex., do a big grocery shop once every three weeks, every two if you must. Errands on one day every two weeks -- again, if you forgot something, then be an adult and do without.
Stop using rapid delivery. Stop buying one or two things at a time. If you forgot to buy it, find a substitute (check online) or -- gasp! -- do without until you do your big shop in another week or two.
Folks, this is crisis time. Either make these changes voluntarily now, or be forced by the govt to make huge, unpleasant ones in 10 years.
6
@Cali Sol ~
False. The REAL issue is not the concentration of CO2 at 30,000 feet, but what the dramatic increase in absorbed energy is.
Now indeed, the water vapor is part of the equation. But even without water vapor, we would still be heating up.
Need more facts?
6
Global warming alarmists show a spectacular ignorance of history. If an investigative reporter at this newspaper would dive into the NYT archives alone, she would find thousands of articles reflecting the large number of heat waves, fires and melting glaciers that occurred in the past 150 years—all at a time with CO2 levels at 300ppm and lower. They would see the tremendous heat, drought and fires that occurred in the 1930s alone in the US, Australia and elsewhere. And the cold weather in the 60s and 70s that raised fears of an approaching ice age. All you have to do is look. And if you don’t look, you won’t look, what does that suggest?
15
@ehillesum:
I've looked, and there was no worry of an approaching ice age in the '60's and '70's.
In fact, there was concern over global warming:
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
26
@ehillesum There's a difference between anecdotes and data. Your 1930's heat wave anecdote is already included in the 1930's *data* in the figures. If you don't look at the data, what does that suggest?
Regarding ice age predictions in the 1970's: this was a popular media fad, NOT a climate science consensus. Regardless, it's never shameful for someone to change their mind based on new and better data. Try it.
52
@ehillesum
The data is already included in the graphic showing
temperatures over many years as a world graphs. If I compare any year from the 1890s to 1960 to any year from the 2010s, I am scared. I am downright terrified when I realize that many can not (or will not) read and interpret a scientific graph.
36
I'm still riding with the impact of solar radiation on climate as the primary factor.
"NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study."
So I am reluctant to blame 'man' until the Sun's increase is subtracted from the temp. increase.
The other anomaly is that spike in temps during the 40's. WWII to blame or something else and what?
The final fillip is the switch to sat. measures of temps in 1980-3 and the rapid increase and plateau. Ground measures such as those at mt. Washington, one of the world's oldest observatories show only a slight increase. Their data is nicely cataloged at their web site, go look at it yourself. Who are you going to trust?
@Cali Sol, the temps on Earth have NOT correlated with the 11 year solar cycle. The effect is too small. It also doesn't explain the faster night time rising temps. For over 15 years NASA, NOAA, and the institutes of climatology have been explaining that the amount of energy received from the sun has not correlated with the rise in temps. See here:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
3
@Cali Sol
I will trust the roughly 70,000 researchers studying climate. Why don’t you?
3
As "climate" is the statistical long-term average of weather over 30 years (wikipedia) the co-mingling of weather and climate in these narratives continues in the NYT, unsurprisingly. Unmistakable "footprints" according to Gavin Schmidt reside in immediate weather events which reflects a lack of discipline in scientific thinking. First of all, in scientific thinking, it is OK to say "I don't know." It is also acceptable to view uncertainty as a necessary part of the climate/CO2 story. Correlation does not equate with causation is also an old saw, yet is true. Trying to equate current catastrophes like the Australian bushfires as a direct consequence of human kind's use of fossil fuel is not supported by the IPCC, as in the 5th Assessment Report stating that it will not be until 2040 at least before Australian wildfires may be attributable to climate change. Gavin Schmidt is fully aware of IPCC's AR 5 and still he blurts out these alarmist, not scientific utterances.
It seems to me that the catastrophe is with the climate change models themselves. Messianic tea leaf readers.
1
@RiHo08 - that's a great riff, and i'm sure it goes over well with your dinner guests. it's just a bubble of hot air.
true, uncertainty abounds in climate modeling. but how many climate models show a *decline* in GMST (global mean surface temperature) under continued increase in CO2 emissions? zero. none.
how has uncertainty matched with the development of events? so far as comparisons have been made, they suggest the models underestimate the risk and the pace of change. the scientists, you see, have taken every effort to make conservative predictions.
true, science admits lack of certitude. it also lays claim to a vocabulary of nuance. "virtually certain" is the science assessment that climate is changing and humans are causing it. "extremely likely" is how many fundamental climate impacts are reported. of course, scientists sometimes speak as human beings, and then radical claims intend to stimulate radical action.
"correlation isn't causality" ... it isn't "correlation" when the physics of global warming were laid out in the 19th century, long before any climate trend appeared. lay any other climatological, geological, astronomical or voodoo trend line against the climb in global temperatures: only human CO2 emissions matches the slope -- as science predicted over a century ago that it would.
and then, there's the risk that you are wrong. you're wagering a planet and a human future in that "uncertainty." what do you get if you're right?
8
@RiHo08
Here’s an article about a recent study showing how the fingerprint of climate is showing up in weather globally.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/01/02/signal-human-caused-climate-change-has-emerged-every-day-weather-study-finds/%3foutputType=amp
1
@RiHo08 The overwhelming evidence is that the planet is getting warmer. The role of fossil fuel combustion is debatable, but reducing fossil fuel use is a logical strategy under the circumstances. Waiting until the evidence is overwhelming protects a few industries at the expense of our potential survival.
To claim that humanity is incapable of affecting the climate of the planet is indefensible, given the billions of tons of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere every year. Abrupt climate change has occurred in the past, according to ice cores, tree rings, and other concrete evidence. In light of that fact, bickering over causes is pointless when we need to be developing strategies to cope with a significantly warmer planet.
3
What mystifies me is why fossil fuel companies today don't begin creating their own alternative energy empires. There will be an end to the use of fossil fuels and a transition plan might just turn into profits.
4
@Suzanne Wheat
It is a stranded assets thing. They don't want to leave the fossil fuels in the ground due to capital expenses that have already been made and future profits.
