Unbelievable to me, that people still don't know what is going on overhead. I'm gob-smacked. . . . Okay, once more with feeling. . . . On september 26, 2011, a body "called" Comet Elenin, placed itself between Earth and our Sun, OldSol (which is STILL in the sights of the Soho Lasko satellite cameras). In doing so, with its cluster of huge objects, it peeled Earth OUT OF THAT ORBIT and connected us into a Solar Cluster with Wormwood and Nemesis, the heat engines associated with Planet X.The outcome is, the NARROW SWATH AROUND the Equator are overheating, but the Poles aren't getting enough light to melt much of the ice. So we have BOTH super icing and super heating, at the same time, because our new techno-sun only sprays light at a small area, belted around this planet.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have handed the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to climate change (and science in general) denier Jim Ihnofe.
Is there any other country on earth where idiocy is a political virtue?
Is there any other country on earth where idiocy is a political virtue?
19
There are two things which are typically not covered.
The first is the impressive amount of adjustment and estimation going in the surface temperature record. Not only for the most recent year but for every year to the beginning of the record. With each edition the past is adjusted. For some reason systematically before roughly 1965 is adjusted cooler and after 1965 is adjusted warmer. NASA's US adjustment for the year 2014 was roughly +0.3C. Another odd thing is how estimated data almost always is warm data. Either areas without stations or stations drop out and then are estimated warm. None of this is denied by NASA or any of the other groups, one simply has to look to see that they do it. I have personally taken NASA's data sets of annual means for the USA (publicly available) and compared editions from different years to verify the past is being revised.
The second is that observations have not matched hypothesis over the long haul. If we take this well adjusted and ever better fixed surface temperature data we find that it is trending below Hansen's predictions of what would happen with severe curtailing of CO2 with no additional forcing beyond the year 2000. Never mind being very far far away from the business as usual prediction.
There is of course much more going on that people need to examine for themselves. What I find simply isn't the way I was taught science and not explicitly noting it even worse.
The first is the impressive amount of adjustment and estimation going in the surface temperature record. Not only for the most recent year but for every year to the beginning of the record. With each edition the past is adjusted. For some reason systematically before roughly 1965 is adjusted cooler and after 1965 is adjusted warmer. NASA's US adjustment for the year 2014 was roughly +0.3C. Another odd thing is how estimated data almost always is warm data. Either areas without stations or stations drop out and then are estimated warm. None of this is denied by NASA or any of the other groups, one simply has to look to see that they do it. I have personally taken NASA's data sets of annual means for the USA (publicly available) and compared editions from different years to verify the past is being revised.
The second is that observations have not matched hypothesis over the long haul. If we take this well adjusted and ever better fixed surface temperature data we find that it is trending below Hansen's predictions of what would happen with severe curtailing of CO2 with no additional forcing beyond the year 2000. Never mind being very far far away from the business as usual prediction.
There is of course much more going on that people need to examine for themselves. What I find simply isn't the way I was taught science and not explicitly noting it even worse.
6
Warming by .003 of a degree. We could have used those extra hundredths last year, we froze in South Dakota.
4
We pump billions of tons of man made CO2, year after year, in the thin layer of our atmosphere. Unsurprinsingly, any action having a reaction, it dangerously warms the only planet we have.
If 97 out of 100 doctors tell you you have cancer, the intelligent things to do is to start discussing the possible treatements.
If 97 out of 100 doctors tell you you have cancer, the intelligent things to do is to start discussing the possible treatements.
11
Making up numbers again like the feel-good greenies, are you? If you could get 1 in 10 scientists, i.e., those who have studied earth climate patterns since at least the great mass extinction 65 or so million years ago, back to first "snowball" earth would be good too, why you might have something, but now all you got is media hype backed by political hacks. Let's see some names and pedigrees--there are thousands around the world studying at hundreds of universities and colleges who might entertain your view of planet earth and its imminent demise. Shouldn't be too difficult.
5
John Christy is right: That new record year is only by a few hundredths of °C well within the error margin of global temperature measurements.
What does it mean if 2010's global average temperature was for example 21.O3 °C; that of 2014, 21.04 °C while 1998 was 21.O2 °C only ? Absolutely nothing. The average trend since 1998 is flat, desperately flat while on the contrary it was steep from the year 1970 until 1998 as one can see on the NOAA diagram.
That means that the link between CO2 rate in the air and the global temperatures is less and less obvious since the concentration of that greenhouse gas was rising steadily undisturbed during the period 1998-2014. And this, nobody is able to explain it and nobody can predict when the temperatures will resume again climbing like in the years 1970-1998. If the current "pause" everybody has acknowledged including IPCC will proceed for ten years, the AGW theory is dead.
In addition it is false to claim that the temperatures never were so high.
Of course everybody has in mind the Greenland's period by the early 15th century when manyl viking villages could establish on the east coast which were later destroyed by the glaciers.
This warmer period was confirmed by the archives of the wine growers in Burgundy (France). In these times (1450) the grapes were ripe enough for harvest by the END of AUGUST (showing the summer temps were those of the mediterranean !) while currently they are not before the end of september, one month LATER.
What does it mean if 2010's global average temperature was for example 21.O3 °C; that of 2014, 21.04 °C while 1998 was 21.O2 °C only ? Absolutely nothing. The average trend since 1998 is flat, desperately flat while on the contrary it was steep from the year 1970 until 1998 as one can see on the NOAA diagram.
That means that the link between CO2 rate in the air and the global temperatures is less and less obvious since the concentration of that greenhouse gas was rising steadily undisturbed during the period 1998-2014. And this, nobody is able to explain it and nobody can predict when the temperatures will resume again climbing like in the years 1970-1998. If the current "pause" everybody has acknowledged including IPCC will proceed for ten years, the AGW theory is dead.
In addition it is false to claim that the temperatures never were so high.
Of course everybody has in mind the Greenland's period by the early 15th century when manyl viking villages could establish on the east coast which were later destroyed by the glaciers.
This warmer period was confirmed by the archives of the wine growers in Burgundy (France). In these times (1450) the grapes were ripe enough for harvest by the END of AUGUST (showing the summer temps were those of the mediterranean !) while currently they are not before the end of september, one month LATER.
7
As you said the temperature increased between 1970 up to 1998. But the rate of increase between now a 1998 is not flat. Its about half the rate of the earlier period. There is no "pause."
3
Humans have a strong desire to predict the future, unfortunately our experts are not good at predictions. There are many examples of forecasted disasters that never came true - Y2K, The Population Bomb, peak oil, to name a few. And on the flipside virtually all actual disasters came without our "experts" warning us - the depression, 9/11, the great recession, to name three. I have no doubt that humans are an important cause of global climate change and I believe we should take reasonable steps to minimize the impact. But I am absolutley certain that "expert" predictions 10, 20 and 50 years into the future will be materially wrong because they always are wrong! Experts are good at telling us what happened in the past, fair at telling us why and awful at predicting the future.
7
Wrong beyond belief - are you an expert on anything? Possibly being wrong about a prediction, as in this instance, is win/win. If correct, we've avoided a cataclysmic disaster. If wrong, we've cleaned the air and provided renewable energy. As for not predicting disasters, 9/11 was predicted only fools like Bush were deniers, even then.
11
The carbon tax is really about two things: 1) New source of gov’ment revenue for the spendthrift politicians, i.e., all, no one smokes anymore, and 2) a means to force the modern industrial world to pay for the continued pollution of the third world, which, in effect, is a massive wealth transfer from citizen–who pays all in the end–to state and punishment by the feel-good green-earth advocates for past economic sins committed when European powers (and later the US) were doing commerce and trade with third world countries, especially in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
In short, new cohort of pirates under a different flag–political green this time with crossed conifers, flying dolphins, and slumbering koalas. (How could anyone be against them?) But an old concept, opportunistic theft at gunpoint.
Yes, hotter earth is the right story at the right time for the new pirates. How fortunate, how expedient. Now, hand over the booty.
In short, new cohort of pirates under a different flag–political green this time with crossed conifers, flying dolphins, and slumbering koalas. (How could anyone be against them?) But an old concept, opportunistic theft at gunpoint.
Yes, hotter earth is the right story at the right time for the new pirates. How fortunate, how expedient. Now, hand over the booty.
5
Since the world was much warmer and colder in the past. How can we be sure that this isn't just a normal cyclical pattern that should be expected in the weather. Is this global warming? I don't know. Ask me again in 100 years, we will have better data then. Man made changes to the weather? I don't know. Ask me again in 100 years when we will have better data. But note that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted everyday by Mount Pinatubo when it erupted was estimated to be more than all the greenhouses emitted by mankind in our entire existence. This happened everyday for weeks and it happened 25 years ago.
We also have the problem with the third world, they are not going to cut their emissions one wit even while the Untied States cuts its emissions. What are we saving when the rest of the world wants the modern lifestyle that we have? Nothing.
Capitalism and technology can give us answers to the global warming issue. Consider that living without cars, hospitals, air conditioning, food production and a modern economy is not the answer. We are very dependent on fossil fuels for our survival and there is NO real reliable alternate energy source available. So going back to middle ages where life was short, nasty, brutish is not a viable solution.
We also have the problem with the third world, they are not going to cut their emissions one wit even while the Untied States cuts its emissions. What are we saving when the rest of the world wants the modern lifestyle that we have? Nothing.
Capitalism and technology can give us answers to the global warming issue. Consider that living without cars, hospitals, air conditioning, food production and a modern economy is not the answer. We are very dependent on fossil fuels for our survival and there is NO real reliable alternate energy source available. So going back to middle ages where life was short, nasty, brutish is not a viable solution.
6
If we don't stop polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses and adopt clean energy alternatives we are going to blow right past the 2 degree Centrigade limit during which human beings evolved and kiss our modern comfortable civilized life good-bye. In other words, unless we stop polluting before our systems collapse, like widespread electricity outages, or crop failures, we are guaranteed a life that is brutish, nasty and short.
6
Just a little strange to read an article like this and not see what that record breaking temperature really was, precisely how much warmer than which previous year, and what the uncertainty was. Not to mention what the source(s) of the readings were, and how they might have differed from the other means of determining global temperature such as the satellite record.
8
"... According to GISS, global surface temperature anomalies were an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010, making the 2014 results the highest in the history of GISS. These record-breaking results from GISS are under the guidance of their new Deputy Director, Gavin Schmidt. If you’re not familiar with numbers that remarkable, they’re read two one-hundredth of a deg C, which is equal to less than four one-hundredths of a deg F. According to the NCDC, their global surface temperature results were +0.04 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2005 and 2010, their two previous best years. The warmest years are within the margin of uncertainty for the data*, making it impossible to determine which year was actually warmest. ..."
6
At the risk of sounding a defeatist, what's the point of all these scientific studies? No amount of facts, figures and evidence will change their grey matter( if they have any i.e ). The Deniers will stay in Denial until kingdom come ( I mean literally). That will only change when the waters are above their heads. Unfortunately, we'll also find ourselves under. Die and let die - Deniers' Motto. Bottom line - we all perish!
4
Skeptics will simply point out that yesterday was cold and continue to doubt.
3
The difference between the position of Schmidt and Christy perfectly illustrate the differences between the two sides. For instance, Schmidt looks and the overall picture, and Christy focuses solely on the little bits that support his position. Schmidt says the overall trend is still increasing and that is because, on the whole, the earth is still absorbing more energy than it is emitting. Christy says that the temperatures have leveled off, because he is only looking at the atmosphere, and ignoring the oceans. The oceans have been absorbing relatively more energy since the last strong El Nino, 1998. Conservation of energy applies; the energy imbalance is only so much. If the oceans have been absorbing more, that leaves less for the atmosphere. So, yeah, when you go an abnormally long period of time without a strong El Nino, you get a reduction of atmospheric temperature increases and an increase in ocean temperature increases. Funny that is exactly what we are seeing.
4
I have been telling people about this since 1979. Most people told me I was crazy. I knew they were ignorant. In case you think we can mitigate Global Warming, if we stopped burning ALL carbon fuels right this second, the global temperature will still climb 2 to 5 degrees over the next 50 years. As it stands, carbon fuel consumption is climbing and more methane is being produced by agriculture. Methane is also being released from the glaciers and permafrost worldwide in a positive feedback loop. Think on that for a moment.
5
I can't believe I'm hearing this. 30 years after science acknowledged this problem broadly, this declaration is what "challenges" the "skeptics"? Unbelievable! The facts challenge the skeptics. Basic physics, chemistry, and over 120 years of science challenge the skeptics. Tens of thousands of years of ice cores, the PETM, the glaciers melting off every mountain range on earth, for crying out loud, common sense challenges the skeptics. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and plenty of other supposedly pre-eminent publications published utterly nonsensical articles acting as though the rhetorical debate has merit. It doesn't
We've doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We've emitted enough to produce 4C of average warming by the end of the century. Methane is bubbling up, ice is melting. That's the difference between New Jersey and Florida. The world as we knew it in the 20th century is going to be severely depleted, primarily because of infantile complaining about a small marginal increase in the cost of energy. Natural Gas, for example, emits half the greenhouse gasses of coal, yes we continue to burn coal. Wind energy costs about 20% more than the average market price, but continually conservatives get away with the silly argument that acknowledging and addressing their pollution will endanger the economy. How? How do the get away with it?
We've doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We've emitted enough to produce 4C of average warming by the end of the century. Methane is bubbling up, ice is melting. That's the difference between New Jersey and Florida. The world as we knew it in the 20th century is going to be severely depleted, primarily because of infantile complaining about a small marginal increase in the cost of energy. Natural Gas, for example, emits half the greenhouse gasses of coal, yes we continue to burn coal. Wind energy costs about 20% more than the average market price, but continually conservatives get away with the silly argument that acknowledging and addressing their pollution will endanger the economy. How? How do the get away with it?
8
So how does it compare to the 1700's and earlier, oh that's right, were starting from just 135 years ago and the tree rings that show there have been hotter years in the past is just disregarded because we have an agenda.
7
Interesting article here on this subject and NOAA report that takes the report to task:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/
3
So the usual deniers still have their heads in the sand. That's news? Only to WND and Fox.
3
It’s OK to use fossil fuels and emit CO2. Our climate is pleasant and productive, and getting better. This is normal because earth is in an interglacial period. Increased carbon dioxide emissions are the result of warming, not the cause.
Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities. 97% are from natural sources. The ultimate reservoir of CO2 is limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rocks. CO2 is sequestered as carbonates for tens of millions of years. Attempts to limit human fossil fuels use will ruin America's energy infrastructure, and not affect warming.
The cost of controlling CO2 is not worth any conceivable benefit. The IEA estimated cost of worldwide “decarbonization” is $44 trillion. The entire cumulative savings of mankind is estimated at $150 trillion, with no clear benefits.
The existence and causes of global warming are undetermined. There is no definitive proof that global warming is occurring; or that it is caused by human use of fossil fuels. All of the climate models that predicted dramatic warming have been wrong.
Why should rational people believe climate activists? Climate action proponents just don’t seem trustworthy. Thoughtful people can discern the truth about climate change, even if they are not scientists. These arguments are suspect. See "The Liberal War on Transparency" by Christopher C Horner; ISBN 978-1-4516-9488-8 and "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" by Dr. Tim Ball; ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0.
Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities. 97% are from natural sources. The ultimate reservoir of CO2 is limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rocks. CO2 is sequestered as carbonates for tens of millions of years. Attempts to limit human fossil fuels use will ruin America's energy infrastructure, and not affect warming.
The cost of controlling CO2 is not worth any conceivable benefit. The IEA estimated cost of worldwide “decarbonization” is $44 trillion. The entire cumulative savings of mankind is estimated at $150 trillion, with no clear benefits.
The existence and causes of global warming are undetermined. There is no definitive proof that global warming is occurring; or that it is caused by human use of fossil fuels. All of the climate models that predicted dramatic warming have been wrong.
Why should rational people believe climate activists? Climate action proponents just don’t seem trustworthy. Thoughtful people can discern the truth about climate change, even if they are not scientists. These arguments are suspect. See "The Liberal War on Transparency" by Christopher C Horner; ISBN 978-1-4516-9488-8 and "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" by Dr. Tim Ball; ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0.
1
The cost of mitigating climate change is estimated to be small compared to a a climate-induced recession is estimated to be 20 percent of world GDP. Some estimates are that mitigating climate change would not cost anything at all in the long run considering all the benefits of not spewing pollution into the air. The only people who pay are the industrialists whose profits in fossil-fuel will fall, and oh are they ever pumping out the doubt about climate change.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0104/The-comparat...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0104/The-comparat...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215...
5
"Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring warnings about the risks of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and undermining claims by climate change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One hundred thirty five years of record keeping doesn't not show the temperatures that existed for the other millions of years this earth has existed ...
Two chains of thought exist here - one where scientists are just as convinced there is no global warning. The other are convinced there are.
Our country has done much in the area of emission control since 1970. While I believe we can do 'more' isn't it really time for other countries that share our at least start?
I'm tired of constantly reading how bad this country, along with it's people, is.
We are not the bad guys here and we are not going to ruin the country. What will ruin this country is economic malaise along with other rogue countries obtaining the knowledge and capabilities of nuclear power.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on that than whether or not the world will be here because we consume too much.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One hundred thirty five years of record keeping doesn't not show the temperatures that existed for the other millions of years this earth has existed ...
Two chains of thought exist here - one where scientists are just as convinced there is no global warning. The other are convinced there are.
Our country has done much in the area of emission control since 1970. While I believe we can do 'more' isn't it really time for other countries that share our at least start?
I'm tired of constantly reading how bad this country, along with it's people, is.
We are not the bad guys here and we are not going to ruin the country. What will ruin this country is economic malaise along with other rogue countries obtaining the knowledge and capabilities of nuclear power.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on that than whether or not the world will be here because we consume too much.
1
I plan on buying some (future) beach front land in north central Florida & selling all my land south of Baton Rouge.
2
Why do not the DOGS BARK? Because their masters are there!
Associated Press, November 03, 2014 revealed politicians and governments concerns for the lack of global warming over the past few years in a new NATO report. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve. The lack of barking is due the masters insisting on doctored reports and extensive Media coverage on global warming designed to support the global economy and Obama’s announced plan to have Americans pay a carbon tax.
The winter of 2013-14 was a tale of two extremes, bringing intense cold and heavy snow in the north-central USA and record-breaking warmth and drought in the West, especially California. The masters have NASA and NOAA tampered with data. In 2013, it was one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895. The largest year over year (temperature) decline on record. It was the coldest winter since 2009-10. Why do not the dogs bark about that on NBC? Because their masters are there.
Associated Press, November 03, 2014 revealed politicians and governments concerns for the lack of global warming over the past few years in a new NATO report. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve. The lack of barking is due the masters insisting on doctored reports and extensive Media coverage on global warming designed to support the global economy and Obama’s announced plan to have Americans pay a carbon tax.
The winter of 2013-14 was a tale of two extremes, bringing intense cold and heavy snow in the north-central USA and record-breaking warmth and drought in the West, especially California. The masters have NASA and NOAA tampered with data. In 2013, it was one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895. The largest year over year (temperature) decline on record. It was the coldest winter since 2009-10. Why do not the dogs bark about that on NBC? Because their masters are there.
2
I read elsewhere that 2014 ranked as the 14th hottest year on record in the US. So who is right?
Duh. The United States is not the world.
8
You do know that when the term "global" is used that means more than just the U.S., right?
8
Willful ignorance seems almost genetic to many conservatives. Even though they must know they're being intellectually dishonest, they seem unable to help themselves. Their denial of human activity in climate change, like their obsession with tax cuts and distrust of government, is an article of faith, which, as we know, is unattached to reality. It's instructive how seemingly intelligent individuals can be so obtuse.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
10
How ironic that you use the word "faith" to malign skeptics. Because it is the warmists who are operating on faith is this debate. Faith in the climate models; that have so miserably failed to accurately project temperature trends. GCMs, as you probably know, are the scientific basis for the belief in significant anthropogenic global warming. They assign a high degree of climate sensitivity to additional concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is this sensitivity that drives the temperature projections sharply higher.
The problem is that they have virtually all greatly overestimated the warming trend. So the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not possibly be nearly as great as climate scientists originally thought. That is not to say that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t have any effect upon the climate, because it does, rather it is to say that the impact is nominal compared to other forcings such as solar and oceanic cycles. You are letting your contempt for those who disagree with you cloud your thought process. Learn a little more about the actual science and the historical data and you might realize that there is nothing particularly unusual about today’s climate change.
The problem is that they have virtually all greatly overestimated the warming trend. So the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not possibly be nearly as great as climate scientists originally thought. That is not to say that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t have any effect upon the climate, because it does, rather it is to say that the impact is nominal compared to other forcings such as solar and oceanic cycles. You are letting your contempt for those who disagree with you cloud your thought process. Learn a little more about the actual science and the historical data and you might realize that there is nothing particularly unusual about today’s climate change.
1
We can keep avoiding the real problem with the global warming dooms day scenarios ,but by not tackling the real problem we are just delaying our demise by a few decades .
The real problem is over population of the planet!, fix this one thing and most of our big concerns gone
The real problem is over population of the planet!, fix this one thing and most of our big concerns gone
4
An ever increasing population presents problems, no doubt, but currently our food production industry is dependent on an energy source which degrades our ability to grow food. It would be a lot easier to deal with food security problems separately from energy problems.
When I read articles like this I immediately research the progress made regarding fusion power.
3
"Do unto others as you would have then do unto you."
I am heartsick that so many people are willing to risk the future of their children and grand children as well as God's good green earth because they are unwilling to change our greedy ways of gobbling up the resources that the earth has painstakingly stored up for us.
I am heartsick that so many people are willing to risk the future of their children and grand children as well as God's good green earth because they are unwilling to change our greedy ways of gobbling up the resources that the earth has painstakingly stored up for us.
4
Maybe the world is actually flat. We seem to be sailing our little human species right over the edge.
8
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has suggested that we let the scientists debate the subject. The various industries who profit from Fossil Fuels merely fund "non-profit" (HA!) Foundations to suggest that the results are not in, or they are overblown. Perhaps, their ignorance is bliss!
For a devastating problem such as we have--and the data is all around us, in plain view--Congress accepts the campaign contributions and, then, pulls a Sergeant Shultz (I know nutting, I see nutting.) So Speaker Boehner, when WILL the results be in? After Rome has already burned?
Oddly enough, it seems that the only scientists who will back the flat-Earth notion of ignoring the Science are physicists--who may very well be financially involved in the whole charade. With no climate scientists among them!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
For a devastating problem such as we have--and the data is all around us, in plain view--Congress accepts the campaign contributions and, then, pulls a Sergeant Shultz (I know nutting, I see nutting.) So Speaker Boehner, when WILL the results be in? After Rome has already burned?
Oddly enough, it seems that the only scientists who will back the flat-Earth notion of ignoring the Science are physicists--who may very well be financially involved in the whole charade. With no climate scientists among them!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
Don't know what this has to do with the current behavior of planet earth other than being descriptive, i.e., local anecdotal data given the timeframe. Within the last 65 million years, it's been much hotter and much colder--tropical flora in northern latitudes and ice in the tropics. It seems in the realm of earth climate data, the last 200 years are but a micro-second flash in earth time.
To conclude or even suggest, at this point, as the "green-earth" zealots are, that man's use of fossil fuels in commercial and economic activities is the principal causal factor is absurd. It's like claiming trilobite poop precipitated the oxygenation of the planet. Pshaw. So much more work to do and data to collect to make such a grand inference.
Next they'll be telling us that cows can jump over the moon--well, when it's low on the horizon, anyway--and 747s, 777s, A320s, and A330s don't lay carbon foot-prints at 40,000 feet and that we ought to stop that immediately. Right.
To conclude or even suggest, at this point, as the "green-earth" zealots are, that man's use of fossil fuels in commercial and economic activities is the principal causal factor is absurd. It's like claiming trilobite poop precipitated the oxygenation of the planet. Pshaw. So much more work to do and data to collect to make such a grand inference.
Next they'll be telling us that cows can jump over the moon--well, when it's low on the horizon, anyway--and 747s, 777s, A320s, and A330s don't lay carbon foot-prints at 40,000 feet and that we ought to stop that immediately. Right.
3
Amen. I cringe every time that I hear the "Climate Change!" chant--because it seems that hear in the Northeast U.S., each time they say it our winters remain as miserable, cold and long, if not worse, than they used to be. Today's Greenland used to be warmer. Then there was the Mini Ice-Age of the Middle Ages, from which by many historical accounts were are simply still rebounding.
Yet you don't provide a shred of generalizeable data with which to back up your snark.
So typical of deniers it's become boring.
So typical of deniers it's become boring.
4
Yet, in the last 200 years we've managed to raise the CO2 concentrations to a level not seen in 3 million years. This carbon is not coming from volcanic activity, it's coming from us.
Mankind is a recognized agent of geologic change on this planet. In any given year, we move more dirt and rock than all natural processes combined. Why is it so hard then to come to the conclusion that we can be, and in fact, are an agent of climactic change as well?
Mankind is a recognized agent of geologic change on this planet. In any given year, we move more dirt and rock than all natural processes combined. Why is it so hard then to come to the conclusion that we can be, and in fact, are an agent of climactic change as well?
7
As Naomi Klein puts its, we're the frog in that soup pot under which the temperature is gradually rising to the point that we're soon too cook. And the lid on the pot, preventing us from jumping out, is the entrenched interests of the fossil fuel industries. We have to leave the reserves in the ground. We have to quickly, massively, transform infrastructure. We need concerted global action on this. We need laws. We need public unity. We need it now, because things are getting much worse very fast.
6
There are some bright spots in all this dire news. In southern England, for example, viticulture has taken root on such an increasingly expanding scale tthat there may well be English Wine Regions (DOCs) before very long. Can't wait to read all those scrumptious NYT articles generated as a result.
1
Yeah, that's great for the five people who will actually benefit.
Meanwhile:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/international.html
Meanwhile:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/international.html
4
Just five people? Don't think so. Just imagine all the British people becoming more joie de vivre and less stiff upper lip. You may call me a dreamer...
Increase energy in a dynamic system, amplitude and frequency tend to increase. Deniers should just get in their cars, start, put in gear, push throttle all the way to the floor and keep pedal to the metal. That would give them an idea about where we are headed.
3
Susan Anderson et al. Don't just denounce Dr. Christy, show how he's wrong. He didn't say it wasn't one of the warmest years in 100 years. He said it is warming much slower than predicted, and questions the direct linkage to human activity, feeling there are natural factors not being factored and believing the climate has more adaptive capacity than built in to most climate models. From the data I challenge you to refute any of those assertions. 1) look at the chart in the article. From 1910-1940 the earth warmed about 1 degree F, then leveled out for about 35 years. From 1975-2000 the earth warmed about 1 degree F and has essentially flattened out for 15 years. If human activity is responsible for the recent warming what caused the comparable warming during the early 20th century? And I you can't accurately answer that then you shouldn't be so dogmatic now. 2) the 1992 IPCC report predicted global warming of 0.3 degrees F/ decade (range 0.2 a 0.5) yet temps have risen about .1 degree/ decade. Below the level of 97% of the climate models. You like to throw out 97% consensus numbers. How do you account for the fact that 97% of global warming predictive models have overestimated actual temperatures?
4
The 1975 National Academy of Sciences report showed that all of the 1910 to 1940 warming was lost by 1970. NASA's to climatologist warned of the possibility of a new ice age by the year 2020.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.h...
NASA has since altered the data to make the 1940-1970 cooling disappear.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.h...
NASA has since altered the data to make the 1940-1970 cooling disappear.
2
When are legislators, scientists, and people going to start talking about controlling the population, which is THE driving force behind global warming? I realize that it's a tough topic, but as long as people continue to breed at the current rate, there is very little we can do to offset population growth. How about offering tax incentives or rebates to people who don't have kids? And educate people on over-population? At this rate, our population will be 11 billion in just a few years. It is simply not sustainable and we are literally killing our home - the earth.
1
Global warming will help solve the overpopulation problem.
1
This is a simple matter to resolve - become an American conservative and simple deny the issue exists (known as the Ostrich Response). Bingo - problem solved. Next?
5
All I can say is I am glad I am a healthy 71 and will enjoy this planet for maybe a couple of decades more, but for those generations who follow its a real crisis. Food shortages will probably lead to wars of survival. Its not like we can jump into a space ship and find paradise. The paradise is here and now. But that paradise is shrinking before our eyes. I look at the jihadists, this is the beginning, they have no future, no education, no jobs, so martyrdom is appealing. The trends I have seen in my life in the USA are not encouraging: more people, more pollution, more traffic, more crowds. And higher temperatures. To the guy who says this climate data is a joke because 135 years is too short is representative of the scientific ignorance pervading our culture and presenting the political obstacle to implement solutions. The later we wait to correct the problem the greater the problem becomes and the greater the repercussions on survival.
7
Climate changes. Man contributes to pollution. 2014 may or may not have been the warmest year--there is some question about this. But the concept of a carbon tax as a remedy, especially at the direction of leftist and progressive types, seems to be a dubious solution at best for many taxpayers distrustful of a scientific and political community proven on many occasions to lack integrity in recent years. It is like turning your business' safety over to a guard who has just shown up for work smelling of booze and waving his gun around...
2
Everyone knows that the earth warms gradually after every Ice Age. The claim by the warmistas back in the 1990's was that the earth was warming "at an alarming rate". That's obviously false, so now the AGW believers are taking the very slight and natural gradual warming and saying that it proves their point. That's hypocrisy, folks. Besides, take a look at the temperatures for 2005, 2010, and 2014 ... there is almost no difference (hundredths of a degree, well within the margin for error). In other words, the earth has not warmed in the last decade, at a minimum. The Left wants so badly to have a doom and gloom scenario that they're grasping at straws. Science? They don't believe in it.
3
Actually the earth warms rapidly at the end of an ice age, and then cools slowly during the inter-glacial, followed by rapid cooling into the next glacial period.
The earth has been slowly cooling for the last 12,000 years since the end of the last glacial period, and virtually all of that cooling has been negated by the last 150 years of rapid warming.
Where do you get your disinformation from Mike? Or do you just invent your non-facts for convenience?
The earth has been slowly cooling for the last 12,000 years since the end of the last glacial period, and virtually all of that cooling has been negated by the last 150 years of rapid warming.
Where do you get your disinformation from Mike? Or do you just invent your non-facts for convenience?
2
The receding ice age over a few thousand years ago is prove that global warming has been going on more than just the last 150 years. Archaeologist finds of cities under sea water that were build thousands of years ago is prove that the raising tides have been caused by the global warming of the last few thousand if not millions of years. We have many thousand if not millions of years of prove of global warming on this planet, which proves that global warming is a natural process that was not caused or started by humans. I want to know how much of the last few years have been caused by humans and how much is natural. And if we over correct and start to affect the natural process of global warning will we cause more harm than good, which might move us back towards a ice age. If we fail to get this right, one way or the other, would mean that Chicago could have ocean front property or Miami might have a glacier at their back door.
It's notable that this revised draft concludes with a quote from Bloomberg. "It's a clear and present danger that poses major economic, health, environmental and geopolitical risks."
You betcha. And, Michael and his ilk, such as the Rhodium Group, are strategically positioning themselves to cash in on the multi-trillion dollar bonanza that is in play.
Never mind that this Times' article failed to mention what the temperature of the Earth was in 2014 (either C or F), what the increase in temperature was, nor did this article provide a link to the NOAA press release.
To paraphrase former Vice President Al Gore, the convenient lies of the eco-alarmists will not go unchallenged by thinking people.
You betcha. And, Michael and his ilk, such as the Rhodium Group, are strategically positioning themselves to cash in on the multi-trillion dollar bonanza that is in play.
Never mind that this Times' article failed to mention what the temperature of the Earth was in 2014 (either C or F), what the increase in temperature was, nor did this article provide a link to the NOAA press release.
To paraphrase former Vice President Al Gore, the convenient lies of the eco-alarmists will not go unchallenged by thinking people.
1
What drives me crazy about most commenters on here are the way they blast or dismiss scientists like Dr. Christy and other skeptics but they don't ever address their data or assertions. Dr. Christy doesn't deny the fact that the climate is warming. He states it is warming much slower than predicted, believes that natural factors are not sufficiently factored in and believes the atmosphere and planet have much more adaptive capacity than the models allow. Using data, not generic talking points show where he is wrong. 1) look at the graph in the article. You will see an approximately 1 degree F rise in global temps between 1910-1945 followed by a 30 year flattening of temps. Then you will see an approximately 1 degree F rise in global temps 1975-2000 followed by a 15 years flattening. If man made carbon emissions caused the rise from 1975-2014... What cause the comparable rise from 1910-1945? And if you can't credible answer that then you must allow my skepticism of your conclusions about the causes of recent increases. 2) the 1992 IPCC report predicted temp increases of 0.3 degrees / decade (range 0.2-0.5). Actual temps over the last 22 years have increase 0.1 degree/ decade. How do you account for the fact that 97% of the climate models have overestimated the temp increases most by a factor of two fold? And if you can't is it really honest for you to blast the above assertions by Dr. Christy and other skeptics??? Oh, and I have received ZERO oil company money.
2
Man, we pump billions of tons of CO2 year after year in the thin layer of our atmosphere.
Unsurprinsingly, any action having a reaction, it warms the planet. The scientific community has a consensus on it (woud you avoid cancer treatement if 9 out of 10 doctors told you you have cancer ? No, me too !)
Get over it.
Unsurprinsingly, any action having a reaction, it warms the planet. The scientific community has a consensus on it (woud you avoid cancer treatement if 9 out of 10 doctors told you you have cancer ? No, me too !)
Get over it.
1
What drives me crazy about most commenters on here is the way they blast or dismiss scientists like Dr. Christy and other skeptics but they don't ever address their data or assertions. Dr. Christy doesn't deny the fact that the climate is warming. He states it is warming much slower than predicted, believes that natural factors are not sufficiently factored in and believes the atmosphere and planet have much more adaptive capacity than the models allow. Using data, not generic talking points show where he is wrong. 1) look at the graph in the article. You will see an approximately 1 degree F rise in global temps between 1910-1945 followed by a 30 year flattening of temps. Then you will see an approximately 1 degree F rise in global temps 1975-2000 followed by a 15 years flattening. If man made carbon emissions caused the rise from 1975-2014... What cause the comparable rise from 1910-1945? And if you can't credible answer that then you must allow my skepticism of your conclusions about the causes of recent increases. 2) the 1992 IPCC report predicted temp increases of 0.3 degrees / decade (range 0.2-0.5). Actual temps over the last 22 years have increase 0.1 degree/ decade. How do you account for the fact that 97% of the climate models have overestimated the temp increases most by a factor of two fold? And if you can't is it really honest for you to blast the above assertions by Dr. Christy and other skeptics??? Oh, and I have received ZERO oil company money.
3
Rupert, what drives scientists crazy is people who make up their own criteria while ignoring the simple facts.
Here's the data plotted from a neutral site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
Here's the data plotted from a neutral site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
4
" that natural factors are not sufficiently factored in and believes the atmosphere and planet have much more adaptive capacity than the models allow. "
Christy's argument relies on the premise that the earth is essentially self-stabilizing. Does this look like a self-stabilizing system to you?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif
Christy's argument relies on the premise that the earth is essentially self-stabilizing. Does this look like a self-stabilizing system to you?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif
2
Arty, get some new material and take a math class. Your chart has 6 trend lines and several have VERY different x/y slopes (ie 1993-2008 v 1995-2014) therefore by definition, they're not consistent. The flatter the slope the slower the increase. Notice all the slopes following out to 2014 are flatter than the one you cherry picked. Also pay attention to the numbers on the y axis. They show an increase of approximately 0.22 degrees from 1992-2014. The 1992 IPCC report predicted 0.3 degrees per decade (range 0.2-0.5) which would have been a rise of 0.66 degrees over that 22 year period (range 0.44 - 1.1). Why were they off by that much. That means actual temps are rising at about 30% of the predicted rate. (50% below even the low end estimate). How many other things do you place so much faith in that are that inaccurate???
1
So data derived in 1880, 1900, 1920, etc. we're taken at the same locations and had the same parameters? Maybe the data from 130 years ago was higher and we continue to have cooling. Possibly we have more corrupt scientist and data is incorrect. Possibly there are other variables than co2. I didn't trust bush and certainly don't trust the likes of Obama, Gore, Soros and those continuing to benefit from our tax dollars. If you blindly believe everything you read or hear, you are likely a sheep. I hope the world warms since my home is underneath the ground in a mountain.
1
Correlations does not equal causation. Secondly, the last few decades of recording temperatures is less than the blink of an eye compared to the age of the planet, so it's an extremely short period to judge. Global alarmists have been predicting doom since the 1970's and have been consistently wrong. Even many of the supposed authorities on the subject have been wrong for decades.
2
It is ludicrous to give any credence to the handful of scientist and the interest laden lobbyits and the medieval minded ignorant general public. These groups simply do not know what they are talking about. The NYTimes does an enormous disservice to the public good when, in a false attempt at opinion balance, it prints the nonsense of the fools and the carbon deniers. The planet is in enormous trouble, likely irreversible. The skeptics and the politicians who dont even understand basic science, should not get a chair at the table. This is the most critical point in human history - and our descendants will look back and us and wonder why did we waver, why did we ambivalate, why did we not take immediate action when the evidence was in our hands, the signs everywhere and the music played on..
7
In England, a conservative organization like the National Trust readily acknowledges that spring flowers bloom a good week earlier now than they did in the 1970s.
And those of us who enjoy strolling past gardens in Brooklyn and through our city parks and botanical gardens can tell you the same: Flowering pears and cherries, apple trees, daffodils, and the like blossom earlier than they did when we were teenagers.
Anecdotal? Perhaps. But observation is what science is made of. Climate-change deniers: For heaven's sake, open your eyes.
And those of us who enjoy strolling past gardens in Brooklyn and through our city parks and botanical gardens can tell you the same: Flowering pears and cherries, apple trees, daffodils, and the like blossom earlier than they did when we were teenagers.
Anecdotal? Perhaps. But observation is what science is made of. Climate-change deniers: For heaven's sake, open your eyes.
6
There hasn't been any "global warming" for at least 18 years now as tracked by accurate satellite measurements. The year 2014 is not the warmest on record by a long shot. At best it is the third warmest in the last 36 years and only just beats 4th place year 2005 by .01%. But the data-deniers who can't let go of their theory on global warming will always ignore actual, accurate data in order to maintain their faith in a fairy story. There are many more facts to quote, but space is limited. But here's a couple more, anyway: Sea ice is at its average maximum and sea-level rise has been severely overstated for many years; it ain't happening. Still 97% of climate scientists agree that if this issue went away, so would their careers.
2
So NASA is wrong and you are correct.
That's what we in this forum are to believe.
Doesn't get any more laughable than that.
That's what we in this forum are to believe.
Doesn't get any more laughable than that.
3
Stop trying to explain climate change to people and politicians who accept various religious documents as scientific fact. They do not understand the concept of science. Forget arguing with polluters and the politicians they own. They are making big bucks; money is their religion. Get the majority on board and vote in the fixes. As we wait, just be amazed at the power of nature as it purges "progress" with storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes.
5
I know a few people who are staunch AGW deniers. They all say the same thing: that the Earth, sky, and oceans are enormous and that we aren't even ants in comparison... so how can we possibly affect something as vast as climate? Most (not all) of these folks are smart and reasonable enough to understand that no, all is not merely 6000 years old etc etc, and that even if we are not capable of changing something as large-scale as climate itself, it's still not a particularly great idea to pump all the crap we do into the air, the water, and the ground.
Still, interestingly enough, once I use the term "biosphere" to refer to the layer of water, earth, and air that supports all life, and point out that if you shrink the Earth down to the size of an apple then the biosphere is only as thick as the apple's skin, they seem quite a bit less sure of themselves and their conviction that we wee humans (despite that there are too many of us here now to keep doing what we've been doing, and that we've been doing it for too long) could conceivably be changing the actual climate.
Still, interestingly enough, once I use the term "biosphere" to refer to the layer of water, earth, and air that supports all life, and point out that if you shrink the Earth down to the size of an apple then the biosphere is only as thick as the apple's skin, they seem quite a bit less sure of themselves and their conviction that we wee humans (despite that there are too many of us here now to keep doing what we've been doing, and that we've been doing it for too long) could conceivably be changing the actual climate.
1
The time to remember about Keystone XL. Am I the only one who has notices the absurdity of the government decisions? The building of this pipeline can only make the situation even worse.
3
The significance of the data can be argued, but the existence of widespread contamination generated by industry, vehicles and agriculture, can't. The emissions are considerable, pervasive and have a profiound negative effect on the environment and human health.
Therefore: Rather than investing in counter-productive military adventures, waging war against environmental degradation is in order and in fact, can't wait.
Therefore: Rather than investing in counter-productive military adventures, waging war against environmental degradation is in order and in fact, can't wait.
2
Please stop using the respectable term "skeptic" for science deniers. Those who believe magical beings control the weather, and that atmospheric composition does not, are not practicing skepticism of the scientific sort. Skepticism is a central part of science's approach. But it's not scientific skepticism to deny science even works here.
4
I know, that people cannot affect the natural fluctuations in climate, but we still can make changes in our behavior. We can see lots of climate changes due to human activities. To me, there can be no more excuses for political leaders or anyone else who avoid the task of cutting carbon emissions sharply. We have to start listening what scientists say, though I'm sure that even more climate change is coming.
2
"Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year".
Climate scientists attributed the heat in the Western U.S. As weather related, not driven by climate change.
The other issue is, notwithstanding the hundredths of a degree margin that these record temps represent, extreme weather events have not materialized as predicted nor have extreme tides or flooding.
The meme that "the science has been settled" fails to acknowledge that no exercise in complex scientific analysis and extended periods of prediction have ever been deemed "settled".
There is much to learn and the same obvious and bona fide obstacles to combating a warming global climate remain.
Climate scientists attributed the heat in the Western U.S. As weather related, not driven by climate change.
The other issue is, notwithstanding the hundredths of a degree margin that these record temps represent, extreme weather events have not materialized as predicted nor have extreme tides or flooding.
The meme that "the science has been settled" fails to acknowledge that no exercise in complex scientific analysis and extended periods of prediction have ever been deemed "settled".
There is much to learn and the same obvious and bona fide obstacles to combating a warming global climate remain.
2
The statement "Climate scientists attributed the heat in the Western U.S. As weather related, not driven by climate change." is a repetition of an unwarranted "scientific" statement. Weather is what fluctuates all the time. Therefore scientists may choose to attribute any change to weather. A wise scientist would have expressed not to be able to distinguish between a random change (weather) and a systematic change over a relatively short time span. Apparently these folks were lacking the wisdom to refrain from answering when they didn't really have a solid scientific answer. In this case "we can't tell (yet)" would have been a truthful answer.
1
That the earth is currently going through one of its warming periods like it has countless times in the planet's history appears indisputable.
That the scientific community actually fully appreciate all the factors and nuances of these warming and cooling periods even before the advent of global industrialization is in extreme doubt.
Global warming deniers do indeed continue to look foolish but on the other hand simplistic assertions by climate scientists seeking funding and boosting career opportunities should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
That the scientific community actually fully appreciate all the factors and nuances of these warming and cooling periods even before the advent of global industrialization is in extreme doubt.
Global warming deniers do indeed continue to look foolish but on the other hand simplistic assertions by climate scientists seeking funding and boosting career opportunities should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
1
Explain in detail please how the work done by atmospheric scientists is simplistic in whatever aspect comes to mind.
1
It is good to see the level of interest in this subject judging from the volume of comments. We will be debating the meaning of this new data point in the global warming record for years, or at least until next year's results.
The 2014 data unquestionably shows that global warming is continuing, although not at the rate of the last 30 years of the 20th century, which followed closely the rate of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This new data point raises more questions than it answers, especially about the accuracy of the climate models used by ICPP and other. We need to ask the climate science community to explain the reasons for the apparent leveling off in the global mean temperature rise, while the theoretical radiative forcing should be rising with the ever increasing carbon dioxide levels. There is something going on we don't fully understand and is not included in the climate models. Could it be that we have more than one forcing effect in play? Volcanic aerosols? Other atmospheric negative feedback? Solar irradiation decline??? -- Answers anyone?
The 2014 data unquestionably shows that global warming is continuing, although not at the rate of the last 30 years of the 20th century, which followed closely the rate of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This new data point raises more questions than it answers, especially about the accuracy of the climate models used by ICPP and other. We need to ask the climate science community to explain the reasons for the apparent leveling off in the global mean temperature rise, while the theoretical radiative forcing should be rising with the ever increasing carbon dioxide levels. There is something going on we don't fully understand and is not included in the climate models. Could it be that we have more than one forcing effect in play? Volcanic aerosols? Other atmospheric negative feedback? Solar irradiation decline??? -- Answers anyone?
1
S..r, It has been suggested that series of outbursts by modest size volcanoes in recent times has been throwing aerosols in the atmosphere at a rate that may be causing enough reflection of solar irradiance to offset the atmospheric CO2 effects. Haven't seen any publication though on volcanic outburst frequency and caliber to judge whether the volcanic effect is an increase or merely close to business as usual. Anyone ???
The world is seriously overpopulated. It's not so much the Malthus food shortage prediction which is challenging but rather the energy consumption which results in global warming. A population pruning achieved by natural means could reduce world population by half. This will lead to a reversal of this destructive effect. World peace would be enhanced.
We need more effective measures than the efforts of the Middle Eastern countries and their ideology, for they are reproducing in even greater numbers than they cut short. The saying"Make love not was" is nice sentiment but those people are doing both.
We need more effective measures than the efforts of the Middle Eastern countries and their ideology, for they are reproducing in even greater numbers than they cut short. The saying"Make love not was" is nice sentiment but those people are doing both.
1
Please fix your typing, in particular where using cliche's like 'make peace ...'
As one who has spent most his adult life involved in science (not climate science specifically) and who has read many discussions such as this one, I continue to be a little amazed by a couple major aspects of some postings.
The first is the evident lack of even a general understanding of science and scientists (leave alone the technical knowledge related directly to climate that most of us understandably lack). The second is the utter certainty that often is associated with that lack of understanding.
It seems Fox and social media "bumper stickers" regularly trump, or are a substitute for, study, analysis, and logic; "expertise" is a four-lettered stand-in for "elitist, pointy-headed, money-seeking liberal".
Perhaps our education system IS a failure.
The first is the evident lack of even a general understanding of science and scientists (leave alone the technical knowledge related directly to climate that most of us understandably lack). The second is the utter certainty that often is associated with that lack of understanding.
It seems Fox and social media "bumper stickers" regularly trump, or are a substitute for, study, analysis, and logic; "expertise" is a four-lettered stand-in for "elitist, pointy-headed, money-seeking liberal".
Perhaps our education system IS a failure.
4
It is still difficult to build strong causal explanations, but the availability of long term series on warming show a significant correlation with human activities. The real challenge is to find and implement solutions, for example stimulating technological progress and promoting renewable energy generation, that can help us to come back from a path which looks, more and more, as a tragic irreversibility. Mahee Ferlini
1
Is the earth warmer than it has been in record history (only 130 years out of billions)? Yes. Has human activity contributed to it? How could it not ? there are seven billion of us.
All that said, I would rather see policy designed to enable humans to adapt to higher temperatures. Given a "man on the moon" type of commitment, the necessary infrastructure, like protective coastal barriers where feasible, can be built. But trying to alter the momentum of climate change, even if caused by humans, is spitting into the wind. Spend the money where it has a predictable, practical effect.
All that said, I would rather see policy designed to enable humans to adapt to higher temperatures. Given a "man on the moon" type of commitment, the necessary infrastructure, like protective coastal barriers where feasible, can be built. But trying to alter the momentum of climate change, even if caused by humans, is spitting into the wind. Spend the money where it has a predictable, practical effect.
1
We will reach a tipping point when the long-term profitability of large corporations linked to fossil fuels are significantly affected by the financial impacts of climate change. At that point, they will put their PR departments and lobbying funds to quickly force Congress, State governments, and even conservative news networks, to support meaningful mitigation and adaptation actions and technologies. Until then we can debate each side of this issue with little chance of changing opposing views. The question is whether this will happen before we reach a point of irreversible global change. While I am not particularly optimistic that this will happen in time, the change of national attitudes concerning same sex marriage indicates that the public is capable of a rapid and dramatic reversal on a controversial issue. We can hope that the climate change issue enjoys a similar sea change.
1
We are supposed to believe is that 20th and 21st centuries have been the warmest in the last 1000 years. But based upon the findings of more than 75% of the peer-reviewed studies on the subject, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. In fact, most of the Holocene (the last ~10,000 years) has been warmer than it is today. These studies were conducted all over the world by hundreds of scientists from all over the world. For an archive of these studies, refer to the Medieval Warm Period Project pages of the CO2 Science website.
Net-net, according to satellite measurements global temperatures have statistically plateaued for more than 18 years now. Since global temperatures have generally warmed over the past 200 years (following the Little Ice Age which was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period) it is no surprise that today’s temperatures are high relative to the last 200 years. Duh. But the current warm period is nothing more than one part of a cyclical set of warming and cooling periods that have been taking place for millennia. The overall temperature trend for the Holocene is cooling. Temperatures and sea levels peaked about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth is now in the process of cyclically cooling down into the next ice age. The sky is not falling. Get a frickin life.
Net-net, according to satellite measurements global temperatures have statistically plateaued for more than 18 years now. Since global temperatures have generally warmed over the past 200 years (following the Little Ice Age which was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period) it is no surprise that today’s temperatures are high relative to the last 200 years. Duh. But the current warm period is nothing more than one part of a cyclical set of warming and cooling periods that have been taking place for millennia. The overall temperature trend for the Holocene is cooling. Temperatures and sea levels peaked about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth is now in the process of cyclically cooling down into the next ice age. The sky is not falling. Get a frickin life.
1
Bob, you've got it wrong.
Here's the data plotted from a neutral site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
Here's the data plotted from a neutral site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
3
Arty, I'm not sure you responded to the right post. This post of mine refers to the Holocene and its previous warm periods, MWP, RWP, etc. Despite the claims of Hockey Stick Mann and others, the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies make it clear that earlier warm periods were worldwide in scope, warmer than today's warm period and that the Holocene is generally cooling.
You are talking about the satellite measuring era which began in 1979 and corresponds with the beginning of the most recent strong warming trend, circa 1975 to 2000. Of course the warming in that timeframe is going to look dramatic. The further back you go, though, the less dramatic it all looks. Refer to the MWP studies listed on the CO2 Science website. Every continent on Earth is represented, and the scientific teams involved come from all over the world.
You are talking about the satellite measuring era which began in 1979 and corresponds with the beginning of the most recent strong warming trend, circa 1975 to 2000. Of course the warming in that timeframe is going to look dramatic. The further back you go, though, the less dramatic it all looks. Refer to the MWP studies listed on the CO2 Science website. Every continent on Earth is represented, and the scientific teams involved come from all over the world.
