Well, in the middle of this week we here had 48 hours of the temperature staying at 30 degrees Celsius (that's 86 Fahrenheit). That's right - 30 degrees all day and all night for 2 days! That is unheard of even here and is a new record.
So don't anyone tell me that there is no climate change!
So don't anyone tell me that there is no climate change!
1
As a student majoring in marine science, global climate change has always been a serious and important topic in our course. However, with all these scientific data and real life changes, I am both sad and frustrated at the same time to learn that there are still people who cannot see the bigger picture of this issue, of how global climate change could alter 7.4 billion people’s lifestyle. Simply denying the severity of an issue will never solve the problem but allows it to deteriorate. As its name imply, climate change is a global-wide problem that requires every nation and every human being to cooperate and take on the responsibility of protecting an environment that we share together. Even though the results might be slow and gradual, we can use a simple example to explain it: if a person gets terribly ill and finally goes to the doctor for help, it takes time for the medicine to completely make one feel better again, and the doctor will also strongly remind the patient to maintain a healthy lifestyle such as doing regular exercises, having healthy diets, and getting enough sleep to get well. Each healthy step you take will count toward your own well-being, and this is similar to our actions for protecting the Earth. When you unplug your devices when not using, or bring your own bag to stores, these are all small acts that can help our environment. I am still optimistic that if the world population gains enough awareness, we can actually make some amazing changes.
4
Here are the numbers:
The temperature in 2016 was 0.01 degree higher than in 2015. The margin of error of the measurement was 0.1 degree.
The temperature in 2016 was 0.01 degree higher than in 2015. The margin of error of the measurement was 0.1 degree.
2
To break this down for the folks at home, the data can be read any way the reporter WANTS to. This is like typing with thick gloves on and deciding not to proofread your results.
The real hoot is when ''scientists'' guessed how the climate was hundreds of years ago based on dead trees found in the woods. Do they guess like this when baking a cake? Ewww
The real hoot is when ''scientists'' guessed how the climate was hundreds of years ago based on dead trees found in the woods. Do they guess like this when baking a cake? Ewww
Don't you love these poor snowflakes holding their breath waiting for Washington, D.C. & other places to flood?
The city government in Miami states on their website that this MIGHT make a difference in a century.
Yes, a century. OR it might not.
Earlier estimates by the enviro-bats had us all dead by the year 2000 A.D.
This isn't an issue, it's a sales campaign.
The city government in Miami states on their website that this MIGHT make a difference in a century.
Yes, a century. OR it might not.
Earlier estimates by the enviro-bats had us all dead by the year 2000 A.D.
This isn't an issue, it's a sales campaign.
L'oss, the future is now. Your sales campaign is not convincing.
I notice you didn't back up your claim with any links. Here are two articles you can read.
"Miami-Dade flooding to increase as engineers start identifying miles of risky U.S. coast
-New study projects up to eight times as much flooding in county by 2045
-Based on most recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projections
-Corps to assess risks on 10,000 miles of vulnerable shoreline"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article72070677.html
Here's another:
"Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides
-The city’s effort, so far a success, is test of engineering solutions to sea rise
-‘Street of the future’ has two tiers and is very expensive
-If climate projections hold true, entire region will face flood-control overhaul
Miami Beach has put into action an aggressive and expensive plan to combat the effects of sea level rise. As some streets keep flooding from recent king tide events, the city continues rolling out its plan of attack and will spend between $400-$500 million over the next five years doing so"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
I notice you didn't back up your claim with any links. Here are two articles you can read.
"Miami-Dade flooding to increase as engineers start identifying miles of risky U.S. coast
-New study projects up to eight times as much flooding in county by 2045
-Based on most recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projections
-Corps to assess risks on 10,000 miles of vulnerable shoreline"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article72070677.html
Here's another:
"Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides
-The city’s effort, so far a success, is test of engineering solutions to sea rise
-‘Street of the future’ has two tiers and is very expensive
-If climate projections hold true, entire region will face flood-control overhaul
Miami Beach has put into action an aggressive and expensive plan to combat the effects of sea level rise. As some streets keep flooding from recent king tide events, the city continues rolling out its plan of attack and will spend between $400-$500 million over the next five years doing so"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
5
To avoid the coming heating of our planet, you might think of moving to Arizona. What? Well not to places like Phoenix and Yuma but to places in Arizona in the mountains. Flagstaff is an alternative, never too hot or too cold for long. And then there are places in the mountains of Southern Arizona that rarely get too hot or too cold, such as Bisbee or Sierra Vista. Just bring your own water.
Here are the predicted consequences of a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by National Academy of Sciences.
• 5-10% changes in precipitation across many regions
• 3-10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest
precipitation events
• 5-10% changes in stream flow across many river basins
• 15% decreases in the annually averaged extent of sea ice across the Arctic Ocean, with 25% decreases in the yearly minimum extent in September
• 5-15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
• 200-400% increases in the area burned by wildfire.