5
@Suzanne Wheat There is a significant investment and influence in fossil fuel. Once a business builds a platform and is a profitable model moving to a new space with less return is suicide. Fossil fuel receives a lot of taxpayer funding with tax breaks, grants, and special terms of land use from the government. As long as it can be pumped, stocked, shipped and a sizable profit is made the current fossil fuel companies will continue with what they see is a successful business model.
4
@Suzanne Wheat.....perhaps you don't read energy magazines but fossil fuel extraction companies are investing heavily into alternative fuel sources. Natural gas from bio-waste is one area since these extraction companies already own pipelines and other infrastructure.
The only 'bad' thing about fossil fuels is the gases emitted upon burning, and that's been curbed enormously. Coal use is being rapidly eliminated and the politicians are very reluctant to lower highway speeds or incentivize gas powered vehicles. Eliminating fuel oil for heating---I live in Maine, is occurring rapidly wherever gas pipelines are run, winter skies are much clearer, etc., however advocates are blocking natural gas pipelines and import terminals. Without them, oil burners will keep burning oil. So urge your friends to support gas pipelines. There is a lot more natural gas in the ground than coal or oil; and you can make it from bio-waste. Just go do it!
The world will be watching us this year. Yes, the US is not the only major emitter, but given our history of massive cumulative greenhouse gas emissions we have enormous responsibility
4
@Ben Lieberman If you are aware the current administration is pretty much scrapping or significantly reducing EPA rules which will amount to higher output in greenhouse gasses. The federal government has been muzzled and will reverse many hard-fought rules that will not only harm the environment but fellow citizens here and abroad. As a shining example to the world, more countries may adopt the American way, dooming the future.
3
@Ben Lieberman But will you exercise that responsibility by drastically curbing the population explosion in Africa and India? ...or will you piddle around with solar panels?
@TekelG2 Having been involved in developing Sen. Muskies air pollution laws and the subsequent regulations, I don't see any higher output in greenhouse gases. CO2 is seen by zealots as 'harming the environment', biologists see it as fueling an explosion in plant growth on land and ocean. Mother nature is compensating nicely. Regulators are bureaucratic fascists who only seek more control and stricter regulations. Doesn't work. PLANT TREES and penalize people who cut them down. Trump designed golf courses, so he knows more about nature than EPA bureaucrats. Time he took charge, just like he is doing in the MidEast....the populist revolution in Iran was triggered by assassination of the two architects of terror. Students are leading the way.. Fantastic!!!!
Not only do emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases need to be rapidly reduced but because effective action has been put off for so long large amounts of carbon dioxide probably have to be removed from the atmosphere, at least if the goal of being under 1.5C by the end of this century is pursued. Serious attempts to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere with machines are now underway but whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Other alternatives include planting vast numbers of trees and sequestering carbon dioxide in the soil with farming methods.
2
Raising awareness --and fast-- is important, even if what each individual can do on his or her own is very little, because that is the only way to ultimately bring enough pressure on the politicians and business people who actually can make a difference. It is also a way to create the kind of environment that will lead to more innovations for combating the climate crisis. Let us just hope (against hope) that all this comes to pass in time.
7
The warmest five years since the late 19th Century, have been the last five years. Our warming is starting to accelerate. If this trend continues, by 2100 our sea levels will be a lot higher than 60 cms/2 feet.
The cost of ignoring the threat of global warming, will be a lot higher than lowering our carbon emissions right now.
11
@Barry of Nambucca
At the current rate of acceleration of ice sheet mass loss of 44Gt/yr2 we get 78cm of sea level rise by 2100 from the ice sheets alone. Throw in 20-30cm for thermal expansion and alpine glaciers and we’re already on pace for a meter by then.
We’re likely to get a lot more than that no matter what we do given the inherent instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
8
@Barry of Nambucca
Remember everyone, these studies are ANOMOLIES, and NOT temperatures.
I live in Alberta, near the Tyrell Museaum which features very large lizards that rained the Earth 65 Million years ago. Those lizards wouldn’t survive to the first of December this year. Why is everyone afraid of warmth?
1
@Baggar
Extra warmth, which means more heat. This also means more energy. Our atmosphere is being turbocharged by global warming, so that tropical storms which are referred to as hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, are becoming more intense and creating more destruction.
A little warmth in the right places may be fine, but we know our polar areas are warming much quicker than the rest of our planet. We are getting closer to a tipping point where more extreme weather may become the norm, which will not be good for the 7 billion plus humans on our earth, or our earth.
CARBON TAX! Tax the fossil fuel companies so they feel the impact of what devastation they're creating around the world.
10
@Joe - yes, but keep in mind it would then raise the price of the products - that's how reduction in fossil use would come about.
So EVs would look more attractive, as would electric heating, and other non-fossil-fueled products and technologies.
But if doing a carbon tax, it would ideally include some provisions to protect consumers who would be hit hardest - lower income who can't change their home's heating, especially if they rent. Rural residents who are pretty much obliged to drive farther and more than suburban or city people.
So tax revenue would need to be applied where it reduces the unavoidable harms the higher prices would cause.
In the meantime, I'm willingly paying a few pennies more for my electricity by sourcing it from a provider who buys wind power. It's helping build that market directly, by paying people who are producing the non-fossil energy we need.
3
@b fagan
"So EVs would look more attractive, as would electric heating, and other non-fossil-fueled products and technologies."
Where do you know the energy for charging electric vehicles comes from? From power plants burning fossil fuel.
3
@Neil In addition to carbon tax, we need concentrated investment and research into sustainable, renewable energies and less subsidies for fossil fuels.
2
Convert EVERYTHING you use into ‘energy used’ - be it fossil based or not, Manufacturing, installing, and disposing off of renewables is not energy-free. Eating ‘impossible burgers’ is worse energy-use than say chicken. Eating water-intense vegetables is not energy-free > it takes roughly a kWh to process and deliver a cubic foot of potable water. Public transit makes sense only if intensely used. Building the SF Bay Area Rapid Transit System was VERY energy-intense > digging grading etc. Many decades of at-capacity use will pass before the energy is ‘recovered’. Every time you do an internet search or post on social media you use energy. I can go on.
Simplify life. Use less. Waste less. Travel/ fly less. Chill,
9
The fires down under, and the continuous mining of coal by the Aussies, has devastated the wildlife and green canopy there.