Oh, I see what you are doing. You are copying and pasting the same response into any post made by anyone who appears to disagree with the sky-is-falling scenario.
1
Deniers of Global Warming are a lot like fundamentalist fanatics. Indeed, overwhelming weight of evidence rarely sways anyone who emotionally takes up a position.
Giveaway: They cannot name evidence or any natural condition, which if known or observed would overturn their cause.
So if Global Warming denying partisans demand more evidence against their favorite cause than they would ever ask for anything else that they deem important, forget swaying them with evidence, logic, or anything.
Gently pricking humor with facts might finally work, but subtlety and patience are alien to the US. Our idea of sophisticated satire is brutally slashing insult, untruths provided they debase our opposition, and strong ad hominem dismissals as in being brainless.
Giveaway: They cannot name evidence or any natural condition, which if known or observed would overturn their cause.
So if Global Warming denying partisans demand more evidence against their favorite cause than they would ever ask for anything else that they deem important, forget swaying them with evidence, logic, or anything.
Gently pricking humor with facts might finally work, but subtlety and patience are alien to the US. Our idea of sophisticated satire is brutally slashing insult, untruths provided they debase our opposition, and strong ad hominem dismissals as in being brainless.
2
The earth has been around for billions of years. 135 years of data is a joke.
5
lemme see. You'd like to go back to a world without electricity, let alone computers? You just think of something silly to say and ignore the experts?
Just for starters, but the proud ignorance here and elsewhere is not only disturbing but dangerous. Have some curiosity and self-respect, and see if you can get your head around the obvious. It's the scale and speed of modern development and expansion and the wholesale exploitation and dumping.
Just for starters, but the proud ignorance here and elsewhere is not only disturbing but dangerous. Have some curiosity and self-respect, and see if you can get your head around the obvious. It's the scale and speed of modern development and expansion and the wholesale exploitation and dumping.
6
Yeah but it's not simply the 135 years of data, but the rate of certain changes (and the rate of change in those changes) reflected in those data. And that neither tends to be accounted for by something other than our collective emissions.
2
You've been breathing for 80 years, 10 minutes of not breathing is a joke.
3
These date clearly prove that there is no global warming. 2014's result of 0.02 deg "warming" is statistically indistinguishable from 2010. It is a proven fact that there has been no "global warming" for over 18 straight years, as predicted by zero infallible computer models and brilliant scientists. Anybody who believes these data support "global warming" is scientifically and mathematically illiterate
6
Larry, the 'mathematical illiterate',
Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
4
Mathematics gives us ways of determining if the difference between two numbers is due to a real difference between the numbers or random chance. It's called statistics. A statistical analysis of the data clearly proves that the difference between the temperature values in question can be explained by random chance. Are you now claiming that the entire science of mathematics and statistics is wrong??
It is a proven unquestionable fact that there has been zero global warming in the last 18 years. The "experts" and the infallible computer models predicted the exact opposite. They were wrong.
It is a proven unquestionable fact that there has been zero global warming in the last 18 years. The "experts" and the infallible computer models predicted the exact opposite. They were wrong.
Larry,
"It is a proven unquestionable fact"... except that the data is there for all to see, and you can make crazy pronouncements all day, but it doesn't change the data.
The trend is consistent and statistically significant.
"It is a proven unquestionable fact"... except that the data is there for all to see, and you can make crazy pronouncements all day, but it doesn't change the data.
The trend is consistent and statistically significant.
2
Deny climate change all you want. However, over the past few decades polar ice is melting, oceans are rising and Glacier Narional Park will not have a glacier within 20 years. There is more scientific agreement on human caused climate change (it's real) than any other major scientific issue. The organized naysayers are in engaged in a cultural battle mindset to deny anything that smacks of liberal politics ("those environmentalists just want your jobs, cars and houses" - I have been to John Birch meetings and heard this). Like sheep, many of the followers of these naysayers believe whatever reinforces their distrust of education and with it the gentry class that runs the U.S., which is perceived to be liberals. Also, for some conservative Christians, God and only God is the master of their universe, including the climate of earth.
We are doomed if we don't stop human caused climate before oceans ecosystems collapse. But as Earth First! says "Nature bats last." We may disappear from then planet, but life will march on without us. My tears are shed for the billions of people who will suffer and the loss of the species we take with us.
We are doomed if we don't stop human caused climate before oceans ecosystems collapse. But as Earth First! says "Nature bats last." We may disappear from then planet, but life will march on without us. My tears are shed for the billions of people who will suffer and the loss of the species we take with us.
9
"There is more scientific agreement on human caused climate change (it's real) than any other major scientific issue. "
That's an absurd statement, one I wouldn't expect from a scientist.
That's an absurd statement, one I wouldn't expect from a scientist.
Global warming is real, however, there are multiple problems that need to be solved to reduce global warming :
1 the main problem interfering with solving global warming is control of the press. Most of the media in the world are propaganda machines controlled by self-serving monopolistic zealots (FASCISTS, Marxists, Communists, Greedy capitalists, Gangsters, Warlords, etc.)
2 Oil companies instigate & fund gullible idiot zealots to prevent the world from switching to clean inexpensive Thorium Nuclear reactors
3 in spite of overwhelming evidence ozone depletion is the main cause of global warming, no main-stream-media reports this information
Freedom of the Press is the solution - investigative research with unbiased fact reporting is the solution.
1 the main problem interfering with solving global warming is control of the press. Most of the media in the world are propaganda machines controlled by self-serving monopolistic zealots (FASCISTS, Marxists, Communists, Greedy capitalists, Gangsters, Warlords, etc.)
2 Oil companies instigate & fund gullible idiot zealots to prevent the world from switching to clean inexpensive Thorium Nuclear reactors
3 in spite of overwhelming evidence ozone depletion is the main cause of global warming, no main-stream-media reports this information
Freedom of the Press is the solution - investigative research with unbiased fact reporting is the solution.
3
As a research chemist I see all of this differently than most. I see the data come out and there are just too many questions that remain unanswered and too many unexplained issues that make the entire argument far from settled. Questions such as why are the polar ice caps are increasing in size when they should be getting smaller come to mind.
>
Overall, however, we are asking the wrong questions from the very start. Let us assume that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. The first question that should come up is how do we stop it (root cause) and at what cost? The Kyoto Accord is worthless because it tries to reduce CO2 emissions to that of the 1980's. If global warming was occurring with emissions at those levels, then all the Kyoto accord will accomplish is to slow the end result, not stop it. No one is even sure how much AGW will be slowed if the Kyoto Accord is honored, but given the gross over estimates at every turn, the mitigating effects of the Accord are likely minimal.
>
So how much would it cost to stop AGW? I have seen estimates where the costs exceed the total amount of GDP of the entire planet for years. Given the magnitude of the problem, these are the only numbers associated with AGW I can actually believe. Then again, none of the proposed solutions actually address the root cause of AGW which is global over population. Until this issue is met and dealt with, AGW will never be solved. It's time to get real with this problem or go home.
>
Overall, however, we are asking the wrong questions from the very start. Let us assume that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. The first question that should come up is how do we stop it (root cause) and at what cost? The Kyoto Accord is worthless because it tries to reduce CO2 emissions to that of the 1980's. If global warming was occurring with emissions at those levels, then all the Kyoto accord will accomplish is to slow the end result, not stop it. No one is even sure how much AGW will be slowed if the Kyoto Accord is honored, but given the gross over estimates at every turn, the mitigating effects of the Accord are likely minimal.
>
So how much would it cost to stop AGW? I have seen estimates where the costs exceed the total amount of GDP of the entire planet for years. Given the magnitude of the problem, these are the only numbers associated with AGW I can actually believe. Then again, none of the proposed solutions actually address the root cause of AGW which is global over population. Until this issue is met and dealt with, AGW will never be solved. It's time to get real with this problem or go home.
2
Cleetus, the 'research chemist',
What cost? There is no cost to reducing FF consumption.
This nonsense propaganda is far worse chicken-little alarmism than any extreme projection about the negative effects of climate change:
"If you put solar panels on your roof, it will Destroy The Economy!"
Seriously?
All that will happen is that more people will get jobs than lose them, and the paper 'wealth' that consists of value attributed to FF in the ground will diminish. It's called... change! Or, Creative Destruction. Or, progress.
The economy will continue along just fine, and probably better. Goods and services will be exchanged, just like now, and capital will flow rather than sitting in the bank.
Let's leave the children both a stable climate and the FF in the ground, in case they need them to deal with future contingencies.
What cost? There is no cost to reducing FF consumption.
This nonsense propaganda is far worse chicken-little alarmism than any extreme projection about the negative effects of climate change:
"If you put solar panels on your roof, it will Destroy The Economy!"
Seriously?
All that will happen is that more people will get jobs than lose them, and the paper 'wealth' that consists of value attributed to FF in the ground will diminish. It's called... change! Or, Creative Destruction. Or, progress.
The economy will continue along just fine, and probably better. Goods and services will be exchanged, just like now, and capital will flow rather than sitting in the bank.
Let's leave the children both a stable climate and the FF in the ground, in case they need them to deal with future contingencies.
9
" why are the polar ice caps are increasing in size when they should be getting smaller come to mind.".....And as a research scientists I am appalled. First and foremost, you need to get your facts right.
12
But the fact is that the polar ice caps are growing in size when the warm-mongers promised they should have disappeared years ago. As concluded by an Indian scientific conference last week, the threat of global warming is vastly overstated if not patently false
1
"Some experts think the weather pattern that produced those American extremes is an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven."
--Perhaps "that is not proven" since proof is not a scientific concept, but rather a mathematical and legal one. It is what lawyers say to pretend that scientific standards are lower than legal ones. "oh, well, you haven't PROVEN that the earth is warming." No, and we never will, according to the standards of science.
--Perhaps "that is not proven" since proof is not a scientific concept, but rather a mathematical and legal one. It is what lawyers say to pretend that scientific standards are lower than legal ones. "oh, well, you haven't PROVEN that the earth is warming." No, and we never will, according to the standards of science.
1
Crying Wolf, again?
The chart looks compelling at first glance BUT:
- check the temp scale - its about 1deg F, which is equivalent to about 0.5 deg C. So, the big change from 2013 to 2014 is less than one-tenth of a deg C.
- there is no error bar, without which I can not assess whether the measured temp difference is statistically meaningful vs just as likely due to the uncertainty of the measurement
- ditto for evaluating the pattern of temp change over the last 130+ years. What are the error bars for each measured year, or at least each decade. Do climatologists even have estimates for the standard errors of past measurements? A brief survey of the scientific literature on global temperature reveals a surprising lack of consensus on the proper way to measure global temperaure today, let alone 130 years ago, where measuring methods were vastly more primitive.
Bottom line: I remain skeptical that global temperature measurments tell us anything of predictive value about how our climate is changing let alone what, if anything, we can do to alter it.
However, I am happy to get on the global warming band wagon if thats the only way to enact environmentally-sound policy changes that will force us to clean up our air and water quality which has definitely been degraded in my brief lifetime by the unintended consequences of our technological progress.
-
The chart looks compelling at first glance BUT:
- check the temp scale - its about 1deg F, which is equivalent to about 0.5 deg C. So, the big change from 2013 to 2014 is less than one-tenth of a deg C.
- there is no error bar, without which I can not assess whether the measured temp difference is statistically meaningful vs just as likely due to the uncertainty of the measurement
- ditto for evaluating the pattern of temp change over the last 130+ years. What are the error bars for each measured year, or at least each decade. Do climatologists even have estimates for the standard errors of past measurements? A brief survey of the scientific literature on global temperature reveals a surprising lack of consensus on the proper way to measure global temperaure today, let alone 130 years ago, where measuring methods were vastly more primitive.
Bottom line: I remain skeptical that global temperature measurments tell us anything of predictive value about how our climate is changing let alone what, if anything, we can do to alter it.
However, I am happy to get on the global warming band wagon if thats the only way to enact environmentally-sound policy changes that will force us to clean up our air and water quality which has definitely been degraded in my brief lifetime by the unintended consequences of our technological progress.
-
4
Notice the article doesn't show the % of the globe covered by measurements from 1880-1950, which is obviously vastly smaller than in recent years. In the late 1800s there were hardly any temperature records outside the US and Europe.
Without reading the comments I believe the deniers will be out in force making comments on this article.
3
All we need to do is cut taxes and the global warming problem will go away.
I'm sure of it.
I'm sure of it.
2
Global temperatures have been cooling since the Jurassic. Obviously due to fewer dino farts. See I can do it too!
1
Iceberg? Impossible. This ship is unsinkable........
4
I do not doubt that global warming is an immediately important issue. There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth's temperature is rising. Perhaps for the doubters the issue should frames accordingly:
There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising and O2 levels are falling. Rising ocean temperatures can decrease CO2 saturation levels. This alone should be a concern as we cannot breathe CO2.
I am only a person, living for a geologic microsecond on this planet. I would like to think that my children's children, children, etc. have a chance at their own microsecond.
There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising and O2 levels are falling. Rising ocean temperatures can decrease CO2 saturation levels. This alone should be a concern as we cannot breathe CO2.
I am only a person, living for a geologic microsecond on this planet. I would like to think that my children's children, children, etc. have a chance at their own microsecond.
If one considers geologic research we are in the middle of an ice age in the middle of a temporary warm up as the orbit of the Earths summers come at the near point in its elliptical orbit and perturbations in Earths spin tilt it southward. Man is heating the Earth now for no good reason other than to stave off the onset of another cool down which will last thousands of years.
2
The deniers are a very major threat to the survival of mankind. Our window of time to reverse what is happening before it becomes a chain reaction is being wasted by these people and their quick profit tactics. The mass methane releases from melting tundra and oceans combined with the failure of the 10,000 year old gulf stream will lock in a thousands year long warming cycle we can then do nothing about and leave us with no predictable weather and financial losses of a doomsday proportion. The nearly 300 feet of ocean rise when all ice is melted will become permanent wiping out most human settlements while loss of predictability in weather seasons from the gulf stream failure will devastate agriculture. The entire fabric of our civilization will revert to nomadic and predatory scavengers. The deniers are simply assuring that every story they have weaved in church or on screen about the end of our kind will come true despite the fact we can reverse it even now. Look at your children, your accomplishments, or the places you love and think for once about what is going to happen to them if the deniers get their way and this window really closes for us all (and yes, Disney World will be well below the surface of the ocean).
2
Everything is ascribed to the burning of fossil fuels; the contribution of global warming gasses from Animal Factory Farming is more than all of transportation combined. When we make and use fertilizers we produce NItrous oxide, which has 296x more global warming capacity than CO2. We must add the pollution of our waters, the cutting down of our forests which trap CO2 and produce 0xygen in return. Jonathan Foer, inh is book "Eating Animals" states: "The most current data even quantifies the role of diet: omnivores contribute seven times the volume of greenhouse gases than vegans do". (2009!!)
Transportation is easily addresed but Animal FActory Farming is not. The majority of people do not think and are even more resistant to have to admit that what they have on their plates greatly influences and damages the environment; no one wants to be told what to eat and most do not even want to think of the inhumanity and cruelty in which most of these animals are raised, billions never seeing the light of day or even walking on soil.
We are now in a vicious cycle. As global warming proceeds, the ice caps which reflected a lot of heat from the surface of the Planet are disappearing. The permafrost is disappearing and new vast amounts of methane are being realeased into the atmosphere; methane is 23x stonger than CO2.
We are merrily eating our way into extinction.
Science cannot replace Nature and the vast Webb of Life whose interactions, worked out over eons, keep our Planet alive!
Transportation is easily addresed but Animal FActory Farming is not. The majority of people do not think and are even more resistant to have to admit that what they have on their plates greatly influences and damages the environment; no one wants to be told what to eat and most do not even want to think of the inhumanity and cruelty in which most of these animals are raised, billions never seeing the light of day or even walking on soil.
We are now in a vicious cycle. As global warming proceeds, the ice caps which reflected a lot of heat from the surface of the Planet are disappearing. The permafrost is disappearing and new vast amounts of methane are being realeased into the atmosphere; methane is 23x stonger than CO2.
We are merrily eating our way into extinction.
Science cannot replace Nature and the vast Webb of Life whose interactions, worked out over eons, keep our Planet alive!
4
I'm a skeptic and this sort of article just adds to my attitude.
Global temperature data exists only for 20 or so years, before that we had partial coverage over land and hardly any over oceans.
Going back to Victorian times and claim that one can use that data in a claim "2014 was the warmest year since records begun" is bordering on deception.
Our historical climate data is negligible when compared to the 4 billion years of earth climate.
The computer models used for climate predictions can't be relied on to predict the future as they can't be made to replicate the past (say the last 10 million years).
Global temperature data exists only for 20 or so years, before that we had partial coverage over land and hardly any over oceans.
Going back to Victorian times and claim that one can use that data in a claim "2014 was the warmest year since records begun" is bordering on deception.
Our historical climate data is negligible when compared to the 4 billion years of earth climate.
The computer models used for climate predictions can't be relied on to predict the future as they can't be made to replicate the past (say the last 10 million years).
6
Numerical models of metal springs are worthless because they can't be used to predict the state of the metal 10 million years ago, before it was made into a spring.
This article and the hysteria of 2014 being the hottest year on record perfectly illustrates why and how rational thinking people become skeptics of the catastrophic global warming mantra. Yes, 2014 was the hottest year in history. What the article fails to explain, however, is that the global mean temp for 2014 was .02 higher than 2010, the next hottest year on record. If you do the math, that translates into a whopping .4 degree temp increase every 100 years. Context is everything here. We can keep breaking global records every year, but it doesn't mean much if the increase is only .02 degrees every five years. I don't think even the most alarmist activist would argue that the earth or mankind will be destroyed by a .5 temp increase every century. When you keep hearing how the sky is falling because 2014 was the hottest year on record, and the people saying this fail to put the temperature increase into proper perspective, how can this possibly not raise red flags for a rational thinking person?
4
Jimmy,
Here's the proper perspective:
Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
Here's the proper perspective:
Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
4
Arty, here's a better perspective. Do your same trend line from 1910-2014 on the graph in the article. If you do you will find a nearly linear increase of about 2.2 degrees with 2 decades slightly above the trend line (the 1940s and the 1990s). And you will find about half that increase occurred from 1910-1945 and about half from 1975-2014. Here's the $trillion question. If human activity caused the increase from 1975 on... What caused the comparable increase from 1910-1945? And if you can't give a good scientific answer to that question quit chastising me for my skepticism of your conclusions about the causes of the last 45 years of the earth's climate changes.
.02'C every 5 years means a 1'C rise over the next 200 years, or a 10'C rise over the next 2,000 years, which would represent the extinction of most of humanity, and much of the biosphere.
Is that your plan for mankind? Extinction within 2,000 years?
Is that your plan for mankind? Extinction within 2,000 years?
1
In the US, the climate change debate has gone into the realm of politics. The GOP -- getting more money from the coal/oil industry than Democrats -- does not accept scientific data and refuse to curb harmful pollutants emission.
In Brazil --important environmental player due to the Amazon rain forest -- re elected Dilma Rousseff has designated a climate change skeptic politician Aldo Rebelo as Minister of Science and Technology. The country will probably take a position against limits of CO2 emission at the next UN climate change conference.
Ironically, Aldo Rebelo nomination coincides with an environmental catastrophe under way. The vast swath of land located in Central and Southeast portion of the country -- home for three quarters of the population and hydro electricity baseload generation -- suffers the longest and more severe drought spell in history.
The inhabitants of Sao Paulo --a mega city of 17 million people -- watch in horror as their main sources of drinkable water go dry. In other words, 120 million plus Brazilians run the risk of facing water shortages and electricity blackout in 2015.
The economic/environmental mismanagement of Dilma Rousseff's administration comes as no surprise. After all, the country's ruling elite
has been making wrong policy choices since independence in 1882. This explains why a country with vast natural resources potential is unable to reach developed status.
In Brazil --important environmental player due to the Amazon rain forest -- re elected Dilma Rousseff has designated a climate change skeptic politician Aldo Rebelo as Minister of Science and Technology. The country will probably take a position against limits of CO2 emission at the next UN climate change conference.
Ironically, Aldo Rebelo nomination coincides with an environmental catastrophe under way. The vast swath of land located in Central and Southeast portion of the country -- home for three quarters of the population and hydro electricity baseload generation -- suffers the longest and more severe drought spell in history.
The inhabitants of Sao Paulo --a mega city of 17 million people -- watch in horror as their main sources of drinkable water go dry. In other words, 120 million plus Brazilians run the risk of facing water shortages and electricity blackout in 2015.
The economic/environmental mismanagement of Dilma Rousseff's administration comes as no surprise. After all, the country's ruling elite
has been making wrong policy choices since independence in 1882. This explains why a country with vast natural resources potential is unable to reach developed status.
4
Those who don't believe in climate change will simply assert that the data is all wrong, and probably claim that it is part of some vast global conspiracy :-)
3
OK then. When was the 2nd hottest year since 1880? Good science would look at that too and assess for a correlation between the two dates as in looking for a trend, not a contrived aberration. Maybe you should check with Gore on this? You know, the esteemed inventor of the internet and master scientist and climatologist. Where is Gore anyway? In some tower suite in Las Vegas letting his fingernails grow Howard Hughes-like while he counts his money? So many inconvenient truths, so little time.
2
"OK then. When was the 2nd hottest year since 1880? Good science would look at that too and assess for a correlation between the two dates as in looking for a trend, not a contrived aberration."....You are of course aware that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000?
4
This is another piece in a complex puzzle. There is ample evidence for any who choose to look at it objectively.
The problem is solvable right now of eliminating the burning of fossil fuels to make electricity. And its been possible for the past fifty years - its called nuclear energy.
South Carolina is the only state in the process of building two major nuclear power plants which, when brought on line, will end the use of almost all fossil fuels for generating electricity for its residents. Isn't that amazing? How does anyone oppose nuclear except ideologically? Do those 300,000 folks marching in Manhattan realize that Cuomo's shutting the reactors at Indian Point is helping to sink their island?
If the problem of climate change is that serious - and we in the Lowcountry city of Charleston already regularly feel its consequences - then why doesn't the nation immediately embrace nuclear energy? It's here - it works - let's get started and emphatically stop climate change in five years by a crash program of bringing nuclear plants on line across the nation.
South Carolina is the only state in the process of building two major nuclear power plants which, when brought on line, will end the use of almost all fossil fuels for generating electricity for its residents. Isn't that amazing? How does anyone oppose nuclear except ideologically? Do those 300,000 folks marching in Manhattan realize that Cuomo's shutting the reactors at Indian Point is helping to sink their island?
If the problem of climate change is that serious - and we in the Lowcountry city of Charleston already regularly feel its consequences - then why doesn't the nation immediately embrace nuclear energy? It's here - it works - let's get started and emphatically stop climate change in five years by a crash program of bringing nuclear plants on line across the nation.
3
We still do not have a long term storage solution for nuclear waste.
Where are the good folks of South Carolina going to dispose of the waste from the new nuclear plants? Hopefully, not in the same place you are storing the waste from your existing plants.
So, I'm not a scientist, Boehner appointed I don't believe science Inhofe to chair the committee responsible for addressing science.
HOLY COW !
HOLY COW !
4
Only in America. So sad.
Not really knowable, unless you have records for the last 3.5 billion years.
1
Actually we do have them for over 1.5 billion years and the current rate of change is truly unprecedented since 1870. Try looking into facts.
This is completely knowable, through fossil records, ice core samples, and a myriad of other scientific tools.
2
faster than we thought.
There is only ONE activity to usefully pursue.
Saving the planet.
There is only ONE activity to usefully pursue.
Saving the planet.
4
This country has no future as long as Republicans wish to invent their own separate reality. It's absolutely unbelievable that Republicans have become so irresponsible about serving America that being re-elected is more important than saving humanity, much less our country.
6
Hold on a minute. I was actually convinced that the climate was warming until I looked at the graph which accompanied this article. According to that graph, there was a rapid rise in global temperatures up until about 1998. After that it has pretty much leveled off. Yes, it has leveled off at an historically warm temperature ( meaning since about the late 1800s), but it has leveled off. Since 1998, the annual global temperature has sometimes increased from year to year and sometimes decreased from year to year. Even acknowledging last years record, the 16 year trend is flat, not upward. There had certainly been an upward trends leading up to 1998, but the trend is now stagnant. Don't listen to me. Look at the graph the paper printed with this article. What does all this mean, I haven't got a clue. But looking at the hard evidence of the graph told me a different story than the reporter.
1
Gene,
You are mistaken. Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
You are mistaken. Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and surface measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
7
Remove 1998 and then access the trend again.
You will come to the opposite conclusion if you are honest.
What does that tell you about 1998?
You will come to the opposite conclusion if you are honest.
What does that tell you about 1998?
"Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880"
That quote is hyperbole, the Earth was much warmer in the past. We are in a relatively cool period, geologically speaking. We are bound to get warmer, even if humans seem to be speeding the process. Not much we can do about it though, except move to higher ground.
That quote is hyperbole, the Earth was much warmer in the past. We are in a relatively cool period, geologically speaking. We are bound to get warmer, even if humans seem to be speeding the process. Not much we can do about it though, except move to higher ground.
5
1. We have pretty good data showing the warming. Go look at it. i did.
2. Nobody's talking about CONTROLLING climate. they're talking about screwing up the climate we depend on.
3. Much of the "arguments," from the denier crowd boil down to: a) Jesus wouldn't let this happen; b) I am smarter and know more than everybody who only went to school, did the field work, and oublished; c) hey, COMMUNISM! D) well yeah, but it'll be a good thing.
4. It's remarkable how little how many know about how the planet works, how they get their food and water, what their jobs depend on, or even why the sky is blue.
2. Nobody's talking about CONTROLLING climate. they're talking about screwing up the climate we depend on.
3. Much of the "arguments," from the denier crowd boil down to: a) Jesus wouldn't let this happen; b) I am smarter and know more than everybody who only went to school, did the field work, and oublished; c) hey, COMMUNISM! D) well yeah, but it'll be a good thing.
4. It's remarkable how little how many know about how the planet works, how they get their food and water, what their jobs depend on, or even why the sky is blue.
6
This might be a good time to call up the latest comparison between actual global data and the original Club of Rome Report, and read it. It seems we are on track and careening towards a catastrophe.
http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Turner_Meadows_vs_historical_data.pdf
http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Turner_Meadows_vs_historical_data.pdf
2
What's so frustrating is that the US has an exceptional President who takes global warming seriously and acts where he can but is prevented by GOP mindlessness from fully accomplishing what he wants to and is able to.
America has such a profound impact on other countries and yet we have absolutely no means of protecting ourselves. We can't vote! If we could, I guarantee that there wouldn't be many Republicans in Congress at all and President Obama would have acted on his vision in every way, as he is so capable of doing.
But as it stands we must rely on the good sense of American voters. I'm so grateful to those who are aware and progressive. When I watch most Republicans in action I have to pinch myself sometimes: 'are they for real'? Unfortunately they are.
They’re not just taking their own country down; they’re destroying things for everybody around the world. This is not what America is supposed to be. The vision, integrity, humanity, exceptional capabilities of President Obama is what America’s supposed to be about.
America has such a profound impact on other countries and yet we have absolutely no means of protecting ourselves. We can't vote! If we could, I guarantee that there wouldn't be many Republicans in Congress at all and President Obama would have acted on his vision in every way, as he is so capable of doing.
But as it stands we must rely on the good sense of American voters. I'm so grateful to those who are aware and progressive. When I watch most Republicans in action I have to pinch myself sometimes: 'are they for real'? Unfortunately they are.
They’re not just taking their own country down; they’re destroying things for everybody around the world. This is not what America is supposed to be. The vision, integrity, humanity, exceptional capabilities of President Obama is what America’s supposed to be about.
6
Hooray for Michael R. Bloomberg. Putting his money where his mouth is and our fears should be. Ray Evans Harrell, Artist, NYCity
2
Note also that divestment is beginning to look like a smart option (h/t Chris Dudley, stolen from his comment at RC):
"Rolling Stone has an interesting article of fossil fuel divestment. It discusses 6 mistaken ideas about divestment:
1) Divestment Costs Too Much
2) Fossil Fuels are a Safe Investment
3) Divestment is Too Political (Drew Faust’s strangest error [Harrvard is moving backwards on this issue, has just increased fossil investment, which will lose them money])
4) Fossil-Fuel Divestment is Harder than South Africa Divestment
5) The Alternatives are Too Risky
6) Divestment Doesn’t Do Anything"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-logic-of-divestment-why-we...
"Rolling Stone has an interesting article of fossil fuel divestment. It discusses 6 mistaken ideas about divestment:
1) Divestment Costs Too Much
2) Fossil Fuels are a Safe Investment
3) Divestment is Too Political (Drew Faust’s strangest error [Harrvard is moving backwards on this issue, has just increased fossil investment, which will lose them money])
4) Fossil-Fuel Divestment is Harder than South Africa Divestment
5) The Alternatives are Too Risky
6) Divestment Doesn’t Do Anything"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-logic-of-divestment-why-we...
4
Really? Investment advice from Rolling Stone?
Perhaps they can do radiological work for you as well.
Perhaps they can do radiological work for you as well.
Dr. Christy is not a credible source, and giving him comparable space in an article like this is not helpful. The "paper of res:cord" should not be seeking out fringe views, no matter how hard the fossil industry backed "skeptics" trumpet their legitimacy.
This is more like the true proportion of science understanding to contrarian views:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/...
"About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees."
This is more like the true proportion of science understanding to contrarian views:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/...
"About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees."
8
Patently untrue. If you were asked to make similarly impactful decisions based on imperceptible changes within a statistical margin of error,nyou would be deemed a wild reactionary.
1
Isn't it strange how Republicans who never stop complaining about the debts we're leaving for our children are quite prepared to leave the huge environmental damage caused by global warming to our children and grandchildren just because it suits their ideology. As the evidence has piles up and becomes incontrovertible Republicans are now switching from denying global warming even exists (although some still don't have the memo) to asserting there is nothing we can do about it because it's too expensive to fix while ignoring the huge costs which it is going to impose and is already imposing.
12
John,
There needs to be more challenging of the 'too expensive' meme, rather than only trying to look at future environmental costs of BAU.
The Republican predictions are far more chicken-little alarmism than even the most extreme climate projections:
"if you put solar panels on your roof, The Economy Will Be Destroyed!".
Huh?
Nothing will be destroyed; there will be winners and losers. More jobs will be created than lost, by any analysis.
If your 'wealth' depends on the value of oil and gas and coal in the ground, there will be less short-term gain. But over the long term, even that which is left in the ground will have some value as feedstock, and maybe, in 50 years, there may even really be something called "clean coal".
We may even need to start (dirty) burning again to forestall a new ice age, in thousands not hundreds of years. Leave the children that entire legacy; a stable climate and some insurance against future challenges.
There needs to be more challenging of the 'too expensive' meme, rather than only trying to look at future environmental costs of BAU.
The Republican predictions are far more chicken-little alarmism than even the most extreme climate projections:
"if you put solar panels on your roof, The Economy Will Be Destroyed!".
Huh?
Nothing will be destroyed; there will be winners and losers. More jobs will be created than lost, by any analysis.
If your 'wealth' depends on the value of oil and gas and coal in the ground, there will be less short-term gain. But over the long term, even that which is left in the ground will have some value as feedstock, and maybe, in 50 years, there may even really be something called "clean coal".
We may even need to start (dirty) burning again to forestall a new ice age, in thousands not hundreds of years. Leave the children that entire legacy; a stable climate and some insurance against future challenges.
5
History will remember James Inhofe and others who fought action on carbon emissions as the greatest monsters that the human race has ever produced, their crimes far beyond those of any leaders in history, based on the global impact to humans and other species in the future.
Some day we will erect a monument to this stupidity and record the name of every politician who blocked action.
Some day we will erect a monument to this stupidity and record the name of every politician who blocked action.
9
I am not enough of an expert to evaluate climatological data, and it seems reasonable to think that the cause is anthropogenic. However, looking at the graphic, it seems to me that there was a dramatic increase in temperature from about 1975 to 1998, by about 1.1 degrees F. Since then it has leveled off considerably. The current record is only about 0.1 degrees F higher than it was in 1998. Anyone with eyes can see that. It may still be rising, but the current data clearly indicate that it has risen much, much more slowly since 1998, and it is not even convincing that it is rising at all in any statistically significant way since then. Global warming skeptics may be dead wrong, but this data is not what challenges them.
3
Steve,
You are mistaken. Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
You are mistaken. Here's the data plotted from a 'neutral' site; it is an average that includes both satellite and land measurements.
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
You can see clearly that the rate of change is consistent and varies only if you cherrypick. Look particularly at the last six years.
If you think that the rate from 1995 is comforting, you should be terribly alarmed by the rate from 2008, right?
4
Anyone with eyes should travel to the Arctic and see the dramatic transformation of the landscape. We should be most concerned about thawing of the tundra, which will release vast amounts of highly damaging methane, in a vicious cycle of warming.
Staring at graphics of year to year changes is a pointless exercise, given all of the planetary dynamics, like ocean heat sinks and El Ninos that introduce short term variations.
Staring at graphics of year to year changes is a pointless exercise, given all of the planetary dynamics, like ocean heat sinks and El Ninos that introduce short term variations.
1
" It is the higher temperature that results in higher Carbon dioxide, Not the other way around."...... The temperature of the earth is a balance between the amount of energy that comes in to the earth from the sun and the amount of heat energy that the earth loses to space through infrared irradiation. CO2 absorbs infrared irradiation. You might want to think about that for awhile. Good luck.
Well written - just one more point though. One of the major issues left unstressed in such articles is why we should worry about what the trends are telling us, whether we choose to believe that we are affecting climate or not. As Bloomberg says: ' "It’s a clear and present danger that poses major economic, health, environmental and geopolitical risks.” ' What we need is a clear picture of exactly how large the impact will be. Images of island nations like the Maldives would help by showing how close they are to being under water. The human and monetary value of our coastal habitation that is in danger of going under water needs to be graphically illustrated. It's only when people see how a small change in sea level could submerge the entire eastern seaboard that they will realize what the scientists are talking about.
People can choose to believe what they like about the causes of climate change, but they should be under no illusion about the effects of said change.
People can choose to believe what they like about the causes of climate change, but they should be under no illusion about the effects of said change.
5
Even if it were correct to say that global warming stalled 15 years ago, that is actually evidence FOR and not against warming. Up until that point, temperatures had been rising for decades. There were other periods of several years of constant or even falling temperature, but viewed on a chart, these did little to obscure an obvious upward trend.
If the high temperatures of those earlier decades had been a long fluke, we would expect to see temperatures fall. Instead, the last 15 years, which maintained the previous highs, provide evidence that the previous increases were part of a real longterm trend.
None of this is "apocalyptic" for either man or nature--extreme environmentalists do a disservice to describe climate change in those terms. But "catastrophic" IS a valid way to describe what is likely to happen if trends continue, so climate change deniers still do the greater disservice.
If the high temperatures of those earlier decades had been a long fluke, we would expect to see temperatures fall. Instead, the last 15 years, which maintained the previous highs, provide evidence that the previous increases were part of a real longterm trend.
None of this is "apocalyptic" for either man or nature--extreme environmentalists do a disservice to describe climate change in those terms. But "catastrophic" IS a valid way to describe what is likely to happen if trends continue, so climate change deniers still do the greater disservice.
4
The Sun has been very quiet for several decades, and getting quieter. This has happened before (say four centuries ago). It has an important cooling effect. However that relief could be inverted any time.
Then, of course, we are flirting with major tipping points. One is the massive emission of methane, from frozen hydrates. The other would be the quick melting of West Antarctica.
The quick melting of Antarctica, once started will be inexorable. It will happen from warm water seeping below; the fact water is getting cooler superficially in Antarctica actually, and paradoxically, proves that point... Surprises ahead!
The kinks in the jet stream, and the acceleration of trade winds (which counteracts El Nino) are directly tied to the augmented energy in the atmosphere: they are just different expression of said energy.
So Arctic air sloshes around, going down here and there, and California suffers a drought.
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/sun-cooling-ice-melting/
Then, of course, we are flirting with major tipping points. One is the massive emission of methane, from frozen hydrates. The other would be the quick melting of West Antarctica.
The quick melting of Antarctica, once started will be inexorable. It will happen from warm water seeping below; the fact water is getting cooler superficially in Antarctica actually, and paradoxically, proves that point... Surprises ahead!
The kinks in the jet stream, and the acceleration of trade winds (which counteracts El Nino) are directly tied to the augmented energy in the atmosphere: they are just different expression of said energy.
So Arctic air sloshes around, going down here and there, and California suffers a drought.
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/sun-cooling-ice-melting/
1
There's doubt, and there's reasonable doubt. It's not illogical for me to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow, but is it reasonable?
This confusion leads people to say, "Well, science is always changing. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth."
Yes, but. Science is quite stable. Newton's laws helped us put a man on the moon and send a probe to Pluto. A thousand years from now--if we're still here, even living in Waterworld-- it will still be DNA that determines our hair color--as it has for millions of years.
The greenhouse effect, which underpins human caused warming is two-hundred-years-old, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.
In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell warned that the continued use of fossil fuels would create a "hothouse," and he advocated solar power. Maybe we should have listened to the telephone guy's message back then.
This confusion leads people to say, "Well, science is always changing. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth."
Yes, but. Science is quite stable. Newton's laws helped us put a man on the moon and send a probe to Pluto. A thousand years from now--if we're still here, even living in Waterworld-- it will still be DNA that determines our hair color--as it has for millions of years.
The greenhouse effect, which underpins human caused warming is two-hundred-years-old, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.
In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell warned that the continued use of fossil fuels would create a "hothouse," and he advocated solar power. Maybe we should have listened to the telephone guy's message back then.
9
To understand the science of global warming, you have to understand the basics of the two fundamental physical sciences: physics and chemistry. To understand the basics of physics and chemistry requires that you read scientific papers published by scientists who are part of the international community of scientists. This requires fluency in SI units, something that very few Americans have, including with all due respect most NYT reporters and readers.
When American exceptionalism means that even relatively well-educated Americans (alone in the world) insist on sticking to Imperial units inherited from the British from before the Revolution, you know that you have a problem.
As CP Snow pointed out in 'The Two Cultures' more than half a century ago, in 1959, just as it is unacceptable for physicists to be unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare, so it is unacceptable for arts graduates to be unfamiliar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
When American exceptionalism means that even relatively well-educated Americans (alone in the world) insist on sticking to Imperial units inherited from the British from before the Revolution, you know that you have a problem.
As CP Snow pointed out in 'The Two Cultures' more than half a century ago, in 1959, just as it is unacceptable for physicists to be unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare, so it is unacceptable for arts graduates to be unfamiliar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
4
A one-year high in temperatures is not proof of global warming.
The steady rise of temperatures with small blips down throughout the industrial age, the correlation between man-made CO2, the decades spent creating, improving, critiquing, and further improving long-term climate models, the changes in the temperatures and acidity of the oceans, the migrations northward of temperate-climate and warm-climate species, the widening of desertification... et cetera ... That is the real evidence of global warming.
More proof, final and definitive: that the Koch brothers and other holders of fossil-fuel investments are spending so much time paying intellectual prostitutes to deny it.
And, oh, by the way, 2014 was the hottest year on record.
The steady rise of temperatures with small blips down throughout the industrial age, the correlation between man-made CO2, the decades spent creating, improving, critiquing, and further improving long-term climate models, the changes in the temperatures and acidity of the oceans, the migrations northward of temperate-climate and warm-climate species, the widening of desertification... et cetera ... That is the real evidence of global warming.
More proof, final and definitive: that the Koch brothers and other holders of fossil-fuel investments are spending so much time paying intellectual prostitutes to deny it.
And, oh, by the way, 2014 was the hottest year on record.
8
No one is denying the earth is getting warmer. But it is most certainly not warming concomitantly with CO2.
Not to mention the IPCC has politicized the science, created a great divide between skeptics and warmists thus there is no debate on the warmists science. And Steve @ climate audit has done an outstanding job showing how flawed the ENTIRE scientific process is including reports from the IAC and excerpts from respected scientists which support this fact. But this has been going on sine the 90's...
They have proven nothing. And they continue to reinforce the IPCC's views , i.e. draw a conclusion, find data which supports it, ignore or downplay data which contradicts it, then refuse to debate with skeptics RE:the contradictory data.
They do not let the data lead them to a conclusion, to publish a study which contradict the IPCC's views (if a journal will even publish it), is not in a scientists best interest. They will be labeled a "skeptic". That dirty dirty word.
And lets not forget the many many special interest groups who also reinforce the IPCC's views and the never ending commitment by the media to keep us all alarmed.
The warmists are in their own well funded world. Until they offer open source reviews on all key studies they are just walking the dog.
Abolish the IPCC and lets see how the science community forms a consensus.....
Not to mention the IPCC has politicized the science, created a great divide between skeptics and warmists thus there is no debate on the warmists science. And Steve @ climate audit has done an outstanding job showing how flawed the ENTIRE scientific process is including reports from the IAC and excerpts from respected scientists which support this fact. But this has been going on sine the 90's...
They have proven nothing. And they continue to reinforce the IPCC's views , i.e. draw a conclusion, find data which supports it, ignore or downplay data which contradicts it, then refuse to debate with skeptics RE:the contradictory data.
They do not let the data lead them to a conclusion, to publish a study which contradict the IPCC's views (if a journal will even publish it), is not in a scientists best interest. They will be labeled a "skeptic". That dirty dirty word.
And lets not forget the many many special interest groups who also reinforce the IPCC's views and the never ending commitment by the media to keep us all alarmed.
The warmists are in their own well funded world. Until they offer open source reviews on all key studies they are just walking the dog.
Abolish the IPCC and lets see how the science community forms a consensus.....
5
You've figured it out - those wealthy environmentalists are using their vast resources to fund a global campaign of propaganda. They've overwhelmed the poor, financially defenseless oil, automobile and coal industries.
3
The earth has been around way longer than we have. It has it's own climate change cycles and these will continue long after we are gone. The earth does not, however, extract coal and oil and burn it. The earth does not synthesize the kind of chemicals we humans do and dump the resulting wastes into the oceans. That's all due to us and we should not deceive ourselves into believing that we're not causing at least some imbalance in the earth's natural cycles of change - in the air, water and ground. Do we really want to destruct test the earth's ability to absorb our poisons?
At the least, controlling air and water emissions and waste will directly benefit us all. Even those who do not believe that it will also benefit the earth (and therefore us in the long term) can get behind that.
At the least, controlling air and water emissions and waste will directly benefit us all. Even those who do not believe that it will also benefit the earth (and therefore us in the long term) can get behind that.
4
The number of idiotic denier posts here confirms my belief that climate change is the solution not the problem. The problem of course, is us.
10
Agree. It's part of a population control feedback loop and hence is not only desirable but necessary.
1
Until global warming hits their pocketbooks hard, most Republicans are going to continue to deny it, most by saying "I'm not a scientist".
I would like to think one of the reasons our founding fathers were concerned about the separation of church and state was because they felt our country would be governed best by using facts and knowledge.
I would like to think one of the reasons our founding fathers were concerned about the separation of church and state was because they felt our country would be governed best by using facts and knowledge.
3
All ignorance must end now. Not only is it false, but it is extremely insulting to the young and the future generations who will have to live with the problem.
Denial in this case is inhumane.
It is everyone's moral, economic, political, social, and environmental duty to do their part to help.
Denial in this case is inhumane.
It is everyone's moral, economic, political, social, and environmental duty to do their part to help.
4
Always, always, always follow the money: the only climate-change deniers are those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and technologies or industries related to the development of fossil fuels. These are people who are willing to betray their own offspring for short-term profits.
5
1. We should talk less about individual countries' plans for reducing CO2 emissions, and think rather about the world's annual total. And continually ask ourselves how our local efforts affect that total.
2. We should have a specific goal in mind, a world total to return to if there's to be any hope of reversing global warming. One reasonable example might be the 5.8 billion metric tons recorded in 1950, when the curve began its sharp turn upward. But whatever the benchmark is, we should all try to agree on it.
3. If any year's total exceeds that benchmark, then whatever we're doing isn't good enough. In 2013 the world total was 36 billion tons.
4. Total emissions, whether of a country, a region or the world, is the product of two variables -- per capita emissions and population. If we don't take the latter into consideration, we might as well be baying at the moon.
5. Waiting for a specific rise in atmospheric temperature, as the IPCC scientists seem to be obsessed with, is an absurd goal. We cannot control that, but we can control emissions. That's where our attention should be focused.
2. We should have a specific goal in mind, a world total to return to if there's to be any hope of reversing global warming. One reasonable example might be the 5.8 billion metric tons recorded in 1950, when the curve began its sharp turn upward. But whatever the benchmark is, we should all try to agree on it.
3. If any year's total exceeds that benchmark, then whatever we're doing isn't good enough. In 2013 the world total was 36 billion tons.
4. Total emissions, whether of a country, a region or the world, is the product of two variables -- per capita emissions and population. If we don't take the latter into consideration, we might as well be baying at the moon.
5. Waiting for a specific rise in atmospheric temperature, as the IPCC scientists seem to be obsessed with, is an absurd goal. We cannot control that, but we can control emissions. That's where our attention should be focused.
1
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but there is an aspect of human involvement with climate change that no one is really talking about in the main stream. Look no further than Allan Savory and 'desertification.'
2
If you look at the map showing where most warming was, it was in the Arctic. Now, the Arctic is unmeasured. So, the warming was all made up.
The satellites show that 2014 wasn't even nearly the warmest year of the decade. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Data source: Climate satellites
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
So 2014 had something for everyone. If it is measured temperatures you are after, it wasn't particularly warm. Certainly nowhere near the climate models, which make Alaska look like Florida by now. See
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0913_Pause_graphic11.jpg
If what you want, instead of measurements, is just a warm year, NASA and NOAA can fulfill your warmest wish, by imagining that the Arctic got really, really hot. If you believe them, book a ticket for your winter break there...
The satellites show that 2014 wasn't even nearly the warmest year of the decade. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Data source: Climate satellites
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
So 2014 had something for everyone. If it is measured temperatures you are after, it wasn't particularly warm. Certainly nowhere near the climate models, which make Alaska look like Florida by now. See
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0913_Pause_graphic11.jpg
If what you want, instead of measurements, is just a warm year, NASA and NOAA can fulfill your warmest wish, by imagining that the Arctic got really, really hot. If you believe them, book a ticket for your winter break there...
1
I am European, yet travel for business frequently to Asia and the U.S. for my work. It's only in America this is even debated. The depressing thing is the U.S. is the only country that may have saved this from happening and instead is celebrating the return of cheap oil.
9
I do believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, though here is the big question, what are we going to do about it? Just like everything else when it comes to oil and energy, quite little.
Come back when the U.S. is ready to become completely energy independent, then we'll talk, until then all of this is simply more hot air that may contribute to anthropogenic climate change.
Come back when the U.S. is ready to become completely energy independent, then we'll talk, until then all of this is simply more hot air that may contribute to anthropogenic climate change.
Much blaming of Republicans for being ignorant about this. I don't think that's the case. Like with gun control issues, the data is all there and refutable. Its these guys are greedy and also know they will not be around, a truly sociopathic behavior. But where's the real outrage? It's only here in this small forum in cyberspace.
6
We need action now. If we ended all human use of fossil fuels tomorrow, how soon would the earth cool to the desired temperature?
'...Some experts think the weather pattern that produced those American extremes is an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven....'
Why include such unproven anecdotes in your article.
Here's a question I have for you:
Known Premise: 53% of the Sun's radiation reaching he ground is Infrared, or 'Heat".
Question:
If CO2 is trapping heat, why does it not prevent the Sun's Infrared radiation from reaching the ground?
Why include such unproven anecdotes in your article.
Here's a question I have for you:
Known Premise: 53% of the Sun's radiation reaching he ground is Infrared, or 'Heat".
Question:
If CO2 is trapping heat, why does it not prevent the Sun's Infrared radiation from reaching the ground?
1
The greenhouse effect is due to trapping and re-radiation of hear radiated from the ground. It does not matter how the ground gets heated - the issue is efficient trapping of any heat by greenhouse gases. That is why greenhouse gases can be a danger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
5
Carbon Dioxide blocks some but not all infrared radiation from the sun and other radiation sources. This is why IR telescopes are commonly placed on top of mountains, where there is more infrared radiation.
3
This is also how we know the gree nhouseeffect is real, and really happening: we look at the wavelengths reflected by the planet, and see that some of them aren't getting reflected as they would be without the greenhouse effect.
2
A fact few want to speak of is the Major contribution of livestock to global warming. Methane has a 20 times greater effect on global warming than CO2. 29% of methane comes from "gas and petroleum systems" and 25% from livestock "enteric fermentation". Another 9% from "manure management"
(25 + 9 = more than petroleum production) according to the EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
Enjoy your chicken and hamburger.
(25 + 9 = more than petroleum production) according to the EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
Enjoy your chicken and hamburger.
4
"Methane has a 20 times greater effect on global warming than CO2."....True, but the life time of methane in the atmosphere is relatively short (less than 10 years, whereas the lifetime of C02 is much longer.....some estimates are 200 years and more.
Always, always, always follow the money: the only climate-change deniers are those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and technologies or industries related to the development of fossil fuels. These are people who are willing to betray their own offspring for short-term profits.
3
Warmest year "ever recorded"? With just a 135 year sample, this amounts to just a blip over the entire life span of the earth. Or, relative to about 1 minute over 180,000 years. So, if the temperature warms up for 1 minute after 180,000 years, do we really need to panic? Think about it.
2
The 135-year sample shows that temperatures are rising faster than ever before. The rate of warming is far greater than any ancient warming period known to science.
2
We each are on earth for about half that time, so for about 30-40 seconds in your measure. Do you want to panic about that?
3
Someone has to take action. It's just selfish and wrong to punt it to the next generation, and it will get increasingly harder to solve the problem as time goes on.
2
Public Release: 14-Jan-2015 Correcting estimates of sea level rise
Acceleration in sea level rise far larger than initially thought
Harvard University
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/hu-ceo011215.php
Acceleration in sea level rise far larger than initially thought
Harvard University
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/hu-ceo011215.php
2
Hah
Sea level raise has been found to be far lower than initially thought. And since I am not a Climate change advocate I have references to back me up:
"Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise"
Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica Nature 14 January 2015
Journal,
Sea level raise has been found to be far lower than initially thought. And since I am not a Climate change advocate I have references to back me up:
"Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise"
Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica Nature 14 January 2015
Journal,
1
"Ever Recorded on Earth" -- er, don't you mean "Since 1880"? Slight difference, no?
1
1. It seems reasonably clear that Neanderthalers did not have an extensive network of satellites, or indeed, thermometers of any kind.
2. We also know past temps indirectly, but the article simply cites direct measurements.
2. We also know past temps indirectly, but the article simply cites direct measurements.
Obama has been a leader on this issue. And yet another issue he gets no recognition for. The Democrats, however, are to blame. They don't know how to effectively get the message out there that they are the party that CARES about the environment.