Virtually everything consumed takes energy to make, adding to global warming; today’s world population of 6.68 billion will increase to 10 billion by 2035 at the current global birth rate, adding to global warming.
Unless we modify our culture of consumerism, control population and bridle our efforts to spread that culture worldwide, we will never control global warming.
Technology alone will not get us out of the mess we’re in but actively thinking about how we live our lives may.
May be we will be happier with smaller families and fewer material possessions.
At least that's what Graham Hill thinks arguing excellently in NYT Sunday Review Opinion Living With Less. A Lot Less, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/living-with-less-a-lot-...
• 5-10% changes in precipitation across many regions
• 3-10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest
precipitation events
• 5-10% changes in stream flow across many river basins
• 15% decreases in the annually averaged extent of sea ice across the Arctic Ocean, with 25% decreases in the yearly minimum extent in September
• 5-15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
• 200-400% increases in the area burned by wildfire.
Virtually everything consumed takes energy to make, adding to global warming; today’s world population of 6.68 billion will increase to 10 billion by 2035 at the current global birth rate, adding to global warming.
Unless we modify our culture of consumerism, control population and bridle our efforts to spread that culture worldwide, we will never control global warming.
Technology alone will not get us out of the mess we’re in but actively thinking about how we live our lives may.
May be we will be happier with smaller families and fewer material possessions.
At least that's what Graham Hill thinks arguing excellently in NYT Sunday Review Opinion Living With Less. A Lot Less, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/living-with-less-a-lot-...
3
Climate change cultists are a danger to progress and true science.
4
Yes, those cultists are weird. They look at consistent results in various sets of data, produced by thousands of scientists around the world, and think there's a conspiracy to fake the data.
They pretend a greenhouse effect that was first written about in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier, and that's been documented in textbooks and measured on the ground, is some kind of political ploy invented in recent decades.
When presented with the scientific ranges of how hot it might get, how high the seas may rise, how badly acidification might affect ocean species, they always claim impacts will be even less than the least-harmful one - then complain that any attempt to prevent further damage will destroy freedom and the economy.
Those are the unscientific cultists you are worried about, right?
They pretend a greenhouse effect that was first written about in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier, and that's been documented in textbooks and measured on the ground, is some kind of political ploy invented in recent decades.
When presented with the scientific ranges of how hot it might get, how high the seas may rise, how badly acidification might affect ocean species, they always claim impacts will be even less than the least-harmful one - then complain that any attempt to prevent further damage will destroy freedom and the economy.
Those are the unscientific cultists you are worried about, right?
9
b fagan. Yes both sides look at the extreme that fits their narrative, "skeptics" on the low end, "alarmists" on the high end. But observations over the last 25 years have actually come in at the low end of the model predictions, approx. 0.15 degrees C/ decade (the 1991 1st IPCC Executive Summary predicted "0.3 degrees C/ decade with an uncertainty range of 0.2 - 0.5 degrees C/ decade"). So with that reality why should we alter our worldwide energy economy based on what the "alarmist" think, as you say, "may/ might" happen within the scientific prediction ranges? Over the last century the earth has warmed approx. 1.2 degrees without significant effect on it's inhabitability for humans. Most scientist say if temp increases over the next century stay in that range it won't have a significant effect. So far, 1/4 way into that century we are on track for a 1.1-1.5 degree increase. Granted that trajectory "may/might" change, but if your honest you'll have to admit "may/might" aren't scientific enough words to justify some of the dramatic policy changes being advocated.
Only politicians debate issues. Scientists formulate hypotheses and then test them. Data supporting the hypothesis is a reason to accept the hypothesis. Data falsifying the hypothesis results in the rejection of the hypothesis.
You can never be sure that you have verified a hypothesis because some future experiment might falsify the hypothesis. You can be certain that a falsified hypothesis should be rejected. Einstein falsified the Newtonian notion that space and time are absolute. Although, most people continue to think space and time are absolute and that clocks in all inertial reference frames measure time similarly (i.e., a second is the same length of time for a person on earth as it is for a person in a rocket traveling at 90% of the speed of light).
The hypothesis of interest is: humans cause the climate to change by burning fossil fuels. There is abundant evidence (e.g., this newspaper article) verifying the hypothesis and since no global-warming denier has been able to falsify the hypothesis, it is irrational to reject the hypothesis.
Too many people think scientists prove things. Only lawyers and mathematicians prove things because they use deductive logic. Scientists use induction to predict what will happen in the future.
You can never be sure that you have verified a hypothesis because some future experiment might falsify the hypothesis. You can be certain that a falsified hypothesis should be rejected. Einstein falsified the Newtonian notion that space and time are absolute. Although, most people continue to think space and time are absolute and that clocks in all inertial reference frames measure time similarly (i.e., a second is the same length of time for a person on earth as it is for a person in a rocket traveling at 90% of the speed of light).