Canada is next, plundering the dollars that come with selling Tar-sands, or as they now call, energy security.
Last year IL was colder than Arctic, we had the polar vortex. This year, so far, toasty..
The leadership to save the planet is handed to a 14 year old teenager.
The big polluters, India, China, S.America, Africa, are contributing to the lip service and making very marginal concessions.
They look at Climate change as par for the course. Their economies need to grow, people need food, so Forests, wildlife are collateral.
Marine life will be done by 2035, with the increase in sea traffic, cruise ships, oil tankers, Naval expansions, undersea volcanic activity.
7
@Gyns D
Agree. What is currently happening worldwide is devastating on so many levels. How can we not feel completely hopeless when our leaders prioritise short-term profits and self-interest over long-term liveability on this planet. The devastating effects of our current inaction is truly unforgivable.
4
@Gyns D I live in Australia and you are just inventing things. The mining of coal is far away from the fires. There is aboslutely no link. Since when does digging a hole in the ground creat a fire? OMG. Try rubbing 2 sticks together - yes. Some people have no idea.
1
I'm willing to do whatever lifestyle downshifting is necessary - and our household already does everything we can that is in our control. But out "structural" footprint from just living in the US (military and other things) is 5x as large as our individual footprints, which is already less than perhaps 95% of Americans. So if we zero out our own footprint, we are still 400% over our annual personal limit.
There aren't enough people like me to steer the ship away from the iceberg.
30
@Djt You would be surprised how many people would love to help steer the ship with you. Some of us have downsized to fit our lives in a van, voluntarily. One vehicle for everything that its own generates electricity from the alternator and solar panels. The footprint of homes is dictated by the local government which rules we put forth by the home building industry to assure the profitability of their industry. Work with your local tiny home, minimal living groups in your area. They are around and can help picth a sail.
1
@Djt Oh, but there are and we all need to vote.
Ocean acidification will clear up the issue for the people who refuse to even consider that there may be a problem. By 2050 there will be enormous fish kills and entire nations across the earth will get very hungry. I always say that 2050 should be the date used for the reports rather than 2100. Sea rise is 3” per 10 years and by 2050 may well be 1-2” per year. Then we will see how people in Florida and the gulf states are making out with their property values. I believe that in less than 15 years there will be panic in many places across the globe.
12
Arctic ice is greater than it has been since 2012. I guess the writer forgot to do the research.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
4
@Erik
From your link: “Taking a longer view, the defining feature of the decade of the 2010s was consistently low Arctic sea ice extent compared to long-term averages.”
10
@Erik Frederiksen It is still relevant that there is more arctic ice than in the last eight years. It goes against the writer's narrative.
1
@Erik:
Your link cites "extent", not volume. It's important to note that sea ice is getting thinner.
Further, the second sentence of your citation states, "The September minimum extent ended up tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest in the satellite record."
Here's s link for sea ice volume:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
11
It’s been nearly 30 years since the first report by the IPCC. Nearly 30 years during which we could not plead ignorance yet global emissions since then have increased by 60 percent and numerous critical climate systems are near or have already crossed tipping points.
I’m glad I’m not young.
11
All Fossil fuels (among other enterprises including mineral mining) are escaping the true costs of their activities. These other costs, which the economists call "externalities" are shifted to others as injuries to their health and the environment. These include direct costs such as water treatment system costs, reduced infant birth weight, impaired neurological development, cancers, etc., There are also the losses of environmental resources -fish kills, bird death, impaired recreational opportunities. hen all cost are considered (internalized) the real costs of products and activities can be evaluated and societies and individuals can decide how much they are willing to, or need to, pay for the product or activity. Climate is a common good and people/governments will have to internalize the costs of global warming and pay/tax/ control contributing sources to bring them under control to bring global temperatures back into a "normal" regime.
6
Of great concern is the increased warming in the Arctic because this amplifies the warming and functions as a positive feedback loop. The decrease of ice in the Arctic Ocean means there is less ice to reflect back the sunlight and more dark ocean to absorb heat. And that vast stores of permafrost have started to thaw which means that methane and/or carbon dioxide will be released from bacteria that decompose the thawing organic material in the permafrost. It should be expected that the events taking place in the Arctic will drive global warming faster as the years go by unless there is a tremendous reduction in emissions from human sources, something that apparently cannot be counted based on what has transpired over the last three decades.
8
Excellent map and graphics that sure show the polar amplification effects. These affect sea level rise, ocean acidification, methane gas releases, etc, devastating feedback loops that further affect climate and human life on this planet.
4
All this caterwauling misses a simple point: As long as fossil fuels remain artificially "cheap," their ongoing use is inevitable because money talks -- ask Walmart. The key to digging ourselves out of the hole we've dug on our way to prosperity is to raise their prices so that markets can act rationally. We desperately need an effective carbon TAX -- not ineffective cap and trade or more inefficient regulations. Refund all the revenues to people so they tolerate higher prices (don't be France) and most will be just fine or come out ahead. Impose a border carbon duty to incentivize trading partners to do their own pricing -- something no other entity on earth can do -- and we'll begin to recruit the global economy to accelerate the herculean task of transitioning away from total disaster. Multiple bills now in Congress aim to do just that, especially https://energyinnovationact.org. See CitizensClimateLobby.org and CLCouncil.org.
10
@PJMD - funny you mention WalMart. I never saw a need to compliment them before, and still won't on some issues, but they are making some attempts
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/walmart-zero-landfill-goal-2025/530150/
https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2019/05/08/walmart-on-track-to-reduce-1-billion-metric-tons-of-emissions-from-global-supply-chains-by-2030
We need everything possible to move to decarbonize, cut waste and increase efficiency. Pricing on carbon is part, but cities, states and corporations are actually getting some things done, too, even while the President tries giving the country to the fossil industry and while the GOP leadership remains, unfortunately, fossilized themselves.