3
Strange how some conservatives still deny the science of climate change, but the big corporations know and understand it well. As the named 'Northwest Passage' is now nearly ice free for a few months of the year, there is a scramble among nations to claim territorial rights for ships passage rather than having to go the Panama Canal route. Both Iceland and Greenland are being looked at greedily as ice melts dramatically, allowing more possible exploration for ever yet more fossil fuels, to be sucked out of the earth. Insurance companies are aware of global warming and charging commensurately higher rates for properties in areas more likely to be subject to flooding.
I have an interesting challenge for the denialists. If you truly believe it's all a hoax, please invest in Miami beachfront property or in other cities likely to be affected by rising sea levels, or buy an island which will likely be submerged in thirty to fifty years. Hmm. No takers?
I have an interesting challenge for the denialists. If you truly believe it's all a hoax, please invest in Miami beachfront property or in other cities likely to be affected by rising sea levels, or buy an island which will likely be submerged in thirty to fifty years. Hmm. No takers?
9
I bet if you checked, there are probably as many or more alarmists living along the coast -- like California and NYC. Why NYC real estate continues to go up if there is such certainty that the seas will rise.
And here in a very blue state, drive around and all you see are SUVs, large houses and long commutes.
And here in a very blue state, drive around and all you see are SUVs, large houses and long commutes.
Dear earth,
Can we please have a third second chance?
Can we please have a third second chance?
3
Dear Rick P and your fellow humans,
Maybe, but only if you stop consuming so much stuff.
Maybe, but only if you stop consuming so much stuff.
1
"Climate-change contrarians?" Who coined that phrase, the Koch brothers? They're more accurately called "global warming deniers."
9
Really need it to get warmer up here.
Guess that Little Ice Age never happened.
Guess that Little Ice Age never happened.
5
An especially well-written article, Mr. Gillis: thank you particularly for pointing out the role of the strong El Nino in '98, and the lack of it in '14. Everyone needs to understand this.
13
The whole "climate change" discussion is nothing but a political tool. It's not, and never was, about science. There's plenty of evidence out there to show you that where there is smoke, there's a fire, if only more people would do the research.
Let me state: No one, and I mean no one, is against a clean planet. To say that the people that don't buy into the MAN-MADE climate change argument want dirty air, dirty water, etc. is silly. I believe in using good common-sense rules and regulations, but the phanatics take it to the extreme to achieve a political agenda. If you think man is in control of the Earth's weather, you are being played for a fool.
Let me state: No one, and I mean no one, is against a clean planet. To say that the people that don't buy into the MAN-MADE climate change argument want dirty air, dirty water, etc. is silly. I believe in using good common-sense rules and regulations, but the phanatics take it to the extreme to achieve a political agenda. If you think man is in control of the Earth's weather, you are being played for a fool.
10
The argument's actually that "man," (AKA people, the human race, human, homo sap, etc.) isn't "controlling," anything, simply DESTABILIZING everything.
Think of a bratty, spoiled two-year-old gleefully banging away on the spaceship's hydroponics, waste treatment, and air-recycling systems. With a hammer.
Hey, what could go wrong?
Think of a bratty, spoiled two-year-old gleefully banging away on the spaceship's hydroponics, waste treatment, and air-recycling systems. With a hammer.
Hey, what could go wrong?
2
I welcome the news. The Earth has been too cold for too long. It will be good to live in a world that is warm year round. One of the most verdant and biological prolific period in the Earth's history was when the earth was much warmer than today during the Cambrian period when there was burst of life and biological evolution.
7
You've no concept of how much Hawaii's bionome relies on temperature and rainfall balances, do you?
2
How many thermometers were deployed worldwide 150 years ago and how many of those were used in this study? How does the accuracy, precision and consistency of those used 150 years ago compare to those used today? How did the Vikings farm in Greenland 1000 years ago? Isn't the earth still coming out of the last ice-age?
9
Yes, Jim, the Earth is still, by scientific definition, in an Ice Age. This is due to ice sheets in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere and Glaciers still present.
Here's another point of view on this topic;
Windfall:
The Booming Business of Global Warming by Mckenzie Funk
Here's another point of view on this topic;
Windfall:
The Booming Business of Global Warming by Mckenzie Funk
1
Exactly Jim. Its a sham for anyone to claim any emperical proof of any climate trend given our infintesimal climate record.
2
Dear Kids:
if the planet should be cooler, why is it warmer?
Yours truly,
Reality
if the planet should be cooler, why is it warmer?
Yours truly,
Reality
2
We have been keeping records since 1880, for 135 years. The Earth has been in existance for billions of years. Doesn't it sound ludicrous to say that '2014 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth'? What possible significance does that have since we haven't been recording temperature the rest of the time. Am I supposed to be worried now? How about we keep taking the temperature for let's say another million years and see if the temp in 2014 really means anything. I bet it doesn't!!!
9
Geology and geophysics study temperatures back thousands of years,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
and hundreds of thousands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
and hundreds of thousands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer
4
I have been reading many of the comments during the day. I do not know if anyone referenced the "Black Fog" that enveloped London 60 years ago (during my lifetime). It was due directly to coal burning and was lethal. It led to the passing of a clean air act there by necessity. You can read about it here:
http://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-year...
It is high time we funded (globally) climate scientists, and let them figure what is going on with our planet and implement any changes that are warranted before the whole earth is covered in a Black Fog. As I have stated before, this should not be a political issue. It is an issue that may threaten our ability to survive. You can't wait until there are palm trees growing at the North Pole, and then decided it's time to do something.
http://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-year...
It is high time we funded (globally) climate scientists, and let them figure what is going on with our planet and implement any changes that are warranted before the whole earth is covered in a Black Fog. As I have stated before, this should not be a political issue. It is an issue that may threaten our ability to survive. You can't wait until there are palm trees growing at the North Pole, and then decided it's time to do something.
5
The concept of global warming is really very simple. CO2 absorbs in the infrared and we have been adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
8
The proponents of this theory have been caught lying so many times that we can't trust anything that they say. I would think that they probably ignored the locales where the figures didn't fit their agenda. The issue has been so politicized that many have lost interest in it. All that I can verify is that at the fishing locale where I have fished for over 50 years, the level of high and low tide remains exactly where it has always been.
5
"The proponents of this theory have been caught lying so many times that we can't trust anything that they say."......CO2 absorbs in the infrared. That means CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the earth that would otherwise be irradiated into space. If less heat is irradiated into space the earth will get warmer. The CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing (it has been measured). Burning fossil fuels removes a carbon source sequestered in the ground and adds the carbon as CO2 to the atmosphere. Please tell us what information provided here is a lie.
13
That is the popular "progressive" theory WA. The reality is that the interplay of carbon and particulate matter in general in the atmosphere is far from clearly understood. It is very complex and there are plenty of climate scientists who believe the accumulation of carbon in the upper atmosphere over time will actually serve to reflect sunlight and have a net COOLING effect. These aren't the scientists being invited to sit on UN panels.
3
The "net COOLING effect" doesn't seem to be working yet, does it?
Can we at least consider that maybe James Earl Carter was the best leader America had in the 20th century? Carter was correct and the Reagan binge has just exacerbated our morning hangover. The time has come to put the solar panels back on the White House, roll up our sleeves and fund research in tomorrow's technologies. We made a big mistake and repentance cannot make up for 35 lost years. We need to atone and that probably means decades of lessened material success if we are to survive.
9
The Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about AD 950 to 1250, saw one of the greatest periods of population increase and agricultural expansion in recorded history.
Why is the current warming period being billed as "spelling the end to the whole human race"? Especially since it seems to be the, otherwise optimistic, liberals sounding the pessimistic bells of doom and destruction, while the, otherwise pessimistic, conservatives are, optimistically, denying any human involvement...
Why is the current warming period being billed as "spelling the end to the whole human race"? Especially since it seems to be the, otherwise optimistic, liberals sounding the pessimistic bells of doom and destruction, while the, otherwise pessimistic, conservatives are, optimistically, denying any human involvement...
4
The Medieval Warm Period was caused by changes in ocean currents and decreased volcanic activity, not by changes in greenhouse gas levels. This makes it a poor comparison to modern climate change. Also, as best we can tell, the temperature anomaly was less extreme than today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
2
Also, the whole planet didn't warm.
1
I just looked up the hottest years on record and they are all in the past decade. What does it take to convince a conservative Republican that we have a problem? Putting aside, for the moment, the question of human causality, doesn't the data present sufficient cause for concern, if not alarm? I find their refusal to consider even the possibility that they are wrong about this very disturbing.
10
So, you "looked up" records that go back only 150 years. You reviewed temps recorded 150 years ago in relatively few spots on the globe as compared to devices covering the globe today. You reviewed temps recorded from thermometers grossly inaccurate and inconsistent as compared to the highly calibrated digital instruments of today. Do you refuse to think your conclusions may be incorrect?
There are about 135 years of reliable weather data on record, on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. Your "hottest years on record" are a part of that infinitesimal and statistically insignificant 135 years. Conservative republicans are not the only ones that recognize that such a ludicrously small sample size is utterly meaningless.
5
Man has a record of proclaiming to be in charge of the Earth, or anthropocentricism.
Of the seventy-one percent water, and twenty-nine percent land that is this Earth, we occupy one percent of that land; Yet, we have convinced ourselves that we're changing the climate, and with such unmitigated hubris, no less. What we ought to do is focus our energy on cleaning the air around our cities before we succumb to terminal respiratory illnesses.
Of the seventy-one percent water, and twenty-nine percent land that is this Earth, we occupy one percent of that land; Yet, we have convinced ourselves that we're changing the climate, and with such unmitigated hubris, no less. What we ought to do is focus our energy on cleaning the air around our cities before we succumb to terminal respiratory illnesses.
4
When you are wrong ten years in a row, being right once is not exactly convincing.
Another problem: nuclear bomb shelters didn't sell well during the cold war because they didn't offer much hope of long term survival. The "solutions" being offered for "global warming" also aren't economically viable or practical. They may make money for a few politically connected businesses and industries but they aren't going to replace fossil fuel.
Another problem: nuclear bomb shelters didn't sell well during the cold war because they didn't offer much hope of long term survival. The "solutions" being offered for "global warming" also aren't economically viable or practical. They may make money for a few politically connected businesses and industries but they aren't going to replace fossil fuel.
4
"When you are wrong ten years in a row".......Please present your evidence. It happens that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record (1880) have occurred since the year 2000. That would seem to be a rather long way from being wrong.
16
Destroying the planet is not viable
3
Please tell me how the ice ages ended without the benefit of man causing the temperatures to rise. There was no burning of fossil fuels and man driving gas guzzling cars and evil corporations spewing pollution into the air, and yet - the temperatures rose and the ice melted. Shazaam, it's magic! The earth warmed through natural means - the same way it does today. The changes in solar activity combined with oceanic activity are what ultimately causes fluctuations in the earth's temperature. You give man much too much credit.
2
Milankovitch Cycles are the driving force behind the glacial cycle. They detail the changes in Earth's movements and can have significant impacts on the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives. We are currently in an interglacial period and shouldn't be experiencing a significant warming trend related to the glacial cycle. The other factors you mention, oceanic cycles and volcanism, both impact climate and may be responsible for some of the climate events in the historical record, like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. There is little evidence of climate forcing from those factors at present.
3
You're suggesting that if something can change "naturally", then it's impossible for man to also influence it? Your reasoning is illogical. The presence of "natural" change in no way precludes "man-made" changes.
2
I hope the skeptics are right because we really have no policy for the next 30 years that is going to make a serious dent in the problem. It's too bad that coal did not turn into a scarce commodity 50 years ago. If it had become scarce, coal burining countries like the USA, Russia, China, England, India and australia would have built more nuclear power plants like the countries without coal (France, Japan, Korea,and belgium) did and the green house problem would be much less severe
4
Collectively, solar and wind power technologies currently available are not enough to supply more than an insignificant fraction of America's power grid demands (do the math, comparing nuclear and fossil fuel power plants). What amazes me is that hydrogen fuel cell technology is by far the best substitute, but is extremely overlooked. Granted, the deconstruction process still uses fossil fuels, but the return on hydrogen fuel cell power is astounding. Hopefully technological advances in separating ordinary water into its component elements will make the reliance on fossil fuels obsolete in the not-so-distant future.
1
"hydrogen fuel cell technology is by far the best substitute"......Except that it takes more energy to generate the hydrogen, than the hydrogen fuel cell can provide. Bottom line - it is a net loser.
5
Use of hydrogen as an energy carrier still requires the input of power from some source, be it fossil, solar, wind, or nuclear. Switching to hydrogen may have some advantages, but what matters is where you get the power from initially.
A coincidence that ten of the warmest years have been since 1997 which was the primary start of internet usage and cell phones. Any chance that all these gadgets are contributing? Radio waves of some sort? I know it sounds silly and I am not looking forward to the replies to this comment but it was the first thought that came to mind because 1997 was when the paradigm shifted, at least for me. I noticed something happening to the world and to people. It was if something unseen was affecting the whole. I also researched major volcanic eruptions of the 21st century and researched the number of major eruptions of the 20th, 19th, and 18th century in Wikipedia and noticed something striking; The 21st century is above normal. Perhaps the core of the Earth is getting hotter and magma is getting closer to the crust. There have been several discoveries of methane vents appearing on the ocean floor along the Atlantic Basin.
I still think a 100+ years is too small a sample for an earth that is billions of years old for us to take this seriously. Also nothing in here still concludes that human activity is causing all of this.
23
Swami - Start with the fact that CO2 absorbs in the infrared. Think on that for awhile.
8
We know the physics: CO2 and methane absorb long wavelength IR radiation emitted from the earth.
We know the sources of those molecule through numerous means and accounting methods-- human burning of fossil fuels.
We now have evidence that the surface temperature is responding in the fashion physics suggests.
What more do you want?
We know the sources of those molecule through numerous means and accounting methods-- human burning of fossil fuels.
We now have evidence that the surface temperature is responding in the fashion physics suggests.
What more do you want?
2
We're facing the most catastrophic environmental events in human history and it has come down to the votes of armchair scientists with bumper sticker proclamations. You can't make this up.
5
Well..., no. It IS the hottest year so far, but only by hundredths of a degree, far from the dramatic rise predicted by greenhouse warming models. No statistical significance whatever. Basically, we now have 17 years of no warming while CO2 continues to soar. Hmmm... Time to go back to the drawing board? Or should we continue to genuflect before the altar of "settled science?"
9
"CO2 continues to soar. Hmmm"....Good, you have that fact right. Now consider that the warmth of the earth depends on a balance between energy coming into the earth from the sun and heat leaving the earth going out into space by infrared irradiation. CO2 absorbs infrared irradiation. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the less heat leaves the earth. The details may be complex, but the ultimate result is not.
6
"far from the dramatic rise predicted by greenhouse warming models".
I'm not sure which model David Laing is using, but all the models used by IPCC predict a slow but inexorable rise. None predict a "dramatic rise".
I'm not sure which model David Laing is using, but all the models used by IPCC predict a slow but inexorable rise. None predict a "dramatic rise".
1
Humans are without a doubt the main cause of global warming but, specifically, I believe it is the NUMBER of humans, along with how we all live that got us to where we are now. If there were only 3 billion people on the planet and we lived as we do now there might not yet be a crisis. With over 7 billion people on the planet (and 8 billion by 2030), we had better find another way to live, quickly, or life will become much less pleasant and much more difficult for all of us. The problem is obvious, the answers less so, but since the technologies exist for widespread use of solar power and other alternative energies, we have no excuse to do much better than we have thus far. We also need to plant many more trees-a very easy thing to do.
3
http://www.gapminder.org/world/
Plot CO2 emissions per capita vs. time.
And look at:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Plot CO2 emissions per capita vs. time.
And look at:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
That global warming is due to human activity activities has been hypothesized based on correlations between the increase in greenhouse gasses, and global temperatures since the start of the Industrial Age; as well as on other changes in the ocean chemistry, the atmosphere, and plant and animal forms and migrations that can be linked to the effects that industrial emissions have has on the environment. While coincidence is not causality, and the earth is a constantly evolving ecosystem, at some point the correlations become so marked that the hypothesis is regarded as proven. That is where we are now at with respect to the effect of human activities on climate change. We are the most successful, and the most destructive, species to ever have inhabited our planet, and we may end up destroying our own habitat.
The objections to climate change theory are political and ideological, not scientific. Those who profit from the status quo do not want change. Perhaps they feel that, by the time the habitat has been destroyed, they will be long gone. Yet the rationalization that we can't do anything to slow the process, and should just keep partying, will cause a greater disaster than the one now looming.
Had we begun 20 years ago to develop new sources of energy and cut greenhouse gases, we may have been on a longer timeline. If we don't pay attention now, the timeline will become even shorter. Science often gives us messages that we do not want to hear- but politics can kill us.
The objections to climate change theory are political and ideological, not scientific. Those who profit from the status quo do not want change. Perhaps they feel that, by the time the habitat has been destroyed, they will be long gone. Yet the rationalization that we can't do anything to slow the process, and should just keep partying, will cause a greater disaster than the one now looming.
Had we begun 20 years ago to develop new sources of energy and cut greenhouse gases, we may have been on a longer timeline. If we don't pay attention now, the timeline will become even shorter. Science often gives us messages that we do not want to hear- but politics can kill us.
15
We did begin more than 20 years ago .. we also found a solution, nuclear energy. Let's do it.
1
Alex is leaning in the right direction. The earth has undergone ice ages and interglacial warm periods every 100,000 years for the past 4 billion years. We are currently in an interglacial warm period and have been for the past 10,000 years. We are cooler now than we were 8,000 years ago. The world's oceans have risen more than 100 metres over the past 20,000 to 30,000 years without any humans. We will have many more ice ages too. As well as being in an interglacial warm period, sun spots are also at a peak in their 600 year cycle. The climate is going to change way more significantly than it appears to be doing at the present. Climate change is caused naturally by the earth's elliptical orbit around the sun on a 100,000 year cycle caused by the gravitational pull of the larger planets. The variation of the earth's tilt on it's axis between 22 and 26 degrees on a 40,000 year cycle. Wobble around that tilt caused by the moons gravity on a 20,000 year cycle. Plus the sun spot cycle. It will take about 200 years to burn all the hydrocarbon and fossil fuels on earth. Hardly a blip on the 100,000 year cycle. The IPCC scientists are being very alarmist. They are not making any comparisons with what humans are doing compared to what nature is doing. They would be doing something useful if they did that.
7
You are talking about Milankovitch Cycles which are the drivers of the glacial cycle. Climate scientists certainly do take the Milankovitch Cycles into account when investigating our current trend. They also take into account the solar cycle, volcanism, and oceanic cycles. Climate forcing from all of those are still less than the man-made forcing from greenhouse gas emissions. If we looked at Milankovitch Cycles alone we should be in a cooling period, which is what the paleoclimate record indicates was the case prior to the industrial revolution. IPCC scientists may be being alarmist, but it is justifiable. If there is an emergency you need someone to raise the alarm.
4
Read this and start over:
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
1
Just a quick observation. According to the chart, we're talking about 1.5 degrees over 100+ years. Were thermometers really that accurate over the past century? They were mercury in a glass tube with painted lines, I think. Was every one identical and closely calibrated to a single degree? Were readings taken from all the same data points? Is there a margin of error plus or minus a degree or two? Just seems like really fine measurements taken across the globe 100 years ago without the sophisticated digital technology of recent times to which we are comparing it.
5
Yes, thermometers were that accurate. So were telescopes, microscopes, scales, rulers, weights, etc.
Try reading up on science history.
Try reading up on science history.
9
My understanding is they know what temperature it was 100 years ago by studying antarctic ice today. I can't explain to you how that works, though.
1
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but no. In the 1880s they weren't accurate. Telescopes and microscopes were only as "accurate" (if that term can even be used with such devices) as the makers of the lenses, and back then they didn't have the capabilities to produce extremely fine lenses that we do today. Scales, rulers and weights weren't fully standardized until the 1900s. Thermometers were accurate, sure.. but the markings on them - detailing the various temperatures - were not. We don't even know how each measurement was taken. Were they -all- mercury based? I highly doubt it. I'd bet some where alcohol based, some were bimetallic, some were mercury, some were semiconductor based (in the 1900s, obviously), inferenced (ie: satellites), etc. Why would we need so many ways to measure the same thing if they're all equally accurate? We don't, and they're not. We don't even know if many of them are "wet bulb" or "dry bulb".
1
It is still far cooler than temperatures earth has experienced periodically over the past 500 Million Years. It was much hotter long before humans emerged.
So hold on to your butts, is inevitably going to get alot warner before the trajectory reverses and heads back towards much cooler periods.
So hold on to your butts, is inevitably going to get alot warner before the trajectory reverses and heads back towards much cooler periods.
3
Humans and the support of human activity is the primary cause, but for some reason the rich have yet to acknowledge this problem, because they are the ones enjoying the advantages of our fossil fuel economy. My take is that the inaction is deliberate, and part of a far reaching eugenics plan to cleanse the Earth of the developed world.
2
The world population is increasing, the American dream is spreading throughout the world. Materialistic behavior is prevailing. The next " Ice Age" is on its way.
Let me see who is the first one to turn their thermostats to 60 degrees and drive 500 cc Fiats.
Let me see who is the first one to turn their thermostats to 60 degrees and drive 500 cc Fiats.
3
I think it is time to admit that we are a disaster as a species. Can anyone name one, just one, good thing we have done for our planet? We are constantly putting band-aids on the things we mess up. Does anyone really think this tendency will stop at global warming? I cannot imagine the issues mankind will face in, say, the year 2500 when there is 100 billion humans. I hate to say this but sometimes I think the only hope planet earth has is an Ebola.
14
"Can anyone name one, just one, good thing we have done for our planet?"
We have removed a whole bunch of polluting oil from her belly. She probably feels much better with that pollutant removed.
We have removed a whole bunch of polluting oil from her belly. She probably feels much better with that pollutant removed.
10
We gave tax breaks for having children, considering it a social benefit to the country. At what point do we give tax breaks or incentives to people who have smaller footprints-- from travel, housing, garbage, etc? I fear that our constant encouragement of consumption keeps us off the better path. GDP needs to be redefined to account for the environment.
18
Some children were taught that they were not supposed to make a mess, and that if they did make a mess, it was their reponsibility to clean it up. Other children learned that if they denied their responsibility or said that the mess didn't matter and they would get away without having to do the cleaning.
9
It's utterly shocking how distorted this whole argument is. According to NASA the temp in 2014 was +0.02 higher than 2010, making it the hottest year on record. WooHoo. Do the math people. That equates to a shocking increase of 0.5 every hundred years. It's all in the delivery folks. If they told you the average temp is rising 0.5 every hundred years, no one would be the least bit spooked. But they tell you 2014 was the hottest year on record and everyone flips their lid.
17
If you draw the line from 2010 to 2010, then yes, you get a slow rise.
Unfortunately, that's not the right way to do it. If you look at decadal averages, and draw the line, you get a 4C rise to 2114. That is very, very bad news.
Unfortunately, that's not the right way to do it. If you look at decadal averages, and draw the line, you get a 4C rise to 2114. That is very, very bad news.
22
.02 higher than the previous maximum is not the same as .5 every hundred years. In fact, 2014 was 1.24 degrees hotter than the mean of the last hundred. In any case, you want to compare the average of a couple years to get a trend. For those that are interested, as of last year, the rate was somewhere around 1.3 degrees F every hundred years.
4
What really galls me are these two things: First off most of the deniers aren't really deniers; they know what is going on and the cause but it is in their interest to foist their viewpoint for political or other reasons. Secondly, there is a whole underbelly of large business that is figuring out ways to exploit the results of climate change for their own benefit - be it oil exploration in previously iced over seas or land speculation or what have you.
I don't think people really understand how bad it is going to get if, lets say, we end up and 1/2 or 3/4 of the way to worst scenarios. Not even all the way there. Bad, really bad is the best way to put it. It'll be like WWII playing every day in the same theater (Earth) for a hundred years (or more).
Many of the results are very calculable, mathematical, and yes predictable based on how we live, where we live and what we have historically needed to survive. These climate scientists and other related scientists don't wake up every day and say, "Hey how can I bamboozle the world with my far out scenarios".
They live, breath and eat their work every waking hour.
The reason is very simple: Scientists, by and large, all understand that the Earth doesn't need us and that it will take very little to make us all go away. At least in our present lifestyle. That's a cold sobering reality. No pun intended.
That's why you've never read a comment after one of these articles by a climate scientist who says it's baloney.
I don't think people really understand how bad it is going to get if, lets say, we end up and 1/2 or 3/4 of the way to worst scenarios. Not even all the way there. Bad, really bad is the best way to put it. It'll be like WWII playing every day in the same theater (Earth) for a hundred years (or more).
Many of the results are very calculable, mathematical, and yes predictable based on how we live, where we live and what we have historically needed to survive. These climate scientists and other related scientists don't wake up every day and say, "Hey how can I bamboozle the world with my far out scenarios".
They live, breath and eat their work every waking hour.
The reason is very simple: Scientists, by and large, all understand that the Earth doesn't need us and that it will take very little to make us all go away. At least in our present lifestyle. That's a cold sobering reality. No pun intended.
That's why you've never read a comment after one of these articles by a climate scientist who says it's baloney.
20
The abandonment of traditional ground level temperature measurements which date back to the invention of the thermometer, in exchange for satellite readings of recent vintage, 1983(?) has created chaos and uncertainty when it comes to establishing continuity.
Even worse, the correlation between CO2 levels and warming is even more tenuous, esp. when there is only one point at Mauna Loa; and even that one is relatively recent. It shows a straight line going upward, a perfect regression, most unnatural science indeed!
Meanwhile temps are going all over the map, in specific regions.....I'm expecting 10 below tonight andd 35 on Sunday. Europe is freezing despite exceeding their CO2 targets. The only correlation between CO2 levels is theoretical.
I suspect this is deliberate; almost like the hockey stick scandal of omitted data. The media are well into weather hysteria, giving every storm a name, and competing for the the worse disaster scenario description and cherry-picking 'scientific' opinion to buttress their case for droughts, flooding, pestilence, human conflict, ad nauseaum.
One example, Portland Head Light (ME) has been measuring the rise in ocean levels since the mid-1800's. Despite a continuous rise of about 11 mm annually since the last ice age and a prediction of only 7-12" for the next 100 years, the media choose to report speculative models which predict rises of several feet or more.
This isn't science, but fear mongering embellished with guilt!
Even worse, the correlation between CO2 levels and warming is even more tenuous, esp. when there is only one point at Mauna Loa; and even that one is relatively recent. It shows a straight line going upward, a perfect regression, most unnatural science indeed!
Meanwhile temps are going all over the map, in specific regions.....I'm expecting 10 below tonight andd 35 on Sunday. Europe is freezing despite exceeding their CO2 targets. The only correlation between CO2 levels is theoretical.
I suspect this is deliberate; almost like the hockey stick scandal of omitted data. The media are well into weather hysteria, giving every storm a name, and competing for the the worse disaster scenario description and cherry-picking 'scientific' opinion to buttress their case for droughts, flooding, pestilence, human conflict, ad nauseaum.
One example, Portland Head Light (ME) has been measuring the rise in ocean levels since the mid-1800's. Despite a continuous rise of about 11 mm annually since the last ice age and a prediction of only 7-12" for the next 100 years, the media choose to report speculative models which predict rises of several feet or more.
This isn't science, but fear mongering embellished with guilt!
13
What you say about the Mauna Loa record is quite simply false.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I'm writing this about 30 miles from that observatory, and I was physically there at its (not so grand) opening back in the fifties. Of course where I am and whether I was there or not make not the slightest difference in the readings, which stand by themselves.
I'm afraid that any careful look at the measurements and those talking and writing about them will show very clearly who's "cherry picking" and who's not. And it's not the global warming crowd.
Do you mind sourcing your Portland Head data? I'd like to have a look at it. Typically I search for those things myself, but lately I've been asking denialists who post "examples" to cite those examples. Not a one of them has done so. Perhaps you'll be the first.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I'm writing this about 30 miles from that observatory, and I was physically there at its (not so grand) opening back in the fifties. Of course where I am and whether I was there or not make not the slightest difference in the readings, which stand by themselves.
I'm afraid that any careful look at the measurements and those talking and writing about them will show very clearly who's "cherry picking" and who's not. And it's not the global warming crowd.
Do you mind sourcing your Portland Head data? I'd like to have a look at it. Typically I search for those things myself, but lately I've been asking denialists who post "examples" to cite those examples. Not a one of them has done so. Perhaps you'll be the first.
10
You have significant fallacies.
CO2 concentration in the air has been measured in many locations.
Mauna Loa and Antarctica were chosen to be far away from industrial sources of CO2. Mauna Loa CO2 is not a straight line, but instead has about a 6 ppm cycle each year because of plants in the Northern Hemisphere growing, taking up CO2 in the Spring, then dying back and releasing CO2 in the Fall.
CO2 absorbs infrared...this has been known and measured for decades. Increasing CO2 in the air by 40% since pre-industrial times could well be expected in increase infrared absorption in the air, heating the air.
CO2 concentration in the air has been measured in many locations.
Mauna Loa and Antarctica were chosen to be far away from industrial sources of CO2. Mauna Loa CO2 is not a straight line, but instead has about a 6 ppm cycle each year because of plants in the Northern Hemisphere growing, taking up CO2 in the Spring, then dying back and releasing CO2 in the Fall.
CO2 absorbs infrared...this has been known and measured for decades. Increasing CO2 in the air by 40% since pre-industrial times could well be expected in increase infrared absorption in the air, heating the air.
1
To the climate change deniers, I would simply ask them this:
Let's say you find yourself having shortness of breath one day. It's been happening for a few months. Finally you decide to go to the hospital. The doctor says, "You need open-heart surgery. If you don't have it, you're going to die." You insist on a 2nd opinion. The next doctor says the same thing. And the one after. And the one after that. You then go on a mission to visit 1000 of the best cardiologists in the entire world. All but 3 tell you the exact same thing: "You need open-heart surgery, or you're going to die."
Would you believe them? Or would you insist that it's all a hoax perpetrated by scientists who want to get their names published in medical journals or by Al Gore so, he can up make money on his surgical supplies stock?
Let's say you find yourself having shortness of breath one day. It's been happening for a few months. Finally you decide to go to the hospital. The doctor says, "You need open-heart surgery. If you don't have it, you're going to die." You insist on a 2nd opinion. The next doctor says the same thing. And the one after. And the one after that. You then go on a mission to visit 1000 of the best cardiologists in the entire world. All but 3 tell you the exact same thing: "You need open-heart surgery, or you're going to die."
Would you believe them? Or would you insist that it's all a hoax perpetrated by scientists who want to get their names published in medical journals or by Al Gore so, he can up make money on his surgical supplies stock?
20
I believe the state of knowledge in cardiology is much more concrete than the so called "settled science" of climate change. The hottest year on earth? Yeah but only the last 150 years and by 0.02 degrees. A drop in the bucket of time. I seriously doubt it was the hottest year on ever. What a bunch of nothing.
2
Except that your analogy isn't analogous. To make it so, lets assume that the disease that is killing your heart is unknown. Lets say you're the first person to ever have the disease. Would it then be wise to say "you need open heart surgery or you're going to die" when it's not even certain if the disease is or can be terminal? Is it wise to make such a suggestion when all that is known of the disease is what has already happened? Would it be wise to make such a suggestion when every doctor that takes a look gives you a new prediction, which fails to explain the past behavior - and most are shown to be invalid for the future behavior ex post facto?
Just a year ago "scientists" were battling with "deniers" over the importance of volcanoes. The deniers make a claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the humans, and the scientists say "no they don't! The amount of CO2 that volcanoes produce is insignificant! Volcanoes are irrelevant!" however, as of just a couple days ago now the scientists are saying "volcanoes aren't irrelevant! In fact, they explain why the models haven't predicted the 18 year cooling period!".
I'm not saying that man isn't responsible for a perceived "warming" .. I'm saying you should question everything. Back in the 70s and 80s there were alarmists going the opposite direction - warning us of "global cooling" and that an ice age was about to happen. They still have no clue what they're doing, or how to do it. That's what I'm saying.
Just a year ago "scientists" were battling with "deniers" over the importance of volcanoes. The deniers make a claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the humans, and the scientists say "no they don't! The amount of CO2 that volcanoes produce is insignificant! Volcanoes are irrelevant!" however, as of just a couple days ago now the scientists are saying "volcanoes aren't irrelevant! In fact, they explain why the models haven't predicted the 18 year cooling period!".
I'm not saying that man isn't responsible for a perceived "warming" .. I'm saying you should question everything. Back in the 70s and 80s there were alarmists going the opposite direction - warning us of "global cooling" and that an ice age was about to happen. They still have no clue what they're doing, or how to do it. That's what I'm saying.
1
So, Robert, if your straw man has open heart surgery he won't die? Ever? Besides that, if he had the time to visit a thousand cardiologists, his shortness of breath must not have been too serious.
This story is floating around in various disguises, and they are all silly.
This story is floating around in various disguises, and they are all silly.
1
Liberals always have a cause of the day, which will cost those of us who actually work, produce a product or service, and pay big taxes a whole lot more money. For the foreseeable future their big spending cause will be global warming, or "climate change" as they have renamed it (much as they have renamed themselves as "progressives" to appeal to the common man). Do some research. It will show you that the globe has warmed, cooled, gotten extremely hot, and gotten extremely cold on a periodic basis. It takes years, centuries, and millenium to happen. Less than 200 years of recorded data are hardly proof of a baking planet in our future.
13
If you do some research, which you clearly have not, you would learn that the climate's cycles are far slower than what we've been witnessing this century, that the cycles are right now COOLING the earth, and that the greenhouse effect is warmuing it.
11
"Do some research." OK -- I looked up the Royal Society, the oldest science society on Earth (Newton, Darwin). And here's what they say:
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
Here's the largest science society on Earth:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/hear-from-scientists/
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
Here's the largest science society on Earth:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/hear-from-scientists/
6
"Do some research."
Sound advice. And one of the best places to start that research would be at NASA's Global Climate Change site.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Sound advice. And one of the best places to start that research would be at NASA's Global Climate Change site.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
5
Perhaps not germane, but can someone tell me where all this CO2 came from? I know, fossil fuels, but presumably at one time this was all in the atmosphere? Right? Are we going back to the Permian Extinction times?
1
Correct, this CO2 used to be in our atmosphere (the Earth was much warmer then, and its atmosphere would have been toxic to modern animal life) and was slowly converted through photosynthesis into oxygen and biomass. This biomass, long since buried over millions of years, also represents millions of years of our Sun's energy output. The massive burning of fossil fuels (the ancient remnants of the aforementioned biomass) has re-released this long sequestered CO2 in exchange for ancient stored solar energy.
9
Well, we humans don't have an alternative planet to escape to yet. What if scientists are correct? Earth will become inhabitable just like Venus is today when CO2 blankets Earth and trap more heat under it. All the melted glacier won't be able to reflect any solar heat off Earth, which will cause more melting glacier. This positive feedback loop is happening as we speak. We are in for an inferno. I am not optimistic at all.
5
The backlash against climate science will continue unabated with specious arguments. There could be alligators in the arctic next week and the “skeptics” can only proffer the “I am not a scientist” gambit with zero evidence of the climate being stable. I suppose climate deniers will continue to use the “Donald Trump scale”…if his hair is frozen in place, there is no global warming.
7
It is the height of human hubris to assume we know anything from a 120 year dataset and a 20 year trend (which in itself is highly suspect).
At least the times is achieving its aim of laying the groundwork for its political aims. Sure as shootin, after the predetermined amount of prep work by his shills, Obama will announce some horrendously expensive and ill thought out plan. Most likely cobbled together by 10,000 corporate lobbyists, al la Obamacare.
At least the times is achieving its aim of laying the groundwork for its political aims. Sure as shootin, after the predetermined amount of prep work by his shills, Obama will announce some horrendously expensive and ill thought out plan. Most likely cobbled together by 10,000 corporate lobbyists, al la Obamacare.
11
A 120 year dataset of direct observations. A 2000 year dataset ofevents recorded by chroniclers. A 50,000 year dataset of tree rings, pollen layers, ice cores and other data.
And experiments that proved 150 years ago that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
And experiments that proved 150 years ago that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
9
When Earth is an oven, who cares about Obamacare or any amount of cash?
8
This is the problem in a nutshell. No one is saying this is a dataset of 120 years. No one. We have ice cores, vegetation samples, not to mention geological data going back thousands of years. And most of the data is available on-line.
I challenge you to go and find as much data you can, then start start talking about datasets.
I challenge you to go and find as much data you can, then start start talking about datasets.
3
Towns have been running out of water throughout history. CA is actually above its historical average rainfall. The problem isn't the weather/climate--it's the people consuming resources. Time to build desalination plants in CA, TX, and NY and stop worrying about hundredths of a degree increase in temperatures.
4
The bit about California rainfall is either dopey or a flat-out lie, as your remark calling for desalination plants demonstrates rather well.
5
Since 1880? So, isn't it more precise to say 2013 is the warmest recorded year in the last 134 recorded years? Granted it is clearly not as dramatic as saying "in all of recorded human history", but certainly more accurate (and precise).
8
Try reading the headline. "2014 was Hottest Year on RECORD......"
12
Global change denialism, among other things, makes me feel quite misanthropic, but not as much so as it does some of the commenters below who say good riddance to our species. We humans may be tragically foolish, but we are one of the great glories of this universe. Something as amazing as the human brain will not likely come again before the end of the sun, and perhaps (given lack of evidence for intelligent life elsewhere) before the end of the universe. How about a little compassion for we humans, after all merely animals ourselves, who were by evolution formed to be so sadly short-sighted, and so over-focused on the immediate gain, as well as so tribalistic, and unable to weigh evidence fairly when it challenges our sense of identity. May our strengths triumph over our flaws.
6
This is true enough. And I think it's part of the reason why those of us who care about the future of our species, and of our home planet, not be timid, not be cowed into submission, not be afraid to speak out against narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and preposterous fairytales that reduce human beings to servants of an otherworldly deity who will put things aright at the End of Time.
We have to perpetuate the battles of the Enlightenment. Mankind doesn't magically progressively improve, either morally or intellectually, with the passage of time. The grounds for battle staked out by the Radical Enlightenment figures are still visible today, and they always will be. The war against our nature, against our instincts, our stupidity and our folly, that war goes on. We shouldn't content ourselves with analytical objectivity and detachment ("woe is us, poor humans that we are"); we can't be neutral on a moving train. If we care about the future, and if we believe that truth matters, then we have an obligation to help enlighten people.
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world..."
Okay, no Marx. But really...
We have to perpetuate the battles of the Enlightenment. Mankind doesn't magically progressively improve, either morally or intellectually, with the passage of time. The grounds for battle staked out by the Radical Enlightenment figures are still visible today, and they always will be. The war against our nature, against our instincts, our stupidity and our folly, that war goes on. We shouldn't content ourselves with analytical objectivity and detachment ("woe is us, poor humans that we are"); we can't be neutral on a moving train. If we care about the future, and if we believe that truth matters, then we have an obligation to help enlighten people.
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world..."
Okay, no Marx. But really...
1
Don't confuse global warming deniers with numbers and science. They become testy.
12
This comment from Fresno, where people choose to live in a semi-desert environment and use water from the far away mountains to water their lawns.
4
I wasn't looking for anyone to illustrate my point, but thanks, Paul.
7
Still agnostic. From what this reports, it is roughly 2 deg. warmer than the coldest year in the last 130 years (if I'm reading it right, the EERST seems even less). Isn't it a question that temperature taking was not as exact 100 years ago or 50 years ago as it is now (I'm always reading about improvements), that volcanoes have an effect on temperatures that is really hard to measure, that the temperature has always gone up or down? These all seem like reasonable questions to me. I read both sides on this as much as I can stand (or understand) and it usually ends up looking more than a little political.
10
Green house gases act as a blanket to keep heat in. If the same amount of energy comes in from the sun and less leaves the earth as infrared irradiation; something has to happen with the extra energy - and it is pretty hard to be agnostic about that.
10
W.A. Spitzer: Aqre you ready, willing and able to give up the use of your automobile, and the heating oil or natural gas which heats your home? Until you are, your high minded politically correct comments carry a hypocritical tone, at best.
3
Duh, the earth is not a greenhouse, much more complicated than that. Why do you think it has not warmed up appreciatively over the last 15 years although their models said it should. Shallow thinking by you and many scientist.
2
If you are driving your car and suddenly the heater runs cold, certainly that means the average temperature of the car has dropped. Right?
Probably wrong. Most often, it means you have suffered a catastrophic coolant loss from busted hose or split radiator seam. The engine will overheat in short order, even as you shiver in the driver's seat. If you see steam rising from the hood, smell anti-freeze, and the gauge heads toward "H", you can be more certain you've lost coolant.
At this point you have a choice: ignore the accumulating evidence and press ahead, or realize that an engine running without coolant won't be running much longer.
There's a third option: I could hand the wheel over to Professor Christy and his cohorts, settle into the back seat, and sleep away the rest of the trip, as short as it might be.
Probably wrong. Most often, it means you have suffered a catastrophic coolant loss from busted hose or split radiator seam. The engine will overheat in short order, even as you shiver in the driver's seat. If you see steam rising from the hood, smell anti-freeze, and the gauge heads toward "H", you can be more certain you've lost coolant.
At this point you have a choice: ignore the accumulating evidence and press ahead, or realize that an engine running without coolant won't be running much longer.
There's a third option: I could hand the wheel over to Professor Christy and his cohorts, settle into the back seat, and sleep away the rest of the trip, as short as it might be.
9
There is debate in the climate change scientific community, and that is good. It's generally reasoned, and based on evidence and alternate hypotheses. This is good. But weigh the risks of ignoring climate change (drought, rising sea levels, mass migrations, war etc. as communities moved and resources an food dwindle) against the risks on moving to a renewable energy economy (large changed in capital allocation, job training, and other social systems) and you immediately see the politics. The former benefits the elite, who own that which wold be affected, and the former benefits the middle and poverty classes - who don't get to starve.
3
This is the reality that the right refuses to believe because their dollar support comes from big oil and they are beholden to big oil. So the right convinced all conservatives (whatever that means anymore, basically amoral and monetized) and enlisted the religious right including conservative Catholics. So scientific facts and an intelligent and moral man, Pope Francis, show that the earth heating is real and really destructive. Now Catholics are called upon to stand for and do what they can to stop climate change. So the faux Catholic politicians and supreme court justices need to face they can't serve man (that is the oil industry) and God (in preserving the earth). A choice must be made. Big money, big oil can't bear to see their fossil fuel cash cow taken down. Remember GM mutilating the EV1, the first and efficient electric car. Big oil convinced them, threatened them, and they killed it. Just like big oil killed everything and everyone who was a moral humanist.
9
Okay, I get it all climate change doubters have been bought off by the oil companies. Life is simple for you isn't, don't question the dogma just believe what they tell you and everything is fine.
3
If altering climate destabilization would result in lower taxes, higher business profits and the perception of less government interference, would that change the minds of climate change deniers?
3
I think it's called weather. It's funny when it's record cold, the excuse is always "Weather and temperature, are two different things" They can't seem to make up they're minds. Volcano's are now the latest reason for the huge polar cap gains. It's getting ridicules.
2
When it's record cold FOR A DAY, IN ONE PLACE, it's weather.
When it's record hot, for the whole planet, for a whole year, it's climate.
When it's record hot, for the whole planet, for a whole year, it's climate.
10
This is such an awesome comment, it should be on a Tshirt.
It really is getting ridicules.
It really is getting ridicules.
3
Weather is short term, while climate is long term. We are talking about long term effects. Volcano CO2 emission is slightly heavier than greenhouse CO2 emission so scientists have measured what kind of CO2 are trapping us in and it's not due to volcano eruptions.
2
The graph attached to the article does show a kind of plateau since 1998. Not sure what that means, but 2014 did indeed go a little above that plateau level.
One would think with something as important as the future of the planet at stake, people might be a little more open to more rigorous debate and question.
After all, it's not just the "deniers" that might be interpreting the data incorrectly. If skeptics are all dismissed, who's going to challenge those who seem to have an emotional (versus impartial and scientific) interest in climate change?
Defending a position is not the same as having a sound position. It just means that a battle is being waged.
After all, it's not just the "deniers" that might be interpreting the data incorrectly. If skeptics are all dismissed, who's going to challenge those who seem to have an emotional (versus impartial and scientific) interest in climate change?
Defending a position is not the same as having a sound position. It just means that a battle is being waged.
4
Which deniers, or in your euphemism, "skeptics", are actually trained scientists? Are there any actual climate scientists with respectable publication records who don't agree with the consensus? Who have made statistically verifiable counter points that are rigorous enough to be academically published?
Because random people claiming all the scientists are wrong is not any skepticism I or anyone else should care about. There's skeptics who think 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, that Newtown was a hoax by gun activists, and that the Moon landing was faked.
Am I to take their skepticism seriously simply because it exists?
Because random people claiming all the scientists are wrong is not any skepticism I or anyone else should care about. There's skeptics who think 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, that Newtown was a hoax by gun activists, and that the Moon landing was faked.
Am I to take their skepticism seriously simply because it exists?
2
The logic behind the science of global warming is essentially irrefutable. Citing annual temperature as evidence of warming, however, is hardly a consensus view. Having relatives and friends who are reporters, I am well aware that they each has a collection of expert contacts whose views are well known. Mr. Gillis quotes three scientists, and references several others, who state that weather is indeed evidence of warming. He cites only one who is a non-believer and who he undermines by stating his bias. If this were an article about climate science, the use of sources would be fair. But because it is about weather, it is unduly biased in favor of Mr. Gillis's personal views.
1
" He cites only one who is a non-believer and who he undermines by stating his bias"....Give the man credit. It is really hard to find a scientist who is a nonbeliever. Truth is that citing one against and only three for, is way out of line with real numbers.
6
No Spitz. When it comes to climate, you're right. But, as to weather. 3 plus several versus 1 who is allegedly biased, is not representative of the division in the scientific community, where most regularly warn that a single year's weather is insignificant.
2
It appears that "progressives" have a very difficult time distinguishing political science from real science. I'll help out a little, climate science as it exists today is political science. Hope that helps.
6
You have just politicized real science. Hope that helps.
18
"Ever recorded" is a lot different than "ever in human history" or "ever since the earth was formed".
5
Not quite as great a difference as you might think. There are many proxies for temperature in the hydrological and geological record -- things like isotope ratios in water and air samples (for instance, trapped in pores in antarctic ice) that are sensitive to ambient temperature, and these allow one to infer temperature and climate far into the past, long before the existence of humans. Of course, some proxies are less certain than others, but if one takes the systematic and random errors into account carefully, one can reconstruct reasonable global temperature records spanning millions of years.
4
It's almost as we have been set up--a cruel joke--for our very nature to multiply, to ease, to secure, to comfort, to store...led to our burning to stay warm, our wheels, our paving, our mining, our building, our engines...how could we have predicted this and turned the ship around? All the cool stuff we made seemed so good at the time. Can we turn the ship around now? Is it too late? Maybe now is the most important evolutionary step, the true test of an advanced species. Can we work together globally to reverse this warming? Ironically, can we become more like the animals, more a part of these ecosystems, than rulers of them?
2
It is not too late. But time is running out.
2
After reading many of the comments, I think the thing that alienates many people is the arrogance and hypocrisy of the global warmists, plus their blind faith in government reports. Many (if not all) of you are not scientists and the last time I checked, the government (conservatives, moderates and liberals)has been known to force agendas.
My other question would be: exactly what and whom are we saving the planet for? For humanity to continue to consume and deplete resources? So you can personally satisfy Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Like Carlin said "Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: It wanted plastic for itself"
I personally believe man-influenced global warming exists, but indicting one particular group and thinking that you can stop climate change through insults and intimidation, is laughable. But I'll kick back with a high ABV% craft beer, eat some dolphin-safe tuna (I do have a heart) and let you self-important egotists save the planet. Keep me updated on your progress...see ya in 100-years!!
My other question would be: exactly what and whom are we saving the planet for? For humanity to continue to consume and deplete resources? So you can personally satisfy Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Like Carlin said "Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: It wanted plastic for itself"
I personally believe man-influenced global warming exists, but indicting one particular group and thinking that you can stop climate change through insults and intimidation, is laughable. But I'll kick back with a high ABV% craft beer, eat some dolphin-safe tuna (I do have a heart) and let you self-important egotists save the planet. Keep me updated on your progress...see ya in 100-years!!
4
Saving it for the other species. Humans, not so much, frankly. We're no good on it.
2
"After reading many of the comments, I think the thing that alienates many people is the arrogance and hypocrisy of the global warmists, plus their blind faith in government reports"
Before calling people "arrogant," don't arrogantly make strawman accusations. The evidence for global warming has been accumulating continuously for over 150 years, starting with John Tyndall in 1864.
John Tyndall did not work for the government.
His successors have worked for our government, for other governments, for no government, and for themselves. The same scientists who published this report on 2014 were in the same jobs during the Bush years, and said the same things even though they would have had an easier time denying the issue.
Before making accusations of arrogance, fix your ignorance.
Before calling people "arrogant," don't arrogantly make strawman accusations. The evidence for global warming has been accumulating continuously for over 150 years, starting with John Tyndall in 1864.
John Tyndall did not work for the government.
His successors have worked for our government, for other governments, for no government, and for themselves. The same scientists who published this report on 2014 were in the same jobs during the Bush years, and said the same things even though they would have had an easier time denying the issue.
Before making accusations of arrogance, fix your ignorance.
19
My faith is with scientists, not necessarily government. They are the experts and I trust them (current status is 97%). It is possible that consensus among scientists is wrong, but it would take experts to refute experts. Much more often than not, the experts are correct.
Also the actions you take depend on what side of risk you are willing to take. For example, if driving at 100 mph increases the chance of me being killed in accident by 100% but ensure that I will not be late, I'd rather take the chance to be late rather than being killed.
Also the actions you take depend on what side of risk you are willing to take. For example, if driving at 100 mph increases the chance of me being killed in accident by 100% but ensure that I will not be late, I'd rather take the chance to be late rather than being killed.
3
All you (IRONY ALERT) climate change alarmists need to understand that this world belongs to the Koch brothers. The rest of us are mere afterthoughts in their master plan for global domination from beyond the grave. There can be no authentic liberty without a liberty to drown or die in otherwise horrible fashion as a result of a once preventable ecological catastrophe. The interests of the many matter not one whit. The interest of The Two, and of their brethren in the 1/10 of 1%, are all that truly matter.
We live for the Kochs, and we must be willing to die for them.
We live for the Kochs, and we must be willing to die for them.
9
I think you have to include China in the evil villain category along with the arch villain Koch brothers and their diabolical plan to destroy the earth.
3
Climate change proponents sound an awful lot like angry leftists the way they rage against republicans, Koch Bros. and FoxNews. Is there a difference?
5
Honda has had and Toyota now has hydrogen powered vehicles for sale. Hydrogen can be extracted from oil cheaper than water. Oil might be part of the answer.