The hypothesis of interest is: humans cause the climate to change by burning fossil fuels. There is abundant evidence (e.g., this newspaper article) verifying the hypothesis and since no global-warming denier has been able to falsify the hypothesis, it is irrational to reject the hypothesis.
Too many people think scientists prove things. Only lawyers and mathematicians prove things because they use deductive logic. Scientists use induction to predict what will happen in the future.
11
Thanks for that comment on science as induction. I once read a piece that said that climate science isn't "real" science because a controlled experiment couldn't be performed!
1
I wonder what effect the slowing of the earths http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/30/time-lords-add-leap-second...
I have come to believe that climate change is behind much of the political turmoil we are experiencing (see Trump inauguration). The right-wing 1% are doubling down on fossil fuels and political power precisely because they see the handwriting on the wall. The pervasive anxiety experienced by many Americans, including those who deny climate change, also has at bottom a conscious or unconscious awareness that climate change is shifting the ground under our feet. Instead of using this awareness to deal with the problem, we funnel our angst into politics that works to shield us from what we already know - we are in big trouble.
4
A record in the blown out of proportion minds of those whose job depends on it, BUT because it within the margin of error and without El Nino it is statistically meaningless.
http://www.thegwpf.com/2016-global-temperature-the-pause-never-went-away/
Here's the correct way to show catastrophic global warming
http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/01/Trendy_GWPF_scr.jpg
http://www.thegwpf.com/2016-global-temperature-the-pause-never-went-away/
Here's the correct way to show catastrophic global warming
http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/01/Trendy_GWPF_scr.jpg
1
It would seem to be preferable for articles that are presenting climate change information do so with a more global perspective. Air just does not hold much heat energy and surface air temperatures will be volatile and not the best indication of the planet warming. Sea levels are actually a better indication and are rising fast...even though mm changes look small, they are not.
The global facts:
Sea levels have been rising for the past 150 year unabated, accelerating from about 1.5 to 3.0 mm/year in the past two decades. This is now on the high end of IPCC projections. (350 billion tonnes of land ice need to melt to raise sea levels one mm. That is an equivalent block of ice -- 4 miles high -- covering manhattan.)
Arctic sea ice summer minimums are falling faster than projections from the IPCC. Over 90% of glaciers are receding.
Surface air temperature have increased about 1 C over the past century. It took 10,000 years to emerge from the last ice age or about 0.05 C/ century (about 5C). The earth is therefore warming 10 times faster now than in the last 20000 years.
El nino/la nina cycles are not sources of heat and are not significant long-term indications of warming--they just move some heat around the planet.
Add it all up..the planet is warming and quickly. Anyone cherry picking limited parts of the globe or limited data that is not reasonable statistically-- and presenting it as "disproving" AGW-- is an indication that science is not that person's agenda.
The global facts:
Sea levels have been rising for the past 150 year unabated, accelerating from about 1.5 to 3.0 mm/year in the past two decades. This is now on the high end of IPCC projections. (350 billion tonnes of land ice need to melt to raise sea levels one mm. That is an equivalent block of ice -- 4 miles high -- covering manhattan.)
Arctic sea ice summer minimums are falling faster than projections from the IPCC. Over 90% of glaciers are receding.
Surface air temperature have increased about 1 C over the past century. It took 10,000 years to emerge from the last ice age or about 0.05 C/ century (about 5C). The earth is therefore warming 10 times faster now than in the last 20000 years.
El nino/la nina cycles are not sources of heat and are not significant long-term indications of warming--they just move some heat around the planet.
Add it all up..the planet is warming and quickly. Anyone cherry picking limited parts of the globe or limited data that is not reasonable statistically-- and presenting it as "disproving" AGW-- is an indication that science is not that person's agenda.
4
It is worth reiterating: By accepted scientific definition: An Ice Age exists in the presence of ice sheets in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere, and the presence of glaciers. This continues to define our present period.
We continue to be exposed to vague references of what we are asked to accept as 'scientists' who it is implied are supposed experts with such statements as: '...which scientists say is being driven by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...'
How are we supposed to accept these bland 'we know better than you' assurances from Gillis's anonymous experts, whom I've come to realize do not subscribe to the "Rigor of the Scientific Method' but regurgitate statistical data; and call that 'science'.
Carbon Dioxide is an invisible gas impervious to analysis by spectrography. Its presence is inferred by infrared rays, or heat that this gas, along with methane, water moisture and other naturally occurring gases trap. But which ones ,at any given point of measurement, are not present remains a mystery. 53% of the Sun's rays are in the Infra Red spectrum, and by the warmth we perceive when we stand in sunlight, CO2 does not block that heat from reaching us.