2
@PJMD - I agree with you entirely. What you are describing here is the concept of fee and dividend, championed my the retired climate scientist James Hansen.
https://www.observationsfromtheanthropocene.net/2019/12/top-down-wont-do-it.html
4
@b fagan I didn't mean to complement WMT, but they have done good things with supply chain and energy efficiency. I use them as an example that money talks: people go for the less expensive product. When a carbon tax starts to impact products' prices, people will gravitate towards the less expensive ones. Healthy economic competition will drive the shift towards lower carbon products and processes, investment, invention and entrepreneurship. Renewables have proven themselves to work, but we need to drive substitution with strong market signals. See https://www.terrain.org/2019/currents/behaving-normally-to-fight-the-climate-crisis/
2
Same here as with almost every climate change article: No mention with respect to the planet's rising population as being a contributing factor to climate change.
So much for balanced editorial content.
4
@Michael
True - but remember that Western Europeans have a western life style using a fraction of the energy us Americans use (can't speak for Canadians of course).
I would hope we and the rest of the world could go in that direction, but sadly I don't think it will happen.
1
@Michael -- same question I ask every population person who comes in and just complains that an article about the greenhouse effect isn't also about their pet peeve:
With human life expectancy in decades, how do you propose to change the population situation over the next twenty years?
Remember that you don't have a world government or dictatorship to force others to have fewer children - I assume you aren't talking about you, personally, being reined in.
So please read the information at the link this quote is from: "The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved."
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
Population programs are succeeding, but the trend is slow to shift, because people live a long time, and because magic wands don't work - you have to improve public health, education and living conditions, all which take time.
In the meantime, as Andy reminds, the amount of consumption and power used varies tremendously throughout the world. People in nations with natural birthrates below replacement (like us, Europe, Japan) are consuming most of the fossil fuel - far more per person than in the poorer nations where birthrates are also dropping.
And the best place to make changes is here, since we certainly have a lot of the overall emissions historically - US is 25% of global historical CO2, and we, Canada, Australia are really bad per-capita, too.
2
@Andy
Unfortunately, Canadians have one of the biggest carbon footprints per capital.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-found-to-produce-most-greenhouse-gas-emissions-per-person-among/
1
Thank you, Republicans, for your integrity and unwavering commitment to science and facts.
1
The latest data again shows maximum heating over the permafrost of Alaska and Siberia.
There is enough methane trapped in the permafrost to heat the planet far beyond the point where all life gets wiped out - and the feed-forward cycle seems well underway.
After 75 years of dedicated post-war effort we finally managed to turn the entire planet into a gas chamber.
4
"... global average surface temperatures last year were nearly 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average from 1951 to 1980."
"Temperatures in 2019 were only a small fraction of a degree Celsius lower than in 2016 ..."
It's fine to summarize information, of course. But please *also* present the facts numerically, so we can compare our version of "nearly" with the authors' version, and so we can compare our version of "small fraction" with the authors' version.
Especially when the infographic has unlabeled axes, as it does here.
2
Why does the title say "second hottest year ever" as opposed to "on record" (ie. post invention of the thermometer, 1850)? One of my close friends is suggesting that blatantly incorrect titles like this make it difficult to trust the veracity of anything on the NYT. I don't agree, but I take his point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
2
As Dr. Jenner of the CDC says in Walking Dead, Season 1, “The world runs on fossil fuel. I mean, how stupid is that?”
If you are arguing here w/ deniers and armchair-science-skeptics, just stop. Remember: every internet comment published has its very own carbon footprint! Save your much-needed energies, you won’t convince these folks and bots.
4
U.N. running out of sufficient contributions ,countries denying scientific climatological data c.q. coordinated environmental programs lacking...what about huge difficulties changing people’s habits [ e.g. nutrition]?
De facto updating environmental health programs, once part of any development program to implement by the so-called developing countries ....,
climatological ,all countries are developing countries nowadays!
When the country argument doesn't fit than go global. Where are the temperature sensors over the ocean? No doubt there is an impact of population and an irrefutable fact that people are killing the planet. More concerning is the common sense issues anyone can do to help the planet. The Democrats who hate all Republicans through Trump can't talk about a better world and a better economy and future with a migration to cleaner less environmental impact stewardship of this country and the world. How hard would it be to actually have a plan there the economy becomes stronger because we force the imported goods not to kill the planet? What about the migration of energy ,manufacturing, farming for a cleaner footprint? Wouldn't there be far reaching opportunities for businesses in this cleaner world? Wouldn't we need specialized, trained and educated workers to migrate to a cleaner future and planet? Businesses would pay to have these people educated and trained for the future. Where are the Democrats on this? Taxing the rich, giveaways, and hating Trump is just the easy way out. You get what you hate. The Democrats shouldn't expect anything else except an abundance of Trump.
1
Tragedy of the commons on a global scale. Change will not occur until those with the position and power to effect change are themselves affected. At which point it will be too late.
Any doubt? Just check the NYT travel page, which continues to promote the myth that unlimited unnecessary travel is a good thing. Just one example of the cognitive dissonance that makes this problem unsolvable.
7
Two thousand years later we still remember that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. How many millennia will humankind remember how our leaders fiddled in the face of catastrophy?
7
I'm not a climate change denier however I'm skeptical as to whether or not the increases in temperature are simply a naturally occurring anomaly.
I remember from high school that when performing an experiment or other analysis the researcher must eliminate all variables except for the value which is to be examined.
Are the temperature measuring devices the same as those used years ago? Were the measurements taken in the same geographic locations, etc.
If not then I would suggest that the present results , i.e. 1 C degree change , would be within a margin of error.
I also note that some temperatures were taken from devices on ocean buoys (with satellite uplinks). How can this data be of any value when these devices did not exist in the middle of the last century?
4
@Ed You can avoid whichever temperature readings you wish to. What can't be avoided are the obvious affects that warming is having.
2
@Ed Those are fair questions. Professional scientists are aware of, an account for, the types of variables you mentioned as well as many more. Thousands of observations from all over the world were used to makes these determinations and they all indicate the same uniform trend. I encourage you to visit the NASA and NOA sites and learn how this research is conducted.
11
@Ed great to be sceptical but to deny the use of improved instrumentation because it didn't exist 100 years ago seems a bit disengenuous, No?