No point in denying any further the reality which is upon us already. Will we humans make the necessary choices? Nature will, as Nature does and has done since The Very Beginning. If necessary, Nature may even decide it can do without humans....
4
It seems as though most people are convinced that we have released gasses and smog into the air in turn causing global warming, when in reality the real issue is the pollution and alteration of oceanic ecosystems that have affected one another in a domino-like effect. The real issue here is the oceans, the environmental powerhouse that sustains everything that we call home.
2
They are not contrarians. They are deniers. Call them what they are. Some are ignorant, some are crazy. And the rest are motivated by greed, set to obfuscate the issue on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Very same people who worked for Big Tobacco to cloud the issues there.
29
The overwhelming bounty of more food from more agriculture land due to this favorable climate change is beyond wonderful for the world's poor and malnourished. Anthropogenic global warming yields this unintended consequence. It is obviously for the greater human good! Hooray for this great news.
4
Unless, of course, you live in an area that will soon be a desert.
4
Actually, warming has not been good for farm country in the slightest.
3
Just don't expect more food from California, large parts of Europe, Asia and Africa. I know you in Tuscon are dumping Colorado River water into the desert to charge the groundwater (rather than let Mexicans get it), but don't expect that to last forever. At some point when you poach a frog in a pot of gradually heated water, the frog finds it pretty comfortable, but it doesn't stay that way.
4
It is probably too late. Human life will probably continue, but with much less comfort and prosperity than we now enjoy. Even so, It is good to remember this debate and who said what. These data, like CO2 concentrations, will not be lost and are likely to be available to all. The disparities between the haves and have-nots will diminish, as we all go down. And memory and history will be available to all - linkages and data will be cheaper than air-conditioning and water.
The graves of the deniers will be dishonored by their great-grandchildren - if they have great-grandchildren and marked graves.
The graves of the deniers will be dishonored by their great-grandchildren - if they have great-grandchildren and marked graves.
9
"The disparities between the haves and have-nots will diminish, as we all go down."
Won't the rich be the ones who can afford the expensive food? And be able to move out of the flooded coastal areas? And move away from the polluted lands and rivers? And build the protected communities when scarcity makes people desperate?
Won't the rich be the ones who can afford the expensive food? And be able to move out of the flooded coastal areas? And move away from the polluted lands and rivers? And build the protected communities when scarcity makes people desperate?
1
As a kid I watched the show Captain Planet and I always found it ridiculous that the show's villains polluted for the sake of ruining the planet, not as a byproduct of any greater scheme for power or profit. Now I see conservatives denying science, "rolling coal" in front of Priuses, and essentially giving the planet the middle finger. Perhaps Saturday morning cartoons are not so far-fetched.
5
And yet, here in the Northeast, we had the coldest winter in decades and are on track for another one.
5
And Alaska has experienced one of the hottest on record, so what's your point?
12
Thanks Delving Eye. You may want to delve into what is going on in other parts of the world, unless you are seriously advancing the argument that the warming trend doesn't exist as long as 1 point on the Earth is colder than at some point in the past.
5
Delving Eye, you are confusing climate with weather.
2
This conspiracy supporting the global warming hoax is just getting way out of hand. Now, even the thermometers are in on it!
11
We who understand the reality of global warming feel sorry for you...
3
Ken, I think (hope) Ed was being facetious
3
Concrete thought right there in your camp, who could have predicted that?
1
To prove "global warming" you need to show a direct relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature. Just stating that it was warm yesterday or last year doesn't do it. There is considerable data that shows no relationship between the two over more than a thousand years.
5
Sounds like you have a great topic for your first scientific paper. Write it up and submit it to any of scores of journals what would love this scoop!
4
Yes. I agree that Sean Hannity has supplied us with considerable data to support his theory that C02 emissions and global warming are in no way connected.
4
The EPA disagrees as do many other scientists who have actually considered question. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-na...
You might want to actually do a minimal google search before making statements like that. I've given you one credible source. Where are yours?
You might want to actually do a minimal google search before making statements like that. I've given you one credible source. Where are yours?
2
Here are scientists who disagree!!!!
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling datasets. Surface temperature records and satellite records and they disagree. The satellites were set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’
The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months.
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record.
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.”
“Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.”
Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling datasets. Surface temperature records and satellite records and they disagree. The satellites were set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’
The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months.
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record.
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.”
“Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.”
Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims.
8
Then there is the most prominent client scientist of all (Sean Hannity) who has conclusively proven that climate change is just a hoax perpetrated by the other 97% of the world's prominent climate scientists. But Sean Hannity is the only prominent client scientist who is also a marshal arts expert so he must be right!
2
Heaping scorn on those who disagree is not the same as disproving their claims. Of course, no claims can be proven; hence, the resorting to other means to try to win the debate.
2
Oh yes, that well-known scientist Marc Morano...who has a B.A. in political science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
2
Ok so we all agree now about climate change. So lets start doing something about it instead of using it as a political card.
How do we get to work?
How do we fly to our vacations. I want to go to Italy. .. and now Cuba.
How do I get there?
I want t take a hot shower every day. How do I heat my water. I also like my food hot. What do I cook with?
We all like our smart phones and computers, how do we run them?
How do we heat inner city schools that have old HVAC systems.
Do we install new systems first or supply computers and new books?
How do we print those new books.
All the new poor people that health care now...how do we provide the power to run those new health centers and produce all the new medical equipment we need now.
What powers the factories and transportation to get the smart phone into my hands.
Now multiply that by the number of people that need all this stuff.
Where do we get all of this energy?
Really.
Don't hang up on me, tell me.
Please.
How do we get to work?
How do we fly to our vacations. I want to go to Italy. .. and now Cuba.
How do I get there?
I want t take a hot shower every day. How do I heat my water. I also like my food hot. What do I cook with?
We all like our smart phones and computers, how do we run them?
How do we heat inner city schools that have old HVAC systems.
Do we install new systems first or supply computers and new books?
How do we print those new books.
All the new poor people that health care now...how do we provide the power to run those new health centers and produce all the new medical equipment we need now.
What powers the factories and transportation to get the smart phone into my hands.
Now multiply that by the number of people that need all this stuff.
Where do we get all of this energy?
Really.
Don't hang up on me, tell me.
Please.
3
We stop letting the corporations that make money off coal, oil and natural run the government and start funding the development, implementation and proper disposal of wind, solar and nuclear, and over the next 10-20 years we will be on a different path. I would love to see solar on all our roofs; we can do that, and it will be financial affordable.
7
There is no shortage of ideas to provide economic incentives to reduce CO2 emissions but given the huge redirection of resources required to do so there is no way to avoid the politics. Those who have a vested interest in the status quo will continue to deny, obfuscate and lie to maintain their economic advantage regardless of the impact on all of us. The only thing that can possibly change this is a major crisis that will convince enough of the citizenry to get off their lazy butts and elect representatives who will actually do something about it.
Unfortunately even having agreement among the majority of the populace doesn't guarantee success. Witness the lack of any significant gun control legislation following Sandy Hook when more than 90% of us agreed that at least some kind of improvements in background investigations would be a good thing to do. Given the Citizens United decision it is not likely that even a popular consensus will actually make a difference. As long as corporations are considered citizens and money is treated as speech "we the people" has little meaning.
Unfortunately even having agreement among the majority of the populace doesn't guarantee success. Witness the lack of any significant gun control legislation following Sandy Hook when more than 90% of us agreed that at least some kind of improvements in background investigations would be a good thing to do. Given the Citizens United decision it is not likely that even a popular consensus will actually make a difference. As long as corporations are considered citizens and money is treated as speech "we the people" has little meaning.
1
No problem, Joe. The earth can probably provide all the things you are asking for, but only for about a billion people. The coming catastrophe will not be a pretty picture from the human point of view, but the earth will work that all out, with no regret.
Our ruling and governing classes both know full well that the scientific community are correct.
13
I've found as their last defense against global warming, Republicans ace in the hole is claiming that Al Gore and Tom Steyer make money on it. I guess only bad ideas should make a profit according to these capitalists.
6
I don't think it's that they make money on it, it's their blatant hypocrisy--like Al Gore's mansion with a utility bill that was about 20 times higher than the average home. Or the fact that he sold his TV network to Al Jazeera, which is funded in large part by fossil fuels.
Pollution for me but not for thee.
Pollution for me but not for thee.
3
As a climate scientist, I am entirely skeptical of human ability to fix the climate problem. pah!
6
FACT: Global Sea Ice is at a record high...That was on December 30th. One can only assume in the dead of winter that there is even more ice now. So how can this be the warmest year ever, yet there is record ice...
4
FACT: when LAND ice melts and slides into the sea, that results in a whole lot more SEA ice.
3
Because everywhere else on the planet had record heat. We're talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE. Try to keep up.
9
That's Antarctic sea ice. The effect arises from lack in uniformity in warming.
More at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ic...
More at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ic...
2
>
"It is hard for man to work steadfastly", says Ernest Becker, "when his work can mean no more than the digestive noises, wind-breakings, and cries of the dinosaurs--noises now silenced forever." As [Freud] confessed 'the spectre of the dinosaurs still haunts man and will always haunt him.’
"It is hard for man to work steadfastly", says Ernest Becker, "when his work can mean no more than the digestive noises, wind-breakings, and cries of the dinosaurs--noises now silenced forever." As [Freud] confessed 'the spectre of the dinosaurs still haunts man and will always haunt him.’
3
When news outlets report temperature “records”, they ought to note that these are based on a history of temperature observations that have been statistically adjusted. Otherwise, these news stories imply a level of scientific certainty that does not exist.
The methods we use to observe temperature have vastly improved since 1880. It is reasonable for scientists to statistically jigger the history of observed temperatures with statistical models so they can approximate a seamless record of temperatures. However, the amount of knowledge that we have about how earth’s climate works is small. Thus, it is also reasonable to assume that scientists’ models about climate history have flaws and maybe serious flaws.
With only 134 years of raw temperature observations that can only be compared using uncertain computer models, it is doubtful we know enough about earth’s climate variations to predict the future of climate change. This is not to doubt the honesty or competence of our scientific community. It is just that they are not any better at predicting the future than the rest of us.
The methods we use to observe temperature have vastly improved since 1880. It is reasonable for scientists to statistically jigger the history of observed temperatures with statistical models so they can approximate a seamless record of temperatures. However, the amount of knowledge that we have about how earth’s climate works is small. Thus, it is also reasonable to assume that scientists’ models about climate history have flaws and maybe serious flaws.
With only 134 years of raw temperature observations that can only be compared using uncertain computer models, it is doubtful we know enough about earth’s climate variations to predict the future of climate change. This is not to doubt the honesty or competence of our scientific community. It is just that they are not any better at predicting the future than the rest of us.
3
Remembering that in the last 30 years every month without exception has been above average, would you like to bet $10,000 that next month will be above average? I have a feeling that you would turn down that bet since we both can PREDICT what the future will be.
1
I guess in getting whipped around lately by the "pause" and the satellite data, they have to construe the surface temps to their bias. Map only goes from 1950 up for instance. The article fails to mention satellite data is lower. And further, it's arguing over a .01C at best for "hottest" year.
And frankly, if the hottest differences are in the Bering Sea, I'm sure the crab fisherman will appreciate it being ever so slightly, but unnoticeably warmer for a year.
The reality is that the season's aren't going to change.
And frankly, if the hottest differences are in the Bering Sea, I'm sure the crab fisherman will appreciate it being ever so slightly, but unnoticeably warmer for a year.
The reality is that the season's aren't going to change.
4
The seasons already have changed. The tradition of pond hockey in Massachusetts is dead since the ponds don't freeze long enough. The milder winters mean lots more invasive insects are surviving to chew up the forests, a big problem in my town now.
2
We routinely would have a killing frost in the first week of September (Fair Season). No real frost this year until late October. Don't try ice fishing in Vermont this year, you drown!
1
This is the only planet our grandchildren will have to live on.
Let's start taking serious steps to mitigate the dangers of global warming.
More on my blogs:
Barley Literate
History: Bottom Lines
Let's start taking serious steps to mitigate the dangers of global warming.
More on my blogs:
Barley Literate
History: Bottom Lines
1
Dear New York Times,
December, 2014 our major local newspaper published an article that read “Why ‘climate change’ will not be on our 2015 editorial agenda”, despite acknowledging that readers requested such coverage.
Thank you for your coverage on the topic.
The rebuttal, regarding politics and finger pointing overwhelms me. But what I’d love to read is ongoing Time’s articles regarding what we, as individuals can do, in all aspect of our lives, to help curb the effects of climate change.
December, 2014 our major local newspaper published an article that read “Why ‘climate change’ will not be on our 2015 editorial agenda”, despite acknowledging that readers requested such coverage.
Thank you for your coverage on the topic.
The rebuttal, regarding politics and finger pointing overwhelms me. But what I’d love to read is ongoing Time’s articles regarding what we, as individuals can do, in all aspect of our lives, to help curb the effects of climate change.
1
One can only marvel how "climate-change contrarians" can argue that global warming has somehow magically stopped when they previously claimed that it never existed in the first place.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
They do not. They simply point to alarmists that the temperature changes are a part of natural cyclic phenomena. One can easily fit a sine function to the records shown on the left and "prove" that in 2070 the temperature will be the same as they were in 1950; in other words, no warming trend.
"They simply point to alarmists that the temperature changes are a part of natural cyclic phenomena"
They assert that. They are lying. The earth's cyclic phenomena are currently COOLING the earth. Unfortunately, CO2 is warming it more.
They assert that. They are lying. The earth's cyclic phenomena are currently COOLING the earth. Unfortunately, CO2 is warming it more.
3
It would be interesting to find out what level of evidence would convince those who continue to claim that either nothing is happening or we are not causing it.
Instead of 358 consecutive months of average global temperatures above the 20th century norm would we need 800, 10,000, a million? Would we need a record average global annual temperature every single year? How much sea level rise would we need: 6 inches, a foot, the flooding of Manhattan?
Instead of 358 consecutive months of average global temperatures above the 20th century norm would we need 800, 10,000, a million? Would we need a record average global annual temperature every single year? How much sea level rise would we need: 6 inches, a foot, the flooding of Manhattan?
4
Let's take bets!
I bet on flooding of Manhattan and scorching of tobacco crops.
I bet on flooding of Manhattan and scorching of tobacco crops.
3
Remember those crazy environmentalists back in the seventies who said "If we develop alternative energies we WON'T EVEN NEED OIL by the year two thousand."? They were right. I wholeheartedly agree with all the posters here saying global warming presents OPPORTUNITIES for jobs; not job killing. There will be MORE jobs in the petroleum industry according to how long we can make that industry last. And with oil's myriad uses as plastics, lubricants, building materials, etc.; we will all be better off using other sources for our energy and oil products for it's specialties. Funny how there's an alternative for so many products (fiberglass can be replaced with cactus pulp) and certain people (wacky right wingers) don't use them FOR POLITICAL REASONS! (No! I don't buy WHEAT bread! I would NEVER drive a Prius!) Weird.
7
Sadly, we humans deserve what's coming. Some more than others though we will all be affected and those who deserve it least perhaps most. And Nature - which includes us but from which we choose to divorce ourselves - most of all.
3
Averages hide important information.
We'd be better served with an understanding of how the government calculates these numbers. What is being measured? Where?
We'd be better served with an understanding of how the government calculates these numbers. What is being measured? Where?
1
FreeOregon,
No numbers needed.
Just look around, smell, feel,... This will provide you all you need to know about global warming....
No numbers needed.
Just look around, smell, feel,... This will provide you all you need to know about global warming....
1
As long as you have paid your taxes you can read the Government report yourself.
1
It's not just "the government" that's calculating these numbers. The raw data are publically available. If "the government"'s calculations aren't to your liking, you're welcome to do your own. Nowadays you can do it on a laptop.
2
And now for the rest of the story...
1) NASA and NOAA limit their "averages" to artificially high surface temperatures. Back in 1990, NASA acknowledged that satellite temperature measurements were more accurate than their surface counterparts and should be used to track temperature change. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963 However, NASA/NOAA later abandoned satellite temperatures because they did not show consistent warming.
2) NASA/NOAH do not use the actual raw temperature data from surface weather stations (which is noisy as hell and does not show any particular warming pattern over the past century) and instead offers statistically "adjusted" temperature "averages."
3) Even using NASA/NOAA's selective "averages," 2014 is only a couple hundredths of a degree different from other averages over the past 18 years. This is well within the margin of error for these calculations. In other words, while human emissions soared exponentially over the past two decades, temperatures have not risen in any statistically significant way. This temperature pause is completely contrary to every climate model used to support the AGW hypothesis.
4) The NY Times games its "2014 temperature anomaly" chart by comparing the NASA/NOAA 2014 "average" to that of 1951-1980 "average." What the Times does not tell you is that 1951-1980 a cooling period, something else that should not have happened under the AGW hypothesis.
1) NASA and NOAA limit their "averages" to artificially high surface temperatures. Back in 1990, NASA acknowledged that satellite temperature measurements were more accurate than their surface counterparts and should be used to track temperature change. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963 However, NASA/NOAA later abandoned satellite temperatures because they did not show consistent warming.
2) NASA/NOAH do not use the actual raw temperature data from surface weather stations (which is noisy as hell and does not show any particular warming pattern over the past century) and instead offers statistically "adjusted" temperature "averages."
3) Even using NASA/NOAA's selective "averages," 2014 is only a couple hundredths of a degree different from other averages over the past 18 years. This is well within the margin of error for these calculations. In other words, while human emissions soared exponentially over the past two decades, temperatures have not risen in any statistically significant way. This temperature pause is completely contrary to every climate model used to support the AGW hypothesis.
4) The NY Times games its "2014 temperature anomaly" chart by comparing the NASA/NOAA 2014 "average" to that of 1951-1980 "average." What the Times does not tell you is that 1951-1980 a cooling period, something else that should not have happened under the AGW hypothesis.
5
Why would NASA play with numbers? Also you conveniently forgot that many other governments came to the same results.
1
Art:
It appears that people play with the numbers because the cause is a noble one and there's so much at stake. Who wants to see the planet destroyed?
Unfortunately, this also leads to a lack of tolerance for internal and legitimate external criticism. Lacking that, the cause becomes just another political crusade.
It appears that people play with the numbers because the cause is a noble one and there's so much at stake. Who wants to see the planet destroyed?
Unfortunately, this also leads to a lack of tolerance for internal and legitimate external criticism. Lacking that, the cause becomes just another political crusade.
The rest of the story?? Dear Bart, the climate is warming and that's a fact. You can quibble about which numbers to use, but you cannot quibble with the observable phenomena that illustrate the effects: changes in the patterns of longstanding animal and plant distributions, for example. If you need numbers to convince you that maple trees are weakening and dying in every New England state because of warm winters, then you are being willfully ignorant, no matter how smart you are. Yes, measuring nature is a messy business, but the cumulative experience of generations of observers is still there to draw on.
And, by the way, what is the rational you might suggest to explain why NASA or NOAA want to cook books?
And, by the way, what is the rational you might suggest to explain why NASA or NOAA want to cook books?
3
The response to global warming reminds me closely of the tobacco industry response in the 1960s and 1970s to the "allegations" that smoking causes lung cancer. In the face of medical studies showing this link, and causal relationship, many "contrarian" scientists and voices within the tobacco industry continued to deny any such relationship. Eventually, these outliers became laughing stock as the evidence continued to build--as it is building with the global warming phenomenon.
7
I finally get it! Global Warming is real. (I thought it was Severe Climate Change now?) I still don’t care because I don’t think you can do anything about it. But I have the solution. You’ll only do these things if you truly care about the future of planet earth. Otherwise you are just like me.
1. Sell your only car. Don’t wait for me.
2. Sell your second car. I don’t have a second car.
3. Sell your second home. I don’t have a second home.
4. Encourage Al Gore to sell his third home on the beach. I don’t have a third home.
5. Only meet electronically. Fewer people on the highways for me to deal with.
6. Meet and date electronically. No driving. I enjoy driving around with dates.
7. Convert your housing to solar, wind, or thermal. You pay for it, don’t wait for me.
8. Never purchase printed goods. Electronic media is the future. I do both.
9. Get rid of toilet paper. Use a bidet. I’m a paper guy.
10. Encourage children to pursue careers as community organizers. More good jobs for my children.
11. Eat one meal a day. I’ll eat as I see fit.
12. Give up alcohol. More grain for ethanol. I’ll drink as I see fit.
13. Go vegan. I’m not there yet.
14. Consider becoming a cloistered monk. Cars don’t cause Global Warming, people do. Do your part., give up your car and all your material goods. I just give advice; I don’t live it.
1. Sell your only car. Don’t wait for me.
2. Sell your second car. I don’t have a second car.
3. Sell your second home. I don’t have a second home.
4. Encourage Al Gore to sell his third home on the beach. I don’t have a third home.
5. Only meet electronically. Fewer people on the highways for me to deal with.
6. Meet and date electronically. No driving. I enjoy driving around with dates.
7. Convert your housing to solar, wind, or thermal. You pay for it, don’t wait for me.
8. Never purchase printed goods. Electronic media is the future. I do both.
9. Get rid of toilet paper. Use a bidet. I’m a paper guy.
10. Encourage children to pursue careers as community organizers. More good jobs for my children.
11. Eat one meal a day. I’ll eat as I see fit.
12. Give up alcohol. More grain for ethanol. I’ll drink as I see fit.
13. Go vegan. I’m not there yet.
14. Consider becoming a cloistered monk. Cars don’t cause Global Warming, people do. Do your part., give up your car and all your material goods. I just give advice; I don’t live it.
5
May I add? 15. Run for major American political office.
1
Fist of all what does having a second car or house have to do with anything since you can only use one at a time. Secondly, no one said you have to stop doing everything just find better ways of doing it and don't be wasteful. Why is that so hard to understand?
3
You and the climate changers start first...
2
Republicans don't care as long as we use and export more coal, gas, and oil.
We could lead the world in dealing with this disaster for our grandchildren and beyond if there were the will do it in Congress. That's a joke!
Boehner needs more electricity for his huge sunlamps, I guess.
We could lead the world in dealing with this disaster for our grandchildren and beyond if there were the will do it in Congress. That's a joke!
Boehner needs more electricity for his huge sunlamps, I guess.
1
Continued global warming, caused by human fossil fuel combustion, could, within the next ten years, produce methane releases thereby accelerating an irreversable global calmity. What will the Republican congressional oil industry protectors say then.
1
If it was proved tomorrow that global warming was a hoax, the impact of burning fossil fuel would not go away. The science haters who leverage the complexity of chaotic sciences such as weather cannot beg away the millions of children whose lives are complicated by cancer, the elderly dying of emphysema. Nor can they misdiagnose acidified lake or dying forests. Those who profit greatly by burning fossil fuels deflect the costs in billions dollars to their victims. If these companies were held accountable they would not be considered affordable options. Global warming may very well be debated but the debate is a red herring cloaking the deadly beyond rising seas.
5
Still...there is no solid evidence that human activity has had anything to do with climate change...climate is cyclical...always has been...when this old guy was in grade school the "prominent scientists" were screaming about the coming Ice Age....
4
Old Guy: You are kidding. You must be. There is solid scientific evidence that the warming trend on the planet is the direct result of humans. We caused it. And our exploding population is going to do more harm before we can reverse it.
Yes, climate change is cyclical - -but we've accelerated an artificial cycle exacerbated by 7 billion bodies blowing hot air on Earth.
Yes, climate change is cyclical - -but we've accelerated an artificial cycle exacerbated by 7 billion bodies blowing hot air on Earth.
2
".there is no solid evidence that human activity has had anything to do with climate change."
Funny how every single scientific organization on the planet disagrees with you on this.
Funny how every single scientific organization on the planet disagrees with you on this.
5
And they were probably wrong...that was a while ago when computer modeling (not failsafe) didn't exist. With innumerable data points and accurate collection the data indicates a trend upward. Add in some knowledge of physical science (volatility of trapped methane, more beef on the hoof to feed the masses, ocean acidification and warming) one can come to a common sense conclusion that this trend is irreversible. I agree there's nothing left to do, other than possibly live simpler and slow down the advance to give us time to adjust/advance/evolve in thought. Biodiversity will shrink - no question about that...and way down the pike, we may also become extinct.
2
There is little doubt that there is global warming. That is based on objective measurements which have been replicated many times.
But it is harder to be sure that human activity is the dominant cause. Most climate scientists believe that it is, but by its nature this is a hypothesis that in practical terms we cannot prove. It's worth remembering that the Great Lakes formed about 15,000 years ago, due to global warming and the end of the last ice age, a major geological change that occurred a mere heartbeat ago in geological terms.
For better or worse, the issue is highly politicized. And there is such a thing as "pack science." It's easier to go along with the majority. If you're in the majority and time proves you wrong, it's unlikely to be a career ending mistake. But if you're in the minority, that's another thing entirely. There are many examples in science and medicine of the majority getting it wrong. The wholesale banning of DDT was an overreaction which likely cost many lives.
The stakes are high. There are few good alternatives to fossil fuels. Many renewable energy sources are too dependent on the weather. And nuclear power has major issues, as Fukishima and Chernobyl well illustrate.
There is much we can and should do, and technology we should be developing, that would reduce overall energy use worldwide, and allow us to store energy making wind and solar more practical options.
We but still need to be cautious, and not shoot from the hips.
But it is harder to be sure that human activity is the dominant cause. Most climate scientists believe that it is, but by its nature this is a hypothesis that in practical terms we cannot prove. It's worth remembering that the Great Lakes formed about 15,000 years ago, due to global warming and the end of the last ice age, a major geological change that occurred a mere heartbeat ago in geological terms.
For better or worse, the issue is highly politicized. And there is such a thing as "pack science." It's easier to go along with the majority. If you're in the majority and time proves you wrong, it's unlikely to be a career ending mistake. But if you're in the minority, that's another thing entirely. There are many examples in science and medicine of the majority getting it wrong. The wholesale banning of DDT was an overreaction which likely cost many lives.
The stakes are high. There are few good alternatives to fossil fuels. Many renewable energy sources are too dependent on the weather. And nuclear power has major issues, as Fukishima and Chernobyl well illustrate.
There is much we can and should do, and technology we should be developing, that would reduce overall energy use worldwide, and allow us to store energy making wind and solar more practical options.
We but still need to be cautious, and not shoot from the hips.
25
Actually we can prove it just like we proved that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were depleting the ozone layer. We reduced CFCs in the atmosphere and the ozone layer healed. Likewise we can prove that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing global temperature by reducing emissions significantly, most importantly reducing fossil fuel burning. This is how science works, and the earth heals.
1
There is no doubt that the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, increase the tendency of the atmosphere to trap heat closer to Earth's surface. That is not in dispute.
Because human use of fossil fuels add such greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in large quantities, it is logical to suspect that their combustion adds to the greenhouse effect. And, indeed, scientific study indicates that this is what is happening.
Continuing to make the absurd argument that human activities do not or cannot affect the planet's climate is counterproductive and, frankly, ignorant. We are heating up this planet. That is clear. It's time to stop doing it.
Because human use of fossil fuels add such greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in large quantities, it is logical to suspect that their combustion adds to the greenhouse effect. And, indeed, scientific study indicates that this is what is happening.
Continuing to make the absurd argument that human activities do not or cannot affect the planet's climate is counterproductive and, frankly, ignorant. We are heating up this planet. That is clear. It's time to stop doing it.
3
If the ice age was a mere heartbeat in geological time then this change is occurring in a nanosecond in geological time.
2
Like the man once said, "You ain't seen nothing yet". I'm sorry to say.
I live in gloomy 'ol Portland, Oregon (was that is) and we did not have one rainy day from the end of last May until deep in September and the average daily high was about 88. No measurably precipitation on any day during that 100 + day run. All sun. All the time.
in the summer of '09 we actually broke all temperature highs by hitting 108 that was surrounding by 105, 104 and 103 degree days. That is just stupefying for Portland. It was like the days I spent in the Central Valley of California.
Yeah, Houston, we have a problem. And New York. And Mumbai. And London.
And every where else for that matter. We have a big problem.
I live in gloomy 'ol Portland, Oregon (was that is) and we did not have one rainy day from the end of last May until deep in September and the average daily high was about 88. No measurably precipitation on any day during that 100 + day run. All sun. All the time.
in the summer of '09 we actually broke all temperature highs by hitting 108 that was surrounding by 105, 104 and 103 degree days. That is just stupefying for Portland. It was like the days I spent in the Central Valley of California.
Yeah, Houston, we have a problem. And New York. And Mumbai. And London.
And every where else for that matter. We have a big problem.
7
The key term here, and the catch, is "on record," that is to say, in the record of geologic time, say, 4.5 billion years, our recent recorded temperature measurements--in the last hundred years--show some trends. But in the larger context of geologic time, the record of temperature fluctuation has been enormous. My point is this: the sky is not falling because of temperature fluctuations in the last century, or last decade. May we be reminded that back in the 1970's the "experts" predicted a coming Ice Age? Let's get some perspective...and with that some reason.
3
I keep hearing conservatives claim that "experts" were predicting a coming ice age in the 1970s, but I don't actually recall anyone making that claim in the 1970s. And I remember the 1970s with some clarity. I was a college student and took several science classes that should have covered the subject.
Who was it exactly making this ice age claim back then? Can you point to any of these predictions? Or did you just hear about it on Fox News within the last 10 years or so? Because the first I ever heard about ice age predictions from the 1970s was from conservatives in the last 5 or 10 years. I think they probably just made it up, like a lot of other things on Fox News.
Who was it exactly making this ice age claim back then? Can you point to any of these predictions? Or did you just hear about it on Fox News within the last 10 years or so? Because the first I ever heard about ice age predictions from the 1970s was from conservatives in the last 5 or 10 years. I think they probably just made it up, like a lot of other things on Fox News.
3
"But in the larger context of geologic time, the record of temperature fluctuation has been enormous"
Human civilization has not seen those fluctuations, and there's ample evidence to show that humanity will not fare well under such fluctuations, so when scientists show that human activity is causing such a fluctuation, it's a good idea to take notice.
Human civilization has not seen those fluctuations, and there's ample evidence to show that humanity will not fare well under such fluctuations, so when scientists show that human activity is causing such a fluctuation, it's a good idea to take notice.
2
There has been record temperatures in too many recent years to ignore. Ice age cycles take tens of thousands of years not 40 or 50.
2
Global warming, the bought and paid for hysteria brought to you by big brother. If the science is settled, then why does the science have to cherry pick it's data and hide contradictory data. If the science is solid, then why are they so intent on stopping debate? If you look at Global Warming from the perspective of government controlling people's behavior, suddenly it all makes sense. When you take ALL science into account I am proud to be a denier. The entire solar system is having global warming, I guess we had better get Mars and Jupiter to stop driving those SUVs!
2
Where did you read that the solar system is experiencing warming? As far as debating goes, there is no debate. Where is there a debate except among deniers? If 97% of cardiologists say you have heart disease but one dermatologist says you don't are you going to believe the dermatologist because that's what you want to hear? The same goes for climatologists.
What in Gods name are you talking about? What evidence is there that sustains your close-minded denial? The science supporting global warming is overwhelming. The only science that disproves it is the depraved *theory* that there are people benefiting from it. Granted there are entire industries based on environmental destruction, the evidence outweighs your theories. Even if the temperature influx is a natural occurrence, there is cold, hard facts that prove that human influence has altered entire eco-systems the world over, in turn contributing to the destructive force that is global warming. It's happening whether you believe it or not.
2
Let's just hope your tin foil hat protects you from the inevitable heat.
3
This article has statements like "...although it is not proven". This is very poor reporting. Proven means different things to different folks. People seem to have different thresholds of the number of observable "facts" required for proof and that needs to be addressed by showing all the observable measured "facts" so as to inform. Temperature is not the only measure of climate change. For example you need to address the change in number of events more than one or two standard deviations from the average; you need to address the real cost in money and lives of dealing with these events and show the track record over time.
I suspect that the vast majority of your readers know that models predicting future events are based on probabilities and use tested and known facts from the past. As a reporter you need to do better.
I suspect that the vast majority of your readers know that models predicting future events are based on probabilities and use tested and known facts from the past. As a reporter you need to do better.
3
Game over. We all lose.
1
How you respond to climate change is a direct relationship to your compassion. If you can empathize with people you will never meet and change your life to help them, then you are high on the scale of human spirituality. If you prefer to live in denial, then you have lost a sense of humanity that is hard to find.
Interesting. Our future as a species rests on our ability to empathize and spiritually evolve. Change or die.
Interesting. Our future as a species rests on our ability to empathize and spiritually evolve. Change or die.
4
Look to see how many of your Climate Changer friends have solar panels on their house......none.
1
Wrong - I have solar panels....and I am saving a bunch of money.
2
"ever recorded on earth"?
Oh, I guess the archeologists have yet to dig up the digital data from 2,500 BC to the present.
Such statistics are of no relevance. We have more to fear of a cooling planet than a warming planet.
But with 599 other comments present, I am but a voice in the wilderness with my logic.
Oh, I guess the archeologists have yet to dig up the digital data from 2,500 BC to the present.
Such statistics are of no relevance. We have more to fear of a cooling planet than a warming planet.
But with 599 other comments present, I am but a voice in the wilderness with my logic.
2
Dear norcalguy101,
The phrase, "ever recorded on earth" is irrelevant to the present woeful facts.
Get with the program....
The phrase, "ever recorded on earth" is irrelevant to the present woeful facts.
Get with the program....
1
Read the headline. It clearly states "recorded history". And despite your snark, there is much evidence that has been discovered about climate from thousands of years ago.
Your "logic" is anything but...
Your "logic" is anything but...
According to your logic, if a person has a temperature of 102 we shouldn't do anything because having a temperature of 90 is worse.
1
No scientific evidence will convince the GOP know nothings.
5
In the climate debate, there used to be a clear distinction between climate science and transient weather. There is now a sense that climate science is indisputable and so weather evidence is being trumpeted. It's a two prong effort to get deniers to concede, but it's a foolish strategy. The only way to disavow anyone of their belief that the earth is flat is to go to the edge and keep going. The deniers are blocking necessary government action and we need absolute proof. I'd think a computer simulation or something else high tech could shut the door. It is not an academic exercise. If we want to beat this thing and keep them from standing in the way of progress, there is no choice.
1
You cannot rely on scientific data collection. The only way to find out about global temperatures is to ask for anecdotal "feelings" from Republican politicians. For example, ask Sara Palin if she feels cold in Alaska in winter. If she says yes, well there you go...no planet warming!
15
It makes you wonder if the current republicans would have had the intelligence to address the ozone hole.
Unlikely....I'm sure it'd cost too many murican jobs.
Unlikely....I'm sure it'd cost too many murican jobs.
5
For Mr. Brown, John Christy's view was not dismissed. If the writer wanted to dismiss his remarks, he would have just left them out. Christy's remarks were presented as what they are in the field, an outlier position. If you look at the bell curve of beliefs among climate scientists, Christy is way over to one end. Why is he there? I read a NYTimes article about him a while back, even went to his web site to try to understand his point of view, but I still don't get it. Plus, those predictive models doubters like to criticize show a variety of possible futures, but all of them are warmer than I prefer for my grandchildren, and all of the extra warmth is human created. Has Mr. Christy put together a model that predicts global cooling for the next many years, or global stasis? Let's see it.
2
Does it really matter in any way if man's activity is responsible or not for global warming ? When the house is on fire, one puts the fire out first, and looks for the culprits later.
6
How do you put out fires if you willfully, blissfully and conveniently ignore who the arsonists are?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
But you must find the cause in this case before you can stop it. If your house is on fire because of a gas leak, you must find out that it's the gas leak before you can put out the fire.
2
You can rebuild your house, not so the planet.
2
So what? Weather is not climate.
3
That is true. But your comment is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Climate is the long term trend of weather.
2
You must have been absent when the class went over how climate affects weather.
2
Humanity's biggest problem is not climate change. It is water. The emissions are changing the chemical makeup of the ocean and with the increased population, drinking water will become the real problem. Water is life. Life can not be sustained unless dramatic changes are made globally.
The planet has had five distinct extinctions and another one can occur with humanity on the planet.
The planet has had five distinct extinctions and another one can occur with humanity on the planet.
3
In the 1970's, the scare was ironically Global Cooling, the big fear was that the earth was slipping into the next ice age. The term Global warming was invented by Margaret Thatcher to break the backs of the striking coal miners and their leader Arthur Scargill by labeling coal the dirty fuel so that the coal mines could be closed and the coal miners fired. Shows you how far bad ideas can travel when vested interests are pushing them.
3
Coal is dirty fuel though. Coal mines should be closed, and coal miners fired, for the good of the planet and humanity. The bad idea would be continuing to wantonly destroy the environment until it renders us extinct.
1
There was no "scare" of Global Cooling in the 1970s, not among reputable scientists.
2
"In the 1970's, the scare was ironically Global Cooling, the big fear was that the earth was slipping into the next ice age."
But that simply isn't true. I remember the 1970s, and there was no big fear that the earth was about to go into an ice age. I never even heard that claim until 5 or 10 years ago, when they apparently started reciting that claim as gospel on Fox News.
Got any citations for articles from the 1970s about this Global Cooling scare?
But that simply isn't true. I remember the 1970s, and there was no big fear that the earth was about to go into an ice age. I never even heard that claim until 5 or 10 years ago, when they apparently started reciting that claim as gospel on Fox News.
Got any citations for articles from the 1970s about this Global Cooling scare?
2
The next time a nonbeliever tells you it's snowing and cold as if that is proof that the earth is not warming gently explain to them that the US takes up approximately 1.927% of Earth's total surface area and 6.598% of Earth's land area. Pretty insignificant in the skeem of things. The amount of carbon we pour into the atmosphere is not insignificant.
8
Mommy, why did the glaciers that covered much of North America melt, when there was no planes, trains and automobiles?
6
There are many factors that go into climate forcing. The glaciers of yore melted over long periods of time. The present day glaciers are melting before our eyes.
2
Because dinosaurs were conservatives, Jimmy. Unlike us enlightened liberals, the dinosaurs relied on the Bible for their climate prediction. Besides, they were too stupid to invent helpful apps for their iphones. Worse, dinosaurs drove big gas guzzling SUV's manufactured by the Koch brothers, who denied progressive dinosaurs their right to drive prius'.
Now Jimmy, crawl under the nearest rock, the sky is falling... again!
Now Jimmy, crawl under the nearest rock, the sky is falling... again!
4
Because the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. But before you say "AHA" these cycles took tens of thousands of years to go through, not 40 or 50 years.
3
The earth's climate is certainly warming. Anyone who disputes that denies obvious objective scientific evidence. However, to put this in perspective, the headline says, correctly , "on record". The earth is billions of years old. Formal records have been kept only since the late 1800s, so lets say 130 years out of 5 billion.
We base our entire evaluation of climate based upon the brief period of human observance. We seem to have decreed that our climate represents the optimum climate the earth should have. That is pretty arrogant. Who are we to decree that a tiny period of observation represents the ideal for a planet that has been changing for billions of years?
However, that does not alter the need for humans to adapt to this changing climate. Even if human activity has contributed to the change, spending billions to alter a the course of a train that has left the station is like spitting into the wind. I do not justify irresponsible human activity, nor do I defend it. I am simply stating reality.
The billions - trillions- will make a real difference if used to help humans adapt to the coming changes, such as building fortifications where possible, like dikes or breakwaters for Manhattan), systematic resettlement for areas which cannot be protected; adjustments to agriculture. All these can be done, and both we and the planet can coexist for eons to come.
We base our entire evaluation of climate based upon the brief period of human observance. We seem to have decreed that our climate represents the optimum climate the earth should have. That is pretty arrogant. Who are we to decree that a tiny period of observation represents the ideal for a planet that has been changing for billions of years?
However, that does not alter the need for humans to adapt to this changing climate. Even if human activity has contributed to the change, spending billions to alter a the course of a train that has left the station is like spitting into the wind. I do not justify irresponsible human activity, nor do I defend it. I am simply stating reality.
The billions - trillions- will make a real difference if used to help humans adapt to the coming changes, such as building fortifications where possible, like dikes or breakwaters for Manhattan), systematic resettlement for areas which cannot be protected; adjustments to agriculture. All these can be done, and both we and the planet can coexist for eons to come.
2
"We seem to have decreed that our climate represents the optimum climate the earth should have."
Well no... we've merely come to understand that there are limits to what sort of climate will support an advanced human civilization (and indeed any human life at all). As has been stated by Neil deGrasse Tyson and George Carlin both, the earth isn't in any peril at all: even if we extinguish ourselves and hundreds of thousands of other species by our actions, life on earth will go on and other species will evolve to fill the resulting voids.
The optimum climate the earth should have - if you're human - is one that keeps you alive, healthy, and able to reproduce.
Well no... we've merely come to understand that there are limits to what sort of climate will support an advanced human civilization (and indeed any human life at all). As has been stated by Neil deGrasse Tyson and George Carlin both, the earth isn't in any peril at all: even if we extinguish ourselves and hundreds of thousands of other species by our actions, life on earth will go on and other species will evolve to fill the resulting voids.
The optimum climate the earth should have - if you're human - is one that keeps you alive, healthy, and able to reproduce.
2
I agree with you. But that also means that humans would have to artificially intervene to force the earth from going through natural changes which threaten human survival. But artificial intervention is precicially what humans did which messed up things they way they are now. You can't screw with the planet. Humans have no choice but to adapt. If they do, they will survive just fine. If they don't, they will become extinct. That is my whole point. It doesn't matter whether the current changes are the earth's fault or our fault. They are in motion. We must figure out how to live and thrive under changing conditions.
I have never understood why climate change is a political issue - it is a scientific issue and a mankind issue. As for businesses having to adapt ways to reduce emissions, etc., don't the CEO's of those businesses live on the same planet - or are they somehow thinking they will escape the ravages of global warming personally because they are wealthy?
4
Diana Centennial, Colorado
I have never understood why climate change is a political issue
******
Progressives on steroids. With a cause so noble and worthy that it allowed them to do what they always do but with complete abandon: Entertain no dissent and disparage anyone who dares try.
Back in the real world, nothing really gets accomplished that way.
I have never understood why climate change is a political issue
******
Progressives on steroids. With a cause so noble and worthy that it allowed them to do what they always do but with complete abandon: Entertain no dissent and disparage anyone who dares try.
Back in the real world, nothing really gets accomplished that way.
3
AACNY...it's because of arrogance: they believe that their insulated world is going to be disrupted in the future, they become frustrated when people don't agree with their views, then they lash out with insults because they lack the intellect and civility to discuss this topic rationally.
Three of the hottest years the Earth has seen, all in the last 10 years. Evidence of global warming? Nah! Listen to the industrial lobby and the Republicans --- its just a coincidence (or a liberal conspiracy). Drill baby drill!
2
The hottest years the earth has seen? Only since 1880. Do you know how hot or cold the earth was in the millions of years before 1880?
3
It certainly did not feel this way. Was it by 0.01 F warmer than the previous record?
3
"the warmest year since 1880." 135 years is not that long with respect to global climate trends. What was the global temperature in 1780, 1280, 280. We don't know. I accept the general theory that industrial development and the consumption and waste that attend are and will be a factor in long term climate change. But the hyperbole in this headline is just that - an overstatement that would be improved with some facts and perspective. And how many readers will go home and say "I am committed to using less, wasting less, and changing my daily habits ..." It is easy to wring hands, much harder to propose a solution that you personally are willing to take. Just using this computer requires electricity for the machine itself as well as the big server somewhere that must be kept cool and dry.
3
The fact that "135 years is not that long with respect to global climate trends," is precisely the point, BG: the world's average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate, carbon dioxide has precisely this effect, and we're pouring billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere annually. Whether people will be motivated (which you seem to doubt) to do anything about man-made global warming is a separate issue -- first things first: make the link undeniable to all but the willfully blind. That's the value of articles like this one.
2
Practice what you preach. As long as the proponents of the Global Warming political agenda have the biggest carbon footprints I will not believe we are in any type of emergency situation. If you want to curb carbon use, curb carbon use. Approximately 50% of the nation is liberal, votes so, and wants to curb carbon use, so do so. When you do so, it will have a significant impact. Until you do so, quit your whining and blaming someone else. Give up cars, planes, roads, grocery stores, heating of homes, and luxuries. Seems like the least you could do to save the human race, that is if you believe your own propaganda. You show me your faith by what you say, I will show you mine by what I do. Imagine the CO2 reduction if all liberals lived out what they preach.
3
Sounds like you are the one whining. "Those durn liberals talking about global warming when they still drive cars and use computers..." Would you have them live in caves and communicate their concerns by smoke signals? Then you'd listen?
Look we're all hypocrites of some sort, but this is a problem, and waiting for 50% of the country to give up modern lifestyles is just nonsense. What we want is for a manhattan project style initiative to do something on a global scale. Are you against that?
Look we're all hypocrites of some sort, but this is a problem, and waiting for 50% of the country to give up modern lifestyles is just nonsense. What we want is for a manhattan project style initiative to do something on a global scale. Are you against that?
3
Liberals have argued hard and long for energy efficiency and conservation. A dramatic example is the car mileage targets which were repealed during the Reagan era and were strongly apposed by Republicans ever since. And then there was the tremendous howl when lighting efficiency was address by the Obama administration. And the solar and wind incentives. All opposed by Republicans. One can tell from your snide remarks where you stand.
4
Why should one half sacrifice so the other half doesn't? Besides you don't get it. Even if 50% of the population sacrifices there are still other factors in play here. people still need to heat their homes and travel and have manufacturing.
2
Fraud is fraud and hoax is hoax. The "modeling" that predicts gloom and doom does not have the ability to predict a complex system as our weather. As with the Mann hockey stick graph hoax, garbage in=garbage out. This hoax is an attempt by many to take control of everything in our lives and dictate terms based upon a fraud. Absolute nonsense.
5
Weather prediction has improved greatly with inputs from climate research. The computer-generated time-lapse prediction maps you now see on modern weather reports use software derived from climate models.
Dear Ruckweiler,
It's like this. I had a cancer scare and radically changed my diet and my exercise regimen. Wasn't cancer, thank God, but I have to say that the changes I made added a lot of quality to my life. What the climate changers are saying is sensible no matter what the cause of the trends. Renewable energy, thoughtful consuming of resources, less insupportable sprawl--got something against living within a budget? Authority issues? What an anti-social agenda you extol.
It's like this. I had a cancer scare and radically changed my diet and my exercise regimen. Wasn't cancer, thank God, but I have to say that the changes I made added a lot of quality to my life. What the climate changers are saying is sensible no matter what the cause of the trends. Renewable energy, thoughtful consuming of resources, less insupportable sprawl--got something against living within a budget? Authority issues? What an anti-social agenda you extol.
The damage is done. The Earth of 1500 A.D. was not like the Earth of today. We have made so many changes it is incomparable to even 200 years ago. Our Earth today is one produced largely by mankind, a 2nd generation, a once or twice removed Earth from anything that resembled a natural Earth. Sometimes I wonder if this "Plastic Earth" is worth saving at all. When the population hits 20 or 30 billion will the demand exceed the capacity of the planet to provide? Probably.
1
I am an historian and am very concerned by the Orwellian double-speak employed to suggest that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. This implies, as many readers may want it to do, that the planet is warmer now than it has been for ten millennia. But as global temperatures were not recorded until recently, it is hardly surprising that records are being broken. The truth is that we have the highest recorded temperatures in RECORDING history - not recorded history.
2
Given the fact that it has been admitted several times that most of the data has been altered to fit the political goals of the liberals in the EU, as British scientists were at the core of the EU claims of global warming, why was this article written? The data is a lie.
Mid-America is in the for second coldest winter in many years. The weather in Alaska has to do with the jet streams over North America. Further, our weather is cyclical.
I am a 61 year Alaskan. We are headed back to colder weather, our summers are not warmer. There is a 50 and 100 year cycle in all of this. None are looking at the BIG picture--the impact of the SUN.
The sun is at a solar minimum, meaning colder weather--as we are seeing in the lower-48 states and Europe.
Yes, the climate changes. Cyclical.
Until the variables of the heat produced by the spreading zones, vulcanism on the surface, and the sun's contribution, this fear mongering is simply an attempt to kill coal and other cheap forms of energy.
The libs will try to lie their way to their goal of so called sustainable, renewable energy even though each gov't trying to do so is subsidizing the living daylights out of the costs.
In mean time, so what? Adapt, improvise and overcome, just as man has done since God put us here.
Gov't does nothing but complicate and fail.
Mid-America is in the for second coldest winter in many years. The weather in Alaska has to do with the jet streams over North America. Further, our weather is cyclical.
I am a 61 year Alaskan. We are headed back to colder weather, our summers are not warmer. There is a 50 and 100 year cycle in all of this. None are looking at the BIG picture--the impact of the SUN.
The sun is at a solar minimum, meaning colder weather--as we are seeing in the lower-48 states and Europe.
Yes, the climate changes. Cyclical.
Until the variables of the heat produced by the spreading zones, vulcanism on the surface, and the sun's contribution, this fear mongering is simply an attempt to kill coal and other cheap forms of energy.
The libs will try to lie their way to their goal of so called sustainable, renewable energy even though each gov't trying to do so is subsidizing the living daylights out of the costs.
In mean time, so what? Adapt, improvise and overcome, just as man has done since God put us here.
Gov't does nothing but complicate and fail.
4
"Given the fact that it has been admitted several times that most of the data has been altered"
All of the raw data used for these analyses is available from the Web. If it were "altered," it would be a simple matter to un-alter it, load it into Matlab or Mathematica, and show that 2014 was not the warmest year.
Go ahead and try. We'll wait.
All of the raw data used for these analyses is available from the Web. If it were "altered," it would be a simple matter to un-alter it, load it into Matlab or Mathematica, and show that 2014 was not the warmest year.
Go ahead and try. We'll wait.
3
Thankfully you will live long enough to eventually learn that everything you have stated is incorrect.
2
"Hottest year on record" !!!! Hotter than when Greenland was, well, green. Hotter even than the Medieval Warm Period. OMG, we are doomed!!!
Oh wait, the third paragraph says 'on record' means since 1880. That changes things a bit, doesn't it? Mankind has made it through hotter times - and how many commentors are even aware there were hotter times?- with a lot less technology and infrastructure. Regarding the "We are doomed" nature of the headline and comments section; as Emily Litella often said "Oh never mind".
Oh wait, the third paragraph says 'on record' means since 1880. That changes things a bit, doesn't it? Mankind has made it through hotter times - and how many commentors are even aware there were hotter times?- with a lot less technology and infrastructure. Regarding the "We are doomed" nature of the headline and comments section; as Emily Litella often said "Oh never mind".
4
Yes, it's possible that, as you say, "mankind has made it through hotter times." But there were far fewer of us then, for one thing. Global warming is projected to cause drought on a massive scale, and agriculture, to state the obvious (which apparently needs stating) requires rain in order to produce food. Imagine the disruption that tens of millions of climate refugees, fleeing famine, would unleash on neighboring countries, and the conflict this would generate. That very "technology" you put your faith in makes such conflicts much more destructive than in the distant past. In short, It's not the temperature rise itself that worries many of us; it's how well (or badly) our civilization will be able to adapt.