We continue to be exposed to vague references of what we are asked to accept as 'scientists' who it is implied are supposed experts with such statements as: '...which scientists say is being driven by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...'
How are we supposed to accept these bland 'we know better than you' assurances from Gillis's anonymous experts, whom I've come to realize do not subscribe to the "Rigor of the Scientific Method' but regurgitate statistical data; and call that 'science'.
Carbon Dioxide is an invisible gas impervious to analysis by spectrography. Its presence is inferred by infrared rays, or heat that this gas, along with methane, water moisture and other naturally occurring gases trap. But which ones ,at any given point of measurement, are not present remains a mystery. 53% of the Sun's rays are in the Infra Red spectrum, and by the warmth we perceive when we stand in sunlight, CO2 does not block that heat from reaching us.
4
I would disagree with your statements.
Unfortunately, more people in this country believe in ghosts than climate change. This is just a reflection of our very poor educational system. It is also an example how easily people are manipulated by special interest groups, politicians and business who want to maintain the status quo!
Before dismissing quality science on the subject, might I suggest looking at 1950 photos of our national parks? Specifically, focus on Glacier National Park. Then take a trip out there and look for yourself!
They say that frogs and other amphibians, are the equivalent of canaries used in mines. They are a barometer of our planet's health. Don't take my word for it but research "Golden Toad" and find out what these biological barometers are saying!
Remember, the Golden Toad's message about our future is very clear!
Unfortunately, more people in this country believe in ghosts than climate change. This is just a reflection of our very poor educational system. It is also an example how easily people are manipulated by special interest groups, politicians and business who want to maintain the status quo!
Before dismissing quality science on the subject, might I suggest looking at 1950 photos of our national parks? Specifically, focus on Glacier National Park. Then take a trip out there and look for yourself!
They say that frogs and other amphibians, are the equivalent of canaries used in mines. They are a barometer of our planet's health. Don't take my word for it but research "Golden Toad" and find out what these biological barometers are saying!
Remember, the Golden Toad's message about our future is very clear!
3
CO2 does not block heat. It retains it. We are thickening the greenhouse gas blanket that keeps the Earth from being an ice ball. It's very basic jr high science. The CO2 emissions are also making the oceans more acidic. Any explanation for the changes we are seeing has to address that as well.
Btw, who should we be getting information from regarding changes in atmospheric CO2 levels? You or the professionals who study it?
Btw, who should we be getting information from regarding changes in atmospheric CO2 levels? You or the professionals who study it?
3
Carbon dioxide is not impervious to analysis by spectrographs or gas chromatographs.
The electromagnetic wave absorption bands for CO2 are well known and have been for a long time. There is no "mystery" as to the composition of the atmosphere or the distribution of gases around the planet.
The short wave light that hits the planet causing the surface to warm is reradiated by the earth as infrared based on black body characteristics. CO2 absorbs some of that reradiated infrared trapping the energy. The increase in CO2 caused more of the absorbed outgoing infrared to be trapped and partially reradiated it back toward the planet. CO2 will absorb some of the heat from the sun and always has, but it is the reradiating infrared from planet that is being stopped from leaving that is yielding the warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
The electromagnetic wave absorption bands for CO2 are well known and have been for a long time. There is no "mystery" as to the composition of the atmosphere or the distribution of gases around the planet.
The short wave light that hits the planet causing the surface to warm is reradiated by the earth as infrared based on black body characteristics. CO2 absorbs some of that reradiated infrared trapping the energy. The increase in CO2 caused more of the absorbed outgoing infrared to be trapped and partially reradiated it back toward the planet. CO2 will absorb some of the heat from the sun and always has, but it is the reradiating infrared from planet that is being stopped from leaving that is yielding the warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
3
There are other data sources aside from space and oceanographic data, some which date back millennia, e.g. ice cores, geological and fossil records. How do those factor in to our research? Also, as we pile on Trump for his skepticism, keep in mind that despite this, regardless of belief our disbelief in the phenomenon, many administrations from both parties have punted on energy innovation.
1
Ice cores and information from geologic sources are used for such purposes as measuring carbon going back millennia. This data has been used to demonstrate that the recent rise in atmospheric carbon does not fit the historical pattern of natural rises and falls.
2
There is no cure for irrational and extreme denial, except the brutal crash with reality, and, tragically, because of this, the planet is in a collission course with global warming.
2
Heartbreaking. The tragic, long-unfolding of our inescapable climate-destiny is utterly altering the natural world as we know It. My emotional capacity to sit with this awareness is limited, so most days I try not to think about it. What is to become of us?
2
How might Trump kill us with not caring about global warming?
Many way. Water refugees, we call the Syrians, are already dying. Fish stocks are crashing. Corals are dying. There will be another 2B humans to feed by 2020. Do the math, it's not hard.