3
One of the better signs that adds some hope came from Blackstone. Smart investment firms and energy corporations with an eye towards the future know their profits and survival will become ever more dependent on energy resources other than fossil fuels. The retardants in the move away form fossil fuels come from entrenched power brokers determined to eke out as much profit from the established fossil fuel infrastructure as possible, no matter the consequences. In this country we currently have in power a political leadership that not only are in denial but are working aggressively to reverse the gains made prior to 2016. They have got to go.
2
The statistics presented make the situation clear and alarming but will be lost on the science-challenged right. Important steps are being taken by many cities and a number of states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but the US as a whole is failing to address the problem because the federal government is doing almost nothing and even going backwards and many states are doing little or nothing. When methane emissions are included total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the US may not be declining at all and it could even be rising. Right now it appears that this unfolding disaster will occur without humans ever doing enough to prevent the global catastrophic outcome that seems more and more inevitable.
3
There, this year is only 2nd warmest year on record. Problem averted.
If you are one of the many that finds this image deeply unsettling, please consider the following:
1. Dramatically curtail your flying. Your need to visit distance lands for vacation is not as important as the habitability of this planet for the people who currently live here -- and all the lifeforms that adapted to the current climate.
2. Vote for whoever you want in the Democratic primary (ideally the candidate that you believe has the best plan for tackling the climate crisis). But in the general election, please vote for whoever secures the Democratic nomination. Anything else (staying home, third party) is effectively a vote for Trump and the continued acceleration of the destruction of this planet.
18
"It's the end of the world, and I feel fine." Michael Stipe, R.E.M.
3
Something happened in 1980 plus or minus a couple of years. What was it?
@JMS It just looks that way because of the reference temperature that was chosen. Around 1980 is where it went and stayed consistently red. If they had used .25 degree less as the reference, for example, it would look like the big change was around 1940.
@JMS The concentrations of C02 began to accelerate around that time. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png
I can see the effects of climate change on almost a weekly basis. It is so disgustingly selfish how, even today with all the evidence, some people choose to ignore the warnings. I have given up arguing and trying to appeal to reason, I have given up talking about our responsibilities to our children and grandchildren. Nothing will change some people’s mind, it is willful and intentional ignorance. I look at my grandchildren and I feel so terribly sorry for the world we are handing to them. We have not made the world a better place. Even in Australia there are climate change deniers thanks in part to misinformation provided by Rupert Murdoch. How can we stop people like him from spreading lies that are destroying our world?
7
Amundsen got to the South Pole in 1911. Peary to the North Pole in 1909. Who was taking these data in 1880?
2
@skyfiber
Google ice cores.
8
Oh no, look at that map! Now everyone is going to move to MN, literally, the coolest place on earth, and by literally, i don't mean the co-opted definition of literally that means figuratively. Because it's "LITRULLY" not cool in MN at all. Full of mosquitoes, frost bite, mean children, and people who eat meat. You'll hate it here. You just stay put and let me do the sufferin' for all you sinners.
1
Think about your own actions. Are you part of the climate change problem or are you part of the solution? If you're part of the problem, what could you do to become part of the solution?
3
Look at the poles!
5
@Brad G Yep. That should be setting off alarm bells everywhere. What better proof of climate change do people need. The thaw at the poles is catastrophic and is setting off a devastating chain of events including exacerbating the effects of climate change.
5
Change has come.
We all must make all of the necessary changes to save our planet.
We must make sure our children have a planet that they can live in.
101 WAYS to Fight Climate Change
https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/7/15749900/how-to-stop-climate-change-actions
1
Seems America is the only place temperatures have not gone up (a little along the East coast). No wonder Americans don’t believe in globally warming! (Or is this a glitch in reporting?)
1
Darnit. I wish China would quit this hoax already. So sad for all the dying and burning animals and humans.
2
On a local level, I've seen almost no change in lifestyle-generating carbon emissions in New York City (or state), despite years of liberal governments. The best thing to have happened is bike lanes and Citibike. Otherwise, the streets are more clogged than ever with gasoline/diesel vehicles, buildings made of concrete are still going up with the standard 1" insulating windows used for decades, no city-wide composting program, worthless recycling, no attempt to ban the sale of gasoline vehicles, people flying around to Instagram-driven destinations. The big program is the Local Law 97 of 2019 to reduce building emissions, which I doubt will take hold and make a significant difference. Too cumbersome for businesses and people. The central problem is fossil fuel-driven modernity and associated consumption, and the lack of political will of even liberal politicians to say we need to live more poorly with major changes in the way we live, now, to have a chance to save the planet.
10
@Avi Almost everyone agrees big changes need to be made, but nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and no politician wants to do anything that will raise taxes or tell people they need to simplify or change their lifestyles. Many people lazily think that making different consumer choices (i.e. buying "greener" products) is a solution. I don't know how political will is to be mobilized around this issue.
8
As a bystander, I always wonder if this warming trend and melting of the ice caps, is just the beg of a new phase of ice age . I can guess it will take a few more centuries but it will eventually go in that cycle again. Scientists have told us the cycle of the past ice ages and warming trends but can anyone one explain if that cycle will happen again.
2
@Bruno G In the year 2020 you are still pulling out the "but climate change has always happened" argument? Friend, the science has been clear for years and is getting more precise all the time. We are changing the climate of the earth through the burning of fossil fuels at a rate of warming that outpaces historic cycles and will fundamentally alter the life-sustaining systems of the planet.
12
@Bruno G
Hi Bruno,
You know that if you live on Earth, you cannot be a "bystander" to climate change!
To answer your question, the cycles that have driven Earth's ice ages over the past 2 million years will continue - these are cycles that affect Earth's orbit around the Sun. But these cycles have created ice ages every 100,000 years or so. We just finished the last ice age 20,000 years ago, so we have about 80,000 years to go before the next ice age comes around. But the future will be different - never during these past few millions years has there been as much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as there is now. It's possible that the warming influence of the greenhouse gases will overwhelm the cooling influence that orbital cycles will slowly bring. And it's definitely true that greenhouse gases are now overwhelming all the natural climate influencers and will continue to do so for at least several centuries into the future.
11
@Steve And the changes are occurring far more rapidly than they have ever occurred in previous normal cycles.