48
When was Greenland green?
2
Climate scientists do NOT argue that climate has not fluctuated in the past. The focus on the record since 1880 is for a reason. First of all, there were not a lot of temperature measurements before the late 1800s. Second that is when the industrial age began. A major objective of serious climate scientists is to quantify ALL factors that go into climate change. The association of increased temperatures with increased emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases stands out clearly.
2
The conservatives are wrong again about an issue crucial to the American people. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Why cant ordinary people see that and stop voting for them. Watch as they put the worse global warming deniers in charge of our energy policies in the house.
2
Pigmentation of one's skin seems to be much more important. Besides Jesus is coming back any day now to take them away, therefore there is no need to worry about the Earth.
1
What leads me to suspect that the skeptic, John Christy, at the U of AL would be jumping up and down and trumpeting the news if the temperature had fallen, instead of risen, "a few hundredths of a degree"?
1
Notice that right wingers were jumping up and down for 5 years now about how important it is that 1998 was the warmest year, by "a few hundredths of a degree".
Boy, oh, boy! Can everyone please just take a deep breath and stop yammering for a moment? Every climate change denier and those think that they have it within their power to stop it needs to go back to school. Spend some time studying the earth's water levels and temperatures for the last 80,000+ years and then come back to the table with your constructive comments. Respect the earth but stop pouring critical resources into trying to stop something that has been going on since the world began - talk about hubris! Water levels will rise & fall again, ice caps are going to melt & refreeze, temps are going to rise and fall, some species have gone extinct and others will go too. In the meantime, enjoy your filtered water which was dinosaur pee at one time and your Himalayan SEA-salt....Feed the hungry and defend the oppressed.
2
This is the second use of the word "hubris" that I've seen just in these comments. The point seems to be that it's hubristic of us to think that we could alter the climate in a way that previously had been reserved for the big forces of nature -- the sun, volcanoes, etc. The problem with this is that carbon dioxide has precisely this effect, which is why they call it a "greenhouse gas." Look at Venus, which is 900 degrees Fahrenheit (!) at its surface because its atmosphere is 96% CO2. And we're pouring tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. And there you have it: what scientists allege to be happening is precisely what you would expect to happen. What's really hubristic is to believe that we can continue pouring CO2 into the air at current levels, and just expect to ride out whatever civilization-level consequences ensue. Given that Maarit V appears to care about feeding the hungry, she should know that among global warming's scariest projected effects is drought, and consequent famine, on a massive scale. So, here's another Greek word: irony.
3
You have conveniently ignored the significant change to the atmosphere humans have caused in the last 200 years by releasing sequestered CO2.
1
It's a serious problem that millions of Americans don't know the difference between weather and climate. They experience colder weather and to them that means there's no global warming. Americans need to learn that they're not the center of the universe.
5
Thank you for making this a headline, and larger than the other headlines. I hope you continue to keep global warming in focus with daily or near daily articles and bold headlines. We so need to keep our awareness up and our activism going.
4
We read a paragraph that states "In the annals of climatology, 2014 now surpasses 2010 as the warmest year in a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880."
I hear the same facts as everyone else. I totally realize the scientific community could be correct. I also realize the community could be wrong. Or, somewhere in between for all I know. I am not writing to dispute their facts or their theories depending on what side of the fence your opinion falls on.
I do wonder however when a conclusion is arrived at for historical coverage back to 1880. To be on the safe side it is best to try to get this issue under control. But let's be clear here: a period of time that is 135 years old may or may not be representative of what is really going on. No one knows with certainty if this is a blip or not or how many times this may or may not have occurred since the Earth was formed.
The statement "Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history..." may or may not be of importance in the scheme of things. Reality is we'll never know with certainty. But I guess best to try a reversal of known issues is the best we can do.
I hear the same facts as everyone else. I totally realize the scientific community could be correct. I also realize the community could be wrong. Or, somewhere in between for all I know. I am not writing to dispute their facts or their theories depending on what side of the fence your opinion falls on.
I do wonder however when a conclusion is arrived at for historical coverage back to 1880. To be on the safe side it is best to try to get this issue under control. But let's be clear here: a period of time that is 135 years old may or may not be representative of what is really going on. No one knows with certainty if this is a blip or not or how many times this may or may not have occurred since the Earth was formed.
The statement "Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history..." may or may not be of importance in the scheme of things. Reality is we'll never know with certainty. But I guess best to try a reversal of known issues is the best we can do.
It is easy to be a denier, although I suspect many who deny are willfully ignorant, because any real problem caused by climate change will occur long after most of us are gone. It is an "I've got mine, the heck with you" attitude toward future generations. And it is sad to witness.
4
Preposterous. The study clearly neglected to include that one snowy day in DC when Senator Inhofe was unable to collect his oil lobby checks.
3
With scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000 NASA scientists went back and did a recheck.
When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match.
When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years.
That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler.
Schmidt said that researchers had always known that the difference between 1934 and 1998 was so small, it was virtually impossible to rank them.
With the new rankings, four of the 10 warmest years in the United States occurred during the 1930s.
But when it's a miniscule upward trend, OMG, the sky is falling.
When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match.
When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years.
That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler.
Schmidt said that researchers had always known that the difference between 1934 and 1998 was so small, it was virtually impossible to rank them.
With the new rankings, four of the 10 warmest years in the United States occurred during the 1930s.
But when it's a miniscule upward trend, OMG, the sky is falling.
Dear NYT, an observation... While the graphs are excellent means to visualize the current global trends, the bar graph should display both +1 and -1 F scales, even though no cooling anomalies exceed -0.5 F.
That way, even with a quick glance, we can see that there is no true balance between the blue on the left, and the red on the right. Right now, by chopping the -0.5 F to -1.0F tick, the eye gives us the false impression of the heat now being more or less as much in magnitude as the cold earlier --and that is far from the true, in fact, the heating trends exceed by x2 the cold temperatures registered in the 1880 - 1920s.
That way, even with a quick glance, we can see that there is no true balance between the blue on the left, and the red on the right. Right now, by chopping the -0.5 F to -1.0F tick, the eye gives us the false impression of the heat now being more or less as much in magnitude as the cold earlier --and that is far from the true, in fact, the heating trends exceed by x2 the cold temperatures registered in the 1880 - 1920s.
So this is the compassionate way to boil a lobster. Somehow I think we'd be better off dropped in the boil from a cold start; then we might have enough sense to do something about it.
1
Quoting from Quaternary Science Reviews 19 (2000) 213-226" "Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here." "...much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes." "A simple picture emerging from these and other data is that the 'normal' climate experienced by agricultural and industrial humans has been more stable in many or most regions than is typical of the climate system. Large, rapid, widespread changes were common in the pre-agricultural past, especially in regions near the North Atlantic, but apparently also in monsoonal regions affected by the North Atlantic, and likely elsewhere or even globally."
This article charts seven variables over the period from 10,000 years before 1950 back to 16,000 years before 1950. Rapid temperature changes of up to 15 centigrade degrees occurred several times during this period. By “rapid”, I mean within 50 years.
My suggestion: read climate reports firsthand, look at the flow of funds for research, and evaluate the technical arguments critically. Most important: keep the larger context of climate fluctuations in mind when advocating policy.
This article charts seven variables over the period from 10,000 years before 1950 back to 16,000 years before 1950. Rapid temperature changes of up to 15 centigrade degrees occurred several times during this period. By “rapid”, I mean within 50 years.
My suggestion: read climate reports firsthand, look at the flow of funds for research, and evaluate the technical arguments critically. Most important: keep the larger context of climate fluctuations in mind when advocating policy.
1
Global warming is so, but so clear, by objective findings shown by the scientific community. One of the reasons we are still twiddling about it is the fat checks that lobbyists, representing their oil and coal producing pea-brains, keep stuffing in politicians pockets, the G.O.P. exercising their prerogative of willful ignorance. It reminds us of the tobacco executives when Congress demanded to know if there was harm and a connection with lung cancer; which connection, though amply corroborated by evidence, was flatly denied, as their salary depended on 'not knowing'. This sort of posturing ought not be allowed in the 21st century, with all the data supported by empiric evidence. We are delaying needed concerted efforts to minimize the potentially catastrophic effects of Climate Change. Can't we show some 'guts'?
1
There is a lot going on in the world, but this should gather front page headlines like no other story. Nothing threatens humanity with extinction as this does, and nothing sets the conditions for war and terrorism more than diminishing resources. If we think the world is a mess now, wait until food and water can only be had in limited supplies.
6
Clear evidence of liberal-media bias. Where's the input from climate-experts Drs. Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and Pat Robertson?
5
Oh malarkey. Ask any Republican. Especially those running for President, or chairing the House and Senate Science committees.
2
Oh, the very same who do not believe in evolution.
2014 was only the 34th warmest year in the USA - so America is doing something right.
The rest of the world was no warmer in 2014 than in the past 18 years - 2014 was statistically not significant in terms of warming.
Remember, Liberals lie 100% of the time……..
The rest of the world was no warmer in 2014 than in the past 18 years - 2014 was statistically not significant in terms of warming.
Remember, Liberals lie 100% of the time……..
4
You sir, are a big part of the problem. Liberals lie 100% of the time? You are so rabidly partisan that you can't accept reality, akin to the taliban, and I do hope that reality gives you a very nasty and brutal awakening.
2
Are we just making stuff up now? I can do that too. Given that anyone of the name "PerryM St. Louis" lies 176% of the time, people are more likely pick their nose with their left hand while drinking whiskey and ink, and sound travels faster than light when it's raining meatballs, I've concluded your statement is irrelevant.
3
"Liberals lie 100% of the time". quite the grandiose and shortsighted statement.
1
Much of this debate can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. What humans regarded as "progress" has indeed proven to be otherwise. Of course, humans have been able to produce more food, textiles, energy, and less manual labor, but at what cost. What was viewed over two hundred years ago as beneficial for humans, has been known for over a generation to be detrimental to the environment. Progress indeed.
3
Why doesn't the NYTs print articles like this? Doesn't fit the agenda?
September 22, 2014, 4:46 PM
LA Times Science section,
Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found..
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
September 22, 2014, 4:46 PM
LA Times Science section,
Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found..
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
3
It honestly did not feel as hot this year as last and especially about 5 years ago.....that was hot. I wonder the temp in 1780, 1280, 880, thousands of years ago or a million years ago. I'm not saying that we are not contributing to the problem but to blame everything on progress is an easy position. The earth is bigger than man and has survived a billion years of asteroids, catistrophic disasters and such.......it can survive the internal combustion engine.
1
No one is blaming everything on progress. The current widely held position is that man's carbon output is tipping the scales towards more catastrophic change.
You're correct, the earth will survive all this. But wouldn't you like for your children's children to be able to enjoy it as you have? Your position seems quite selfish...
You're correct, the earth will survive all this. But wouldn't you like for your children's children to be able to enjoy it as you have? Your position seems quite selfish...
2
I for one would not. I would want them to live in a warmer climate.
Humans took some time to embrace science instead of myth and superstition. The latter could simply be called ignorant (as in "ignoring").
Sadly, our legislature is filled with mostly ignorant people. And I guess there are too many ignorant people to vote them out.
Things will heat up soon...and let's keep a blacklist for all the ignorant who insisted this was a hoax.
Sadly, our legislature is filled with mostly ignorant people. And I guess there are too many ignorant people to vote them out.
Things will heat up soon...and let's keep a blacklist for all the ignorant who insisted this was a hoax.
6
Yep. Up 2/100ths of a degree. Whew!
2
No, not up by 2/100ths of a degree; a new record by 2/100ths of a degree. Further, if you multiply 2/100ths of a degree by 100 years that would be 2 degrees. A 2 degree increase will melt a lot of the polar ice cap and the resulting increase in sea level won't be very funny if you live in Florida.
2
Except that there's no trend of 2/100ths of degree, year to year. In fact, since 1998 (or any year since), there's no statistically significant trend at all.
Frankly, I just can't see why proponents of global warming can't accept that temperatures on Earth's surface and in the lower atmosphere (at very least) have stopped increasing in any statistical sense in the last decade and a half.
Also, I fail to see why opponents of the theory can't see that there was another pause, from about 1940 to 1980, before and after which there was a strong trend upwards. So pauses aren't necessarily going to save us.
Frankly, I just can't see why proponents of global warming can't accept that temperatures on Earth's surface and in the lower atmosphere (at very least) have stopped increasing in any statistical sense in the last decade and a half.
Also, I fail to see why opponents of the theory can't see that there was another pause, from about 1940 to 1980, before and after which there was a strong trend upwards. So pauses aren't necessarily going to save us.
2
10, 20, or 200 years of data does not mean much for climate systems that evolve and fluctuate in 50,000 year increments.
During the last global warming period, the global temperature was above 2+ degrees centigrade for 6,000 years. The greenland ice-sheet lost only 15% of its ice over that 6,000 years.
To pretend that we know how the last 10 years fits into an unimaginably complex system and a hugely variable geologic history stokes both hubris and fear- two human traits that rarely lead to good policy.
During the last global warming period, the global temperature was above 2+ degrees centigrade for 6,000 years. The greenland ice-sheet lost only 15% of its ice over that 6,000 years.
To pretend that we know how the last 10 years fits into an unimaginably complex system and a hugely variable geologic history stokes both hubris and fear- two human traits that rarely lead to good policy.
4
But there are other things we absolutely know. If the incoming energy the earth receives from the sun remains constant (it can be measured), and if the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere increase (we can measure CO2 and we know the increase comes from burning fossil fuels) the amount of heat leaving the earth will necessarily decrease; than it follows that with the same amount of energy coming in and less energy leaving, the difference is going to show up on the earth somewhere; period. You can argue about the precise details, how much, how fast, how bad. You can ignore the best predictions of scientists who have spent a life time studying the atmosphere, but you can't argue that having more green house gases in the atmosphere will not have an effect.
2
So, Shoshon, if I understand you right, we should wait until we have another 49,800 years of data before we make any rash decisions. I'm not wholly convinced that that's the way to go.
2
Your comment strikes me as poorly informed and overconfident, sir. We have much more data that you declare. to paraphrase info from NASA: Bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates. This record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
Much more info is readily accessible to the interested reader at NASA and other credible science agencies.
Much more info is readily accessible to the interested reader at NASA and other credible science agencies.
As a conservative-leaning individual, I believe that I and other like-minded persons would be more open to global warming if it weren't the fact that the topic is so heavily politicized. I think it is agreed by most people that we should definitely live in a clean environment, but where I struggle is the fact that the arguments made both in support of and against global warming have been woefully inconsistent. And then you have some folks (Al Gore) whom claim to champion combatting the matter that don't practice what they preach. Take the politics COMPLETELY out of this topic and then maybe I'll be more engaged.
3
This would be all well and good but first you have to ask who politicized the topic?
Hint: It wasn't the liberals.
Hint: It wasn't the liberals.
8
If you had a smoking doctor, would you conclude that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Hint: the hypocritical behavior of humans has no impact on the scientific reality. You are guilty of the fallacy of to quoque.
Hint: the hypocritical behavior of humans has no impact on the scientific reality. You are guilty of the fallacy of to quoque.
1
So unless you live in a cave you are not capable of being an activist for doing something about climate change? With that attitude nothing will be done because we all rely on carbon emissions to power our way of life, but many would like to see that change. would you listen to Al Gore if he renounced all worldly possessions and lived completely off the grid? Oh wait, he couldn't really communicate with others if that were the case....maybe with smoke signals? So that the other climate activists who live within a few miles can relay that to the rest of the world with dixie cups and monofilament lines...
If we're perpetually stuck arguing whether climate change is real or not, then the so-called climate change "deniers" have already won.
7
NY Time, you really need to stop trying artificially create equivalence on this issue between proponents and deniers. Stop, just stop reaching out to deniers and skeptics (the current scientific fringe). They cloud the issue, make rational discussion impossible. If you look at Europe, the political parties there don't disagree on iota on global warming; there differentiation is between what to DO about it.
4
Ridiculous to not give the numbers in such a preposterous story. The difference is a fraction of a hundredth of a percent and completely indiscernible. Everything is completely flat when you average out the last 20 years. The "bought in" factor and bias to the most foolish claim of our century (climate change) is glaring.
2
If the amount of energy coming in from the sun is constant (it can be measured); and the amount of green house gas increases (it can be measured), that it follows that the net energy (heat) on earth will necessarily have to increase. So go ahead, dis the scientists, bury your head in the sand, but when the energy balance on earth shifts the effects will show up somewhere, period.
1
Forty percent of all Americans and 45 percent of Christians believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, according to a recent Newsweek Poll on prophecy. Fully, 71 percent of Evangelical Protestants share that view. 45 percent believe that this will happen in their lifetime.
Why then bother with climate change?
Why then bother with climate change?
6
Republicans charge the Pentagon will preparing Global Warming battle contingencies while at the same time denying it and taking money from the industries to perpetuate denial.
Republicans are now Armageddonists.
Republicans are now Armageddonists.
4
Last winter was the third coldest winter on record in the US, after 1979 and 1899.
4
So? Did you look at the map in the article? It turns out that the eastern US (not even the whole US - it was on the warm side out here on the Pacific coast) was colder than usual, but it was the exception. We're talking about GLOBAL warming here, not eastern US warming.
1
Unfortunately the U.S. (lower 48) isn't everywhere. For example it was relatively balmy in Alaska last winter, and it is the average over the whole world that counts.
1
Is the US the "globe"?
Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’
“The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.
“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”
“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” he added.
“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded
Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.
“The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.
“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”
“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” he added.
“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded
Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.
5
The deniers have never been able to explain what actually happened to the 900+ gigatonnes of emissions created by man since the industrial revolution. Apparently the biosphere just magically processed it and made it disappear, without any resulting effect. Unfortunately, that's not how chemistry works.
But we do know the precise chemistry of how the ocean is absorbing emissions, and the cascading effects. It is being observed on a global scale and is indisputable...
But silly me, I'm wasting my breath since no amount of proof can outmatch the allure of a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Tens of thousands of scientists throughout the world working on different things all colluding towards one nefarious goal: more research funding! Doesn't make a very convincing nemesis, I'm sorry. David Koch, on the other hand....
But we do know the precise chemistry of how the ocean is absorbing emissions, and the cascading effects. It is being observed on a global scale and is indisputable...
But silly me, I'm wasting my breath since no amount of proof can outmatch the allure of a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Tens of thousands of scientists throughout the world working on different things all colluding towards one nefarious goal: more research funding! Doesn't make a very convincing nemesis, I'm sorry. David Koch, on the other hand....
4
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Yes, we are warming a little. Let's all panic and jump off the nearest bridge. Calm down, people!
3
Or maybe instead start taking meaningful actions like responsible adults.
1
Maybe global warming is a good thing as far more people die due to cold weather as opposed to hot weather.
But Republicans and their media outlet Fox News tell me that global warming doesn't exist! I wonder how they're going to spin this report?
1
I am sure man has played a part in the warming of the earth. I am not sure how much though. What I am sure though is the United Nation remedies proposed are nothing more then another tax. It will do nothing to stop the warming.
1
And what alternatives are you proposing then? Most economists approve of 'cap and trade' as the most efficient way to get businesses to do the right thing, keeping governments involved the minimum possible. But the Republicans won't support that.
Junk science/junk science/junk science. Climate change has become a religious cult run for the profit of liberal businessmen and politicians who make a fortune from it. Can you spell Al Gore?
3
I really don't care about climate change. We reap what we sow. If we've caused this, then we deserve what we get. I do worry about the animals, but species will survive. The earth will survive. We may be gone, but the world will be off without us.
2
Bravo, Professor Christy! Balderdash to these outrageous claims! Why should we listen to these “science” men with their vapors and their looking glasses and what-nots! Pish posh, I say! Let us not go all katy-wumpus about a bit of "warmish plateau"!
4
People who deny the fact that humans have caused and are causing climate change, and the global average temperature increase, do not actually believe what they claim to believe. For the past five years I have had a US$1,000 wager available to anyone and everyone that supported the proposition that a new record high global average temperature would be set by the end of year 2016: I offered many thousands of Deniers that wager, and NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM WOULD ACCEPT. Literally thousands of Deniers claimed Earth was not and is not warming; thousands of them insisted Earth is cooling---- but *NONE* of them would put their money on the lie to support their assertions.
People who claim Earth is not warming do not believe their claim. http://warmwagers.org
People who claim Earth is not warming do not believe their claim. http://warmwagers.org
12
We may have another record year of considerably less than one degree rise in global temperature if for no other reason than a mild El Nino forming in the Pacific, but it wrong to classify people who choose to say that the connection is not proven as deniers. I talked to my congressman Lamar Smith about climate change. He does not deny that man has a hand in the matter. He does not agree that it has been proven or to what degree. He and his committee are looking for answers.
We are intimidated by your wager and dehydrated by your desert...all hail guardian of Gaia.
Does John Christy have kids?
2
I believe we need to be realistic and plan to cope with a continuing rise in sea level, acidification of our oceans, drastic changes in climate, and mass extinctions of species. Mitigating our species production of carbon needs to be part of the solution given the current trajectory of world economic patterns. Our species at over 7 billion heading toward 8 billion within the next ten years, is the dominant species on the planet. What we do matters. Here is a link to the nasa satellite data which can track CO2 production worldwide. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4416#.VLFOz-ut7ZA.facebook . Lets get real, people.
In spite of the scientific proof, there are still naysayers. Incredible. what has to happen before everyone in a political hat jumps on this and mandates that we start changing the status quo?
Additionally -- (and I'm not a scientist) I firmly believe that it is truly TOO LATE to reverse the damage we've done. At best, all we can do is reverse our behaviors and try to stem the ills we've foisted on this once magnificent planet.
SHAME on everyone for their greed -- for it is greed that got us here.
Additionally -- (and I'm not a scientist) I firmly believe that it is truly TOO LATE to reverse the damage we've done. At best, all we can do is reverse our behaviors and try to stem the ills we've foisted on this once magnificent planet.
SHAME on everyone for their greed -- for it is greed that got us here.
3
This must be over exaggeration.
I heard a senator say that its called "Seasons"
He is supposedly heading the Senate committee soon on climate.
God help us.
I heard a senator say that its called "Seasons"
He is supposedly heading the Senate committee soon on climate.
God help us.
4
Using the California drought as an example is a stretch since the state has parts of the Mojave, Colorado, and Great Basin deserts as part of its ecosystems with transition zones all the way to the coast. Californians should have landscaping like Tucson not Seattle, but they refuse to accept the reality of where they live. And if you use the example of last years winter, this year's, with 3 to 4 inches of snow in the Inland Empire, which hadn't happened in the memory of anyone living, pretty much nullifies that argument. Declarations are dire, but the actual weather doesn't seem to be paying attention to them.
2
4 inches of snow does not a rainstorm make, nor does it negate a several year cycle of drought.
We can reduce global warming by half if all liberals surrender their luxury cars, yachts, private jets, etc.
5
Done and done. Your turn.
1
It is sad that the issues of climate change are political. Republican politicians deny it to stop industry regulations or expenses that will negatively impact their political donors. Christian fundalmentalist don't want anything done to contol it as it feeds into their narrative of the End of Days / Rapture.
How can working to reduce emmisions and protecting the envirornment (and our health) while developing new technologies (and industries) for clean enegy hurt our planet?
How can working to reduce emmisions and protecting the envirornment (and our health) while developing new technologies (and industries) for clean enegy hurt our planet?
4
Global warming is just like the Earth is a smoker, right?
Global warming is caused by smoke going into the air, and smoking causes smoke to go into my lungs.
They say (Global Warming and) smoking harms us, but I'm a 24 year old smoker and feel just fine.
Since I feel fine, clearly there's no problem, despite what those liberal doctors might say.
Quitting smoking is difficult and makes me feel terrible, and we're all going to die anyway! So why bother? Why do you want me to hurt?
Besides, think of how many jobs would be lost if I stopped smoking!
Clearly the obvious answer is for us all to smoke more!
We should all put more pollutants in the air! What could possibly go wrong?
(note: yes, this is sarcasm but elucidates the Climate Change Denier arguments well in my opinion)
Global warming is caused by smoke going into the air, and smoking causes smoke to go into my lungs.
They say (Global Warming and) smoking harms us, but I'm a 24 year old smoker and feel just fine.
Since I feel fine, clearly there's no problem, despite what those liberal doctors might say.
Quitting smoking is difficult and makes me feel terrible, and we're all going to die anyway! So why bother? Why do you want me to hurt?
Besides, think of how many jobs would be lost if I stopped smoking!
Clearly the obvious answer is for us all to smoke more!
We should all put more pollutants in the air! What could possibly go wrong?
(note: yes, this is sarcasm but elucidates the Climate Change Denier arguments well in my opinion)
3
It wasn't too smart for the brilliant climate change zealots to start their campaign to save the planet by bashing all the smokers, was it?
1
MJ worshipers are a little thin skinned about those back door non-smoking campaigns.
I've been asking for years....can one of the scientists tell us the EXACTLY PERFECT temperature for the year 2015? Or 2014? No one denies that temperature changes on earth and has been based on historical records from extremely cold to extreme hot all well before humans had any reasonable impact.
The mere fact that the global temp may be warming shouldn't discount the fact that the predictive models/theories have been abject failures....for everything ranging from CO2 levels, to methane, to contrails, to just this week volcanos(you mean you DIDN'T account for their output and they are actually COOLING the earth?) and dozens of other predictors have utterly failed to sync with actual results. Which in reality means we don't know WHAT is actually causing temps to change. So in effect the scientists and politicians are saying we need to immediately fix "things" that we have yet to be able to prove are broken. In what world is that logical?
So again, please tell us EXACTLY what the PERFECT temperature the earth is supposed to be in the year 2015... because I guess those vast variations of the past were just aberrations and we now (rather arrogantly) think we dictate the thermostat of earth.
The mere fact that the global temp may be warming shouldn't discount the fact that the predictive models/theories have been abject failures....for everything ranging from CO2 levels, to methane, to contrails, to just this week volcanos(you mean you DIDN'T account for their output and they are actually COOLING the earth?) and dozens of other predictors have utterly failed to sync with actual results. Which in reality means we don't know WHAT is actually causing temps to change. So in effect the scientists and politicians are saying we need to immediately fix "things" that we have yet to be able to prove are broken. In what world is that logical?
So again, please tell us EXACTLY what the PERFECT temperature the earth is supposed to be in the year 2015... because I guess those vast variations of the past were just aberrations and we now (rather arrogantly) think we dictate the thermostat of earth.
4
" I've been asking for years....can one of the scientists tell us the EXACTLY PERFECT temperature for the year 2015?"
Let me ask you this: do you think there are fairies stocking the supermarkets every night? Do you have any idea what kind of work it takes to keep the 7 billion strong human race fed and healthy? People are raising the alarm about global wwarming because it threatens to inflict severe hardship on huge portions of humanity.
A cooler climate means better crops in the world's grain growing regions. A warmer climate means worse ones.
A cooler climate means less malaria. A warmer climate means more.
A cooler climate means the world's coastal people are safe. A warmer one means they're at risk of floods.
Understood?
Let me ask you this: are you an adult? can you discuss things like an adult?
Let me ask you this: do you think there are fairies stocking the supermarkets every night? Do you have any idea what kind of work it takes to keep the 7 billion strong human race fed and healthy? People are raising the alarm about global wwarming because it threatens to inflict severe hardship on huge portions of humanity.
A cooler climate means better crops in the world's grain growing regions. A warmer climate means worse ones.
A cooler climate means less malaria. A warmer climate means more.
A cooler climate means the world's coastal people are safe. A warmer one means they're at risk of floods.
Understood?
Let me ask you this: are you an adult? can you discuss things like an adult?
3
The perfect temperature of the earth is no more than 2 degrees C (3.6 F) warmer. That is the temperature of the earth has been during which humans evolved. That's how they came up with that number 2 degrees C. Beyond that is closer to the atmosphere of the planet Mars. As you can see from the chart here, unless we control carbon pollution we are on a trajectory to fly by that limit. If we want a future in which human beings can live with all our modern comforts we have to stop spewing carbon pollution into the sky and stop global warming.
1
Just one question for global warming deniers: But what if you're wrong?
7
Then our planet will be ever so slightly warmer, and humankind will flourish as they did in past climates that were as warm or warmer than today.
In past warm periods, humanity was not even one million strong. You call that "flourishing"?
1
Quite frankly, I hope these doom and gloomers promoting the fear of the effects of global warming are correct. Nothing I would like more than to have my mountainside home in northern Vermont (-29 two days ago) become ocean front property.
5
Quite frankly, global warming's effects include far worse rates of flash flooding in Vermont. I pity my Vermont friends regarding this, but if your house washes away, not so much.
1
Global warming is real and ocean acidification is real. There is real danger that thawing permafrost could trigger irreversible warming. It would be wise for the international community to grant the oil & gas industry and the electric power industry monopoly rights to photovoltaic technology so that they can recover the public investment in an industry whose rate of growth has peaked. I recomend that an internatinal frastructure bank be created to finance a space based solar generating system to beam very low cost (2 cents/kwh) electric energy to Earth grids. This limitless cheap energy can power industry and home uses including transportation, probably Maglev, invented by Drs. James Powell & Gordon Danby, who also invented the Maglev Launch system that can launch payload to orbit for 1% of chemical costs. Their books describing these aps, The Fight for Maglev & Maglev America, are available.
2
Who are you, or 10 million of you to grant monopoly rights to anything?
A Space-based solar generating system requires a means of BEAMING energy to there surface. As far as I know, Tesla's dream of beaming energy has not been achieved. (Unless of course it is a potential death ray focusing the solar light on a small target.)
A Space-based solar generating system requires a means of BEAMING energy to there surface. As far as I know, Tesla's dream of beaming energy has not been achieved. (Unless of course it is a potential death ray focusing the solar light on a small target.)
The means of beaming to Earth is a low intensity microwave beam. It has been demonstrated by Dr.John Mankins in a 100 mile long set up in Hawaii.
Landmark book released January 2014: The Case for Space Solar Power by John C. Mankins. A must read! This groundbreaking new book by renowned expert John Mankins lays out a path forward that is both doable and affordable: within a dozen years or less, the first multi-megawatt pilot plant could be in operation. Space Solar Power could transform our future in space, and could provide a new source of virtually limitless and sustainable energy to markets across the world.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Monopoly was not correct, what I meant was public ownership of the space assets, You don't want someone to use it as a weapon or for military purposes. As you know this technology would put a lot of workers on the street so I believe we need to create jobs to employ these people.
The laser or microwave beam under current technology would be beamed to a field of antennae.
Thanks for your interest.
Landmark book released January 2014: The Case for Space Solar Power by John C. Mankins. A must read! This groundbreaking new book by renowned expert John Mankins lays out a path forward that is both doable and affordable: within a dozen years or less, the first multi-megawatt pilot plant could be in operation. Space Solar Power could transform our future in space, and could provide a new source of virtually limitless and sustainable energy to markets across the world.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Monopoly was not correct, what I meant was public ownership of the space assets, You don't want someone to use it as a weapon or for military purposes. As you know this technology would put a lot of workers on the street so I believe we need to create jobs to employ these people.
The laser or microwave beam under current technology would be beamed to a field of antennae.
Thanks for your interest.
1
A couple of months ago, I read a piece on global warming and it stated 4 scenarios:
1. There is NO global warming and we do nothing.
2. There IS global warming and we do nothing.
3. There is NO global warming and we take action.
4. There IS global warming and we take action.
If scenario 1 is true, well GREAT. If scenario 2 is true, catastrophe will ensue. If 3 is true, money will be spent and the likelihood of better health for many individuals will be a bi-product. If 4 is true, the world wins.
I, for one, think the smart thing to do is take action. If we are wrong, there are still some positive benefits. If we don't take action and we are wrong, the consequences are severe.
Shouldn't we approach this the same way we approach our individual health? Preventative action is preferred over wait and see until it's too late.
1. There is NO global warming and we do nothing.
2. There IS global warming and we do nothing.
3. There is NO global warming and we take action.
4. There IS global warming and we take action.
If scenario 1 is true, well GREAT. If scenario 2 is true, catastrophe will ensue. If 3 is true, money will be spent and the likelihood of better health for many individuals will be a bi-product. If 4 is true, the world wins.
I, for one, think the smart thing to do is take action. If we are wrong, there are still some positive benefits. If we don't take action and we are wrong, the consequences are severe.
Shouldn't we approach this the same way we approach our individual health? Preventative action is preferred over wait and see until it's too late.
8
Even in health care, these measures are weighed against their risks and costs. There is not an unlimited source of funds. The most extreme environmental proposals would shut down entire industries and bankrupt states like West Virginia.
This is where the case for preventive measures tends to go off the rails.
This is where the case for preventive measures tends to go off the rails.
Yes, global warming isn't the only issue. Pollution is still a large problem, with pollution from automobiles greatly reduced, but air pollution from other sources on the rise. Leafblowers powered by both gas and oil are an example of this, as are wood-burning fireplaces and stoves. The former are also a source of noise pollution that endangers the health or lawn maintenance workers and anyone living nearby or simply passing by, including motorists whose car wheels constantly stir up the microparticles that the blowers have deposited on public roads. If we don't have the will to do away with unnecessary machinery that produces invisible microparticles that we all breathe in, that settle in the lungs never to be expelled, and, according to the WHO, are linked to higher rates of catastrophic and expensive problems such as cardiovascular disease, lung disease, asthma, autism, loss of hearing, and learning disabilities, just so homeowners and businesses can have the prettier yards that used to be maintained by raking, we certainly don't have the will to make the other sacrifices that will be required of us as individuals and as a country.
For starters, we should wonder why vehicles holding only one person most of the time they are on the road must weigh 2,000 pounds or more, as well as why, considering the costly infrastructure repairs needed to maintain our automobile-dependent transportation system, we cannot build the sort of tram and train systems common throughout Europe.
For starters, we should wonder why vehicles holding only one person most of the time they are on the road must weigh 2,000 pounds or more, as well as why, considering the costly infrastructure repairs needed to maintain our automobile-dependent transportation system, we cannot build the sort of tram and train systems common throughout Europe.
1
CM:
The US is a huge country with vast mileage covered by Americans hauling all kinds of things. It's easy to miss this living on the coasts.
Pollution is a problem most Americans would rally around solving. Changing the earth's temperature, on the other hand, is folly. All it takes to burst that bubble is one from the sun.
The US is a huge country with vast mileage covered by Americans hauling all kinds of things. It's easy to miss this living on the coasts.
Pollution is a problem most Americans would rally around solving. Changing the earth's temperature, on the other hand, is folly. All it takes to burst that bubble is one from the sun.
In the early 1800s, the English economist/philosopher Malthus predicted the greatest catastrophe to human life on earth would be overpopulation and the inability of mankind to feed all peoples. As 20th century agricultural techniques developed to expand production with better seeds and fertilizers, Malthusian theory fell out of favor.
With global warming increasingly supported by data measurements, I predict that two other crises facing the 21st century--rising inequality between rich and poor, and population displacements and famine caused by weather extremes--have replaced Malthusian threats of doom.
Funny, isn't it, how the two above crises seem inextricably entwined? If we look just at the US, the greatest climate change deniers are also boosters and promoters of carbons in all forms. The more the merrier. A pox on alternative energy: because the wealthiest Americans aren't entrepreneurs of new energy solutions but producers and protectors of coal, oil, and gas.
And these wealthiest Americans have been able to influence elections as never before since 2010, in order to further the carbon agenda.
Of course the Republican Congressmen/women and senators benefit most from their donations, are naturally climate change deniers, who don't care about any future except their own.
Maybe in the end Malthus was right: the inability of planet earth to feed its population will be our undoing: not from overpopulation but from an overabundance of wealth from carbon producers.
With global warming increasingly supported by data measurements, I predict that two other crises facing the 21st century--rising inequality between rich and poor, and population displacements and famine caused by weather extremes--have replaced Malthusian threats of doom.
Funny, isn't it, how the two above crises seem inextricably entwined? If we look just at the US, the greatest climate change deniers are also boosters and promoters of carbons in all forms. The more the merrier. A pox on alternative energy: because the wealthiest Americans aren't entrepreneurs of new energy solutions but producers and protectors of coal, oil, and gas.
And these wealthiest Americans have been able to influence elections as never before since 2010, in order to further the carbon agenda.
Of course the Republican Congressmen/women and senators benefit most from their donations, are naturally climate change deniers, who don't care about any future except their own.
Maybe in the end Malthus was right: the inability of planet earth to feed its population will be our undoing: not from overpopulation but from an overabundance of wealth from carbon producers.
6
Thanks to the New York Times for publishing the facts. But since our elected representatives have allowed the coal and oil corporations to control the levers of power regarding this issue, facts mean nothing.
Profits, profits, profits. No matter the cost to the planet, all the life on it, or our own progeny. You want to blame this on stupidity, but it’s worse.
Worse? Yes, some of the representatives who are being paid to cede power to the corporations are not actually stupid: they value the money they make, the power they have, so much that they are willing to do what is wrong for the country despite facts. The word for that is not stupid. Its betrayal-- the country is being betrayed by traitors.
You want still worse? The representatives are elected by people who actually believe the lies of the traitors.
American democracy has seen this play out repeatedly. IBM made money selling card sorters to the NAZI. American scrap metal dealers sold the steel to Imperial Japan that was melted into the bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor. In every case traitors’ claimed it was good for America. But every time these corporate traitors knew, and know, better... it’s good for profits. Not America. So of course these traitors wrap themselves in the flag and have the gall to call themselves “conservatives”: all the better to betray us.
Profits, profits, profits. No matter the cost to the planet, all the life on it, or our own progeny. You want to blame this on stupidity, but it’s worse.
Worse? Yes, some of the representatives who are being paid to cede power to the corporations are not actually stupid: they value the money they make, the power they have, so much that they are willing to do what is wrong for the country despite facts. The word for that is not stupid. Its betrayal-- the country is being betrayed by traitors.
You want still worse? The representatives are elected by people who actually believe the lies of the traitors.
American democracy has seen this play out repeatedly. IBM made money selling card sorters to the NAZI. American scrap metal dealers sold the steel to Imperial Japan that was melted into the bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor. In every case traitors’ claimed it was good for America. But every time these corporate traitors knew, and know, better... it’s good for profits. Not America. So of course these traitors wrap themselves in the flag and have the gall to call themselves “conservatives”: all the better to betray us.
8
It's hard to admit but WE, homo sapiens sapiens, are the source of the problem. Our consumption of natural resources has driven us to this point. For 2000+ years we have been fed a lie that tells us we are at the center of life on earth and that we ought to have dominion over all other species. Unless and until we bring our consumption habits back into balance either through depopulation or lower overall consumption then we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
4
Over-consumption and mis-allocation of natural resources is the problem.
Education is the solution.
Education is the solution.
"For 2000+ years we have been fed a lie..."
It's true that we've been fed a lie, but to be fair, we've only known it to be a lie since "the authorities" about 500 years ago began dissing the Copernican view of Earth's place in the solar system. Before that point, we were merely being told a semi-plausible fable and credulously accepting it as fact.
It's true that we've been fed a lie, but to be fair, we've only known it to be a lie since "the authorities" about 500 years ago began dissing the Copernican view of Earth's place in the solar system. Before that point, we were merely being told a semi-plausible fable and credulously accepting it as fact.
In 1925 scientist promoted smoking as an alternative to eating sugary foods in order to stay fit.
By the 1950's these same scientific institutions continued with the mantra of smoking is good because they were well paid to do it as the government got paid off the sale of smokes.
Now today, the government needs a new revenue source and what is better than telling people that sky is falling? Telling them through paid science that it is!
Taking 100 years out of Billion to suit your needs is fascist at best.
By the 1950's these same scientific institutions continued with the mantra of smoking is good because they were well paid to do it as the government got paid off the sale of smokes.
Now today, the government needs a new revenue source and what is better than telling people that sky is falling? Telling them through paid science that it is!
Taking 100 years out of Billion to suit your needs is fascist at best.
4
The greenhouse effect was discovered 150 years ago, by a guy named John Tyndall. Did he publish it for the sake of a new tax? Got any other nonsense to share with us?
1
Here's a wild thought: maybe you should've learned by now not to pay attention to scientists in the employ of sugar, tobacco, and oil companies.
The people promoting smoking were never scientists. They were paid shills. The people analyzing climate change are. That's the difference.
What will it take to wake up humanity?
3
Whether you are in the camp that argues this is significant or in the other one that says it isn't one thing is inarguable. We are polluters, population growth is adding to the problem and we are not doing enough to reduce our impact. I fear for my children while we argue the finer points of whether or not our impact is statistically significant.
2
If every person on Earth could view this film, we might have some hope for some change ... if people could just understand what climate change is really about ... and how the Earth really works as a system ... this might be one of the most important 2 hours of your life!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html
1
This is nowhere near as important as Charlie Hebdo. I can't feel all self-righteous about it; it just presents me with an abyss for which I'm partly responsible.
Please, can we go back to self-congratulation? 'Kthankx.
Please, can we go back to self-congratulation? 'Kthankx.
2
Well, what about those other 3.6 billion years? Typical Times nonsense.
7
The concentration of carbon dioxide man is spewing into the atmosphere now exceeds 400 ppm which hasn't existed for millions of years and heat is rising right along with carbon dioxide. Is that a long enough time frame for you?
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
5
So what are you trying to say here? Yes, in the 3.6 billion years Earth has been around, the climate has changed. Sometimes that has led to the extinction of about 99% of existent life at the time. This time it's caused by humans. If you think that's all nonsense, fine, you're part of the problem because you're coming up with a judgment based on no particular facts.
Well, 3 billion of those years were not friendly to life and .5 billion were not friendly to life as we knew it.
It is frightening that our environmental policies will probably be shaped by Biblical literalists from the Republican Party. The Earth is six thousand years old
and dinosaurs and men walked hand in hand in the not-too-distant past. Global warming is probably just a preparation for Armageddon. The sixth extinction is happening all around us, but it's God's will anyway. I have no great hopes that global warming can be reversed, but I sure do hope that some people in Washington will get brain transplants.
and dinosaurs and men walked hand in hand in the not-too-distant past. Global warming is probably just a preparation for Armageddon. The sixth extinction is happening all around us, but it's God's will anyway. I have no great hopes that global warming can be reversed, but I sure do hope that some people in Washington will get brain transplants.
7
I am not worried...we have the GOP in charge of both houses of Congress....and I am certain they will give their full attention to global warming.....right....
2
If you are not convinced or have some doubt, you may want to watch Season 1 Episode 12 of COSMOS on Netflix or online. COSMOS is a documentary film following physicist Carl Sagan's first 1980 documentary. COSMOS 2014 was produced by Seth MacFarlane, producer of Family Guy and American Dad. In COSMOS 2014, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explained how and why clearly in laymen's terms. You can watch it and prove him otherwise if you'd like.
5
Carl Sagan was an advocate of global **cooling** and he along with countless other scientists said that if the governments of the world didn't do something about it we would enter a new Ice Age and everyone would freeze to death.
2
"Carl Sagan was an advocate of global **cooling**"
No, he was not. That is simply a lie.
No, he was not. That is simply a lie.
2
Why does the NYT always have to dig up some climate change denier (not skeptic) to counter the overwhelming scientific consensus? When you write about space travel, do you provide a 'skeptic' opinion that the Apollo landing on the moon was a hoax? It is time for the paper of record to get on the record with the reality of a changing climate caused by man and not give cover to those who want to simply deny the reality of what this is doing to our planet, economy, etc. and avoid the necessary debate of what to do about it.
11
If you look at the data in the graph, it looks like there was a very strong cooling trend 1880-1910. Then a warming trend 1910-1940. Then global temperatures held about steady 1940-80 (when enormous quantities of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere). Then there was a sharp rise 1980-1995. And then global temperatures have been about steady 1995-2014.
There are well-reasoned scientific theories why man-emitted gases (CO2, but also other chemicals that may have greater effects) could raise temperatures. And there is some correlation over the last 150 years between those gases and temperature. It would be folly to ignore that reality.
But climatology is very complex. The data itself looks like no significant change over the last 20 years. Calling 2014 "the hottest year on record" is a bit of hyperbole--the increase in the last 20 years is miniscule compared with the 20 years before that (1975-1995) or the temperature swings 1880-1900 (cooling) or 1910-1930 (warming).
Phrases like "relentless planetary warming", "runaway emissions" and "long-term risks to civilization" don't reflect the underlying data over the last two decades and may be more properly relegated to the opinion pages.
There are well-reasoned scientific theories why man-emitted gases (CO2, but also other chemicals that may have greater effects) could raise temperatures. And there is some correlation over the last 150 years between those gases and temperature. It would be folly to ignore that reality.
But climatology is very complex. The data itself looks like no significant change over the last 20 years. Calling 2014 "the hottest year on record" is a bit of hyperbole--the increase in the last 20 years is miniscule compared with the 20 years before that (1975-1995) or the temperature swings 1880-1900 (cooling) or 1910-1930 (warming).
Phrases like "relentless planetary warming", "runaway emissions" and "long-term risks to civilization" don't reflect the underlying data over the last two decades and may be more properly relegated to the opinion pages.
10
You are wrong. You need to look at the animation re-posted by Revkin here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/a-closer-look-at-the-global...
"keep an eye on the dog walker, not the dog."
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/a-closer-look-at-the-global...
"keep an eye on the dog walker, not the dog."
1
It was the hottest year on record, so how can stating it be hyperbolic? It is easy to isolate periods of data and say "Look, no warming!" but when you look at the trend over decades it is clearly evident. The graph presented shows only surface air temperature. There are other measures of global temperature, such as surface ocean temperature, deep ocean temperature, and air temperature at higher elevations that show the same trend and in some cases with less variability. The surface air temperature record is the one with longest record, and most easily grasped by laypeople, so that's often what gets used. It would be great for the NYT to present a round up of all that data to properly discuss the issue.
1
So the findings of 97% of the world's scientists should be put on the opinion pages? If Sean Hannity told you the verdict was out on the law of gravity would you try stepping off your window ledge?
1
Meanwhile, surrounded by new humongous SUV's with single occupants.
4
In 2025 this will no longer headline on front page news. It will be a given, as most years will be hotter than the last.
3
Not sure who shows more hubris. The climate change deniers or the acceptors who harbor the belief that humans surely can't become extinct like so many other species on the planet.
3
There you go again, New York Times, trying to scare people--those people who have their minds made up not to support, for example, the much needed Keystone Pipeline. I have heard of people who were very cold some of 2014, so, of course, what you are claiming is just there to scare people into voting for Hillary Clinton!! (bad satire, I know!)
1
Single-year data have no statistical power. If one examines the GISS-NASA data base by decades, each of the last four decades has had a statistically significant increase, namely,
Beginning with the 1964-1973 decade and ending with the 1994-2013 decade, each temperature increment was both positive and statistically significant. Apparently this has not been recognized as of yet.
Mean Temperature Change Probability of Error
1. +0.20 degrees C 0.003
2. +0.18 degrees C 0.004
3. +0.25 degrees C 0.0004
4. +0.19 degrees C 0.005
The mean decadal increment was 0.21 degrees C. The cumulative increment was 0.83 degrees C
The probability of error for the temperature change for the five decade period was 1.4E-11.
Beginning with the 1964-1973 decade and ending with the 1994-2013 decade, each temperature increment was both positive and statistically significant. Apparently this has not been recognized as of yet.
Mean Temperature Change Probability of Error
1. +0.20 degrees C 0.003
2. +0.18 degrees C 0.004
3. +0.25 degrees C 0.0004
4. +0.19 degrees C 0.005
The mean decadal increment was 0.21 degrees C. The cumulative increment was 0.83 degrees C
The probability of error for the temperature change for the five decade period was 1.4E-11.
4
Thanks for pointing out that there is no "acceleration" of warming. CO2 levels have increased exponentially since 1964, yet the increase in temperatures are plodding along at the same modest rate. This is clear evidence that CO2 is not causing the warming.
1
I just arrived in the French Alps for a week of skiing...Guess what? There is no snow...ANd this is January 16...This is getting scary...
5
And because the water in the Alps comes down as rain, not snow, the villagers in the valleys are under a severe threat of flash floods.
If human-caused global warming is happening, then it can only be slowed, and then reversed, by international cooperation and regulation, backed by meaningful treaties and inter-governmental agreements.
But current Republicans do no believe in neither government nor international agreements. Their 'solution'? Deny the existence of the problem. They are aided and abetted in their know-nothingism by the Usual Suspects, the same folks who used their money and influence to delay governmental action on leaded gasoline, DDT sprays, aerosol propellants, and cigarettes. The technique is always the same: find and fund a tame scientist who denies there is a problem, and pour money into sowing doubt and confusion about the issue.
Then Big Media plays their role through their perverted policy of 'fairness' and 'presenting both side of the issue'; they do their best to report that there is 'a debate' within the scientific community, even though one 'side' of the debate usually amounts to a handful of scientists who are not experts in the field, and who are funded by very industries that are resisting regulation. It's as if, when covering a story of horrific, systematic child abuse in a community, the news anchor says, "And now we go to the spokesperson of the Abuse League to hear of the possible benefits of child abuse."
With the US currently governed by men who believe the world was created in 4004 BC, and that mankind once walked with the dinosaurs, is there really any hope?
But current Republicans do no believe in neither government nor international agreements. Their 'solution'? Deny the existence of the problem. They are aided and abetted in their know-nothingism by the Usual Suspects, the same folks who used their money and influence to delay governmental action on leaded gasoline, DDT sprays, aerosol propellants, and cigarettes. The technique is always the same: find and fund a tame scientist who denies there is a problem, and pour money into sowing doubt and confusion about the issue.
Then Big Media plays their role through their perverted policy of 'fairness' and 'presenting both side of the issue'; they do their best to report that there is 'a debate' within the scientific community, even though one 'side' of the debate usually amounts to a handful of scientists who are not experts in the field, and who are funded by very industries that are resisting regulation. It's as if, when covering a story of horrific, systematic child abuse in a community, the news anchor says, "And now we go to the spokesperson of the Abuse League to hear of the possible benefits of child abuse."
With the US currently governed by men who believe the world was created in 4004 BC, and that mankind once walked with the dinosaurs, is there really any hope?
1
"Current Republicans" standing in the way of global action? Like when the Senate under Clinton (45D, 55R) rejected the Kyoto Protocols 95-0? Those kind of Republicans.
Nice narrative, though. Keep telling yourself it's true and you'll probably believe it.
Nice narrative, though. Keep telling yourself it's true and you'll probably believe it.
The top "Readers' Picks" all seem to sing the same refrain, oh woe, our political leadership is failing us, especially those stupid Republicans, FOX news, etc. But really the problem is us.
'Cause if all we do is complain in comment sections, it won't change a thing. Start a local activist group, get out there on a street corner with protest signs. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Organize a boycott. Volunteer with campaigns against political climate change deniers. Put your free time where it can make a difference. If politicians see enough public will lining up against them, they will respond. As is, the complacency of the enlightened is as much of a problem as they are.