It would be very useful if you could present the temperatures also in Celsius. Aren't we reading a global newspaper?
2
Dear Bruno Horta,
It's an easy conversion really, although it's a good point.
Celsius = 5/9 times (Farenheit - 32)
It's an easy conversion really, although it's a good point.
Celsius = 5/9 times (Farenheit - 32)
Fahrenheit stokes the flames. 212 sounds a lot hotter than 100. Same boiling point.
1
Fahrenheit is simply the measure we Americans still use, since Jerry Ford wasn't able to get us to do the sensible thing and join the rest of the world on measurement units.
1
People interested in digging deeper into the science behind this kind of article could go to the NASA or NOAA web sites, or to Spencer Weart's history of climate science at http://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
If you like books, the Princeton University Press offers the excellent "Princeton Primers in Climate" series that cover various areas that make up "Earth climate" ranging from the sun to the cryosphere and biology. They are about climate, so our impact on same is just part of the story.
If interested in the data collection and global cooperation that makes reports like "warmest year in the instrument record" possible, Paul N. Edwards' "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming" is a very good account that lets you know how meteorology and its sibling, climate science, got to be the globally-connected data-driven sciences they are now.
If you like books, the Princeton University Press offers the excellent "Princeton Primers in Climate" series that cover various areas that make up "Earth climate" ranging from the sun to the cryosphere and biology. They are about climate, so our impact on same is just part of the story.
If interested in the data collection and global cooperation that makes reports like "warmest year in the instrument record" possible, Paul N. Edwards' "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming" is a very good account that lets you know how meteorology and its sibling, climate science, got to be the globally-connected data-driven sciences they are now.
3
Climate science: The subject that will make Trumpians and Republicans bury their heads even deeper in the sand.
2
"Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row." What, no numbers? No methodology? Sorry NYT, no sale. This entire article in non-scientific garbage. The actual increase was .01 C - well within the margin of error. And that is if you actually believe the study.
Anyone who believes this has no skepticism of potentially corrupt government bodies (follow the money), and knows nothing about the scientific method.
Anyone who believes this has no skepticism of potentially corrupt government bodies (follow the money), and knows nothing about the scientific method.
3
Chris, following the money would lead straight to Davos this week. As for the scientific method, Humanities and Liberal Arts majors study (?) Shakespeare, not Kuhn and Popper. They wouldn't know a derivative from a Bunsen burner.
2
Faux much?
1
I don't think anyone denies that pollution is a bad thing - for every living species. But, I do not think the Paris Accord will do anything but enrich the already super rich and the governments across the globe. Trillions of dollars will be spent on carbon caps, and it ill affect nothing.
Now, if we want to talk about deforestation and stopping that - I'm in! If we want to talk about polluting our waterways with everything from corporate to residential run-off, I'm in! If we want to discuss population control - in those countries where it's out of control, I'm in!
But under the current agreement, China, the biggest polluter and emissions country of any and all countries on the planet, gets to continue to pollute/emit pollutants to any amount they desire. Since they pollute more than Europe and the US combined, I'm thinking that these trillions that the governments an super rich are salivating over are a complete waste.
PS, let's not forget that Russia is ripping up the arctic ice with hundreds of ice breakers, exposing more area to water, which in turn melts the ice.
Now, if we want to talk about deforestation and stopping that - I'm in! If we want to talk about polluting our waterways with everything from corporate to residential run-off, I'm in! If we want to discuss population control - in those countries where it's out of control, I'm in!
But under the current agreement, China, the biggest polluter and emissions country of any and all countries on the planet, gets to continue to pollute/emit pollutants to any amount they desire. Since they pollute more than Europe and the US combined, I'm thinking that these trillions that the governments an super rich are salivating over are a complete waste.
PS, let's not forget that Russia is ripping up the arctic ice with hundreds of ice breakers, exposing more area to water, which in turn melts the ice.
1
From data.giss.nasa.gov under the heading "Background of GISS analysis method"
"The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was need for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models."
In laymen's terms, James Hansen and his colleagues developed a "scheme" to attempt to compare global temp measurements in the modern satellite era with the previous methods of recording and calculating them since the late 1800s. And surprise, surprise from about 1980 on their comparison of "temperature anomalies" has shown more increase than previously predicted. (but inconveniently 30-50% less than predicted in the late 80s and early 90s). The problem is it is all based on a specific analysis model to partially compare apples to oranges, and in spite of this article pointing out a discrepancy among various agencies assessing global temps, those models over the last 25 years have proven to be fairly unreliable. And yet we are supposed to blindly accept their most extreme predictions and base fairly dramatic policy shifts on them. Over the last 25 years, since the 1st IPCC Report, the model averages have overestimated observed temps by 50% and 90% of the models used overestimated observed temps. At some point we have to begin to face that fact and ask why.
"The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was need for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models."