1
At this point, climate change is indisputable a global crisis that impacts all life. Yet, it still ranks as the least most important voting issue among politicians and registered voters.
8
Wake up people! This is only the beginning. Warming is going to accelerate from here. The results will create massive instability around the world as extreme climate events will combine with crops failures, regular flooding and fires. This will be the result of the climate moving from the equilibrium that has allowed human civilization to flourish over the last 10,000 years to something else entirely. This challenge requires commitment and cooperation on a massive scale. It is daunting, but also exciting as we have the tools do it. The question is, DO WE HAVE THE WILL POWER TO GET IT DONE?
11
The graphic in the article is quite frankly terrifying. The 1930's showed similar trends and was an era of dust-bowl economics in the US Midwest that do not begin to approach the scale of this slow moving catastrophe.
Most of us can agree that the debate about GHG caused global heating was never a debate; particularly if you compare, for example, the scientific debate on global heating to the vitriolic public debate on the risks of too much salt in the diet (hint: with regard to salt there is neither consensus nor vitriolic debate since the salt industry isn't funding opposition research).
And yet. And yet, the same vested interests who funded opposition research in the 90's now continue to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels (have indeed staked their very survival on it) while publicly supporting environmentally friendly behaviors while PRIVATELY subsidizing the think tanks and lobbyists who continue to fight a rear guard action within western governments worldwide.
What I have to say about their behavior and my opinion of them as human beings cannot be reprinted in the New York Times.
48
@RDY the scale of the graphic makes it look pretty one sided, but creating a perspective of a single degree as the max value implies that 1°F is a catastrophic outcome. it also doesn't show temperatures prior to 1880 which appear to be warmer. I'm not a AGW denier, but this kind of biased representation doesn't help the cause.
3
@E Myers that's Celsius, not Fahrenheit. Second highest On Record kinda speaks for itself without needing any further centuries of data for comparison.
11
@RDY
Sadly, the 30's was an unmitigated disaster for farming throughout most of the US. Prime farmland had been practically farmed to death west of the Mississippi. Over the protests of the big money men who said government action would be impractical or too expensive and we should let the free market take its course, the Federal government instituted a New Deal which involved extensive reclamation efforts, and the Agriculture Department introduced "radical" farm policies to discourage agricultural practices that were destroying the health and vitality of farmland. One could almost argue that global warming is shaping up to be even a greater national disaster, one that will need something akin to a new New Deal, although I imagine if some brave soul were to propose such a thing it would be derided once again as impractical or too expensive.
7
Trump and R's are a complete disaster for the planet and for all life on planet Earth.
It's hard data like this that make me realize we MUST vote for anti-corporate champions of the environment: Sen. Bernie Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren. They are the only candidates willing to take the vicious bull (corporate capitalism) by the horns in order to protect humanity and the environment. Corporations have utterly destroyed what little democracy the US has ever had, completely turning all our elected representative into their puppets while also using enormous wealth to manipulate our elections. Capitalism and corporations are inherently evil, and while they do serve an important purpose, we must learn to severely limit their power to destroy everything we human care about.
Trump and Republicans are the champions of unbridled capitalism, a vicious economic system that completely devalues humanity and the environment. Make no mistake about it, it is vicious cowboy (American) capitalism that brings out the very worst in people and you only have to look at Trump and his corrupt band of Republican supporters of corporations and the greedy super-rich to see that.
Vote all R's out of office in 2020 as if your life depends on it, because it does!
11
@NY Times Fan I believe that Bernie Sanders or Tom Steyer have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes. Andrew Yang believes in math and science, and will listen to scientists—Howie Hawkins or Dario Hunter of the Green Party, definitely. However, Elizabeth Warren will accept more 'moderate' goals, more 'politically acceptable' goals, with time tables of 2050, 2040, 2035, rather than the hard 2030 deadline that scientists have stated is what it will take to preserve existing ecosystems, so that some of the existing species (including humans!) will have a chance to survive. Doing something but not enough, will not save us. It won't be pretty, even if anyone-but-Trump, Generic Democrat, seems more photogenic, more 'politically feasible' right now.
2
@Eleanor Forman
Thank you for that clarification on Elizabeth Warren's position. I guess I'm left only with Sen. Sanders.
Because the others you mentioned, while they listen to scientists and respect their advice and opinions, are not anti-corporate enough. At least I haven't heard them expressing their concern for corporate influence over the entire government. Without cutting down corporate power (they're more powerful than the government which is unacceptable) and keeping corporations out of our would-be democracy, I think corporate power will continue to destroy the environment. I want a candidate who is BOTH in favor of regulating and drastically reducing corporate power and also targeting climate change like a laser. Of course they must also be able to beat Trump. It's a tall order.
I appreciate you sharing these facts! Thank you!
1
Trump is the man that Americans elected to draw their weather maps and negotiate with Iran.
The only thing we are missing now is his updated Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
1
@A. Stanton Not that it's much comfort, but Americans didn't elect him. The worthless electoral college system elected him. Hillary got 2 million more votes than Trump.
3
@Eric, Americans certainly did elect him, via the electoral college, which is extremely worthy! I’m so thankful the foundering fathers established a republic.
@Martin Alexande - "Stop buying new cloth[e]s, electronics, consumer goods and traveling. Be the change you want in the world." - the unfortunate reality: reduction in the size of our lives, reduction in the number of our lives, it's coming one way or the other
4
Why is there no data for much of the US and India?
1
@lochr - there is data for India and the US! You may be seeing what looks blank (no data) but the center of India is light tan (about +0.5 degree) and the north central US up into Canada is light blue (about - 0.5 deg) on the map.
2
Time to rethink "profit". It is a sick world that allows so few to "profit" while so many suffer. Are we ever going to evolve??
7
@RCJCHC Fewer people are suffering now than at any point in human history.
2
The carbon cycle for the last 2 million years was doing 180-280ppm atmospheric CO2 over 10,000 years and we’ve done more change than that in 100 years
The last time CO2 went from 180-280ppm global temperature increased by around 5 degrees C and sea level rose 130 meters. (graph of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2 and sea level http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/impacts/slr-co2-temp-400000yrs.jpg )
One amplifying feedback alone out of dozens, loss of albedo or heat reflectivity from Arctic summer sea ice melt, over the last several decades has been equivalent to 25 percent of the climate forcing of anthropogenic CO2. And that will continue to increase as that ice largely disappears by mid century.