So have the courage get involved. You don't need to wait for an engraved invitation. It can be fun, meet new people. Do it for your grandchildren, for a beloved place in nature, for a favorite species. Just do it.
'Cause if all we do is complain in comment sections, it won't change a thing. Start a local activist group, get out there on a street corner with protest signs. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Organize a boycott. Volunteer with campaigns against political climate change deniers. Put your free time where it can make a difference. If politicians see enough public will lining up against them, they will respond. As is, the complacency of the enlightened is as much of a problem as they are.
So have the courage get involved. You don't need to wait for an engraved invitation. It can be fun, meet new people. Do it for your grandchildren, for a beloved place in nature, for a favorite species. Just do it.
2
Nature will do what it needs to do to get back to equilibrium. Just as the dinosaurs no longer exist we may not make it through the earth’s correction period, but nevertheless it will happen. It’s just a matter of when.
5
Hoe can it be that a group of people mostly GOPers can deny global warming its & the connection with human activity (burning fossil fuel) ?
For me the answer is connected to the lack of education/awareness to science in the average US citizen. eg. In 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 28 years , on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old ans that evolution didn`t happen. Too much homeschooling & too many evangelical right wingers can ruin a country.
For me the answer is connected to the lack of education/awareness to science in the average US citizen. eg. In 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 28 years , on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old ans that evolution didn`t happen. Too much homeschooling & too many evangelical right wingers can ruin a country.
1
Duncan, Actually a group of social scientists at Yale did a study and found that attitudes towards climate change vary with political pre-disposition, not education. The most scientifically literate Americans are just as likely to be climate change skeptics as climate change alarmists. The research is published in Nature and can be found at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html.
These people are paid to be scaremongers. Climate science is not a real science. The climate changes all the time. The Earth has spent most of its history under ice ages. Our entire human civilization's history dates back to the last interglacial period, which started 10,000 years ago. The ice ages on average last for 100,000-500,000 years while the interglacial periods last for 10,000-20,000 years. So guess what, we should rejoice we are still warm, the next ice age can start anytime now. I am doing my bit to delay the next ice age! Are you?
6
So you're saying that "real" science can't be done on anything that's changing all the time? Right. Can't say enough about your statement so I'll just let stand on its own.
1
"
These people are paid to be scaremongers."
No, they are not. That is simply a lie.
These people are paid to be scaremongers."
No, they are not. That is simply a lie.
3
This is based on land-based measurements, which are pretty much meaningless. First of all, many land sensors are located near air conditioners and on asphalt, so they register higher temperatures than what is reality. Secondly, they are not evenly dispersed over the planet, so a warming trend in one area will not be offset by a cooling trend elsewhere. Satellite measurements, which measure the whole planet, show no warming for 18 years.
There are many climate scientists who look at this same data and conclude that warming is still not happening, especially when they factor in the satellite data. Keep in mind that this is brought to you by the same scientists who "denied" there was a Medieval Warm Period, even though we know it to be fact. Just like my scientific hero, Galileo, I will remain a skeptic until such time that a single prediction from the models comes true. So far the opposite has happened, fewer hurricanes, and tornadoes and droughts, even though the models all predicted increases in these extreme weather events.
There are many climate scientists who look at this same data and conclude that warming is still not happening, especially when they factor in the satellite data. Keep in mind that this is brought to you by the same scientists who "denied" there was a Medieval Warm Period, even though we know it to be fact. Just like my scientific hero, Galileo, I will remain a skeptic until such time that a single prediction from the models comes true. So far the opposite has happened, fewer hurricanes, and tornadoes and droughts, even though the models all predicted increases in these extreme weather events.
9
Urban heat island effect is recognized and the temperature data is adjusted to account for it. The historical surface temperature record has been analyzed to account for increased urbanization and methodologies to normalize data have been developed. There has been a great deal of effort expended to deal with this and similar methodological shortcomings of historical data. After all that is done, there remains a clear warming trend.
1
the real problem from the beginning is that the believers turned global warming into a holy crusade, and spent more time lecturing, hectoring but very little time educating. this stubbornness helped create the denial movement, which didn't exist beforehand on a large scale. Massive change was always going to be difficult, therefore broad agreement was necessary. That has been lost, I am not sure it can be found again...
2
Peaple like Matt Shed statingnthat Chicago had its coldest year ever is a bit bombastic. Ever?
This is type of unelightened skeptics that deal in wishful thinking as the planet heats up by small, but increasing increments.
The geologic history is full of data that clearly shows that as CO2 levels rise so does temperature. Those who continue to be skeptics must receive funding from oil and coal companies to say the uniformed ideas they are wlling to profess to the rest of us.
This is type of unelightened skeptics that deal in wishful thinking as the planet heats up by small, but increasing increments.
The geologic history is full of data that clearly shows that as CO2 levels rise so does temperature. Those who continue to be skeptics must receive funding from oil and coal companies to say the uniformed ideas they are wlling to profess to the rest of us.
3
This article starts out inane and ends that way as well.
NASA argued that the satellite data is more accurate...and shows no warming at all.
Neither does the Surface temperature's though...previous "hottest" 58.45
new hottest...58.46. WOW!
The Surface temperature data has a VAST amount of uncertainty due to interpolation errors, and over reliance on the idea that local environmental factors dont change the temperature readings. In other words...its not that significant.
Moreover the records only go back to 1979....so basically its not that meaningful on the global time scale.
So the notion that this is somehow "proof" of AGW...is non-sense. The author should take a few basic courses in scientific fields before attempting to write about it.
NASA argued that the satellite data is more accurate...and shows no warming at all.
Neither does the Surface temperature's though...previous "hottest" 58.45
new hottest...58.46. WOW!
The Surface temperature data has a VAST amount of uncertainty due to interpolation errors, and over reliance on the idea that local environmental factors dont change the temperature readings. In other words...its not that significant.
Moreover the records only go back to 1979....so basically its not that meaningful on the global time scale.
So the notion that this is somehow "proof" of AGW...is non-sense. The author should take a few basic courses in scientific fields before attempting to write about it.
10
Margaret, agreed with the following suggested changes: sub out conservatives for "anyone in office or running for office today" and oil for "any donor's". Also sensible conservatives for "sensible people."
Climate change deniers let their preferences overwhelm their reason. If the temperatures do not go up next year, they will start whining that the climate change is just bunk, again. Their concern is that reducing concentrations of carbon gases in the atmosphere is going to cost a lot of money, both in retiring old technology which is still profitable and in the liabilities on the balance sheet from investing in replacing the infrastructure. The result will be decades of reduced owner equity and returns on operations for the stock holders. The offsetting benefits of accelerated growth does not allay their concerns.
There is no model that allows temperatures to flatline, "pause", or "not go up next year".
CO2 is increasing exponentially, if the models are correct temperatures MUST climb to new records year after year. The fact that we now have an 18+ year "pause" in warming is conclusive evidence that CO2 is not responsible for any warming that is being observed, and it is more likely a natural phenomenon.
CO2 is increasing exponentially, if the models are correct temperatures MUST climb to new records year after year. The fact that we now have an 18+ year "pause" in warming is conclusive evidence that CO2 is not responsible for any warming that is being observed, and it is more likely a natural phenomenon.
2
The empirical evidence does not debunk climate warming due to carbon gases. Over the last century, temperatures from year to year do increase and decrease, while average temperatures for succeeding decades have risen not fallen. Plot the temperatures year by year over the century and the straight line representing the slope of those temperatures steadily rises. The theory behind why carbon gases (which includes methane, carbon monoxide, and all other gaseous forms of carbon containing molecules) are based upon reproducible lab experiments which demonstrate that air with high concentrations of these gases retains a lot more heat that when the concentrations are lower. The argument is not over whether carbon gases result in higher temperatures, it's whether man's activities create enough of those molecules to affect those rises in temperatures.
Right. All those "natural" power plants and automobiles.
Now that gas is at such a low price, you can forget any substantial discussion in the U.S. about a visionary plan to (truly) expand our rail system, which would reduce one of our biggest contributors to atmospheric pollution, the car. What is really sickening is how a discussion about the future in any subject, whether it is the future of education, healthcare, banking or environment, is thrown off course by our inability to think beyond the financial profit of a relative few. The only way stopping global warming will happen is if the industries invented by that effort can make a sizable profit. Unfortunately, altruism doesn't seem to motivate the majority of the world's developed citizenry, but the smell of money does.
2
"...a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880..."
There is no way temperature data in 1880 represented "Global surface air temperature" as claimed in the chart.
Logically, if today's data is placed in the same bin as data from as far back as 1880 then both data are in the same trash bin.
There is no way temperature data in 1880 represented "Global surface air temperature" as claimed in the chart.
Logically, if today's data is placed in the same bin as data from as far back as 1880 then both data are in the same trash bin.
5
Deniers are going to have a hard time with this one. Though you can't argue that many businessmen, pseudo scientists and politicians are suffering a severe disconnect, it's not the first time naysayers doubted mans hand in changing Mother Nature. Back in the 1950s when global warming was the farthest thing from our gas-guzzling minds, debates broke out whether nuclear bomb testing was affecting the weather.
Besides which, what was a little greenhouse gas build up when we had radiation in the atmosphere to be worried about. A look at some old debates that are just as silly as todays. http://wp.me/p2qifI-1wl
Besides which, what was a little greenhouse gas build up when we had radiation in the atmosphere to be worried about. A look at some old debates that are just as silly as todays. http://wp.me/p2qifI-1wl
2
If you want the truth about climate change just as a republican politician. They know more about physics than anyone and they are so proud of their superiority over science they have to shout it from every pulpit. Boy aren't they the smartest people.
7
Election day 2014 had to hurt
3
Dear Muzzled101,
That's correct, it was agony to watch the country take a turn for the incredibly moronic.
That's correct, it was agony to watch the country take a turn for the incredibly moronic.
2
Yup, election day 2014 was agony. I love America and hate to see it falling like Rome, due to ignorance. Rome at least had the excuse of lead plates and plumbing, I don't know how America can explain its getting progressively less intelligent.
2
The US is 34 highest and that is after they (NASA and NOAA) cook the books. The rest of the world has very spotty records on weather temperature. So no the world is not melting and XL pipeline is actually more environmentally sound that transporting oil on Warren Buffett's railroads. And yes Obama, the great Peace Prize recipient (LOL), has no problem getting in his 747 traveling across the continent to play on golf course in California (that uses tons of precious water) to talk to a bunch of multi-millionaires about how the 1% is ruining America LOL. Don't you realize you guys are all being Grubbered. LOLOLOL
11
Yes and people and dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,00 years ago when the earth was created. It's a commie plot. Science and math are the opiate of the people. Next they're gonna be trying to sail off the end of the ocean. It was really cold in my town last year. Since I am the center of the earth, I am therefore global and since I did not experience warming, there is no global warming. For God himself knows that this is all Obama trying to trick us into having clean water and breathing fresh air. I for one am sick of all this government intervention.
3
Well Bill, you threw everything and the kitchen sink at this report, and your desperation to obfuscate is obvious. It's all a smoke screen, and most of the rest of us know it, regardless of party affiliation. You simply reinforce the anti-science, anti-evidence wing of your party. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
3
Why not provide some evidence that the books are cooked? Otherwise you're just propagating a conspiracy theory.
2
Nothing is going to change. It isn't so much the warming but the fact of the consequences is in doubt. The lack of warming over the last 15 years should of had the scientists look at their computer models as they are based on the assumption that an increase in CO2 would produce a certain effect. We have had the largest amount and increasing year after year without the effect that the models predicted. In addition the amount of CO2 released every year and it is increasing and will continue to increase into the future. India and China want more power and Africa will not be far behind. This is the reality.
2
CO2 is a trace gas. It is 0.041% of our atmosphere, compared to the measurements taken 100+ years ago that were at 0.038% of the total atmosphere.
A 0.003% rise in CO2 over 100 years will NEVER be the cause of any global woes. But then again, historical measurements say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the middle ages.
A 0.003% rise in CO2 over 100 years will NEVER be the cause of any global woes. But then again, historical measurements say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the middle ages.
2
A tube of caulk weighs less than 0.003% the weight of my house, but can cause my house to warm a great deal.
" But then again, historical measurements say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the middle ages."
Baloney.
" But then again, historical measurements say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the middle ages."
Baloney.
The only Global Warming is coming out of Obama, his ilk and the Democrats mouths
Show me the money group
Show me the money group
6
Yes, all those scientists getting fabulously wealthy off of grant money. That's the money group, not the fossil fuel & industrial chemical industry, use your head!
4
Yes, because obviously it's all a big scam that wealthy, greedy scientists have thrust upon an innocent public, while the fossil fuel giants are just poor little victims trying to make an honest buck. Why don't you show me the money? Show me the big bucks scientists are making off this. Right now, your commentary is at the level of the weekly political cartoon published in the Onion, you know, the one with the crying Statue of Liberty.
2
It strikes me as obtuse and sad that we credit ourselves as being the species of highest intelligence on this planet ... within our galaxy even, yet we are actively participating in destroying our environment and our chance of long term survival. What's so intelligent about either denying it's happening, or taking active steps of changing how we live. What intelligent species blindly participates in destroying itself?
4
And yet we don't seem intelligent enough to ask the question, "Where on the planet has become uninhabitable?"
Answer: nowhere.
Answer: nowhere.
3
We permeate the atmosphere with energy frequencies, aka: warmth, from our wireless communication devices putting a hot water bottle under the gas comforter we also create...in addition to heating, lighting, transporting, etc. Denial doesn't make it go away. These need to be part of the discussion.
How good are global temperature readings going back to the 1880s? Are they comparable to current readings? I can't imagine they are nearly as comprehensive nor accurate as what we collect today. Are they based on models/extrapolations/conjecture developed from whatever data were actually collected? I simply don't know.
7
Not a single liberal seems to remember that East Anglia University, the data warehouse for all global temperature reading, threw out 80% of the data collected... because none of it supported global warming (and would end their taxpayer funding).
1
As a horticulturist with half a century of experience. It's easy for me to see what most deny as climate change. Heck, trees known to for their canopy are getting sunburned leaves, disease is killing our forest not only in Yosemite Valley but across the whole state and the air quality on the California coast is never free of Chinese smog. Rains do not wash the air clean anymore. Worse, the horizon is a weird gray color I've seen in Beijing and that blankets the USA and is about 2500 feet thick. I just crossed country by car and saw there are no breaks in the stuff. This trend can be fixed but we have to stop a few guys in Washington from saying there's no money. We have it. They says it is a job killer. Wrong, it is a job producing engine that only needs our will to get it up and running. We have the resources to rebuild our environment and the technology to repair the damage due to our lack of understanding of mother nature. She doesn't care if we die or not. She will just turn us back into oil. Irony, an toast. We must act because everyone in office today is paid to fight against our child having a world to live in and most of us are doing nothing. My I remind reader: Earth First. Nothing else matters if you and I truly want a future for our children.
6
A few simple facts for deniers.
Temperature does not equate to heat.
Average global temperature increases ARE a measure of global warming.
The true change is 'global climate'.
The oceans are the greatest sink of heat and carbon.
Simple example ....warm lakes plus cold air displaced from the arctic brings about the massive snow falls we see as Lake Effect.
The true impacts will be felt in 10-15 years. The science, as is its nature, is very conservative. I wish the conservatives and deniers would be the only ones to feel the impacts but that is not true either.
Temperature does not equate to heat.
Average global temperature increases ARE a measure of global warming.
The true change is 'global climate'.
The oceans are the greatest sink of heat and carbon.
Simple example ....warm lakes plus cold air displaced from the arctic brings about the massive snow falls we see as Lake Effect.
The true impacts will be felt in 10-15 years. The science, as is its nature, is very conservative. I wish the conservatives and deniers would be the only ones to feel the impacts but that is not true either.
10
Yup, it's always in 10-15 years we'll be in trouble, so we better do what you say now. 10-15 years ago Al Gore said the oceans would rise to flood NY and Los Angeles in 10-15 years.
3
"The true impacts will be felt in 10-15 years."
They told us that in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and are still telling us today. Funny how the Today show stopped the daily smog reports over 30 years ago.
They told us that in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and are still telling us today. Funny how the Today show stopped the daily smog reports over 30 years ago.
2
Your ad hominem jab "deniers" is the first sign of a weak a beggarly argument--true science by its very nature is skeptical or it isn't science. Climate is extremely complex and certainly defies your overly simplistic reasoning. You left out negative feedback loops, which is nature's way of balancing it all out in the end. Besides, the so-called 10 hottest years are separated by a few hundredths of a degree, something the article conveniently leaves out as well as the Remote Sensing Systems satellite data which shows there have been 18 years and 3 months without any warming. The claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record is pure statistical nonsense meant to push for a UN IPCC binding agreement in Paris in December.
2
The real question is whether Americans should pay enormous taxes for likely little environmental benefit. The earth warms, and it cools, and has done for four billion years.
But mostly I see this as an excuse for a money and power grab by Our Betters.
But mostly I see this as an excuse for a money and power grab by Our Betters.
12
"Environmental benefit" is mostly hot air at this point. No denying that.
3
Mr. Smith, the current environmental situation is not part of any pattern, it is a direct causation of human activity, and there has never been this many humans on this planet in natural history. The main question that scientists are posing to us is whether or not humans have the discipline and intelligence to moderate their behavior in order to survive within our environment without self destruction.
According to you, self moderation is a nihilistic endeavor, and self moderation is another pure form of altruism, which would only benefit everyone else, except for you. Also, you state that moderating human behavior towards our environment is meaningless and it is just a sham to benefit the powerful. You and Thrasymachus believe that if anyone asks of you to sacrifice in the name of some collective benefit, this will always involves sacrificing your own self-interest to the interests of everyone else. Both of you believe that everyone is constantly trying to sucker you. However, everyone that thinks like the both of you will show us all who is the most clever by destroying all life on Earth.
According to you, self moderation is a nihilistic endeavor, and self moderation is another pure form of altruism, which would only benefit everyone else, except for you. Also, you state that moderating human behavior towards our environment is meaningless and it is just a sham to benefit the powerful. You and Thrasymachus believe that if anyone asks of you to sacrifice in the name of some collective benefit, this will always involves sacrificing your own self-interest to the interests of everyone else. Both of you believe that everyone is constantly trying to sucker you. However, everyone that thinks like the both of you will show us all who is the most clever by destroying all life on Earth.
We get reports like this all the time. The warnings are clear. Yet, deniers don't believe it. They never will. They say these scientists have an agenda. Or even that it's too cold in my neighborhood for this to be real. I wish, however, that deniers would address the Pentagon's own report. The Pentagon has studied this at length and concluded that climate change will cause global (and perhaps domestic) instability. Did they also get it wrong?
5
Maybe they shouldn't have thrown out 80% of all global temp. data (none of which supported the farce) at East Anglia U.
2
They did not "throw away" any data. The body of temnperature readings that climatologists use is all public, and is stored in many copies all over the world. They cannot, and do not, "throw away" any data.
I wish the Times would strop using the term "climate change skeptics" for those who deny climate change. "Climate change deniers" is a more accurate term. The deniers are not skeptics, rather they are dogmatists. Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and of those who look to the over-whelming body of evidence pointing to climate change as a result of human activity.
17
No, the skeptics are realists who don't believe your shrieking claims. We've seen numerous reports of faked data the global warming zealots faked to prove their ridiculous claim.
2
LOL!!!!! Climate Change is normal!!!! Liberals don't know this? The debate is Man Made climate change!!!!! Ignorance is bliss....
3
The irony of it all is the commentators talking doomsday and then go outside and get in their carbon units!
7
"2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements."
Also, the record goes back only to 1880.
What were the global temperatures 500, 5,000 or 50,000 years ago?
Also, the record goes back only to 1880.
What were the global temperatures 500, 5,000 or 50,000 years ago?
11
500 years ago you can get ballpark figures from chroniclers. 5000 years ago you can guesstimate from archaeological evidence. 50,000 years ago you can guess from paleobotanical evidence.
Scientists have been studying these questions. They have provided answers. Educate yoruself.
Scientists have been studying these questions. They have provided answers. Educate yoruself.
1
Let's stop releasing methane into the air (This would mean much tougher regulation or even outright bans on fracking.) and try to capture that carbon dioxide. Wait, don't trees capture CO2? I guess we need to start conserving forests and support ideas like the greenbelt movement that emphasize replanting trees (and just one species of tree, a variety of species).
1
Good luck catching 0.0041% of our atmosphere. Didn't they tell you CO2 is a trace gas?
1
What egos we all have, to think mankind can affect a global warming climate. No one wants bad air or dirty water. But as all of since knows the sun continues to grow and expand which is the prominent reason the earth continues to warm. In a billion years or so mankind will have to leave this planet, and when we do earth will continue to warm.
7
A less than 200 year measurement is meaningless... the earth is billions of years old. Just digest that for a moment, BILLIONS of years old. The planet may be warming, but it's absurd to think that it somehow should remain the same in some sort of stasis for our pleasure.
10
What are you trying to say? The measurements mentioned in this article would make a big difference over a 200 year period. So this "less than 200 year measurement" is not meaningless. And yes the our planet has warming and cooling periods. We are currently entering a cooling period. Wait, what!? That's right. The Earth should be cooling down.
1
What the headline should say is "IPCC AGW Predictions Wrong for another Year!" Now THAT would be accurate!
For 30 years the climatistas predictions have been wrong. Why would any right thinking person think they were suddenly going to be correct? A casual perusal of the "models" being relied upon to generate fear about global warming will show that are highly inaccurate and so have been falsified.
Get a clue ideologues, AGW predictions can not in any way be relied upon so stop being so willing to murder millions of the poor in homage to your fanaticism! THAT is the true scandal.
For 30 years the climatistas predictions have been wrong. Why would any right thinking person think they were suddenly going to be correct? A casual perusal of the "models" being relied upon to generate fear about global warming will show that are highly inaccurate and so have been falsified.
Get a clue ideologues, AGW predictions can not in any way be relied upon so stop being so willing to murder millions of the poor in homage to your fanaticism! THAT is the true scandal.
7
Stop calling them "skeptics." They are liars, plain and simple.
9
Here's the real danger, which I learned recently. Mercury has a carbon level of 5. It is completely uninhabitable because of the extreme heat. Earth currently has a carbon level of 3. In approximately 30 years we are expected to reach a level of 4. If we do, Earth as we know it could be close to being uninhabitable, not to mention the side effects of melting glaciers, resulting in tsunamis, and related natural disasters. This is just 30 or so years away folks. The answer is to immediately reduce reliance on fuel which creates fuel emissions which increases the carbon level in the atmosphere. Pass this info along please.
3
Mercury's close proximity to the sun undoubtedly has a larger impact on its extreme temperature than any atmospheric conditions.
3
Well, now all you need to do is pray harder! Right!? Joking aside, this is horrific if it is true.
Carbon (what you are made of) has nothing to do with carbon dioxide (the atmospheric trace gas).
1
Lots of news today. The oceans are over fished and in parts of the world are dying, both due to human activity. And now the warmest year on record, or if you prefer, a continuation of a "warmish plateau". This plateau is at plus one degree C, enough to melt the arctic ice sheet, and continue the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. There is also a more than likely chance of the sliding of the West Antarctic ice sheet into the ocean--predicted to cause up to a 10' rise in sea level. And while Rome burns the world's collective governments...... and especially ours.
And in economic news, a fear of "deflationary spiral" in Switzerland. While i don't disagree with the macro-economics, the proper term would be another event in our Carbon economy, because that's what's important, a continuation of the carbon emitting industrial revolution and anthropogenic warming, which will have devastating consequences for humankind, if the present trend in carbon emissions is not reversed
Another news event i will contribute. I just walked through the duty free shops at Hong Kong airport (French perfume at $140/bottle). Almost all the products offered were totally unnecessary. Then in the U.S. there are $30,000 luxury pick up trucks. Think about it for a minute. Most of the Carbon economy, that is killing the planet, is to make products that are totally unnecessary.
Look at pictures of Earth from space. A very thin atmosphere that supports life. Why destroy it in the name of GDP?
And in economic news, a fear of "deflationary spiral" in Switzerland. While i don't disagree with the macro-economics, the proper term would be another event in our Carbon economy, because that's what's important, a continuation of the carbon emitting industrial revolution and anthropogenic warming, which will have devastating consequences for humankind, if the present trend in carbon emissions is not reversed
Another news event i will contribute. I just walked through the duty free shops at Hong Kong airport (French perfume at $140/bottle). Almost all the products offered were totally unnecessary. Then in the U.S. there are $30,000 luxury pick up trucks. Think about it for a minute. Most of the Carbon economy, that is killing the planet, is to make products that are totally unnecessary.
Look at pictures of Earth from space. A very thin atmosphere that supports life. Why destroy it in the name of GDP?
7
We got rid of the pollutant carbon monoxide long ago. It used to be in our gasoline, but since the switch to unleaded gas, it's not an issue anymore.
These triumphant articles make it seem as if climate science is an athletic or political contest. There are allegedly clear winners & losers. Science is portrayed as never ambiguous & the facts are always easily discernible. With the often explicit insinuation that those who do not agree with the worst case view (in climate science) are either knaves or fools. But, neither side has actually *won* this debate. The worst case scenarios have not been established as true by this marginal warming.
The article dismisses John Christy's remarks with the implication that he just won't agree with reality. But as mentioned in the article, he has "... skepticism about the seriousness of global warming...". "Seriousness" has to do with questioning the proffered worst case predictions. He is not a denier in any way. Surely, the difference of a few hundred degrees, one way or the other, is cause for debate around the predicted outcomes. It certainly does not determine that the direst predictions of the global warming alarmists are the "correct" view.
In science, there should always be continuous debates about possible, but truly unknown, outcomes. Otherwise, it's just ideology, not science.
The article dismisses John Christy's remarks with the implication that he just won't agree with reality. But as mentioned in the article, he has "... skepticism about the seriousness of global warming...". "Seriousness" has to do with questioning the proffered worst case predictions. He is not a denier in any way. Surely, the difference of a few hundred degrees, one way or the other, is cause for debate around the predicted outcomes. It certainly does not determine that the direst predictions of the global warming alarmists are the "correct" view.
In science, there should always be continuous debates about possible, but truly unknown, outcomes. Otherwise, it's just ideology, not science.
66
J. Gillis and the Times must keep their narrative intact, we are terrible for the planet and we all must be turned back into the technology we had in 1905.
2
"A few hundred degrees"? If it ever gets to that point, we won't be here to comment on it!
No one is saying that science is infallible, or that we should stop having debates. The problem is that at some point you have to act. This is not a fine academic issue, like some obscure point of philosophy, that people can debate endlessly without coming to a consensus. This is something that could threaten our very existence.
Look, your side keeps coming up with nitpicks about the climate model, and whether or not some advocate for taking action against climate change is an "alarmist" or not. Obviously, predicting global climate details into the future is not an exact science, given that the climate is so complicated and there are so many variables. But you don't have to get it precisely right to see disturbing trends. If we act in ways that are likely to reduce the global temperature, no harm is done. Refusing to do anything is much riskier.
No one is saying that science is infallible, or that we should stop having debates. The problem is that at some point you have to act. This is not a fine academic issue, like some obscure point of philosophy, that people can debate endlessly without coming to a consensus. This is something that could threaten our very existence.
Look, your side keeps coming up with nitpicks about the climate model, and whether or not some advocate for taking action against climate change is an "alarmist" or not. Obviously, predicting global climate details into the future is not an exact science, given that the climate is so complicated and there are so many variables. But you don't have to get it precisely right to see disturbing trends. If we act in ways that are likely to reduce the global temperature, no harm is done. Refusing to do anything is much riskier.
4
When the declarations were made that it was settled, over, etc., and the debate closed, many rational people were turned off. Somehow questioning and skepticism became a sign of ignorance. Dissenters were denigrated.
Soon enough the treatment was reciprocated.
Now, it's become a battle of their own making, between the zealots and deniers. They have only themselves to blame for having created this dynamic, turning this into one more ideological life-and-death struggle, refusing to acknowledge any opposing viewpoints, just like every other.
Soon enough the treatment was reciprocated.
Now, it's become a battle of their own making, between the zealots and deniers. They have only themselves to blame for having created this dynamic, turning this into one more ideological life-and-death struggle, refusing to acknowledge any opposing viewpoints, just like every other.
3
This is an excellent workmanlike report on one more in the piles of evidence accumulating that confirm that experts have an increasingly clear understanding of overall planetary trends. We cannot continue to treat our finite planet as a dump and cornucopia, nor should be let our habits and preferences demand ever more chemically complex and often toxic products without heeding the need to control every kind of waste and emission. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases have and continue to accumulate in our atmosphere, and there is now more energy in the system.
The inclusion of Christy is a sad commentary on our world today, that we must treat a dubious source, not unconnected to vested interests, that is not skeptical but "skeptical". We are not allowed to indicate that this is not real skepticism. Scientists are skeptical, which means they don't choose the facts they wish to believe and have no curiosity as to why so many who work in the field have something to say they wish to set aside.
Here's a fine illustration of the many consequences of our buildup as time goes by. This is not trivial:
http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greatacceleration
The inclusion of Christy is a sad commentary on our world today, that we must treat a dubious source, not unconnected to vested interests, that is not skeptical but "skeptical". We are not allowed to indicate that this is not real skepticism. Scientists are skeptical, which means they don't choose the facts they wish to believe and have no curiosity as to why so many who work in the field have something to say they wish to set aside.
Here's a fine illustration of the many consequences of our buildup as time goes by. This is not trivial:
http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greatacceleration
3
There's no way a 150 year view of Earth is a "clear understanding of overall planetary trends". You'd need to go back a few BILLION years to do that.
1
Susan,
The claim of a plateau does have some support. My best fit has it beginning in 2006. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warm...
However, Christy should be clearer that a wiggle, however real, does not mean that warming is not occurring. Usually, thirty year spans are used to measure the warming trend while shorter spans may have attributes that can be associated with interesting shorter duration effects.
The claim of a plateau does have some support. My best fit has it beginning in 2006. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warm...
However, Christy should be clearer that a wiggle, however real, does not mean that warming is not occurring. Usually, thirty year spans are used to measure the warming trend while shorter spans may have attributes that can be associated with interesting shorter duration effects.
2
This report coupled with the one also running on the fact that the seas which cover 7/8 of the earth's surface, are headed for a massive die off is enough to really frighten me.
Time to get out the bicycle and plant more trees. Hopefully others will do the same. I still believe we should "Be the change we wish to see."
Time to get out the bicycle and plant more trees. Hopefully others will do the same. I still believe we should "Be the change we wish to see."
5
Not gonna happen in third world countries with the most population growth. In any case I think you will have much more to deal with than global warming in the next 30 years (I won't be around that long).
2
3/4.... the oceans are 3/4 of the planet.
Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Claiming 2014 is the 'hottest year' on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming 'pause' is continuing.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To Satellites
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl analyzes satellite temperature data: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Claiming 2014 is the 'hottest year' on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming 'pause' is continuing.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To Satellites
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl analyzes satellite temperature data: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
7
1 degree. This is the big deal? I would like to know if they are as concerned about the apparent ice age that happened in the 20 years from 1880 to 1910 also a difference of around .7 degrees from this arbitrary average.
How can they be confident that what is happening in California is a result of a 1 degree average change, and how do they know how unusual a 1 degree vacillation up or down is over a hundred years?
If they showed me a chart that the earth has never sustained a vacillation of more than 1 degrees for 10 years in the last 1000 years I would say this is significant although the cause is still unknown, but you can take a slice of any chart and showcase its vacillations as an abnormality if you do not show the full context that sets a standard if what normal should be.
There is not enough information here about what normal weather patterns were before the industrial revolution to make a judgement about what this means. I'm not saying the information doesn't exist I just don't see it here.
How can they be confident that what is happening in California is a result of a 1 degree average change, and how do they know how unusual a 1 degree vacillation up or down is over a hundred years?
If they showed me a chart that the earth has never sustained a vacillation of more than 1 degrees for 10 years in the last 1000 years I would say this is significant although the cause is still unknown, but you can take a slice of any chart and showcase its vacillations as an abnormality if you do not show the full context that sets a standard if what normal should be.
There is not enough information here about what normal weather patterns were before the industrial revolution to make a judgement about what this means. I'm not saying the information doesn't exist I just don't see it here.
10
"1 degree. This is the big deal?"
If we had fairies and leprechains magically restocking the supermarkets every night, it would not be a big deal.
If we had fairies and leprechains magically restocking the supermarkets every night, it would not be a big deal.
1
@Omri
It's not a big deal when you see almost the exact same difference in the opposite direction in the beginning of the graph. There was no significant man made cooling at that point but something caused the temperatures to head in a downward trend for a period of 30 years from 1880 to 1900 but no one seems to care about that.
Even from this relatively tiny slice of temperature history you can see that 1 degree down is not a cause for concern and the temperature can vary in a downward trend of one degree with no manmade cause. What would the graph look like if you stretched it back 2000 years for example? Do you think that there would not be a single other instance of a 30 year stretch of one degree difference up or down other than the 1880-1910 and early 1980-2014 aberrations? My guess is just from seeing the random 1880-1910 aberration trend that there would be many more possibly much more extreme totally natural aberrations even in the last 2000 years
That is not to say that manmade global warming doesn't exist but the question is if natural warming and cooling has created significantly more pronounced differences and we did fine than who cares about this?
It's not a big deal when you see almost the exact same difference in the opposite direction in the beginning of the graph. There was no significant man made cooling at that point but something caused the temperatures to head in a downward trend for a period of 30 years from 1880 to 1900 but no one seems to care about that.
Even from this relatively tiny slice of temperature history you can see that 1 degree down is not a cause for concern and the temperature can vary in a downward trend of one degree with no manmade cause. What would the graph look like if you stretched it back 2000 years for example? Do you think that there would not be a single other instance of a 30 year stretch of one degree difference up or down other than the 1880-1910 and early 1980-2014 aberrations? My guess is just from seeing the random 1880-1910 aberration trend that there would be many more possibly much more extreme totally natural aberrations even in the last 2000 years
That is not to say that manmade global warming doesn't exist but the question is if natural warming and cooling has created significantly more pronounced differences and we did fine than who cares about this?
1
Bumper sticker at a trendy local restaurant in Louisville, coal-state Kentucky.
"The War on Coal? Bring it! Stop Obama" In this time of ultimate importance the public relations industry is employing the same tactics used to sell cigarettes and unsafe chemicals, to reframe the public policy on global warming. The rise of infotainment and the decline of journalism arrive at the same time global unity is needed to face the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuel combustion in a planet of human population 7.2 billion. In my locality I have to scan multiple TV and websites for anything that comprises real news about local and regional impacts and policy. Its all jump shots, cleavage and black arrestees. The media covers the Detroit Automobile show with fawning attention not the true alarm it deserves. Detroit is relying on macho chrome grills that invoke gladiators and vikings to sell FORD F-150s and bigger SUVs by the tens of millions locking the public into a mindset and decade of climate denying as we race across dirty concrete infrastructure of poured concrete paid for in billions of municipal debt. The critical tens years to make policy decisions to keep human civilization following a path of sustainable peace are squandered by the public relations shills.
"The War on Coal? Bring it! Stop Obama" In this time of ultimate importance the public relations industry is employing the same tactics used to sell cigarettes and unsafe chemicals, to reframe the public policy on global warming. The rise of infotainment and the decline of journalism arrive at the same time global unity is needed to face the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuel combustion in a planet of human population 7.2 billion. In my locality I have to scan multiple TV and websites for anything that comprises real news about local and regional impacts and policy. Its all jump shots, cleavage and black arrestees. The media covers the Detroit Automobile show with fawning attention not the true alarm it deserves. Detroit is relying on macho chrome grills that invoke gladiators and vikings to sell FORD F-150s and bigger SUVs by the tens of millions locking the public into a mindset and decade of climate denying as we race across dirty concrete infrastructure of poured concrete paid for in billions of municipal debt. The critical tens years to make policy decisions to keep human civilization following a path of sustainable peace are squandered by the public relations shills.
1
One little-known, but amazing fact: Congress contributed less-than-normal amounts of hot air to the hottest year on record, since they spent so little time in Washington..Most of the time with their mouths shut while counting their "take" from the lobbyists, and the puppet-masters. 2015, leading up to a federal election, followed by the Presidential election year of 2016, will probably set a NEW record for the hottest year........
3
Oh but I'm certain all Republicans will continue to deny it. See it doesn't say on page one of their Bible, "global warming is true", so God's not in favor of it and it must be a lie they figure.
So the earth is changing and it's likely to wipe out most larger species, most of humanity, and possibly all of humanity. If it only takes most of humanity, I sure hope it takes out all the deniers of climate change first and foremost.
And we won't do anything in time to ameliorate the disaster. Because we're stupid, best to be honest about it.
So the earth is changing and it's likely to wipe out most larger species, most of humanity, and possibly all of humanity. If it only takes most of humanity, I sure hope it takes out all the deniers of climate change first and foremost.
And we won't do anything in time to ameliorate the disaster. Because we're stupid, best to be honest about it.
3
It isn't so much global warming as we are loosing our protection from UV's that concerns me. I maintain several properties here in Hawaii and the UV's are getting worse. Exterior finishes are wearing off faster (even with better products) and the sun can be almost painful during our high UV months.
1
It would take the die off humans to cool the earth, right? But, there won't be anyone to measure it.
And next week, another group of just as learned scientists will come up with numbers to show just the opposite.
5
Nope. Not scientists. Not learned. Just paid shills from the denial industry.
It's incredible to read some of these comments denying climate change, despite the fact that it's being directly observed.
11
What you refer to as denial of climate change is a misstatement of the debate. The climate is and has changed for billions of years and will continue to do so even after all the carbon credit hucksters are long gone. What is being directly observed by people who are not zealots for the climate change lobby, is that man cannot significantly alter the planet's climate. To claim so, is supremely arrogant and misguided.
1
Steve pacini:
President Obama and his Administration could not even build a front-end computer system after having written thousands and thousands of regulations to address one finite area, health care insurance. (Republicans were quickly blamed for his incompetence.)
Somehow we are supposed to hand over billions in tax dollars to people like him to save the planet. Anyone who isn't skeptical needs to have his head examined.
President Obama and his Administration could not even build a front-end computer system after having written thousands and thousands of regulations to address one finite area, health care insurance. (Republicans were quickly blamed for his incompetence.)
Somehow we are supposed to hand over billions in tax dollars to people like him to save the planet. Anyone who isn't skeptical needs to have his head examined.
1
There is no statistically significant difference in warming between the last three "hottest" years. In other words, warming is not occurring at an "alarming" rate and the IPCC temperature estimates will necessarily have to be revised down soon. Everything else is just hype and spin.
12
The point is that the hiatus in warming was linked to the El Nino - La Nina cycle. The paper clearly shows that if you plot the temperature trend for the specific cycles the temperature rise is as predicted and expected.
1
Miami Joe:
No paper "clearly shows" anything. It is an interpretation of partial data. This is the entire point of the debate.
No paper "clearly shows" anything. It is an interpretation of partial data. This is the entire point of the debate.
Noteworthy is the fact that the new satellite designed and launched into space for the specific purpose of measuring and recording carbon emissions found that the vast majority of such emissions come from South America, central Africa and China. Not the U.S. or E.U.
Also noteworthy is Al Gore's statement that "Global warming is about Global government."
Also noteworthy is Al Gore's statement that "Global warming is about Global government."
10
Gives "big government" an entirely new meaning. Nothing surprising there.
The US is getting too small for democrats. This is their ticket to world power.
The US is getting too small for democrats. This is their ticket to world power.
2
First of all you do not state which "carbon emissions" you refer to. But I assume that it is CO2. Also I assume that you refer to the NASA presentation at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December where they presented initial results from NASA's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/19dec_oco/
They showed the results for ONE month, Oct-Nov 2014, data that is hot off the satellite. To quote: ""Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests," This is no surprise. They go on to say, "The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good,..". And models and other data show that the northern hemisphere is clearly by far the major source of CO2 emissions on an annual basis. It is clear that your political agenda is much stronger than your knowledge of science or your desire to understand it.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/19dec_oco/
They showed the results for ONE month, Oct-Nov 2014, data that is hot off the satellite. To quote: ""Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests," This is no surprise. They go on to say, "The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good,..". And models and other data show that the northern hemisphere is clearly by far the major source of CO2 emissions on an annual basis. It is clear that your political agenda is much stronger than your knowledge of science or your desire to understand it.
1
Whenever someone tells me about how scary global warming is I ask them if they run their home energy through solar. When they 99.9999999999% of the time tell me no, the conversation is over.
9
- Do you have solar in Ontario?
- No, we run hydro, nuclear and natural gas, we cut coal plants off completely!
- This conversation is over!
- No, we run hydro, nuclear and natural gas, we cut coal plants off completely!
- This conversation is over!
I "run my home energy through solar". When the 99+% tell me they don't, that's when the conversation BEGINS.
4
I immediately think they are easily frightened and likely to believe what is presented without skepticism.
1
The Conservative wing's apoplexy about global warming is pathetic in more ways than one.
Think about it: Back in the day, it would have been the conservative or republican business people who would have INVENTED climate change as a way to create demand for a new industry of "green" products and technologies.
Then Madison Ave. marketers would have figured out a way to sell the stuff and exploit the rest of the world. Huge profits would be the result.
So where are the industrialists and investors that used to make up the Conservative and Republican party now? Too busy tilting at the Obama windmill I guess.
Meanwhile, they're missing the biggest money-making opportunity ever.
Bottom line? Who cares whether climate change is real or not? Exploit the heck out of it for profit! I'm surprised no one has picked up on this opportunity yet.
Think about it: Back in the day, it would have been the conservative or republican business people who would have INVENTED climate change as a way to create demand for a new industry of "green" products and technologies.
Then Madison Ave. marketers would have figured out a way to sell the stuff and exploit the rest of the world. Huge profits would be the result.
So where are the industrialists and investors that used to make up the Conservative and Republican party now? Too busy tilting at the Obama windmill I guess.
Meanwhile, they're missing the biggest money-making opportunity ever.
Bottom line? Who cares whether climate change is real or not? Exploit the heck out of it for profit! I'm surprised no one has picked up on this opportunity yet.
3
This reminds me of the WSJ critiques of the Toyota Prius when that funny looking car started appearing on our shores. The Society of Automotive Engineers was equally skeptical of the technology for years after it was introduced.
Why did they care that a private company had identified what they thought was a profitable opportunity, and was then trying to make money by filling it? If the GOP were running Toyota, Toyota would not be making a single hybrid today because..."BOO" it would be part of a liberal do gooder conspiracy.
I think the opposition to these cars was so strong because it made capitalists look at themselves, thus revealing the dumb choices they had made. Easier to pooh pooh the better mousetrap than to improve your own.
Why did they care that a private company had identified what they thought was a profitable opportunity, and was then trying to make money by filling it? If the GOP were running Toyota, Toyota would not be making a single hybrid today because..."BOO" it would be part of a liberal do gooder conspiracy.
I think the opposition to these cars was so strong because it made capitalists look at themselves, thus revealing the dumb choices they had made. Easier to pooh pooh the better mousetrap than to improve your own.
1
So when the year's warm of course it's global warming. When it's cold it's just weather.
Got it.
Got it.
11
Yes, when a year is warm for the whole planet, it's global warming.
When a DAY is cold where you are, it's just weather.
Hope that helps.
When a DAY is cold where you are, it's just weather.
Hope that helps.
2
To which recent "cold" year (globally, not in your backyard) are you referring?
1
This is a perfect example of a non-sequitur! "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement." "Global warming" considers ALL weather data, both heat and cold. You statement shows that you have no understanding of climate science.
Seen on a t-shirt: "I'm Not as Smart as a Climate Scientist, But I'm Smart Enough to Listen to Them."
6
OK. Here's another one for you:
"follow the money"
Ask yourself "if there was no climate change alarmism going on, what would these climate scientists do for work?"
"follow the money"
Ask yourself "if there was no climate change alarmism going on, what would these climate scientists do for work?"
2
What do the Climate Scientists say about the probability of humans being able to cool the planet?
Ask yourself "if there was no climate change alarmism going on, what would these climate scientists do for work?"
They are mostly tenured professors. They would do precisely the same work in the same workplaces.
There's a lot mroe money to be gotten denying climate change than from studying it.
They are mostly tenured professors. They would do precisely the same work in the same workplaces.
There's a lot mroe money to be gotten denying climate change than from studying it.
1
As a resident of estuarial Louisiana, I'm more than slightly disturbed by this article, along with a recent one, suggesting that sea-level rise is happening a bit faster than previously imagined. Combined with the relentless geological subsidence with which we are confronted, it seems that it's inevitable that New Orleans and environs will soon become beach-front real estate.
As disquieting as this possibility might be, what's even more upsetting is the no-nothing attitude our very own Senators and Representatives manifest. All seem dedicated to hastening the climate-change process.
What's truly alarming, is a map published recently in National Geographic, showing the probable effects of the melting of the earth's ice. Unfortunately, most of Louisiana (as well as all of Florida) are shown as submerged. Will we, as a nation, continue to ignore the problem until its negative consequences are unavoidable and irreversible?
As disquieting as this possibility might be, what's even more upsetting is the no-nothing attitude our very own Senators and Representatives manifest. All seem dedicated to hastening the climate-change process.
What's truly alarming, is a map published recently in National Geographic, showing the probable effects of the melting of the earth's ice. Unfortunately, most of Louisiana (as well as all of Florida) are shown as submerged. Will we, as a nation, continue to ignore the problem until its negative consequences are unavoidable and irreversible?
4
Naw, as all New Orleanians should know you're already living in an area 6' below sea level. There's more than enough levees for that matter to help protect the Isle of New Orleans eh? You may though want to start now working on the name change paperwork.
Support Human Extinction - Vote Republican 2016
42
Every one of you out there who drives an oversize vehicle and lousy gas mileage, do us all a favor and trade it in, please . . .
4
As can be seen from the chart, the American 'brain trust' is unfortunately centered on an area that was a bit cooler last year compared to the rest of the planet. As we all know, their knowledge of climate science is basically limited to what they observe outside of their windows.
2
The article carefully avoids mentioning statistics but the graphic reveals that the range of temperature changes since 1880 are less than 1.5F.
Think about it - can we really measure temperatures that accurately across the entire globe?
Are we measuring in all the same places? With the same quality equipment? Only using satellite telemetry since the 1960's?
Think about it - can we really measure temperatures that accurately across the entire globe?
Are we measuring in all the same places? With the same quality equipment? Only using satellite telemetry since the 1960's?
6
"....Think about it - can we really measure temperatures that accurately across the entire globe?..."
Of course we can, out to 4 or more decimal points. this isn't 1950. Well, for the Deniers it is....
Of course we can, out to 4 or more decimal points. this isn't 1950. Well, for the Deniers it is....
2
Fortunately a few smart people decided not to go to Wall Street to destroy the economy every 10 years, and instead are spending their time understanding exactly the problems you mention. I think they can handle it.
Satellite measurements since 1979, actually. Otherwise, your post is right on. We have a short record of acceptable-quality climate data and a long record of very poor-quality data. Drawing accurate conclusions from that is difficult at best, and likely impossible.
1
2014 was yet again another record year for the divergence between actual measurements and the models used to gin up irrational hysteria.
There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 18 years now. They are reporting differences in hundredths of a degree, then claiming that a hundredth of a degree difference between this year an 2010 globally is cause for alarm.
There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 18 years now. They are reporting differences in hundredths of a degree, then claiming that a hundredth of a degree difference between this year an 2010 globally is cause for alarm.
10
I don't dispute that humans are impacting global climate change. However, if it's true that 2014 "... surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements," then I wonder how the article would read had 2014 been lower by that same few hundredths. The margin of error is always reported when poll results are published. Why not when it comes to annual temperature variations?
9
the critical issue is whether its man-made or not. the planet has undergone many climate changes over the eons. I fail to understand why some scientists can be so sure that of all the climate changes planet earth has experienced, this one for sure is due to man. these scientists made so many mistakes when it comes to predictions-over-population, running out of food, running out of oil, etc, and yet they don't have the common sense or intellectual honesty to admit that theres a good chance they are wrong about this climate change. yet they want us to turn the economy upside down at enormous cost. the leaked email scandal shows, too, that these scientists are biased and mostly leftists- they lost all credibility when I read some of those emails. it no longer is science to the-- they are politicians with an agenda.
3
A: because in this case the error is much larger than the 0.04 C record difference, which makes them statistically indistinguishable. But that would undermine the authors political/ideological goals, so it's omitted.
1
The graph shown in this article shows clearly that warming has leveled off over the past 15 years after ramping up. If you go back to data that tracks even longer term trends, you'll see that there is nothing remarkable about this warming cycle that would indicate that it is anything other than a normal cyclical trend. When it comes to global patterns, going back a couple of hundred years is still too short-sighted. The earth has been around a lot longer than that.
4
Yes. We must all agree that the evidence proves, beyond any doubt, that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880. Thank you.
We are reminded (also by the majority of leading, mainstream scientists) that "climate change" is typically measured over thousands of years. I think the evidence demonstrates that we are clearly in a warming trend. Cause for alarm is legitimate. Efforts to control or reduce our impact on the climate are laudable.
The one obvious thing that few activists in this debate will touch on is the ballooning population throughout the world. There were only 200 million people living in the western hemisphere before Columbus arrived. Now there are over 300 million in America, alone. The existence of humanity - regardless of personally created carbon footprint - is having an adverse impact.
The question is... what do the experts propose we do to combat this most obvious, contributing factor? I'm not sure we're ready to hear it.
We are reminded (also by the majority of leading, mainstream scientists) that "climate change" is typically measured over thousands of years. I think the evidence demonstrates that we are clearly in a warming trend. Cause for alarm is legitimate. Efforts to control or reduce our impact on the climate are laudable.
The one obvious thing that few activists in this debate will touch on is the ballooning population throughout the world. There were only 200 million people living in the western hemisphere before Columbus arrived. Now there are over 300 million in America, alone. The existence of humanity - regardless of personally created carbon footprint - is having an adverse impact.
The question is... what do the experts propose we do to combat this most obvious, contributing factor? I'm not sure we're ready to hear it.
15
Oh, just do whatever the believers say. That is the beauty of AGW: it supports anything. Don't like coal, get rid of it. Don't like people, get rid of them.
When people focus on tangible problems: fisheries, air-pollution, etc. they don't have carte blanche to recommend anything they feel like and lose sight of achieving incremental improvement.
Remember acid rain, freon, mercury? These were focused on and improved.
When people focus on tangible problems: fisheries, air-pollution, etc. they don't have carte blanche to recommend anything they feel like and lose sight of achieving incremental improvement.
Remember acid rain, freon, mercury? These were focused on and improved.
1
Look at the article's very picture: "Runners in Siberia". Beautiful!
Now google up any of thousands of pictures of "freezing to death in Siberia". A horror!