In laymen's terms, James Hansen and his colleagues developed a "scheme" to attempt to compare global temp measurements in the modern satellite era with the previous methods of recording and calculating them since the late 1800s. And surprise, surprise from about 1980 on their comparison of "temperature anomalies" has shown more increase than previously predicted. (but inconveniently 30-50% less than predicted in the late 80s and early 90s). The problem is it is all based on a specific analysis model to partially compare apples to oranges, and in spite of this article pointing out a discrepancy among various agencies assessing global temps, those models over the last 25 years have proven to be fairly unreliable. And yet we are supposed to blindly accept their most extreme predictions and base fairly dramatic policy shifts on them. Over the last 25 years, since the 1st IPCC Report, the model averages have overestimated observed temps by 50% and 90% of the models used overestimated observed temps. At some point we have to begin to face that fact and ask why.
1
REPNAH, you happen to be posting from the home town of the climate temperature group that wins the prize for "most often wrong", going back to the 90s when they were insisting that there was no warming when all other groups showed clear warming. Oops, they fixed their code a bit after multiple papers pointed out their errors.
The rest of climate scientists don't tell us to blindly accept the most extreme predictions, so why do you say that? Science provides a range of possible outcomes, from fairly bad to terrible, but they don't tell us that terrible is the one that will happen.
As for facing facts and asking why, I'd wonder why two prominent climate scientists in your town are repeatedly associated with anti-regulatory groups who actively promote denial? One of them is part of a "religious" group that claims God will prevent us from hurting the environment too much. How's that working out?
As for your characterization of models and projections, answer this:
Why is there a new branch of archaeology called "Ice Patch Archaeology" unless long-frozen ice fields in mountains around the world are just now melting? Ice doesn't consult computer models.
Read some of the results from this: https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+patch+archaeology
The rest of climate scientists don't tell us to blindly accept the most extreme predictions, so why do you say that? Science provides a range of possible outcomes, from fairly bad to terrible, but they don't tell us that terrible is the one that will happen.
As for facing facts and asking why, I'd wonder why two prominent climate scientists in your town are repeatedly associated with anti-regulatory groups who actively promote denial? One of them is part of a "religious" group that claims God will prevent us from hurting the environment too much. How's that working out?
As for your characterization of models and projections, answer this:
Why is there a new branch of archaeology called "Ice Patch Archaeology" unless long-frozen ice fields in mountains around the world are just now melting? Ice doesn't consult computer models.
Read some of the results from this: https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+patch+archaeology
3
Yes, b fagan, science does give us a range of possible outcomes and 90% of the models used in the 1st few IPCC reports missed high compared to the actual observed temps over the last 25 years by an average of 50%. At some point that fact has to matter, and the scientists that the politicians are listening to, and that the NYT is emphasizing, are still pushing the upper extremes of the predictions in spite of it. At some point that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. And what Spenser and Christie have primarily said is that the climate and the earth's compensating and forcing mechanisms are much more complicated and much less understood than is being portrayed and that the models used by most climate scientist don't take these other factors and compensating mechanism into account enough. And maybe, just maybe, that is playing a underestimated role in why so many of the current models have consistently missed high over the last 2 1/2 decades.
1
REPNAH
Red herrings are not science. The climate models have been accurate providing a range of projections. The IPCC projection of 0.15 to 0.3 C/decade for surface air temps is exactly what has happened--the planet has warmed about 0.15 C/decade for the last three decades. One must cherry pick the upper number and misuse math to claim "climate models have failed."
Surface air temps are a small portion of the heat balance--about 3%. During the past two decades, sea levels have accelerated to 3.0mm/yr from about 1.5 mm/year for the previous century. That is on the high end of IPCC projections and much more indicative of climate change since it is very difficult to warm the planet enough to raise sea levels. Especially since the sun has been on a cooling cycle for about 50 years.
Arctic sea ice was originally projected to become ice free by 2050-2080. That projection was conservative as the chances of it being ice free are close to 2040 now.
So, the IPCC and climate models have been accurate--if one actually does the science--and conservative.
Red herrings are not science. The climate models have been accurate providing a range of projections. The IPCC projection of 0.15 to 0.3 C/decade for surface air temps is exactly what has happened--the planet has warmed about 0.15 C/decade for the last three decades. One must cherry pick the upper number and misuse math to claim "climate models have failed."
Surface air temps are a small portion of the heat balance--about 3%. During the past two decades, sea levels have accelerated to 3.0mm/yr from about 1.5 mm/year for the previous century. That is on the high end of IPCC projections and much more indicative of climate change since it is very difficult to warm the planet enough to raise sea levels. Especially since the sun has been on a cooling cycle for about 50 years.
Arctic sea ice was originally projected to become ice free by 2050-2080. That projection was conservative as the chances of it being ice free are close to 2040 now.
So, the IPCC and climate models have been accurate--if one actually does the science--and conservative.