The Titanic sank because by the time the lookout called the warning the ship had too much momentum to turn. The Earth has a lot more momentum, e.g. we've already likely locked in ~6 meters of sea level rise from the marine sectors of Greenland and West Antarctica, and decade to decade warming in the near term is also locked in.
That momentum is building and the higher we let global temperatures rise the greater the risk of them going really high as amplifying feedbacks strengthen.
12
@Erik Frederiksen We have not even felt the full effects of what we have put into the air. It takes ten years, minimum. Another PETM, here we come---10° C warmer---the other stable Earth temperature
3
-20 F this morning in NE Montana (not an indication of climate change, either way, just cold!).
Notice on the map that the center of the North American continent is actually cooler than THE 20th century average, THIS YEAR.
Fires have always been a problem in Australia. This year, they've arrested over two dozen PEOPLE for STARTING THEM.
8
@Raz
The people who actually fight fires attest to a hotter and drier climate exacerbating fire behavior.
18
@Raz There is no more arson this year than in previous years. The idea that this is arson related has been debunked by both the NYT and the Guardian. You'll still find it on Fox though.
Yes, fires have always been a problem, but there have never been fires like this year. Never at this time of year, never at this intensity, never at these places. And you don't have to believe me, that is what those who spend their lives dealing with fires in Australia are saying. You won't hear them on Fox though.
19
@Erik Frederiksen
Hotter and drier YEARS and CLIMATE are two different things. There is no such thing as "normal" weather.
Those catastrophe movies with the likes of John Cusack and Dennis Quaid depicting the end of the planet weren't wrong. I assume the snow and ice is better onscreen than the planet burning and melting into submission. Imagine all those dead koalas in a movie. Boo. Reality trumps fiction again. The flow chart from the 1880's showing warmth progression is striking. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
7
George Carlin said it best: the planet's fine; it's the people who are screwed. And they are going away.....just a another failed mutation.
13
While the printed text is wonderfully written with great detail, what really hits home are the graphics. Even if a person is not so inclined to take a few minutes to read this extremely important article, just look at the graphics displayed - they show the full, sad and scary story.
Great reporting job Henry Fountain and Nadja PopovichJan!!
15
@Marge Keller the repetition of the hottest ever recorded is so dishonest. Look where they start, this time frame is tiny in comparison to all time. Its been hotter before, shame they won’t acknowledge that.
2
What is the downside of taking action?
Some billionaires with slightly less money?
166
@Deb Ya, there are a whole group of climate change billionaires now cashing in. They have to keep propagating fear among us all to keep the game alive ie Greta and her entertainment industry parents
4
@D Wood : Let's see some solid evidence (in the form of links to reputable sources) that Greta and her family are billionaires -- or even multi-millionaires.
31
@Deb -- well, we'd also have to deal with all that cleaner air and water. And no reason to be involved in Saudi/Iranian rivalries. Of course, those nations would have less money to spend funding other people's troubles, too.
25
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice there is being destabilized by a warming ocean and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet.
The paleoclimate record indicates that increasing global temperature by just 1.5-2°C above preindustrial temperature commits the system to an eventual 6-9 meters of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within the next 100 years.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the full effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
74
@Erik Frederiksen And remember, friends, that 6-9 meters equals about 20 to 30 feet. That's a lot of water.
Also among the amplifying feedbacks--the scariest in my mind--is ocean acidification, which means the decline of the oceans as a carbon sink.
And the scariest thing about the temperature graph is not the magnitude of the change but the apparent acceleration. So an increase of, say, 0.2 degrees in one decade may lead to an increase of 0.3 degrees in the next, and 0.4 in the following decade, etc.
5
Future generations will look back and wonder why some people in 2020 were more concerned about the stock market than the destructive impacts of our consumer-driven lifestyles.
91
@Dan what future generation?
11
@Dan Seriously, who would you trust? The guys who study climate patterns for a living or guys who build casinos and bombs?
9
@Dan The only future generations left will be the spawn of the 0.1%. They will have moved to the last inhabitable places or build protective environments. The rest of us will have drowned or burned by then.
3
Yes climate has been cyclical but you cannot dismiss the fact that mankind can affect climate. Even assuming this is totally cyclical for reasons unknown, what are we going to do about it? Do a Nero act and fiddle while the earth burns? Climate naysayers are charter members of the Ostrich Club.
26
@D Marcot as I keep saying people will not give up fossil fuel until there is a reasonable alternative , better and cheaper. The only climate activists marching in the streets are the elites and Hollywood types who have never suffered any real hardships. Most people just want to feed their family and have a roof over their head and aren’t fretting over end of world nonsense
It is currently -35 C here today without fossil fuel we would not exist
1
It seems to me that the leaders of commerce and the very wealthy could take the time to be role models and help make a difference. But what actually seems to happen is the burden of change is placed on those who can least afford it. I'm all for doing my part, but it is discouraging to see the financially capable look the other way.
31
More evidence we need a radical change to our economic systems: greatly reduce global trade and consumption, stop mass migration and immigration across the globe and take immediate steps to start preparing for climate change. Slowing the economy might seem bad in the short run but our environment is more important than additional vacations or consumer goods (aka toys).
To the people who protest in the streets, you need to protest what matters. Stop buying new cloths, electronics, consumer goods and traveling. Be the change you want in the world. Marching in the streets, saying how much you hate the way companies treat the environment, hate the exploitation of peoples labor and then turning around and buying new jordans,new iphones and planning global travel, the very products/services these companies make, is not protesting, its whining.
16
Thank you for this report, and yuck. It is time to panic, breath, and take action, as if your house was on fire, because our earth is in serious trouble. It is time to throw all the climate change deniers and footdraggers out of congress and the white house The future of the tens of thousands of species, including humans, depends on us turning around our ecomies and reduse our green house gas emmissions in the next ten years, say the 2000 or so top scientist, who volunteer their time to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, under the auspices of the United Nations.
(David blogs at InconvenientNews.net.)