If "Runners in Siberia", for example, is the effect of "global warming" why why why oh why on earth -- other than it counters an all-consuming article of political faith -- is this not welcomed with open arms?
Now google up any of thousands of pictures of "freezing to death in Siberia". A horror!
If "Runners in Siberia", for example, is the effect of "global warming" why why why oh why on earth -- other than it counters an all-consuming article of political faith -- is this not welcomed with open arms?
2
And when towns along the U.S.'s eastern coast are flooded, should residents welcome the waters with open arms?
2
It is lucky for all of us, that based upon our current economic model corporate structures and laws, that our personal liability is limited to our financial investment. In this model our retirements are dependent on the the ability of these corporations to maximize their returns while shifting as much of the cost to others now and/or future generations. We can "invest" in an index fund further weakening our sense of responsibly for any harm done in pursuit of our good and safe life. The logic of our current economic system seems to hold that somebody should do something about this climate change issue....somebody else.
1
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write this because whenever I find myself in a conversation regarding climate change, I get shouted down and snickered at as though I'm an idiot, but here goes.
The front page headline for this article is extremely misleading. It screams that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded on Earth! This is patently untrue. It was the hottest year since the 1880's, when (somewhat) reliable records began to be kept. Further, this "record" was apparently quite the squeaker, and falls well within scientific margin of error.
Over the years, the language of the climate change demagogues has subtly shifted. Once it was Global Warming, now it is Climate Change (opens up a whole lot of possibilities, yes?); hottest ever is now hottest on record; on record is now shifting to "as compared to 20th century average". Look closely at the small print on the chart: it's using an average calculated from between 1950 and 1980! That is, like, what, about as infinitesimal a sliver of comparative data as one could possibly come up with! Move the goalposts much??
Look folks, the climate is changing. Duh. It has always been changing! It is not a static system. Just because we can measure something does not make it meaningful. Just because we dominate the planet does not mean we have manifest destiny over the climate.
Please, stop the hysteria. It's getting embarrassing.
The front page headline for this article is extremely misleading. It screams that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded on Earth! This is patently untrue. It was the hottest year since the 1880's, when (somewhat) reliable records began to be kept. Further, this "record" was apparently quite the squeaker, and falls well within scientific margin of error.
Over the years, the language of the climate change demagogues has subtly shifted. Once it was Global Warming, now it is Climate Change (opens up a whole lot of possibilities, yes?); hottest ever is now hottest on record; on record is now shifting to "as compared to 20th century average". Look closely at the small print on the chart: it's using an average calculated from between 1950 and 1980! That is, like, what, about as infinitesimal a sliver of comparative data as one could possibly come up with! Move the goalposts much??
Look folks, the climate is changing. Duh. It has always been changing! It is not a static system. Just because we can measure something does not make it meaningful. Just because we dominate the planet does not mean we have manifest destiny over the climate.
Please, stop the hysteria. It's getting embarrassing.
3
There aren't climate change 'demagogues'; there are scientists across every discipline predicting anthropogenic increases in the planet's average temperature due to the fundamental properties of CO2. These scientists include the National Academy of Sciences in every country in the G8, the National Oceanic and Air Administration (which brings you your weather reports), NASA, and just about every leading science magazine and university.
You embarrass yourself by disagreeing with the growing mountains of evidence.
You embarrass yourself by disagreeing with the growing mountains of evidence.
2
you get shouted down because, if you pardon my saying so, you don't seem to pay attention or read accurately
The headline is "hottest year on record"
you say, hottest year ever
what is your problem with using 1950/1980 as a baseline ?
I mean, you have to plot the data in a meaningful way; if you have a better way of plotting the data, please, provide a link
The headline is "hottest year on record"
you say, hottest year ever
what is your problem with using 1950/1980 as a baseline ?
I mean, you have to plot the data in a meaningful way; if you have a better way of plotting the data, please, provide a link
2
Amazing how you know so much more than 90%+ of the world scientists. I assume you go to a witch doctor for your health care?
3
It may undermine certain claims but it won't bring them to an end. Heck, expect the House leadership to double down on ignorance and arrogance. Once you know your skill set I suppose you just stick with it.
11
Oh yes, I'm sure the temperature readings in 1880 were just as extensive and accurately recorded as they were in the later half of the 21st century. Pease.
And how come there's no mention of the fact that the IPCC cherry picked their thermometer data and got rid of the thermometers that consistently measured lower surface temperatures? Probably for the same reason IPCC Svengali Keith Briffa got rid of the Bristlecone pine tree data he collected on the Yamal Peninsula that showed no warming either and only used outliers to help construct the now infamous — and fully debunked — hockey stick.
And how come there's no mention of the fact that the IPCC cherry picked their thermometer data and got rid of the thermometers that consistently measured lower surface temperatures? Probably for the same reason IPCC Svengali Keith Briffa got rid of the Bristlecone pine tree data he collected on the Yamal Peninsula that showed no warming either and only used outliers to help construct the now infamous — and fully debunked — hockey stick.
2
Denialists like you will live to regret these words. Do you have children? Shame....
2
Actually, there is a lot of work on temperature readings in the 1880s...and cherry picking. You might like: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-ch...
2
You sir, are right, there weren't as many instruments back in 1880
However, if you bother to spend an hour or two researching,I'm sure you will find that there are 1,000s of scientists, working on this, and if there is one thing that scientists take seriously, its data integrity
As to your other charges, you don't provide any links; I'm sure that if you did, I could easily refute them (the Yamal penisula thing has been rehashed many times in the literature; like Benghazi, there is no there there)
As to cherry picking data, again, provide a link, and we can refute your nonsense.
However, if you bother to spend an hour or two researching,I'm sure you will find that there are 1,000s of scientists, working on this, and if there is one thing that scientists take seriously, its data integrity
As to your other charges, you don't provide any links; I'm sure that if you did, I could easily refute them (the Yamal penisula thing has been rehashed many times in the literature; like Benghazi, there is no there there)
As to cherry picking data, again, provide a link, and we can refute your nonsense.
2
we'll probably have a 4 degree increase in temps by the end the century, that will result in the loss of the greenland ice fields and large swaths of the anti-arctic ice, this will result in about a 20-30 foot rise in sea level, you do the math, most cities are on the coast, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n20/paul-kingsnorth/the-four-degrees
1
Once again "Big Solar" exerts its control over the mainstream media.
5
Hahaha "Big Solar", that's a hoot. They're right up there with the "Big Toothpick" industry lobby.
Yup. Thousands of climate scientists plotting to lie to the public
because . . . uhh . . . because . . . um . . . they . . . umm . . .
because . . . uhh . . . because . . . um . . . they . . . umm . . .
2
Yet another warning that Earth requires US leadership - in research, technology, and, as the global leader in emissions, broad and effective action. Our needed global leadership is blocked by a Republican Party held in a death grip by billionaire industrialists who profit enormously from treating the atmosphere as a free waste dump for unlimited amounts of industrial waste greenhouse gasses. The only hope for our grandchildren is to smash through the GOP blockade.
4
Bingo! Republicans are incapable of leading on this issue and other vexing problems facing the U.S. and the world. Where we should be leading, we are indeed blocked by a Republican Party held in a death grip by billionaire industrialists who profit enormously from the oil and gas industry and their own myopic self interest. We need vision and bravery from a party that has none. The least they could do is step aside and let the adults in the room do some heavy lifting.
1
The odds are that my house won't burn down because I take any and all necessary precautions to prevent such an occurrence. I do carry insurance just in case, as I can't control every possibility however small - lightening strikes come to mind. Seems prudent to me to have a plan B in case plan A fails. Could someone explain this simple bit of common sense to Republicans - ok - at least try to?
7
The record keeping of the planets weather and temperate fluctuations have been being recorded since the late 1800's. With ice coring we can even go back almost 1 million years, but this span of time pales in comparison to Earth's 4.5 Billion year span. To give significance to .00002% of Earths known meteorological behavior is absurd.
4
Ah, but we humans have not been here for 4.5 Billion years - our species well-being evolved in and depends on a temperate climate. We are at great risk of losing that over the next century.
1
OK, lets say you drive 50,000 miles a year
Would you or would you not give special significance to the 1mile you drive in a hurricane ?
so what if we are looking a small bit of time; I mean, do you live in the distant past ?
what, exactly , is your point ?
Would you or would you not give special significance to the 1mile you drive in a hurricane ?
so what if we are looking a small bit of time; I mean, do you live in the distant past ?
what, exactly , is your point ?
2
During the life of the earth....there have been dramatic changes in climate...but there was no way to stop that change. Meteors and volcanoes caused constant climate change....every half billion years or so. But now, in addition to "meteor activity" and "volcanic activity", scientists have added "human activity". The good news is that this activity is controllable and the climate changes might be partially reversible. If the scientists were saying that volcanic or meteor activity was causing this problem....none of us could do anything about it.
1
If the established monied class saw immediate advantage to its interests in acknowledging global warming, we'd be teaching it as fact in kindergarten, right now.
Denial is just ape thinking; bad for me, speak against it. When I die, who cares what happens?
Denial is just ape thinking; bad for me, speak against it. When I die, who cares what happens?
4
Never Fear - Climate change denialists never let inconvenient things like facts get in the way.
5
Why does the media even allow these "contrarians" a platform to provide their ill-informed views, given the weight of scientific evidence?
Enough is enough.
Enough is enough.
2
Just think Sam....if there weren't "contrarians" the good ol' USA would never have materialized...;
One of the coldest summers in Minnesota. The lakes were hardly warm enough to swim in. I have also read news articles saying that the data has been manipulated to show desired results. More PHD funding toward Global Warming data collecting, studies, greed / green product inventions, market changing "Green product". Money, Money, Money is the driver of course.
4
Bad argument. Nobody is getting rich doing basic research, scientists doing this sort of thing make a fraction of what they would in industry.
However, there is an unlimited amount of money available to the deniers. There is an unlimited amount of money available to fund studies proving that man has nothing to do with warming, but guess what? So far all the money has been able to buy is a whole lot of right wing bloggers repeating what other right wing bloggers blogg, and, it seems, an army of well-programmed stooges to post comments like yours....
However, there is an unlimited amount of money available to the deniers. There is an unlimited amount of money available to fund studies proving that man has nothing to do with warming, but guess what? So far all the money has been able to buy is a whole lot of right wing bloggers repeating what other right wing bloggers blogg, and, it seems, an army of well-programmed stooges to post comments like yours....
2
Yes, it was pretty cool here in Wisconsin as well. We in the upper Midwest were at the center of one of the coolest-vs-average places on the planet, as is clearly shown in the diagram. Meanwhile, folks in Europe & Australia (among others) were dealing with record heat — Australia still is.
Weather is not climate, and Minnesota (and the USA) is not the world. What we should be paying attention to are global trends over time — one year isn’t that interesting, honestly, but the past ten years are.
Weather is not climate, and Minnesota (and the USA) is not the world. What we should be paying attention to are global trends over time — one year isn’t that interesting, honestly, but the past ten years are.
3
Ah yes, how can we turn a blind eye to the relentless pursuit of money by those greedy greedy scientists with their mansions, sports cars, and trophy wives?
3
Obama's Science Advisor, John Holdren, says that global warming has been good, because it has prevented us from going into another ice age. So this is good news.
No question global warming is occurring. The real question are we going to put scientist's and eco-fanatics in charge of the world economy who's only interest is global warming.
Yesterday someone come in a dying ocean blog some commented that 80%of the world population has to be exterminated if the world was to survive. another that human beings were like vermin and deserved to die. Do you want people like that in charge of your life?
Yesterday someone come in a dying ocean blog some commented that 80%of the world population has to be exterminated if the world was to survive. another that human beings were like vermin and deserved to die. Do you want people like that in charge of your life?
1
NO!!!
This debate has become an excuse for misanthropes to justify themselves.
We do NOT want people like that in charge of our lives.
This debate has become an excuse for misanthropes to justify themselves.
We do NOT want people like that in charge of our lives.
Nope. But I think politicians should take scientists' advice into account when they make decisions.
1
"Global warming deniers?"
One certainly sympathizes with Galileo who had to go up against the "settled science" of his time.
One certainly sympathizes with Galileo who had to go up against the "settled science" of his time.
3
Galileo was akin to scientists stating that global warming exists, because he too was a scientist (albeit an early, primitive one), and was reporting on fact determined by experiments and analysis.
Climate change deniers are very much like the old church that could not accept reality because it went against scripture, especially in that both groups have no understanding of science.
So your metaphor is the opposite of the accurate comparison, no offense.
Climate change deniers are very much like the old church that could not accept reality because it went against scripture, especially in that both groups have no understanding of science.
So your metaphor is the opposite of the accurate comparison, no offense.
2
No, Galileo went up against the Church, not the science, which agreed with him.
3
Actually, he went up against the religious fundamentalists.
3
Global warming is a hoax. I just went outside and it's cold. What more proof do you need?
7
Ha ha. Satire. I presume.
2
Definitely a scam. It been unusually cool in Austin the last couple weeks.
There is already a lot of comment by leading climate scientists that the differences of the last decades are too small, a few hundredths of a degree, to mean anything. Also, to a math guy (me) the graph looks suspiciously like 3/4 of a sine wave now at the positive peak that mirrors the negative valley ca. 1905-1915. We are 12,000 years into an interglacial climate regime and I do not think a 134 snap shot, 1880-2014, is a reliable predictor.
1
If you look at the lifetime of a rocket, most of the time it's going to be standing still. If you look at the snapshot of how fast it's going just after it takes off, it's not representative of what that rocket's doing most of the time, and that's for one obvious reason: the ignition of rocket fuel. Since the advent of the industrial revolution--not so far off from 1880--we've basically doubled the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Also around 1880, Arhennius very nicely explained how gases like CO2 would act to warm the earth's atmosphere. It wasn't controversial at the time--just physics. So we have every reason to believe that this "rocket" should be taking off between 1880 and 2014, which makes this much more than a random snapshot.
It will be very interesting to hear the dis-claims of the deniers. Will it be due to agenda 21, a communistic plot, or just another scam by the Democratic president? Stay turned for excitement.
6
I got it. Let's all register as Republicans and the problem will go away.
4
It is good to know that scientists have been measuring the Earth's temperature the exact same way since 1880...
1
Yeah...its called Celsius.
1
We are at mercy of the volcanoes as far as Climate Change. Wait for the next Ice Age.
1
I am certain there has been a spike in warming since the start of the industrial age, and that this is likely caused by man. Yet, last year the Great lakes were frozen solid for months, the ice did not melt off Lake Michigan till May. The last time this occurred was in the seventies. A large volcanic eruption could send temperatures plummeting for decades, An asteroid, sufficiently large and properly placed could wipe out mankind. Some think that global warming will eventually cause European cooling because of melting arctic ice and a shift in ocean currents and a vanishing Gulf Stream. Two days ago I awoke to temperatures of -21 F. Somehow, the concept that man can preserve or save the planet all smacks a bit too much of Hubris.
60
Certainly humans and the planet are at the mercy of nature -- volcanos. asteroids, dust storms, drought. But humans do need to control their own contributions to global warming-- burning fossil fuels.
We can control some things, but not everything.
We can control some things, but not everything.
6
Oh, yes, let us all sigh helplessly and pay no attention to the fossil-fuel industry spewing carbon pollution in our atmosphere. There's just nothing to be done. Oh well.
6
Right. We can not save the planet, but we have destroyed it.
Those that do not understand global climate change should not make little anecdotal responses to an article about serious scientific observations, it smacks of great Hubris.
Those that do not understand global climate change should not make little anecdotal responses to an article about serious scientific observations, it smacks of great Hubris.
5
Hot off the press! (no pun intended) Full steam ahead! (no pun intended). Gotta keep that man-made global warming propaganda machine going. Forget ALL the record breaking cold temperatures around the world.
4
Vince does not understand the difference between climate and weather. Just because you are not capable of understanding something does not mean it does not exist.
3
You don't understand the science of global climate change; you don't understand the effect of changes in the polar regions;
It is not global warming - as in every where in a monotonically increasing fashion. It is global climate change. If you understood the difference between temperature and heat then you would understand the hottest year on record.
It is not global warming - as in every where in a monotonically increasing fashion. It is global climate change. If you understood the difference between temperature and heat then you would understand the hottest year on record.
2
Perfect...a guy looking at a few days of temperatures that would have been much colder without climate change effects! I am sure the billions of people who actually suffered under record heat and record Pacific storms in 2014 appreciate your deep science.
1
Chicago had its coldest year ever.
The USA was cooler than normal.
Maybe it's not our fault that the planet is supposedly 'burning'?
The USA was cooler than normal.
Maybe it's not our fault that the planet is supposedly 'burning'?
2
The Earth system is a complex system -- it takes a long time between cause and effect. It's what America did before that counts here, not what it will do in the future. The future responsibility belongs to other countries for sure, but the problems are global. If you think you won't be affected, good for you.
I don't even know why I bother.
I don't even know why I bother.
Reports of icebergs? Never mind . We're going for the record and this ship is unsinkable . Full speed ahead while the band plays on. Keys on dancing and don't be afraid: the captain and crew know what they're doinq .
3
A statistically insignificant amount of warming between the last three hottest years. This bears repeating: statistically insignificant. Alarmists warned us of devastating warming equivalent to a nuclear bomb (0.1C per decade) and yet seem to be satisfied when the actual results are the equivalent of a what appear to be a burnt out firecracker fizzling out before it ever reaches lift off.
5
If you look at the statistics over the last century you will see that every decade has been warmer than the previous one although the yearly temperatures have increased and decreased so frequently that this trend is obscured.
1
My thinking is that most, if not all climate change deniers are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. It is interesting how these financial ties tend to get in the way of rational thinking and common sense.
26
What has happened to all of the prices for all goods when the petroleum costs increase a lot over previous costs? The prices shoot up a lot as profit margins disappear. The costs of replacing the old fossil fuel based economy goes beyond the coal, petroleum and gas industries to everything which is fueled by their products.
You're thinking would be wrong.
The global warming fear machine is far more profitable, both politically and monetarily.
The global warming fear machine is far more profitable, both politically and monetarily.
2
A blip in a millifraction of a millifraction of a millifraction of a second of the lifespan of the world and people are declaring Argameddon. Science in and of itself can be useful, but it has become a form of religion to many.
8
Dear Nyer,
True enough that this is a "blip." But if you happen to live in this blip--if your lives and your children's lives and your children's children's lives will take place entirely during this blip--it's hard to see it as trivial.
True enough that this is a "blip." But if you happen to live in this blip--if your lives and your children's lives and your children's children's lives will take place entirely during this blip--it's hard to see it as trivial.
9
Science is not a religion because it is based on facts, and people who study science can learn from past mistakes. That's unlike religion and religious texts, which have to be accepted on faith; don't have to be rational; and never, ever see a need to admit errors.
As for the lifespan of the world - or even the lifespan of the universe - you correct in that this era is but a blip. For that matter, all the millenia of human existence are but a few blips. However, in terms of human survival (as opposed to the survival of the planet without humans), what is happening today actually matters.
As for the lifespan of the world - or even the lifespan of the universe - you correct in that this era is but a blip. For that matter, all the millenia of human existence are but a few blips. However, in terms of human survival (as opposed to the survival of the planet without humans), what is happening today actually matters.
179
Garbage. Total nonsense. Science is not religion. Religion is based on faith. Often blind faith. Science is based on observations, measurements, experimenting, collecting data. Your comment shows you are ignorant of science.
9
And then there are congress people like former Republican member of the House of Representatives, Paul Broun (with, ironically, two science degrees: a B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Georgia and an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia, and who incomprehensibly was a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) who believe the earth is about 9,000 years old.
As long as we have political leaders in the majority who willfully deny the most elemental proven facts of science, we have little chance of coming to grips with climate change. Future Americans will pay the price for their denial of reality.
As long as we have political leaders in the majority who willfully deny the most elemental proven facts of science, we have little chance of coming to grips with climate change. Future Americans will pay the price for their denial of reality.
10
Maybe you need to turn your lights off and pray.
A continuously increasing world population makes discussions over the globe warming moot and any legislative plans for reducing our contribution to it meaningless...
5
we can thank religion for that one.
4
No. The problem is carbon pollution. The fossil-fuel industry is trying to distract you from that fact. The most populated countries pollute the least. The US pollutes more per capita than any other country. Coal is 40% of that pollution. The problem is not population, the problem is pollution, and we Americans need to deal with that and stop listening to the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry on Fox News.
3
No, population increase doesn't make discussions of climate change moot. Both are issues that must be addressed - it is not an either/or proposition.
2
Sometimes I feel like these reports are a sideshow. Global warming is important, and this report looks like it supports the scientific claim that it is happening. But global warming is not the reason to pursue alternative energy sources, finding a way to create energy in a sustainable way so that life can continue on earth is. Fossil fuels don't provide sustainable energy, so they should be replaced if we care about out children, grandchildren, and so on.
This report, and discussions about it, are allow people to seem like they are dealing with an important policy issue when they are really just turning attention away from the real policy choice - money today or humanity tomorrow.
This report, and discussions about it, are allow people to seem like they are dealing with an important policy issue when they are really just turning attention away from the real policy choice - money today or humanity tomorrow.
7
I would be more concerned about the economy for my grandchildren. There has always been "Climate change" and up swing, down swing temperatures around the globe. Magnet inversion would be a larger concern.
So hundreds of a degree is now significant? The "increase" is well within the error bars.
10
It is wise to ignore statistical advice from a person who cannot differentiate between "hundreds" and "hundredths." But thank you for your input.
1
Yup, hundreds of degrees is pretty significant. Enough to turn iron into a vapor and so on.
I'm a little disappointed in the way the headline is phrased. We've been accurately recording the weather since the 1880, so for about 135 years. This year is the hottest on record for the past 135 years. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. I'm not saying there is not global warming but I think headlines like this that leave too much information unclear to the average person hurt the discussion. I know the headline said the word "recorded" but I don't think people really know how short of a time frame is being referenced.
11
The headline says it was the "hottest year ON RECORD." That's clear as a bell.
2
Agreed - the word "ever" on the main page headline is what made me click the article. I was interested in the science of calculating "ever". Turns out it was just the routine 135 year thing that seems to come up every year or two. The Times seems to be getting into clickbaiting now like every other awful "news" site.
Silly missyc. We all know the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The 4.5 billion years number is a myth perpetuated by "scientists" who infer this age based on their "theories", which are in turn based on empirical "evidence" from various disciplines like "paleontology" and "astronomy" and "physics" and "radioactive dating" -- none of which involves any actual direct observation of a pre-history earth. Were YOU around 6,001 years ago? Humph. I didn't think so.
1
Quick, someone tell the Chinese! Our global Central planners need to impose the right taxes on the rest of us in their attempts to centrally control the climate and prevent the next hurricane.
4
They don't have to do anything till 2030. Thanks to our deal with them. In the mean time we have to our part yesterday. No manufacturing jobs to be had but we must all hug a tree.. Unless all the other biggest polluting countries start now. We are just shooting ourselves in the foot for basically nothing.
1
Alaska thinks climate change isn't all bad . . . as long as your house isn't resting on permafrost.
2
The issue isn't whether or not we are experiencing "global Warming", as it is quaintly called. We are. The Earth has been coming out of the last Ice Age for around 30, 000 to 100,000 years, give or take -- it's hard to pinpoint a "peak" in such phenomena. Rather, the issue is how much man's contributions are affecting that process.
There have been multiple such cycles in the past, well before man had anything to do with the process, and there will be such in the future. They are absolutely inevitable. That we may accelerate the rate of current cycle by a few percent is inconsequential, and not justification for a wholesale disruption of the world's economy. That economy is far more fragile than our climate.
There have been multiple such cycles in the past, well before man had anything to do with the process, and there will be such in the future. They are absolutely inevitable. That we may accelerate the rate of current cycle by a few percent is inconsequential, and not justification for a wholesale disruption of the world's economy. That economy is far more fragile than our climate.
7
The last Ice Age was the Wisconsin Glaciation and it ended about 12,000 years ago. Humans moved from Asia to North American over the Bering Land Bridge when so much water was frozen in the ice cap and glaciers.
Well, when you're facing the prospect of a food shortage due to a collapse of the agricultural "industry," you can make a nice salad from your dollar bills.
1
Why don't the articles about climate change ever mention the fact that the "livestock" sector (How can living, sentient beings be stock?!) contribute more to greenhouse emissions / CO2 than all transport combined (cars, buses, planes, trucks, etc.), not to mention the water and land degradation that they create? Is Agra-business so powerful that we are afraid to point fingers at them with the truth? (Remember Oprah?)
See the U.N. 2006 report, "Livestock's Long Shadow"?
See the U.N. 2006 report, "Livestock's Long Shadow"?
2
The most disturbing part is that we will read this article, blew off some steam against Republicans and a few "leading scientists," and of course China in the comment field - and move on with our lives.
Maybe - since it is quite certain there will be no major political action on this - so just maybe we should start with ourselves? Lower that thermostat to below 70, recycle, shift to reusable lunch containers, cut off air conditioning a few days a summer, switch to a bike or shared commute or shut off electricity in our big offices glaring all night? It took me 4 months to convince my largely liberal and reasonable management to keep office lights shut off at night - but I consider it a small victory. We got to start action somewhere that goes beyond online debates.
Maybe - since it is quite certain there will be no major political action on this - so just maybe we should start with ourselves? Lower that thermostat to below 70, recycle, shift to reusable lunch containers, cut off air conditioning a few days a summer, switch to a bike or shared commute or shut off electricity in our big offices glaring all night? It took me 4 months to convince my largely liberal and reasonable management to keep office lights shut off at night - but I consider it a small victory. We got to start action somewhere that goes beyond online debates.
2
Is is truly the warmest year on record if the GOP members of Congress (and their Koch-loving buddies) insist otherwise?
3
Funny that you write that from Chicago.
2014 was the coldest year in Chicago's history...don't let Tom Steyer tell you differently.
2014 was the coldest year in Chicago's history...don't let Tom Steyer tell you differently.
Times readers are at best of average intelligence. However nearly every reader and all commenters think they are much smarter than average. Obviously, that cannot be true. Must of the comments are written by people who have below average intelligence and definitely over 70 percent are written by those who have minimal or no knowledge of the subject matter of the article outside of what they are fed by the media resources they choose to utilize. Confirmation bias is inherent in their sources. With that said, I urge the readers to question their "knowledge" about climate change and accept they only ha e unsupported opinions. A warmer earth may be better for all you know. We have had record harvests and a decline in the use of heating fuel with the warmer weather. Would you be happier if we had less food and people were burning more heating oil and gas to heat homes and offices? Also, even a decade is not a long time in the history of the universe. Many of you think of time in terms of the short life span of a human, you have little knowledge of history and the changes that have occurred on earth. You cannot comprehend that dinasaurs roamed the earth and did not become extinct because of Americans driving SUVs. So, back to the issue. Climate change is not weather nor can it be assessed in a decade. It is also not clears whether it is bad one good. One thing we do know is that pollution is bad and that that certain peopele pollute more than others. Ground Air Force ONe.
5
ironic that such lofty statements about the intelligence of Times' readers comes from someone who thinks he or she knows more than 97% of scientists who specialize in the relevant field.
6
"Must of the comments are written by people who have below average intelligence and definitely over 70 percent are written by those who have minimal or no knowledge of the subject matter of the article outside of what they are fed by the media resources they choose to utilize."
I'll bet my house you put yourself in the 30%.
I'll bet my house you put yourself in the 30%.
2
Justin Gillis's first paragraph claims that those "contrarians" who "somehow" believe warming has stopped have been undermined. He makes no mention of the minuscule differences in temperature between 2014 and other years. That officials of NASA, who certainly know better, hype this minor event shows that they are politically and not scientifically motivated.
Any honest and objective reader who looks at the chart can see that a "pause" in the temperature rise is a perfectly reasonable description of what has happened during the 21st century.
Any honest and objective reader who looks at the chart can see that a "pause" in the temperature rise is a perfectly reasonable description of what has happened during the 21st century.
10
"Miniscule difference". For a single run of the planet around the sun ...
Exactly what rate of increase would convince you?!
Exactly what rate of increase would convince you?!
3
Yeah, I think the chart showing the Global surface air temperatures for the years really gives one a very good clue as to how little the claim of the "hottest year on record" really means, if one compares even the difference between 1997 and 2014. That almost undetectable difference is proof of anything?
If there is any real statistically significant difference we should care about, it's between the predictions of climate models and the observable global temperatures -- a gap that is only further confirmed, not disconfirmed, by the utterly trivial difference between 2014 and all the years from 1997 to the present.
If there is any real statistically significant difference we should care about, it's between the predictions of climate models and the observable global temperatures -- a gap that is only further confirmed, not disconfirmed, by the utterly trivial difference between 2014 and all the years from 1997 to the present.
The satellite data disagrees with the surface temperature sets that NASA/NOAA is using for this claim. The physicist Lubos Motl discussed the difference: "RSS AMSU have published their December 2014 values. The global mean temperature anomaly was +0.284 °C, just 0.04 °C warmer than the value in November which increases the annual average estimate just by +0.0035 °C relatively to my previous expectations – a negligible figure. With this tiny correction, 2014 is pretty much tied with 2007 as the 6th-7th warmest year in the RSS AMSU dataset, after 1998, 2010, 2005, 2003, and 2002.
RSS claims that 2014 was a whopping 0.3 °C cooler than 1998. Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/rss-amsu-temperatures-1979-2014-groupe...
RSS claims that 2014 was a whopping 0.3 °C cooler than 1998. Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/rss-amsu-temperatures-1979-2014-groupe...
5
Dave from Albuquerque: "RSS claims that 2014 was a whopping 0.3 °C cooler than 1998. Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year".
Please don't bother people with facts and satellite data!
It interferes with the narrative.
Ground station data is well known to be wildly unreliable, but using the (accurate) satellite data messes up the global warming story, so it must not be mentioned.
Please don't bother people with facts and satellite data!
It interferes with the narrative.
Ground station data is well known to be wildly unreliable, but using the (accurate) satellite data messes up the global warming story, so it must not be mentioned.
I fear we are frogs in the gradually heated pot.
27
well on our way to the 6th extinction... maybe a few hundred years at the most
Evidence of human-caused climate change grows while substantive responses flounder. I wonder when we will reach the tipping point where major reversals in planet abuse finally happen and whether at that point, the changes will make any difference?
I hope we don't resort to some dangerous measure like dumping iron into the oceans to create a phytoplankton bloom to absorb CO2.
Future generations are in for a tough ride.
I hope we don't resort to some dangerous measure like dumping iron into the oceans to create a phytoplankton bloom to absorb CO2.
Future generations are in for a tough ride.
8
Can you actually point to some evidence?
The notion that its the "hottest" year...has already been substantially debunked by actual REAL scientist.
Moreover there are 3 things...that have yet to be demonstrated by the anti-science AGW cult.
1) Man contributes to CO2 on any significant level (hint: we are dwarfed by natural activity...thats why CO2 has been 12x higher before)
2) CO2 actually contributes to global temperatures. (So far ALL records indicate that CO2 does not contribute at all to temperature going back several millennia)
3) that a temperature rise would be a bad thing. Cold is the natural enemy of life....not warmth. We have seen the "greening" of the planet since CO2 and warmth have returned...since both foster life.
So where is your "evidence"?
Because anyone with a lick of scientific understanding knows it to be as accurate as astrology at this point.
The notion that its the "hottest" year...has already been substantially debunked by actual REAL scientist.
Moreover there are 3 things...that have yet to be demonstrated by the anti-science AGW cult.
1) Man contributes to CO2 on any significant level (hint: we are dwarfed by natural activity...thats why CO2 has been 12x higher before)
2) CO2 actually contributes to global temperatures. (So far ALL records indicate that CO2 does not contribute at all to temperature going back several millennia)
3) that a temperature rise would be a bad thing. Cold is the natural enemy of life....not warmth. We have seen the "greening" of the planet since CO2 and warmth have returned...since both foster life.
So where is your "evidence"?
Because anyone with a lick of scientific understanding knows it to be as accurate as astrology at this point.
"
1) Man contributes to CO2 on any significant level (hint: we are dwarfed by natural activity...thats why CO2 has been 12x higher before)"
That's easily proven. Before industrialization, CO2 levels were at uner 250PPM. Now they're at 400PPM.
"
2) CO2 actually contributes to global temperatures."
Easily proven in a simple lab experiment first peformed in 1864.
"
3) that a temperature rise would be a bad thing. Cold is the natural enemy of life....not warmth. "
A temperature rise means sea levels rising and forcing ov er 500 million people to relocate. And that's just the beginning.
Any otehr questions?
1) Man contributes to CO2 on any significant level (hint: we are dwarfed by natural activity...thats why CO2 has been 12x higher before)"
That's easily proven. Before industrialization, CO2 levels were at uner 250PPM. Now they're at 400PPM.
"
2) CO2 actually contributes to global temperatures."
Easily proven in a simple lab experiment first peformed in 1864.
"
3) that a temperature rise would be a bad thing. Cold is the natural enemy of life....not warmth. "
A temperature rise means sea levels rising and forcing ov er 500 million people to relocate. And that's just the beginning.
Any otehr questions?
1
"The notion that its the "hottest" year...has already been substantially debunked by actual REAL scientist."
Peer reviewed reference please. Otherwise this is heresy.
Peer reviewed reference please. Otherwise this is heresy.
We have a mediocre government incapable of addressing any of the problems facing us.
Praying is about our only long term hope.
Praying is about our only long term hope.
3
You call that hope? Praying is how we got to this.
3
You cannot call on mediocre people to take responsibility. They simply won't do it.
And, we have discouraged all the brilliant and capable among us from going into government through emphasis on money (ergo corruption) instead of human values. Without turning around a giant ship that is full steam ahead on a journey with no ethics there is simply no hope.
And, we have discouraged all the brilliant and capable among us from going into government through emphasis on money (ergo corruption) instead of human values. Without turning around a giant ship that is full steam ahead on a journey with no ethics there is simply no hope.
"But....but....but....it's so COLD outside! Ha ha ha, you global warming nuts!!"
That's what we hear in Maine from the deniers. It's unsettling how many people say such things with absolutely no understanding (or desire for understanding) of what is happening world-wide, or even in the US but 'away' from here. It's winter here, so of course there is no global warming.
Sad for all of us that when time is of the essence in combatting what is happening, we make fun of and deny the scientists who know what they're talking about. The Republican's James Inhofe who will now chair the Science Committee is the world's enemy number 1. How much more of a lag will happen with him at the helm, a lag when what we need is urgent and immediate response.
I'm so sorry for all the species we will take down with us. Most animals know better than to spoil their own nests. We humans don't seem to understand that basic, simple premise of life.
That's what we hear in Maine from the deniers. It's unsettling how many people say such things with absolutely no understanding (or desire for understanding) of what is happening world-wide, or even in the US but 'away' from here. It's winter here, so of course there is no global warming.
Sad for all of us that when time is of the essence in combatting what is happening, we make fun of and deny the scientists who know what they're talking about. The Republican's James Inhofe who will now chair the Science Committee is the world's enemy number 1. How much more of a lag will happen with him at the helm, a lag when what we need is urgent and immediate response.
I'm so sorry for all the species we will take down with us. Most animals know better than to spoil their own nests. We humans don't seem to understand that basic, simple premise of life.
670
Humans have a profit motive that blinds some of us to scientific fact. One might note that temperature has been increasing since the industrial revolution and the introduction of the internal combustion engine. We can SEE and FEEL air pollution in cities everywhere, from Los Angeles to Katmandu. How can we even speculate that chemicals released into the atmosphere don't affect the temperature, as does does destroying forests and jungle. Everything is out of balance, and you don't need to be a scientist to see that human behavior all over the industrial world has contributed to that.
2
Actually, all animals will expand without check until they overwhelm their environment and die from starvation and disease. Human beings are the only species out there able to avoid that cycle through technological advancement and intelligence.
Right. Here in Kennebunk it may be cold now, but this area is rapidly changing from a Zone 5 to a Zone 6, in terms of gardening and plant cultivation. I notice plants growing for much longer, and starting to leaf out earlier in the spring.
1
From whom do we ask forgiveness? God? Our children and grandchildren? The dying ash trees in my front yard? The birds looking for insects that used to be plentiful?
Remember: GASES BEHAVE LIKE LIQUIDS. So if you want to see what our atmosphere looks like as it gets hotter, just watch water come to a boil. The really hot stuff concentrates, swirling faster that the cooler water, then the steam bubbles race to the top, faster, ever faster...
Those who have denied global warming -- why did you bother? If you have even the slightest worry about someone breaking into your home, don't you put on stronger locks? Or do you deny?
Senseless. Hopeless. Like sheep. Baa-aaa-aaa.
Baa-aaa-aaa....
Remember: GASES BEHAVE LIKE LIQUIDS. So if you want to see what our atmosphere looks like as it gets hotter, just watch water come to a boil. The really hot stuff concentrates, swirling faster that the cooler water, then the steam bubbles race to the top, faster, ever faster...
Those who have denied global warming -- why did you bother? If you have even the slightest worry about someone breaking into your home, don't you put on stronger locks? Or do you deny?
Senseless. Hopeless. Like sheep. Baa-aaa-aaa.
Baa-aaa-aaa....
2
When temperature rises about one more degree centigrade, we will be in the danger zone for tipping the seven major feedback loops, and runaway greenhouse effects. And the last time the planet got to about 450 ppm carbon dioxide, according to Dr. Richard Alley, one of the world top ice core scientists, the oceans were 80 feet higher. We are at 400 ppm now, and rising.
The IPPC, very conservatively, according to Dr. James Hansen, has moved the goal posts for virtual zero carbon emissions to 2100. That date more likely should be at 2050.
We have no comprehensive strategy to get to virtual carbon emissions. The popular renewables and efficiencies policy will get us only part of the way there. Humanity will eventually, sooner or later, come to the nuclear option to power the grid.
I don't want to get into it here, but the new nuclear, 4th generation, reactors are specifically designed so they cannot ever melt down, recycle 99% of their waste as fuel, and from which a bomb can't be made....to name a few of its virtues. This is clean, steady, virtually unlimited power from the grid.
We will need new-clear, as Tome Bless describes it. An alliance of all clean energies plus efficiencies, is the only believable way to reach this goal. But will we do it?
Only if we commit to a crash program as with the Manhattan Project. Of course, lest I forget, as we continue to paint ourselves into a corner, there's always geo-engineering. Like that idea?
The IPPC, very conservatively, according to Dr. James Hansen, has moved the goal posts for virtual zero carbon emissions to 2100. That date more likely should be at 2050.
We have no comprehensive strategy to get to virtual carbon emissions. The popular renewables and efficiencies policy will get us only part of the way there. Humanity will eventually, sooner or later, come to the nuclear option to power the grid.
I don't want to get into it here, but the new nuclear, 4th generation, reactors are specifically designed so they cannot ever melt down, recycle 99% of their waste as fuel, and from which a bomb can't be made....to name a few of its virtues. This is clean, steady, virtually unlimited power from the grid.
We will need new-clear, as Tome Bless describes it. An alliance of all clean energies plus efficiencies, is the only believable way to reach this goal. But will we do it?
Only if we commit to a crash program as with the Manhattan Project. Of course, lest I forget, as we continue to paint ourselves into a corner, there's always geo-engineering. Like that idea?
1
NYT, as usual, only gives part of the story. According to satellite temperature records 2014 was not the warmest year on record. The UAH satellite based temp record shows 2014 still below 1997, 2010 and several other years.
Even if one chooses to go with one of the notoriously inaccurate land based records one must know several actual facts to understand the info:
1. The earth has been steadily warming for 7000 years as we leave the effects of the last ice age so continued warming is to be expected.
2. The change in temperature, even under the land based records the NYT touts, has been far below projections and actually quite minor. No reason for alarm or breathless headlines. Every model used by the UN IPCC has now been proven wrong as they have ALL grievously overestimated global warming.
3. Some warming, such as what we are seeing, is beneficial to the human population and to most organisms on the planet so quit worrying.
4. The earth was warmer for several period during the last 2,000 years before humans could have possibly effected climate. Humans prospered during these warm periods.
5. The main IPCC error seems to be that thy have overestimated the "forcing" mechanism. All the IPCC projections are based on the idea that there will be some unknown "multiplier" that will multiple of effect of CO2.
6. The NYTimes has an agenda and manipulates it's news coverage to support it's agenda so one must be very careful of believing disinformation spread by this newspaper.
Even if one chooses to go with one of the notoriously inaccurate land based records one must know several actual facts to understand the info:
1. The earth has been steadily warming for 7000 years as we leave the effects of the last ice age so continued warming is to be expected.
2. The change in temperature, even under the land based records the NYT touts, has been far below projections and actually quite minor. No reason for alarm or breathless headlines. Every model used by the UN IPCC has now been proven wrong as they have ALL grievously overestimated global warming.
3. Some warming, such as what we are seeing, is beneficial to the human population and to most organisms on the planet so quit worrying.
4. The earth was warmer for several period during the last 2,000 years before humans could have possibly effected climate. Humans prospered during these warm periods.
5. The main IPCC error seems to be that thy have overestimated the "forcing" mechanism. All the IPCC projections are based on the idea that there will be some unknown "multiplier" that will multiple of effect of CO2.
6. The NYTimes has an agenda and manipulates it's news coverage to support it's agenda so one must be very careful of believing disinformation spread by this newspaper.
9
Are you claiming that the intentions of oil wildcatters are pure? Really?
2
Not sure where you got that, but I'd consider "wildcatters motives", presumably to make money, more "pure" and honest than that of most major media outlets along with 90% of politicians. What does that have to do with anything anyway?
Wildcatters, at least employ people at an honest wag at honest labor!
Wildcatters, at least employ people at an honest wag at honest labor!
The earth is warming, the oceans are dying and the climate-denying, "I'm not a scientist" crowd is calling for lifting the EPA ban on carbon emissions and approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. If reason and prudence do not prevail over political payola, Big Oil and Big Coal will be the next "black death" to threaten human survival.
5
Contrary to what some may suggest, there has been no "pause" in the warming of the earth. But the extent to which the warming has increased over the last two decades is far lower than what many scientists and computer models predicted.
Many climates scientists around the globe have been focusing their efforts on determining why--despite massive increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses since the turn of the century--there has not been corresponding increases in global temperature over the last two decades. Sulfur emissions from coal power plants in China blocking out the sun, heat trapped in the Pacific--and then Atlantic--Oceans, reduced solar activity and aerosols from the earth's volcanoes, are a handful of recent explanations (excuses) for the lower than predicted planetary warming. If GHGs drive temperature, then there must be an explanation for why GHG emissions have skyrocketed, but temperature hasn't.
It's ridiculous for the author (or anyone else) to suggest that it's disingenuous for the "climate-change contrarians" to point out the simple, obvious and undeniable fact that increases in global temperatures over the last two decades are far below what was originally projected by the profits of "sure science." You can't have it both ways--today pointing out that 2014 "was the hottest year in earth's recorded history," then tomorrow citing to some new breakthrough study explaining why we have experienced far less warming than predicted.
Many climates scientists around the globe have been focusing their efforts on determining why--despite massive increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses since the turn of the century--there has not been corresponding increases in global temperature over the last two decades. Sulfur emissions from coal power plants in China blocking out the sun, heat trapped in the Pacific--and then Atlantic--Oceans, reduced solar activity and aerosols from the earth's volcanoes, are a handful of recent explanations (excuses) for the lower than predicted planetary warming. If GHGs drive temperature, then there must be an explanation for why GHG emissions have skyrocketed, but temperature hasn't.
It's ridiculous for the author (or anyone else) to suggest that it's disingenuous for the "climate-change contrarians" to point out the simple, obvious and undeniable fact that increases in global temperatures over the last two decades are far below what was originally projected by the profits of "sure science." You can't have it both ways--today pointing out that 2014 "was the hottest year in earth's recorded history," then tomorrow citing to some new breakthrough study explaining why we have experienced far less warming than predicted.
4
This article has some strangely biased language. "Streches back to 1880" tries to make it seem like a long time - a mere 135 years.
14,000 years ago glaciers covered all of Canada, parts of the northern United States, much of northern Europe and and Asia. Temperatures warmed up quite a bit during the next 5,000 years. The sea level has risen 80 feet in that last 85 centures (N Y Times Science section, a few years back) even including the dip of the little ice age (circa 1500-1750).
We are still recovering from the little ice age and will soon get back to the temperatures that were prevalent world-wide in 1250.
Of course our fossile-fuel burning is exacerbating global warming. It would be great to stop the polution from this.
But the world has been much warmer in the past. There have been periods with NO ice on Earth. 1900 is taken as the marker for CO2 levels. We are about 40% higher than that level. But 26 million years ago CO2 was 100% higher, and 34 million years ago, it was 400% higher. There are beech forsests under the ice in Antarctica.
Global warming will continue for another 1,500 years, due to orbital mechanics. Then we will face the real challanege - the next ice age.
Stop all this "the sky is falling and the Eaarth will die" rhetoric and start planning for the remaining part of this inter-glacial warming period. And stop buring fossil fuels, but be well advised, it will NOT stop global warming, just decrease the rate, and improve air quality.
14,000 years ago glaciers covered all of Canada, parts of the northern United States, much of northern Europe and and Asia. Temperatures warmed up quite a bit during the next 5,000 years. The sea level has risen 80 feet in that last 85 centures (N Y Times Science section, a few years back) even including the dip of the little ice age (circa 1500-1750).
We are still recovering from the little ice age and will soon get back to the temperatures that were prevalent world-wide in 1250.
Of course our fossile-fuel burning is exacerbating global warming. It would be great to stop the polution from this.
But the world has been much warmer in the past. There have been periods with NO ice on Earth. 1900 is taken as the marker for CO2 levels. We are about 40% higher than that level. But 26 million years ago CO2 was 100% higher, and 34 million years ago, it was 400% higher. There are beech forsests under the ice in Antarctica.
Global warming will continue for another 1,500 years, due to orbital mechanics. Then we will face the real challanege - the next ice age.
Stop all this "the sky is falling and the Eaarth will die" rhetoric and start planning for the remaining part of this inter-glacial warming period. And stop buring fossil fuels, but be well advised, it will NOT stop global warming, just decrease the rate, and improve air quality.
10
the Milankovitch cycles has been in a cooling phase for millennia, but that cooling trend was reversed in the 20th and 21st centuries due to warming caused by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Get your facts straight or at least stop making up your facts.
Get your facts straight or at least stop making up your facts.
4
Ocean temperatures far surpassed 1998 levels in 2014.
Why is that significant? In late 1997, equatorial Pacific temperatures hovered near 3 degrees C above average in a blistering, record-strength El Niño that charged the Earth to record temperatures for two consecutive years. It is also why there is a particular spike in temperatures in 1998--the same year that serves as a convenient cherry pick for climate changed deniers. Regardless of that, global temperatures returned to the mean for a couple of years, but did continue to rise as a general trend, and heat did accumulate in the oceans, and glaciers did melt, and sea levels rose, and sea ice in the Arctic retreated to record levels periodically.
In 2014, we broke temperature records set in 2005 and 2010, in spite of the lacking oft-cited key agents of natural variability. And yet ocean temperatures were a record, by far, ahead of the supercharged year of 1998. It's transparently the reaction of an atmosphere thickened by carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, etc.; primarily absorbing outgoing longwave radiation.
It's an untenable position for deniers to claim that a record temperature without natural variability is insignificant. These charlatans need to be crushed out of the dialogue for shaping our future as a civilization and a species.
Why is that significant? In late 1997, equatorial Pacific temperatures hovered near 3 degrees C above average in a blistering, record-strength El Niño that charged the Earth to record temperatures for two consecutive years. It is also why there is a particular spike in temperatures in 1998--the same year that serves as a convenient cherry pick for climate changed deniers. Regardless of that, global temperatures returned to the mean for a couple of years, but did continue to rise as a general trend, and heat did accumulate in the oceans, and glaciers did melt, and sea levels rose, and sea ice in the Arctic retreated to record levels periodically.
In 2014, we broke temperature records set in 2005 and 2010, in spite of the lacking oft-cited key agents of natural variability. And yet ocean temperatures were a record, by far, ahead of the supercharged year of 1998. It's transparently the reaction of an atmosphere thickened by carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, etc.; primarily absorbing outgoing longwave radiation.
It's an untenable position for deniers to claim that a record temperature without natural variability is insignificant. These charlatans need to be crushed out of the dialogue for shaping our future as a civilization and a species.
12
Mr. Gillis - your coverage of climate change news is generally excellent. Why, however, do you continue to quote individuals like Dr. Christy? This gives the false impression that there is some serious doubt about trends over the last couple of decades. As you've discussed explicitly in prior reports, there isn't. Please resist the impulse to present false balance.
22
I love the science-y wording the skeptic, Christy, uses: "the temperature hasn't done much" and "a kind of warmish plateau" is such preciseless terminology!
2
I like "preciseless."
It is 18 degrees and snowing where i live in Michigan therefore I do not believe in global warming.
3
Let's all stop pretending that Republican politicians, with their Big Oil-approved talking points from Fox, can be persuaded by any fact, such as " 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded.." But they can confronted.
These are liars, con artists, and charlatans, who should be treated with the ridicule and contempt they richly deserve. Any Democrat appearing on the same stage should have exactly two things to say:
" 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, your party proposes to do nothing."
And
"How much money has your campaign received from the fossil fuel industry?
These are liars, con artists, and charlatans, who should be treated with the ridicule and contempt they richly deserve. Any Democrat appearing on the same stage should have exactly two things to say:
" 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, your party proposes to do nothing."
And
"How much money has your campaign received from the fossil fuel industry?
2
I have a brother who is says that global warming is a hoax and even if it is not he will be dead before it really causes much harm. And since he will not be here what does he care. Of course he is a republican and gets his income from oil and gas extraction.
3
As Naomi Klein correctly points out in her latest book "This Changes Everything", the right in general and climate change deniers in particular understand very well what is at stake here: the fundamental cause for climate change is our way of life premised on unfettered free-market capitalism, obsession with economic growth and out of control consumerism.
Unlike many well-meaning liberals who believe the problem can be solved with partial adjustments, rightwingers realize that the only effective way to slowdown and stabilize climate change will imply a radical change in our way of life - something they are unable and unwilling to conceive because they are the primary beneficiaries of the status quo.
And so, until indication to the contrary, we are marching together (victims and perpetrators) - consciously - toward self-destruction.
Unlike many well-meaning liberals who believe the problem can be solved with partial adjustments, rightwingers realize that the only effective way to slowdown and stabilize climate change will imply a radical change in our way of life - something they are unable and unwilling to conceive because they are the primary beneficiaries of the status quo.
And so, until indication to the contrary, we are marching together (victims and perpetrators) - consciously - toward self-destruction.
10
NOAAs measurement uncertainty is /-0.09 C which means 2014 could have actually been -0.05 C below the last record. Why doesn't NYT report that? Scientific ignorance or willful omission?
I guess we only apply scientific rigor when we don't like the results?
I guess we only apply scientific rigor when we don't like the results?