2
We don't need scientists to tell us that climate has changed. My blueberry bushes have started blooming about a week ago. And just a few years ago, that they started blooming in early March of so. My other fruit trees are showing their flowering buds which one good cold nite will probably end my hope of bumper crops would be dashed. It is no joke. Now, with this change farmers planting season will have to change and the ground conditions and weather will either give them a good harvest or a bad year due to this climate change. We all will have to adjust to this new reality and hopefully survive. But those animals of the cold and warm regions will have to reset their climate clock or they may have the risk of extinction. We don't need meteors to explain mass extinctions. After all, was the global weather change after a massive meteor hit that we theorized for massive extinctions of the dinosaur's era! In our situation, man is creating the same kind of changes that will be future fossil hunter's dream whoever that may be.
3
I think what we've got here is a sort of report card from the natural world on how humans have treated their planet. The upshot is that greed wins, the profit motive wins, radical no-holds-barred capitalism wins. And every living thing on this planet loses. There's still time to do something substantial to reverse course. Will we? With all these competing forces at work, I can't see it happening. Cooperation, not competition is what's called for, but that seems to be too much for "the masters of mankind."
5
3 year trend on 4 billion years?
4.5 billion years, but who's counting. But the thing is, the climate on earth has shifted rapidly numerous times over all that time. It's basically never shifted this rapidly, and every time there has been a major shift, it caused vast extinction. So this is cause to worry.
4
It is beyond me that a country based on science and innovation is abandoning that thinking in the 21st century - and willingly drag the whole planet into possible cataclysmic events because other than former empires in decline, this will not affect only the USA.
But to all of us agreeing and writing here, are we cutting our energy use and consumption (that feed this death spiral)?
But to all of us agreeing and writing here, are we cutting our energy use and consumption (that feed this death spiral)?
2
Warmer temperatures does not only mean hotter days in some regions of the country, it means changes in weather patterns that cause droughts, flooding, tornadoes and an increase in infectious diseases, like Zika. The current weather patterns have already affected millions in the Midwest with winter tornadoes and polar ice temperatures. These changes are in geological times not human times, a generation may only see a few changes. As every year goes by without any mitigating strategies to lower the temperature to reduce the amount of damage, the effect of doing nothing will be seen for generations. We have a reactive society, how many millions if not billions of people will perish before we find the solutions to the present problems as we tackle them one by one? This is where leadership at the highest levels needs to start the ball rolling. It is unfortunate that this will not occur for the next 4 years. In fact, we could end up being another China, not drinking our water, not playing in the snow and hoping our children can survive their childhood. We can survive what mother nature has in store for us but not what our soon to be leaders have decided to implement, remember Katrina and the incompetent FEMA leader.
2
We're long past saying " scientists say the earth is round." Why are we still reading, "long-term trend of rising temperatures, which scientists say is being driven by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?" Why can't the NYT just start reporting facts as facts. instead of issues up for discussion?
2
Isn't it ironic that the scientists who said the earth is round were proven wrong? Those scientists also said our solar system has nine planets, then they changed it to eight planets, now some scientists think there is another Ninth Planet out there. The IPCC scientists said temperatures had leveled off, then NOAA scientists hastened to reprimand the IPCC scientists in a scathing Science article. These scientists seem to be changing their minds all the time. Just the other day some scientist said that Einstein's Theory of Relativity will be replaced, just as Einstein replaced most of Newton's theories. Einstein, for cripe's sakes. Isn't anything sacred anymore?
1
Kellyanne Conway will turn the graph of temperature over time upside down which will convince Trump the earth is actually getting colder.
Here's how Trump will get the message: one of the holes on his Scottish golf course will fall into the sea.
Here's how Trump will get the message: one of the holes on his Scottish golf course will fall into the sea.
1
I've come to the point of realization that we are helpless to take any action to prevent global catastrophe. So in the next article, please describe the best places to live and buy land, given current trends. I want to say I told you so from dry and fertile ground that I can pass to my kids. Thanks.
2
No, we can take actions now that will reduce the impact. If your state allows such choice, selecting an electricity provider that purchases power from renewable sources is one direct way to help.
I studied science in school. I'm still stifled by this.
What is the exact scientific theory that is being espoused here" Temperatures change. We know that. It has happened for the entire existence of this planet. It was WARMER in the Medieval Period than it is now. With ZERO manufacturing.
This fantastic graphic is based on what specific measuring devices? Did mercury thermometers - which were the primary measuring device in use for 120 of the last 150 years - have 1/2 of a degree C accuracy? How many stations are located in the same place over the last 150 years?
Are we discounting measuring devices at airports and in cities? because large volumes of concrete retain huge amounts of heat - that didn't happen 150 years ago. And that concrete itself can cause 1-3 degree difference on any single day.