14
And Donald Trump still does not believe in (or admit it exists) global warming. This should be a priority.
10
@Doug
Trump believes in sea level rise, a component of climate warming, and he has had sea walls erected on golf courses because sea level rise will damage his property.
In addition, Fox News went all out for renewable energy when they took a govt grant for solar panels which made their headquarters 100% renewable a few years back.
What these people don't believe in planning for the rest of us or our resources since the Koch Bros, Rupert Murdoch, and the rest of the oil companies don't want renewable energy taking a bite out of their profits.
If I say we should boycott the offenders the NYT rarely publishes my comment and that's what I don't understand. Money is now the arbiter of the vote in the US so using your dollars should be as important as casting a vote.
1
All this scientific research is no match for the willful ignorance of the Trump supporter. It would be like 98% of the worlds oncologists telling you that you have a treatable form of cancer but you put off treatment until you get the go ahead from the likes of Sarah Palin, Hannity, Rush or the Donald. But I'm being nice, it might be rank ignorance. There's a reason Trump T-shirts come with the logo on the front, It's so his supporters don't have to ask for help dressing themselves.
11
Dear Humans and other Creatures,
Warming trend? What trend?
All we see are pretty red lines going up.
Regards and Good Luck,
Republicans.
6
There are warming trends and then there are warming spikes that almost go off the charts. Except for the occasional dip in the warming trends, what is crystal clear is the consistently rising temps between 1980 through 2019.
Every year these reports are written for all to see and read. And yet, for the past three years, this administration continues to go backwards in reversing 95 Environmental Rules.
Trump needs to get voted out on November 3, 2020. If for no other reason, than for the sake of the planet and all its inhabitants.
72
@Marge Keller
"what is crystal clear is the consistently rising temps between 1980 through 2019"
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump.
"Trump needs to get voted out on November 3, 2020."
You folks have lost your minds. 39 years of rising temperatures.....and it is all Trump's fault.
FYI, the chart actually shows global temperatures dropped in each of Trump's first two years...2019 is the first annual increase under Trump.
But facts and logic don't apply to the anti-Trump mob.
@John and Trump did what? To cause this?
1
@John says "You folks have lost your minds. 39 years of rising temperatures.....and it is all Trump's fault."
Man-made climate change originates from overuse of 19th Century energy technology. The solution is to transition to more cost-effective non-polluting 21st Century energy sources. This should be a natural process but it's being blocked by those who profit enormously from using Earth's atmosphere as a free dump for their industrial waste greenhouse gasses. They have purchased a political party to hamstring efforts to deal with the challenge.
Trump, leader of the Trumpublican Party, is sabotaging efforts to deal with the crisis. In short, he's not only not part of the solution, his obstruction the largest component of the problem.
5
We have a great economy – BUT, AT WHAT COST?
Here we are in the United States at the end of 2019 with numerous media reports lauding a great economy. A great economy IS great when all the people in that economy are getting their fair share of the wealth. Equally important, however, to everyone getting their fair share for effort invested is the less visible but nonetheless toxic cost of a booming economy. Consider the impact of that booming economy on the environment. The environment is going to hell in a potentially catastrophic manner and yet we rejoice. Deregulation is largely to blame but the Trump administration and the spineless Republican politicians (not all, obviously) and some of those they represent who are so shortsighted that they fail to see the consequences of their actions and morally corrupt perspectives. I am sure there are some Democrats who also act upon a short-sighted view of a booming economy.
The situation can be likened to a family that is celebrated for achieving great wealth. They worked hard, they were frugal when necessary. Then the truth comes out: everyone in the family was dealing drugs and into prostitution, drug smuggling and human trafficking.
The MESSAGE: We must not just focus on the spoils; we must consider the make-up of the road to financial success. The bank accounts swell as the air and water get more polluted and as the earth’s temperature continues to rise toward devastating consequences.
13
For those who get their "news" and their climate "science" from Fox and from Rush, this graph will be "fake news." This is what we're up against, as many people of all generations are not voting, and among those who are, many are not voting for leaders who will hold corporate feet to the fire. As Warren points out, three industries are responsible for 70% of the problem. The strategy should be clear.
35
The period from 1950 to 1980 is a known cool period. In the 70's, there was worry about a coming ice age.
Prior to that was a warm period, similar to the one we are now in. In the 30's, the US experienced its warmest period ever, including today.
Now, we are in another warm period. We should expect it to be followed by another cool period, because that's what climate always does. The good news is that we should not have to wait long - maybe 10 more years - until we will again be worried about the coming ice age...
5
@Shotsky The chart in the article directly contradicts what you say. The 30s and earlier were cooler than midcentury, and much cooler than today.
29
@Shotsky Do you even look at the second graph in the article?
30
@Shotsky
This article includes a graph of temperatures from the mid 1800s. It is clear that the US did NOT experience “its warmest period ever” in the 1930s as you claim. As I am 69, I do not believe that it is correct to say that from 1950-1980 people were worried about another ice age. In central NJ where I grew up we had white Christmases that were considered very normal. We did not worry that they were signs of a cooling “trend”.
There is no longer anything that “Climate always does”. If you look at the graph in the article you can see that in the last 70 years, any cooler temperatures have been short lived. As the use of fossil fuels has expanded across the globe, it is clear that we humans are causing the atmosphere to do what CO2 does in any enclosed space - get warmer.
We need to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible, save our rain forests and plant trillions of trillions of trees if human life is to survive into the 22nd century.
53
As long as I have been alive, global temperatures compared to the middle of the 20th century have been above average. This reality is my baseline and it is terrifying. What comes next is beyond terrifying.
25
NYT story suggestion: Look into the belief it's the Biblical end of the world coming. Those believers who embrace the "coming" embrace a materialistic view of God and will make sure nothing interferes. Plus, it's the non-believers who will be "left behind". Will they talk or is there an agreement to keep quiet? It could help explain the baffling denial.
10
@Marian Excellent idea and a good question. Yes, to apocalypse believers all of what is happening, seismic activity, volcano eruptions, Australian fires, etc are proof - proof that the end is coming AND it is God's hand.
Great way to avoid human responsibility -- well -- for anything.
7