3
Tthanks for clearing that up, Rush, but what's your point? That the millions of tons of gases and environmental poisons getting pumped into the atmosphere may only be killing the world as we know it an imperceptible bit slower than some might think?
Sounds sort of like a convict heatedly debating the exact length of the rope needed for his execution.
Sounds sort of like a convict heatedly debating the exact length of the rope needed for his execution.
3
The #1 problem in the world is apparently terrorism. The pain of the few. The anguish of the many. Putin was elected on it twice. Bush was reelected. Policies across Europe are geared to reduce it. Its always coming up in opinion polls as a top priority along with the economy and jobs.
Yet no one is really doing anything to prevent the terrorism of huge populations of people migrating away from Islands, seaside cities and lower lying lands. No one is terrified by the costs of fortifying NY, Boston, LA let alone the states of Fla, La.
Our politicians and really the worlds politicians run on issues revolving on the faults of others, guns, morality. Yet this, a singular cataclysm, they haven't a clue on.
Yet no one is really doing anything to prevent the terrorism of huge populations of people migrating away from Islands, seaside cities and lower lying lands. No one is terrified by the costs of fortifying NY, Boston, LA let alone the states of Fla, La.
Our politicians and really the worlds politicians run on issues revolving on the faults of others, guns, morality. Yet this, a singular cataclysm, they haven't a clue on.
4
Climate isn't changing, and besides it's just the sun that's doing it, and besides it's too late for humans to stop the change we started. --Your friendly Republican Congress.
8
It is beyond depressing that every time an announcement like this is made by the scientific community, there is an outpouring of objection from ill-informed yet very vocal deniers who take their cue from deliberately misleading information propagated on behalf of the fossil fuel by the right wing media circus. When did ignorance become mainstream in the US?
13
Thank gawd we finally will have a new head of the US Senate Science committee, Senator James Inhofe, who can debunk all of this science stuff with his steadfast opinions.
Can I get an "Amen"?
Can I get an "Amen"?
5
In light of this news, it is no time to jump to conclusions; we must keep our wits about us, and consider all the possibilities that could have caused this.
1
People who study how the planet works have been keeping their wits about them, and considering all the possibilities, jumping to no conclusions - studying the evidence instead.
SO:
1 - the sun - a few percent of the overall increase, but not in recent decade
2 - cosmic rays - NOPE
3 - volcanoes - NOPE
4 - natural warming/cooling cycles - a shrinking percentage since 1950s - almost none in recent decades
5 - soot - YUP
6 - methane - YUP
7 - deforestation - YUP
8 - CO2 - YUP
SO:
1 - the sun - a few percent of the overall increase, but not in recent decade
2 - cosmic rays - NOPE
3 - volcanoes - NOPE
4 - natural warming/cooling cycles - a shrinking percentage since 1950s - almost none in recent decades
5 - soot - YUP
6 - methane - YUP
7 - deforestation - YUP
8 - CO2 - YUP
4
There is ONLY ONE REASON why Conservatives deny man-made climate change. To acknowledge that would mean industrial wastes must be curbed. It's that simple - the 1% doesn't want to make any changes that would possibly cut into profits. Period.
It's disgusting that greed trumps everything - including the destruction of the planet we live on. The moneyed interests exist with no consideration of anything other than money. Nothing other than money has meaning to them.
The Republican Party has become a bedrock of psychopathology.
It's disgusting that greed trumps everything - including the destruction of the planet we live on. The moneyed interests exist with no consideration of anything other than money. Nothing other than money has meaning to them.
The Republican Party has become a bedrock of psychopathology.
29
Climate change denial goes hand in glove with the belief that human overpopulation is simply impossible.
It appears that the gentleman from Ohio prefers jobs NOW to jobs in a newly developing industry, that he prefers accumulating wealth NOW to disastrous expense and enormously complex problems later, and present wealth (for a few) to health and food (for many) later. The GOP is made of small minds, growing smaller every day.
6
Can't you see
Our destiny?
We are making this Earth
Our funeral pyre!
Holy Earth
How can we heal you?
We cover you like a blight...
Strange birds of appetite...
If I had a heart I'd cry.
Joni Mitchell
There is no snow on the mountain I live on. Will I see it again?
Our destiny?
We are making this Earth
Our funeral pyre!
Holy Earth
How can we heal you?
We cover you like a blight...
Strange birds of appetite...
If I had a heart I'd cry.
Joni Mitchell
There is no snow on the mountain I live on. Will I see it again?
6
Her absolute worst album.
Easy to blame politicians.... Harder to accept that our very lifestyles need to change....
MORE conservation, LESS consumption, MORE staying in place, LESS travel...
MORE voting with our environmental hearts, LESS with our wallets...
MORE conservation, LESS consumption, MORE staying in place, LESS travel...
MORE voting with our environmental hearts, LESS with our wallets...
6
The point to keep making is what right does anyone or any industry have, to change the chemistry of the global atmosphere and oceans without proving that it won't cause harm? And yet that is what we are allowing to happen. The genie is out of the bottle, but before the coal and oil industry should have been allowed to release gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, they should have been required to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that changing the earth's atmosphere would not have caused any harm.
4
Daniel, that's not correct. This particular genie came out of the bottle in the early 1800s when coal production really took hold, and petroleum before 1900.
There wasn't even a way to accurately assess global temperature until the last 50 years or so. And along with the downside of burning fossils, the energy provided has been a boon as well, enabling much of what we see as good and useful things today.
We are at a point, though, where we can start rapidly replacing the old sources of energy with newer, cleaner ones. "Rapidly" in a global economy meaning decades, not years. But we should be pushing the process along.
There wasn't even a way to accurately assess global temperature until the last 50 years or so. And along with the downside of burning fossils, the energy provided has been a boon as well, enabling much of what we see as good and useful things today.
We are at a point, though, where we can start rapidly replacing the old sources of energy with newer, cleaner ones. "Rapidly" in a global economy meaning decades, not years. But we should be pushing the process along.
Big deal! They are only measuring from 1888. Earth has been here for more than 1 million years. One time about 10,000 years ago it was covered in ice. So now its a little warmer. So what.
4
So go buy beachfront property. You know all things after all, surely every beach in the world will stay exactly as it is now.
By the way, the world was never covered in ice, not once. There were ice ages, but they never encased the equator in a sheet of ice. And it's warmer enough to exterminate most large mammals, so that's what. Truly remarkable how stubbornly blind climate change deniers are.
By the way, the world was never covered in ice, not once. There were ice ages, but they never encased the equator in a sheet of ice. And it's warmer enough to exterminate most large mammals, so that's what. Truly remarkable how stubbornly blind climate change deniers are.
1
So the earth is becoming less hospitable to the 7 billion people who live here and who prefer to eat 3 square meals a day.
That's the big deal.
That's the big deal.
1
Earth has been here for more than a million years? Actually, it's more like 4.5 BILLION years, but no, you won't find that in the bible. The point is we've been here for a lot LESS than a million years, and we're well along the way to assuring we won't be here for another thousand. This has nothing to do with the sustainability of the earth itself—the planet will do fine regardless of what WE do (until the sun blows up in 4-5 billion years, anyway). It has to do with the sustainability of our existence here. Big deal, indeed!
2
It's not the climate, it's the overpopulation; in other words, not the effect, but the cause.
3
To those who think that records were made to be broken and we still haven't realized our full potential, I say give it time. Meanwhile, try to occupy yourselves achieving either the minimum or maximum pH factor.
2015 will be an important year for the near and long term future because this international community is trying to make decisions on development and climate during the UN Conferences in September in NY City and in December in Paris.
These decisions would bend history and politicians are pressured to take real action because more and more people are fed up with the present world (did)order that enriches the few, impoverishes the many and imperils people, species and planet. An excellent example of this public pressure is presented in the global mobilization by the 2015 Action campaign. www.action2015.org
As a sustainability sociologist I have been pushing in various ways and for decades the need to integrate development and climate. Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” presents the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of carbon-based international monetary system which are updated at www.timun.net.
These decisions would bend history and politicians are pressured to take real action because more and more people are fed up with the present world (did)order that enriches the few, impoverishes the many and imperils people, species and planet. An excellent example of this public pressure is presented in the global mobilization by the 2015 Action campaign. www.action2015.org
As a sustainability sociologist I have been pushing in various ways and for decades the need to integrate development and climate. Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” presents the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of carbon-based international monetary system which are updated at www.timun.net.
2
The falsity of the warming deniers' claim that the earth has not warmed in the last 10-15 years is obvious in the data, even discounting the current year.
The data are displayed here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-...
Year-to-year variation in temperature obscures the trend in ANY 10-15 year interval, yet the long-term trend is crystal clear.
Deniers are gravely uninformed, or worse.
The data are displayed here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-...
Year-to-year variation in temperature obscures the trend in ANY 10-15 year interval, yet the long-term trend is crystal clear.
Deniers are gravely uninformed, or worse.
7
I'm glad that someone pointed out that 2014 in particular was a very mild summer on the eastern seaboard, the New York area in particular. This was supposedly explained by the meteorological people who can always find a reason for any such occurrence. That they fried out on the west coast is indisputable. I think it is still too soon to bring in verdicts on climate change. Our records only go back to the 19th century, a blip in the scheme of things. That we should continue to reduce carbon emmissions is also indisputable and logical. But we should try to avoid the political bombast in the meantime. We should be better than that.
4
Thankfully the insightful American voters voted a majority of Republicans into office this past fall. So by handing Republicans control of the Senate, the American voters finally voted for the Republican's visionary plans for the environment and against President Obama's environmental legacy.
Now we are lucky to have such a visionary as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe take control of the Senate's environment when he takes over the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe refuted climate change science in 2012 by citing the Bible. “[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
Inhofe reiterated his position with his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.
Perhaps we are entering another dark ages in the world, where science and reasoning fall to the wayside to religious beliefs.
Thank you American voters for voting with your gut, and not your minds. Your children and grandchildren will marvel at your insight in generations to come.
Now we are lucky to have such a visionary as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe take control of the Senate's environment when he takes over the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe refuted climate change science in 2012 by citing the Bible. “[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
Inhofe reiterated his position with his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.
Perhaps we are entering another dark ages in the world, where science and reasoning fall to the wayside to religious beliefs.
Thank you American voters for voting with your gut, and not your minds. Your children and grandchildren will marvel at your insight in generations to come.
38
You are welcome. The adults are back in the house.
1
But not too many generations are going to be coming; and once civilization begins to break down, there will be no one to record the sad history of our demise.
1
Stop ignoring environmental problems we need to address now.
Dismantle all nuclear facilities in earthquake zones worldwide.
Stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Stop the fracking that destabilizes our land and pollutes our water.
Find clean and safe energy alternatives.
Carbon tax does nothing to solve the problem - it just shifts the problem.
Dismantle all nuclear facilities in earthquake zones worldwide.
Stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Stop the fracking that destabilizes our land and pollutes our water.
Find clean and safe energy alternatives.
Carbon tax does nothing to solve the problem - it just shifts the problem.
2
All very sane ideas. Let's please begin.
I'm surprised the Republicans keep denying this but even more surprised that somehow they're not trying to blame Obama for this.
They'll probably do that once they start believing in human's as the cause of climate change though, would you really expect otherwise?
They'll probably do that once they start believing in human's as the cause of climate change though, would you really expect otherwise?
1
To what extent human actions contribute to global warming will remain a matter of debate in political circles, even if the overwhelming scientific consensus says that the question has been decided. The scientific consensus has been mistaken in the past. And there are other factors beyond the biosphere that also affect temperatures here on earth.
Before everyone who reads this comment attacks me as a climate change-denier, let me say I am no such thing. Like 99% of the people who will comment here, I'm not truly able to judge. I'm predisposed to say the scientific consensus is correct, because it usually is. But the fact that science is not infallible, combined with continuing political and economic pressures on decision makers, ensures that not enough will be done to combat warming. Assuming the scientists are right, the big changes they expect in the second half of this century will in fact occur, because there will never be a global consensus to modify policy -- or at least not until it's already too late. China and India are not going to radically reduce their emissions at any foreseeable point in the future. The Chinese promise to stop increasing emissions after 2030 was a political gesture, not a firm promise. Nor is there any reason to believe that Americans will take the steps necessary to reduce by a substantial amount the emissions we create.
Climate change is inevitable. We can ameliorate it to some extent, but not prevent it from happening.
Before everyone who reads this comment attacks me as a climate change-denier, let me say I am no such thing. Like 99% of the people who will comment here, I'm not truly able to judge. I'm predisposed to say the scientific consensus is correct, because it usually is. But the fact that science is not infallible, combined with continuing political and economic pressures on decision makers, ensures that not enough will be done to combat warming. Assuming the scientists are right, the big changes they expect in the second half of this century will in fact occur, because there will never be a global consensus to modify policy -- or at least not until it's already too late. China and India are not going to radically reduce their emissions at any foreseeable point in the future. The Chinese promise to stop increasing emissions after 2030 was a political gesture, not a firm promise. Nor is there any reason to believe that Americans will take the steps necessary to reduce by a substantial amount the emissions we create.
Climate change is inevitable. We can ameliorate it to some extent, but not prevent it from happening.
4
China will probably triple its emissions before they plateau.
2
Global-warming (regionally/sporadically)...maybe; man-made...NOT!
We are actually in an era headed toward another ice-age.
More thought needs to be given to how since the Big Bang, EARTH (and all the planets and celestial bodies) have CONSTANTLY been CHANGING--including their climates--and will continue to do so forever or, according to one theory, until the universe collapses back into itself.
At what point over the aeons would warming alarmists say Earth achieved ideal stasis? What would be the conditions to dial things back to?
We are actually in an era headed toward another ice-age.
More thought needs to be given to how since the Big Bang, EARTH (and all the planets and celestial bodies) have CONSTANTLY been CHANGING--including their climates--and will continue to do so forever or, according to one theory, until the universe collapses back into itself.
At what point over the aeons would warming alarmists say Earth achieved ideal stasis? What would be the conditions to dial things back to?
5
The headline and the first line of the article are both terribly misleading. What the article reports is that this is the hottest year since 1880--the year when such records apparently begin. The headline says "hottest year on record," which is ambiguous at best, the article's first line says "hottest in earth's recorded history" for which there is no basis whatsoever. I would have thought that accuracy was more important than scaring people.
4
Scientists - those who specialize in analyzing this data - believe fossil fuels are at least somewhat contributing to climate change. Republicans disagree. The common, ridiculous argument made by Republicans in support of increasing fossil fuel production typically relates to job creation. I find this absurd. Just one example would be the asbestos industry. That created a lot of jobs at one point, until it was found that asbestos was unsafe. Other forms of insulation were then used, which created other jobs.
Here's a fact: a lot of job creation can also happen with renewables. So, why don't the majority of Republicans support renewables over fossil fuels? The reasons are simple - because Liberals support renewables (by default, Republicans must oppose) and the fossil fuel industry supports Republican campaigns. Sadly, this may continue until it's too late, and the "I told you so" won't feel so good.
Here's a fact: a lot of job creation can also happen with renewables. So, why don't the majority of Republicans support renewables over fossil fuels? The reasons are simple - because Liberals support renewables (by default, Republicans must oppose) and the fossil fuel industry supports Republican campaigns. Sadly, this may continue until it's too late, and the "I told you so" won't feel so good.
5
What surprises me though is that when these conversations are brought up, I hear so very little to address potential questions that from a scientific and logical perspective would be brought up when the bottom line is so simple regurgitated very casually. Proponents of changing mankind's 'potential' effects on global warming would have you believe that there has always been some great thermometer that scientists can easily check the official temperature of the earth, when in reality, methods (analytical and physical both) have changed throughout our history. Additionally, even if we had a perfect tool to read the temperature of the earth simply and consistently year over year, when you're considering a system as large and complex as the Earth, samples taken just over a hundred years don't make the case that humans are the biggest culprit of a global warming trend. There are an incredible number of factors that I'm guessing could play into the equation for our entire Solar system to include flares, magnetic field issues of the Sun and Earth, etc. I only wish there would be easy access to information that would pull together all of these considerations and offer the questions and answers so the public could better trust the notions and opinions that being bandied about as irrefutable evidence.
1
Read the papers... I think all this work has been done for you and people have thought through your objections listed above and people have replicated this work. It's simple physics and there's a lot of evidence about human resource abuse. We're unable to live sustainably at this moment.
Ask and receive.
American Association of Science - http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
EPA - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
For information about US climate, search "national climate assessment"
To learn how scientists and nations assembled the overall system of tracking weather and climate information and making sense of it, I recommend the book "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming" by Paul N. Edwards
There is also the Princeton Primers on Climate - a series of books covering the very broad range of sciences that are needed to understand how Earth's Climate works.
American Association of Science - http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
EPA - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
For information about US climate, search "national climate assessment"
To learn how scientists and nations assembled the overall system of tracking weather and climate information and making sense of it, I recommend the book "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming" by Paul N. Edwards
There is also the Princeton Primers on Climate - a series of books covering the very broad range of sciences that are needed to understand how Earth's Climate works.
Thank you for the links; I'll have to read up in detail as just on a cursory review I'm not seeing the points I've mentioned (still focus on the past 100 years). While I believe that we are very likely the culprits and that climate change is a result of our actions, I've yet to see the key points I've mentioned above addressed as matter of factly has the bottom lines (read sound bytes) repeated so often in the media. I believe that to help create support to address the issues, it is important that the questions are helped to bed.
For every one job lost in the fossil-fuel industry we could create ten jobs in clean energy. The best thing Republicans could do for jobs in America is stop subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry, and invest in clean energy jobs. But Republicans like King Coal McConnell from Kentucky are going down kicking and screaming on behalf fossil-fuel profits because they don't really care about jobs, they don't really care about controlling carbon pollution, and they don't really care about their children and grandchildren. All they care about is pleasing the fossil-fuel industrialists who buy them off with campaign contributions, who control Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and who have a stranglehold on American politics.
11
A few things that makes this type of report biased and intentionally uninformative:
1. The record was by a few hundredths of a degree. All records over the past 10 years have been by these same razor thin margins.
2. "Ever recorded" is deceptive. The global temperature record goes back to about 1850. Most people will interpret "ever recorded" as ever in history. People were recording temperatures 100's of years before 1850. A more accurate headline would have stated "since 1850".
3. The pause in warming is real. We have been hovering around the same "highest ever in recorded history since 1850" temperature for the last 18 years. This does not mean warming has stopped forever, but is has unarguably slowed down. The implications are not that global warming is a hoax, it is that future warming may be lower than anticipated, and worst case warming scenarios become less likely. The failure of climate models to anticipate or explain this pause also cast doubt on their efficacy.
4. One warm year does not mean much in the grand climate scheme. Just as we are lectured endlessly that cold winters prove nothing about warming trends, neither do single years that are 0.03C warmer than previous. Try to stay consistent.
5. The drought in California is not caused by global warming according to the NOAA, but is instead of natural causes. Global drought trends have not been increasing over the last 100 years.
1. The record was by a few hundredths of a degree. All records over the past 10 years have been by these same razor thin margins.
2. "Ever recorded" is deceptive. The global temperature record goes back to about 1850. Most people will interpret "ever recorded" as ever in history. People were recording temperatures 100's of years before 1850. A more accurate headline would have stated "since 1850".
3. The pause in warming is real. We have been hovering around the same "highest ever in recorded history since 1850" temperature for the last 18 years. This does not mean warming has stopped forever, but is has unarguably slowed down. The implications are not that global warming is a hoax, it is that future warming may be lower than anticipated, and worst case warming scenarios become less likely. The failure of climate models to anticipate or explain this pause also cast doubt on their efficacy.
4. One warm year does not mean much in the grand climate scheme. Just as we are lectured endlessly that cold winters prove nothing about warming trends, neither do single years that are 0.03C warmer than previous. Try to stay consistent.
5. The drought in California is not caused by global warming according to the NOAA, but is instead of natural causes. Global drought trends have not been increasing over the last 100 years.
12
Most importantly:
6. Uncertainty on NOAA's measurement was +/-0.09, which means 2014 could actually have been -0.05 C cooler than 2010. Omitting this is totally dishonest.
6. Uncertainty on NOAA's measurement was +/-0.09, which means 2014 could actually have been -0.05 C cooler than 2010. Omitting this is totally dishonest.
Hi, Tom.
1 - True, but the last three decades in a row have each been warmest on record, and the 2010s are solidly in the running to continue that trend.
2 - "Ever recorded" means ever recorded on modern instruments, but yes, that means that for surface temperatures, 2014 was the hottest year based on recorded temperatures. The planet was warmer 125,000 years ago, and much warmer a very long time before mammals were bigger than mice. We don't want to be that warm - moving coastal cities is expensive.
3 - the slowdown in -surface- warming is real but is happening while oceans have been continuing to warm rapidly. Water can hold far more heat than air, so the planet has really been warming steadily - the "pause" is only surface temperatures.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
4 - one warm year is just weather. 34 warm years is a trend. The 1980s were the warmest decade since 1850, then the 1990s were, then the 2000s beat the 90s, and the 2010s show every sign of continuing that trend. Earlier decades showed more variability.
5 - the western drought has been exacerbated by increased temperatures. Climate change means trends change - so hotter nights in the Southwest (a result of greenhouse gas increase) mean soil dries even more, mornings start a little warmer, and this intensifies the drought.
1 - True, but the last three decades in a row have each been warmest on record, and the 2010s are solidly in the running to continue that trend.
2 - "Ever recorded" means ever recorded on modern instruments, but yes, that means that for surface temperatures, 2014 was the hottest year based on recorded temperatures. The planet was warmer 125,000 years ago, and much warmer a very long time before mammals were bigger than mice. We don't want to be that warm - moving coastal cities is expensive.
3 - the slowdown in -surface- warming is real but is happening while oceans have been continuing to warm rapidly. Water can hold far more heat than air, so the planet has really been warming steadily - the "pause" is only surface temperatures.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
4 - one warm year is just weather. 34 warm years is a trend. The 1980s were the warmest decade since 1850, then the 1990s were, then the 2000s beat the 90s, and the 2010s show every sign of continuing that trend. Earlier decades showed more variability.
5 - the western drought has been exacerbated by increased temperatures. Climate change means trends change - so hotter nights in the Southwest (a result of greenhouse gas increase) mean soil dries even more, mornings start a little warmer, and this intensifies the drought.
1
Why is it "conservatives" come to every discussion armed with their own set of "facts" that cannot be independently verified by anybody except Sean Hannity?
1
And the Republican's control Congress, climate deniers indeed..how did they all get elected? All the powerful money from the oil & gas industry, and they owe them something big..let's just sit back and watch what unfolds. I do know this if we think things couldn't get much worse just you wait my little darlings, keep your eyes on Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio with their respective chairs they now head!!
4
Whaddaya mean "how did they get elected"? Look at my screen name: we have met the enemy and he is us......
How do all those people sleep at night, especially if they have children?
Very interesting data. From about 1940 to 1980 the temperature appears to randomly vary and from 1980 to about 2000 it appears increase linearly. However from 2000 to the present the data again suggests a small random variation. The cause is definitely man made, however how correlated is the data to the actual amount of burned fossil fuels ? Unless the correlation is statistically significant future global warming is unpredictable.
It is relative to the 1950-1980 baseline. That's what you should be thinking about.
Since this has become a political issue with the Republicans denying and the Democrats accepting, the issue remains in the middle with nothing getting done. As time marches on Scientists now explain that the conditions we now find ourselves in are irreversible no matter what we do. The best thing ahead it seems, is that we continue to ratchet down on emissions, continue alternative fuel sources and add beano to cow feed. ...In the end it will be the earth itself that will correct the abuse shed upon it and decide if we should continue to inhabit it .
1
Let's hope it stays in the realm of "nothing getting done." The very idea that we can tell the global climate to stop changing, which it's been doing for billions of years, is outrageous. It's difficult to imagine that level of ego.
1
These heat waves are all cyclical, these "scientists" are just fabricating these numbers so their jobs get funded, and it's still cold here in New York today!
Don't these seem like rationale statements?
Let's just keep listening to the Koch brothers and hope they write more legislation benefiting their energy companies; after all it creates more jobs, right?
What will it take for the naysayers to wake up?
Don't these seem like rationale statements?
Let's just keep listening to the Koch brothers and hope they write more legislation benefiting their energy companies; after all it creates more jobs, right?
What will it take for the naysayers to wake up?
1
Well for one thing it would take THIS naysayer to forget everything he learned in college, getting that degree.
I'm a geologist. I think in terms of millennia. Nothing that is happening today is unusual. Humans think their lifetimes, or a few lifetimes, are a meaningful length of time. They are not.
The technology to measure "global temperature" is brand new, and is rapidly evolving. It's pure fantasy to think that "scientists" even know how warm the Earth was in the 1990s. It's fantasy to think they know TODAY, with any meaningful degree of accuracy. They can't even agree on HOW to measure it, and which numbers to ignore.
It's a bunch of hooey. They're selling a product.
I'm a geologist. I think in terms of millennia. Nothing that is happening today is unusual. Humans think their lifetimes, or a few lifetimes, are a meaningful length of time. They are not.
The technology to measure "global temperature" is brand new, and is rapidly evolving. It's pure fantasy to think that "scientists" even know how warm the Earth was in the 1990s. It's fantasy to think they know TODAY, with any meaningful degree of accuracy. They can't even agree on HOW to measure it, and which numbers to ignore.
It's a bunch of hooey. They're selling a product.
1
Puny humans. The earth does not care about you. You are a blip on the history of this planet.
The earth will do what it needs to do and if that means making certain life form disappear, like humans, so be it.
Just proof to show how insignificant you are, you dreams are, your life is in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe we need to be knocked off of this pedestal we placed ourselves on and be forced to try again, from scratch.
The earth will do what it needs to do and if that means making certain life form disappear, like humans, so be it.
Just proof to show how insignificant you are, you dreams are, your life is in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe we need to be knocked off of this pedestal we placed ourselves on and be forced to try again, from scratch.
2
From what I can tell from my own recent research for a film on the politics of the fracking boom, it is entirely possible that the people of the US have no say at all in our energy future.
It looks to me like the fossil fuel industry has decided we will stay on their product for at least another 100 years (catch T Boone Pickens TED talk on mining methane hydrates as the energy answer for the future). The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has agreed and slates only a 1% rise in renewables by 2030, with fossil fuel use spread to all third world nations.
As a member of the climate change action group 350, I hope I'm wrong. But more and more I believe that in fact, this decision has been made.
The fossil fuel industry will fight to keep us on their product using a massive PR misinformation campaign, even if science tells us that action will likely end civilization as we know it.
Will destruction of human civilization be the outcome of the American Experiment?
It looks to me like the fossil fuel industry has decided we will stay on their product for at least another 100 years (catch T Boone Pickens TED talk on mining methane hydrates as the energy answer for the future). The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has agreed and slates only a 1% rise in renewables by 2030, with fossil fuel use spread to all third world nations.
As a member of the climate change action group 350, I hope I'm wrong. But more and more I believe that in fact, this decision has been made.
The fossil fuel industry will fight to keep us on their product using a massive PR misinformation campaign, even if science tells us that action will likely end civilization as we know it.
Will destruction of human civilization be the outcome of the American Experiment?
2
All the energy advances we can make to lessen CO2 are advantageous for job creation, our economic competitiveness, our export of technology and products, our ability to be energy independent.
Imagine the job creation if we had a huge national project to place solar electric panels on millions of homes, apartments, commercial buildings. Local jobs. Boosting local economies.
Not to mention other energy conservation retrofit items each structure needs.
This is the next frontier.
As Tom Friedman said, "If we do all these things and I'm wrong about climate change then all we've done is just boost our economy. If we don't do anything and the climate change deniers are wrong, we kill a perfectly good planet. Our only home."
Regardless of any science or denial of it, let's act as if climate change is real.
Because it's our best economic move.
Imagine the job creation if we had a huge national project to place solar electric panels on millions of homes, apartments, commercial buildings. Local jobs. Boosting local economies.
Not to mention other energy conservation retrofit items each structure needs.
This is the next frontier.
As Tom Friedman said, "If we do all these things and I'm wrong about climate change then all we've done is just boost our economy. If we don't do anything and the climate change deniers are wrong, we kill a perfectly good planet. Our only home."
Regardless of any science or denial of it, let's act as if climate change is real.
Because it's our best economic move.
15
Yes, $17 Trillion in public debt isn't nearly enough. We need to spend another trillion or so on subsidized solar panels.
Do you have any idea how energy intensive and environmentally damaging solar panel production is?
The ONLY long term solution is nuclear. THAT is what we need to invest in, because it's going to happen anyway.
Do you have any idea how energy intensive and environmentally damaging solar panel production is?
The ONLY long term solution is nuclear. THAT is what we need to invest in, because it's going to happen anyway.
1
This could be done now, today. That is, it could be done if we stopped spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
I heard the republicans are submitting a bill that changes the temperature measurement from Fahrenheit to Celsius. The numbers are smaller and hence it is not as hot.
8
I think the only way to finally dispel the conservative nonsense about climate change is for a big-deal gathering of America's top scientists, at a Washington Press Conference, so people can get the subliminal message that big-deal scientists are in total agreement about the danger. Graphs never convinced people of much; the issue needs better marketing. Oddly, scientists think that marketing the facts is unnecessary in too many cases.
10
What about the scientists whoi are not in agreement with the AGW crowd? Will they be allowed to attend, or will they be shut out like they are from publishing their theories?
2
Disallow anyone whose paycheck depends on promulgating the Warmist narrative and I'll agree with you.
No opinion is "independent" when it's making someone's mortgage payment.
No opinion is "independent" when it's making someone's mortgage payment.
"What about the scientists whoi are not in agreement with the AGW crowd?"
They can readily get money from the Koch brothers to try to find evidence for their disagreement. They've yet to put any evidence forward.
They can readily get money from the Koch brothers to try to find evidence for their disagreement. They've yet to put any evidence forward.
1
Not surprising, given the earth has been warming since the last ice age. The question is whether or not carbon dioxide is meaningfully accelerating the trend. CO2 has been higher than now 100s of million of years ago and lower a million years ago.
Carbon dioxide may not be controllable by man, but pollution is. Clean air and water are being lost as issues to climate change. For poor countries, clean air and water are big issues for health--what we should focus on. Since the age dinosaurs the earth's climate has changed. Why say change is news?
Carbon dioxide may not be controllable by man, but pollution is. Clean air and water are being lost as issues to climate change. For poor countries, clean air and water are big issues for health--what we should focus on. Since the age dinosaurs the earth's climate has changed. Why say change is news?
5
I assume that you will back up these claims with a link to a reliable source.
It's the rate of change that's news.
The earth is a dynamic system and it takes a long while for the excess carbon to be felt, but we're feeling it. We're now feeling the effects from 40 years ago, really.
The earth is a dynamic system and it takes a long while for the excess carbon to be felt, but we're feeling it. We're now feeling the effects from 40 years ago, really.
CO2 was many times higher during the maximum extent of the last glacial advance. CO2 is a function of biomass. During a glacial advance there is far less vegetation, and therefore less carbon locked up in biomass.
The amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, excluding water vapor, is negligible. And the amount we've released by burning fossil fuels is an insignificant puff compared to what volcanic activity does all the time. WATER VAPOR is the reason the planet isn't a frozen ball of ice. None of the other trace gases matter.
People fixate on how much CO2 has increased over the past century, but have no conception of just how tiny the concentration actually is. It has NO measurable effect.
The amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, excluding water vapor, is negligible. And the amount we've released by burning fossil fuels is an insignificant puff compared to what volcanic activity does all the time. WATER VAPOR is the reason the planet isn't a frozen ball of ice. None of the other trace gases matter.
People fixate on how much CO2 has increased over the past century, but have no conception of just how tiny the concentration actually is. It has NO measurable effect.
1
Will we ever reach a point where the Times can write an article about Climate Change without adding in what the well-paid lunatic fringe has to think about it? How many years did the Times report on lung cancer before they stopped adding in what paid-by-the-industry Dr. So-and-So had to say about it?
33
Take the lunatic fringe out of the equation and there would be nothing to say.
Especially if you eliminate the lunatic fringe whose jobs depend on selling Global Warming.
It's a myth. The same scammers who were selling Global Cooling in the 70s are still at it today, and doing it for the same reasons.
Especially if you eliminate the lunatic fringe whose jobs depend on selling Global Warming.
It's a myth. The same scammers who were selling Global Cooling in the 70s are still at it today, and doing it for the same reasons.
Anyone could look at the global temperature graph and see that 1998 was an especially hot year due to a large el nino effect, and that picking that year as the reference point to say that global warming had "stopped" was an intentional mis-reading of the data. The idea that global warming had "stopped", or "paused" was not a "disagreement" between two honest interpretations of the facts. It was wanton chicanery. It was lying about the facts in order to defend a profitable, but wrong, storyline. It was disinformation to defend ideology. It was morally bankrupt.
To think that the new data, which shows that global warming is continuing unabated, is naive. Oil, coal and business interests, and the crazy Republican congressman and Senators who serve them, will continue to spend vast sums of money disputing the facts and buying public policy.
While the situation is similar to cigarettes, there are two big differences.
1. Unlike the tobacco companies, who only killed the smokers, the fossil fuel companies will end up killing large numbers of people indiscriminately through flood, famine, drought, and mass migration of refugees.
2. The scope of the tobacco epidemic was limited to smokers, so society could wait for decades for the facts about tobacco and death to become understood and for politicians to make changes. In the case of global warming, we don't have decades. The damage we are doing to the planet's ability to sustain our children is reaching the tipping point today.
To think that the new data, which shows that global warming is continuing unabated, is naive. Oil, coal and business interests, and the crazy Republican congressman and Senators who serve them, will continue to spend vast sums of money disputing the facts and buying public policy.
While the situation is similar to cigarettes, there are two big differences.
1. Unlike the tobacco companies, who only killed the smokers, the fossil fuel companies will end up killing large numbers of people indiscriminately through flood, famine, drought, and mass migration of refugees.
2. The scope of the tobacco epidemic was limited to smokers, so society could wait for decades for the facts about tobacco and death to become understood and for politicians to make changes. In the case of global warming, we don't have decades. The damage we are doing to the planet's ability to sustain our children is reaching the tipping point today.
11
Chicanery. Exactly the word I was looking for.
Obama has negotiated a climate deal with China, so no worries. Unless of course you look at the details, which allow China to keep polluting more and more each year until 2025, at which time their pollution levels will be capped. Meanwhile the U.S. will be required to reduce our current emissions even further, with massive new and more onerous restrictions on manufacturing and energy production. Obama's latest target is methane, which is a byproduct of fracking and energy exploration. Note to liberals: I hope you will be around in 2025 when the U.S. economy is groveling at the feet of China and the third world who will be laughing all the way to the bank.
4
If you are a selfish American, that deal is sour, no doubt. But for the rest of the world, seeing that you are the TOP culprit with 25% of emissions wrecking the planet, the Chinese are simply stepping into their quota considering how many they are. I have no problem with you burning a minimum of energy to live, like the rest of the world. Haven't you done enough damage yet?
3
To NoCommonSense: You might be interested to know that the Chinese passed the U.S. in greenhouse emissions two years ago. I hear they have Google in Spain. Use it.
2
Maybe in overall emissions, but what about per capita emissions? it needs to be stated both ways to make a true comparison.
3
"only the eastern half of the United States recorded below-average temperatures in 2014." Gee what did we do to be so fortunate? We'll have an Ice Age while the rest of the world bakes.
1
The Republicans deny climate change to keep the money from fossil fuels pouring into their PACs. They tell the voters it is about jobs. The voters need to take a look at our California towns with no water and ask how that is working out for the job scene. Bad things could be coming to your town soon.
4
John Boehner (R-Ohio) says the administration has a "job killing" environmental agenda. Does he not comprehend that jobs are going to be the least of our worries when climate change potentially kills us? And that real solutions to climate change will be job creating? Or does he wants it to get hotter so he doesn't have to sit under his sun lamp anymore during the D.C. winter?
His lack of concern for the welfare of the planet is astonishing.
His lack of concern for the welfare of the planet is astonishing.
7
The planet does not care about your concern.
What is causing just as much damage to the global warming is all the hot air that the GOP is so full of.
Fortunately real scientists are not paid to write biased "reports" with pre-conclusions.
Fortunately real scientists are not paid to write biased "reports" with pre-conclusions.
3
For a far more nuanced and careful analysis of this data, see Prof. Curry's take athttp://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/#more-.... Note that whether or not 2014 was the "warmest year on record" (a debatable proposition), "The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger." Id.
4
It is interesting that Ms. Curry has worked for a short time at so many reputable institutions, none of which still employ her. Perhaps one should consider that before taking what she writes too seriously.
1
What are you talking about? Prof. Curry is currently a tenured full professor at Georgia Tech, where she has been since 2002. For several years, she served as chair of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. I think perhaps you have confused Prof. Curry with someone else.
Paul, your point that some scientists raise certain issues that can viewed as skeptical is worth investigating. However, Prof. Curry's claim that the key issue is the difference between factual observations (e.g., global average T is steadily increasing) and current models (i.e, the global average T will increase at some predicted rate dT/dt), not that dT/dt > 0. Curry's perspective is equivalent to saying, "Why worry about the cliff ahead in our car - with no brakes - because were not moving toward the cliff (the factual observations) as fast as we thought (the predictive model)?" But, we all end up going over the cliff, just not when we predicted it. So much for Prof. Curry's perspective.
Twenty-five years ago when we told my mother that we intended to buy property in Oregon and live there when we retired she railed against us as only a native of Southern California could do. Living as she did within blocks of where the annual Rose Parade was held she typified the American of the Great Depression and Second World War. Southwestern U.S. weather was the garden of delight.
I probably should not mention this on a national forum, but last summer was very similar to what I remember growing up in Anaheim and Newport Beach. Endless days of mostly clear skies and temperatures in the 70's. Our neighbors who have lived here for decades keep saying, "Just you wait, this is a drought, everything is drying up. The cold and wind and clouds will be here soon."
I hope they are right. For if memory serves it was only after the rest of the nation discovered that it was always sunny in Southern California that we had the endless parade of migrants that cluttered the place up.
There is definitely global climate change. If you liked what you saw in 2014 then take a seat and don't worry. But if you worry about crops failing and storm patterns changing for the worst you might want to consider asking our leaders to come up with a plan.
You know, just in case.
I probably should not mention this on a national forum, but last summer was very similar to what I remember growing up in Anaheim and Newport Beach. Endless days of mostly clear skies and temperatures in the 70's. Our neighbors who have lived here for decades keep saying, "Just you wait, this is a drought, everything is drying up. The cold and wind and clouds will be here soon."
I hope they are right. For if memory serves it was only after the rest of the nation discovered that it was always sunny in Southern California that we had the endless parade of migrants that cluttered the place up.
There is definitely global climate change. If you liked what you saw in 2014 then take a seat and don't worry. But if you worry about crops failing and storm patterns changing for the worst you might want to consider asking our leaders to come up with a plan.
You know, just in case.
2
I love political correctness.
Here we have an article that rambles on about the hottest year in recorded history and some sources even draw a linear line through the graph on the second screen which shows the Global Surface Air Temperature. This line is used to emphasize that the temperature of the air has been rising since the 1900's.
Being trained as an engineer I look at the data shown on that graph and do not see a linear trend. I see a section of a sinusoidal wave with a period of about 100 years. Low in 1880. High in 1910. Low in 1960. High in 2012. The next low should occur in about 50 years.
We know the sun has radiation changes on an 11 year cycle called the Sun Spot Cycle. Perhaps it has a 100 year cycle as well. If it does then we are about to see a decrease in temperature in the next 5-10 years. We do not have enough data to know, but if that were the case, then our grand children will be worrying about how to increase the temperature to keep the oceans from freezing up.
It is unfortunate that my view is not in vogue at the moment so based on the linear projection, our political machine will move toward the money to be made in stopping global warming. In a similar unfortunate vein, their efforts will likely be rewarded with a drop in temperatures so they can claim victory even if their efforts failed completely.
As I stated at the start. Isn't political correctness wonderful.
Here we have an article that rambles on about the hottest year in recorded history and some sources even draw a linear line through the graph on the second screen which shows the Global Surface Air Temperature. This line is used to emphasize that the temperature of the air has been rising since the 1900's.
Being trained as an engineer I look at the data shown on that graph and do not see a linear trend. I see a section of a sinusoidal wave with a period of about 100 years. Low in 1880. High in 1910. Low in 1960. High in 2012. The next low should occur in about 50 years.
We know the sun has radiation changes on an 11 year cycle called the Sun Spot Cycle. Perhaps it has a 100 year cycle as well. If it does then we are about to see a decrease in temperature in the next 5-10 years. We do not have enough data to know, but if that were the case, then our grand children will be worrying about how to increase the temperature to keep the oceans from freezing up.
It is unfortunate that my view is not in vogue at the moment so based on the linear projection, our political machine will move toward the money to be made in stopping global warming. In a similar unfortunate vein, their efforts will likely be rewarded with a drop in temperatures so they can claim victory even if their efforts failed completely.
As I stated at the start. Isn't political correctness wonderful.
11
This sort of willful distortion of the facts is at the core of the problem. People with a little bit of knowledge and less understanding who post authoritative-sounding comments that are, nonetheless, complete nonsense contribute nothing to any rational consideration of the issues.
7
Would you please reveal in which field your engineering training was? Did you have a bachelor or master's in civil engineering? And from which university?
You climate change denial is utterly astonishing for someone who probably considers himself a "scientist".
You climate change denial is utterly astonishing for someone who probably considers himself a "scientist".
1
"Being trained as an engineer I look at the data shown on that graph and do not see a linear trend."
Then you're not very well trained as an engineer. This isn't a "linear" trend, but a simple low pass filter shows that it's monotonically increasing one, and not a sinusoid by any stretch of the imagination.
Then you're not very well trained as an engineer. This isn't a "linear" trend, but a simple low pass filter shows that it's monotonically increasing one, and not a sinusoid by any stretch of the imagination.
3
Hurray for Bernie Sander's forcing the climate change deniers in the Senate to embarrass themselves! Brilliant move, with good timing. Those republicans next up for reelection must face the agonizing choice of alienating their corporate campaign supporters who want to suck from the earth and burn every last profitable drop of oil, versus alienating the more sane human voters who will realize what is truly human-made, i.e.--climate change denial. We need to contain global warming for sure; but first we need to contain global warming deniers, as they are the true threat to our planet's well being.
32
The root cause of all global environmental problems, including any effects of humans on the climate, is overpopulation. The ecological effects of a projected 10 billion or so carbon-generating human heaters on the planet later this century will be profound, but so far there is no political or religious leadership to address this taboo topic.
44
Population, and population growth, is a major factor in a broad range of environmental and social issues. At the same time, keep in mind that rates of resource consumption (and waste production) vary widely depending on where you are. Simplifying it to a population problem risks letting some people (including me) off the hook and focuses attention instead solely on areas of the world that have high growth rates, which are typically poor. Both contexts need to be kept in perspective.
1
RC, you have nailed it!!!
1
And when 97% of scientists say stop reproducing....
Wow, did that elected official really say:
"with regard to climate change means killing American jobs"?
There's enormous opportunity to develop, build and export next generation power models: whether its wind turbines, hydrogen generators (once we have those, we're golden when coupled with unlimited renewable energy), smart grids.
Yes, it will mean less oil production. But it doesn't matter: with oil at USD 30 a barrel when the above technologies go mainstream, those drillers in North Dakota and Texas are out of business anyway. Or so the Houston Post said recently: "USD 45 oil means 250,000 drillers unemployed".
The only way forward is renewables for all countries that can marginally afford it.
"with regard to climate change means killing American jobs"?
There's enormous opportunity to develop, build and export next generation power models: whether its wind turbines, hydrogen generators (once we have those, we're golden when coupled with unlimited renewable energy), smart grids.
Yes, it will mean less oil production. But it doesn't matter: with oil at USD 30 a barrel when the above technologies go mainstream, those drillers in North Dakota and Texas are out of business anyway. Or so the Houston Post said recently: "USD 45 oil means 250,000 drillers unemployed".
The only way forward is renewables for all countries that can marginally afford it.
353
We're not golden if coupled with unlimited unrenewable energy if our population continues to increase exponentially. It will create an exponential heat effect. We need to learn to live sustainably, even if we have infinite energy.
You are spot on. We have only a limited window for America to seize the initiative in developing, manufacturing, and deploying these needed technologies. Demand is going to be enormous as the effects of climate change become more and more apparent. Climate change is horrible indeed, but it's also an amazing opportunity for job gains and economic growth in the effort to solve the problem. It's also difficult to imagine a more fulfilling job--making money while building the infrastructure that will make life better for your children, and your country stronger.
As for oil--it has its place (its hard to get a denser or more compact source of energy outside of nuclear power), but there's nothing wrong with newer, cleaner industries surpassing the old. That's called innovation.
As for oil--it has its place (its hard to get a denser or more compact source of energy outside of nuclear power), but there's nothing wrong with newer, cleaner industries surpassing the old. That's called innovation.
102
In 2011, Obama authorized the sale of bearing technology to China. This technology is for wind turbines. Now, we will see American companies compete against Chinese companies and guess who will lose. If American business continues to rob and cheat engineers and scientists, pretty soon, you'll be counting on Chinese scientists and engineers and they're not as good as ours.
When I saw this headline I was wishing I was looking at The Onion. Nice job people. We have screwed our children and grandchildren.
4
In the entire history of humankind, this may be the single most important generation.
We as a species have unknowingly and steadfastly marched in the direction of our own destruction since the dawn of the industrial age. Recent science on climate change has made that abundantly clear. If there is any room left to right the course of human history, it will be the unique span of our lifetime which will provide that pivotal moment.
How strange; how terrible and beautiful that this generation faces such a challenge, and such a special responsibility: It is as if two arcs grew up out of the roots of history and have been bending through time toward one another; preparing to cross at precisely this moment. One arc is our budding understanding of our deeply interconnected role on this planet--how we fit into this complex dance of life-- and the other is our growing awareness that if we continue as we have, our time here will soon come to an end.
Whatever the reason for the meeting of these arcs, here we are. The outcome of this battle--whether it be the most inconsolable sorrow for what might have been, or the indeed the greatest and most generous achievement by any generation in the history of humankind-- will be known in our lifetime.
To every young person out there: I place my faith in your creativity and determination. My own children are your peers. And I thank you--we thank you, in advance-- for every effort you make to turn the tide.
We as a species have unknowingly and steadfastly marched in the direction of our own destruction since the dawn of the industrial age. Recent science on climate change has made that abundantly clear. If there is any room left to right the course of human history, it will be the unique span of our lifetime which will provide that pivotal moment.
How strange; how terrible and beautiful that this generation faces such a challenge, and such a special responsibility: It is as if two arcs grew up out of the roots of history and have been bending through time toward one another; preparing to cross at precisely this moment. One arc is our budding understanding of our deeply interconnected role on this planet--how we fit into this complex dance of life-- and the other is our growing awareness that if we continue as we have, our time here will soon come to an end.
Whatever the reason for the meeting of these arcs, here we are. The outcome of this battle--whether it be the most inconsolable sorrow for what might have been, or the indeed the greatest and most generous achievement by any generation in the history of humankind-- will be known in our lifetime.
To every young person out there: I place my faith in your creativity and determination. My own children are your peers. And I thank you--we thank you, in advance-- for every effort you make to turn the tide.
7
Unfortunately, all indications are that the 'inconsolable sorrow' arc will triumph. The earth doesn't care; nothing will spare those who cannot save themselves.
There is no climate change, there is no climate change, there is no climate change, there is no climate change, there is no climate change, there is no climate change, there is no climate change....
Yes, keep repeating it to yourselves, climate change deniers. Still won't come true.
Yes, keep repeating it to yourselves, climate change deniers. Still won't come true.
3
It is easy to say that we should cut our use of hydrocarbon fuels. Yet, last week, the US (mostly due to population in the northeast) burned through 260 billion cubic feet of natural gas to stay warm. In one week! Would we have people freeze to death instead? Raising the cost of hydrocarbon fuels through taxation will only harm the American citizen, especially if the developing world continues its march toward higher living standards. We need a real solution, not political sound bites.
2
Burning through all that natural gas actually lowered the US' CO2 emissions, to the extent that cheap natural gas displaced the burning of higher-carbon-footprint heating oil & especially coal.
A tax on carbon would at least have the effect of encouraging consumers to use relatively lower-footprint fossil fuels. It's not a cure, but it's a step in the correct direction.
A tax on carbon would at least have the effect of encouraging consumers to use relatively lower-footprint fossil fuels. It's not a cure, but it's a step in the correct direction.
Just would like to point out that the statement, "meaning that no one younger than 30 has ever lived through a below-average month" is not quite correct. What is true is that "no one younger than 30 has ever lived through a GLOBALLY below-average month". But there are important distinctions between global and local and weather and climate. In fact, almost everyone has experienced a below average month where they live (we've had plenty in the Northeast in the past year).
Its important to understand that while global temperatures continue their inexorable climb, this does not mean the end of the ups and downs of temperature, i.e., "weather", and not everywhere is hot all the time. That seems to be something skeptics don't seem understand and its disappointing to see this incorrect statement in the NYT.
Its important to understand that while global temperatures continue their inexorable climb, this does not mean the end of the ups and downs of temperature, i.e., "weather", and not everywhere is hot all the time. That seems to be something skeptics don't seem understand and its disappointing to see this incorrect statement in the NYT.
3
Funny how Republicans leave the science to the scientists when it comes to climate change, but claim to be biologists when it comes to women's reproductive issues.
25
Republicans will tell you they can't do anything about this because they are concerned about JOBS. They're LYING, they WON'T do anything about this because they are concerned about PROFITS. They KNOW how to create JOBS, they won't do anything about that either because that would cut into PROFITS.
13
It will be interesting to see what lie the professional deniers come up with next now that "There hasn't been any warming since 1998!" lie has been shot down.
I'm sure the focus groups have already been busy; perhaps we'll see the roll-out of the new propaganda in these comments later today?
I'm sure the focus groups have already been busy; perhaps we'll see the roll-out of the new propaganda in these comments later today?
3
The propaganda to distract us from carbon pollution is already here. The new lie is overpopulation even though the most populated countries pollute the least. The fossil-fuel industry and their Republican puppets in Congress are the masters of deceit and destruction.
2
"Professional" is right. Whatever talking point they trot out, you can be sure it was first suggested and focus group tested years ago specifically for the year that surpasses 1998.
What explains a species that knowingly destroys its own ecosystem? Genetic mutation?
1
No...........greed.
A species that fails to adapt to its environment is simply a failed species, scheduled for extinction.
1
Between this report and yesterdays Times article on the diminishment of ocean life, I don't see how anyone can deny how our dominance and (most often mindless) actions on this planet are bearing an effect. An effect that is not only harming to this planet and other species, but will ultimately be our demise. I simply don't understand why this is seen as a political issue. This will eventually be a survival one for all economies involved.
3
I keep hearing folks (commenting on local newspaper message boards) that climate change is a hoax, that temperatures are not going up. But what will happen when they read this. Oh - liberal media, of course.
2