What is the exact scientific theory that is being espoused here" Temperatures change. We know that. It has happened for the entire existence of this planet. It was WARMER in the Medieval Period than it is now. With ZERO manufacturing.
This fantastic graphic is based on what specific measuring devices? Did mercury thermometers - which were the primary measuring device in use for 120 of the last 150 years - have 1/2 of a degree C accuracy? How many stations are located in the same place over the last 150 years?
Are we discounting measuring devices at airports and in cities? because large volumes of concrete retain huge amounts of heat - that didn't happen 150 years ago. And that concrete itself can cause 1-3 degree difference on any single day.
1
An entire branch of mathematics was invented to account for poor and imprecise measuring devices in data sets; I believe scientists now call it Statistics. I find it hard to believe that you studied science and were not taught this.
6
SuburbanGuy, why do you appear to believe climate science (which revealed warming back during the Medieval period) but disbelieve climate science that discusses today?
If you want to look at examination of the temperature data to account for the questions about airports and cities, one good place to start is the "Berkeley Earth surface temperature" link in the article. They did their own analysis of global temperature data and also an analysis just using rural recording sites and they found that the planet is warming as shown in NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre and Japan Meteorological Agency shows.
If you want to look at examination of the temperature data to account for the questions about airports and cities, one good place to start is the "Berkeley Earth surface temperature" link in the article. They did their own analysis of global temperature data and also an analysis just using rural recording sites and they found that the planet is warming as shown in NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre and Japan Meteorological Agency shows.
1
Utterly wrong.
1
There is so much focus on deniers like the whole climate change issue is their fault. It's human nature to want to blame others but it's far from doing anything about the situation. We are all to blame and we need people who are willing to live the alternative in a way that others can see and learn from.
1
It is simple really, think about it, the very oil that mankind pumps out of the earth to run the machines, to heat your homes, to move your aircraft across the globe, to keep your car engines cool is the same oil that your creator put in this earth to keep it cool. One hundred and fifty years of sucking the very lifeblood out of mother earth is finally taking it's toll, all while all the great scientists scratch their heads and look for answers, is is as simple as finishing off your slurpy. Oil is not replaceable, it cannot be cultivated like grapes on the vine, It has made so many very rich, and so many more will perish because of it's loss. Can any of you create oil? of course not, can any of you create life? You better wake up, for you are running out of time.
1
An important article and we should expect nothing less from the Times. But the editorialization that saturates it is unnecessary and something that has crept into too much of this papers reporting in recent memory.
Please keep your opinions for the opinion page and go back to reporting the news . You have a reputation to protect.
Please keep your opinions for the opinion page and go back to reporting the news . You have a reputation to protect.
5
These are the alarming facts:
Climate change is real, with negative predictable consequences.
A climate change denier, who has attributed it to a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and chose an anti-EPA person as his EPA chief, will be in control tomorrow. He will be surrounded by billionaires, many of whom have a vested interest in the expansion of fossil fuels.
Those facts are incontrovertible and provide every reason for the NYT to report them in a fact-based article. They aren't "editorializing", they are reporting facts.
Climate change is real, with negative predictable consequences.
A climate change denier, who has attributed it to a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and chose an anti-EPA person as his EPA chief, will be in control tomorrow. He will be surrounded by billionaires, many of whom have a vested interest in the expansion of fossil fuels.
Those facts are incontrovertible and provide every reason for the NYT to report them in a fact-based article. They aren't "editorializing", they are reporting facts.
4
If Trump serves two terms, the first floor of his Florida White House and the resort will be under water. Politicians from around the world have been traveling to the Antarctic to see the ice melt and the 70 mile long fissure about to send almost 2000 square miles of ice out to sea. John Kerry went there recently.
Just one foot thickness adds 21 million gallons of water to the seas. The iceberg will be at least 300 ft deep. You do the math.
Just one foot thickness adds 21 million gallons of water to the seas. The iceberg will be at least 300 ft deep. You do the math.
6
His "Florida White House" underwater: now there's a happy thought.
3
No, Florida will not be under water, seriously idiotic statement. Secondly,
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-...
Learn critical thinking skills.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-...
Learn critical thinking skills.
1
True, only parts of Florida will be under water. Since almost the entire peninsula is on porous limestone, rising seas will also disrupt drinking water supplies. But land prices won't drop when the land is submerged, the prices will drop in stages, as nuisance flooding demands costly adaptation, and as insurers start getting tired of paying as a rising ocean moves storm surge damages further and further ashore.
Regarding the NASA link you provide: "NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-denier...
Regarding the NASA link you provide: "NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-denier...
2
The sky is falling... Junk science.... The baseline of data is only valid for a very small sample of time since humans have been recording temperatures. The earth goes through normal heating/cooling cycles. But the hysteria is fun to watch.
2
So your expert analysis is more accurate than theirs, noted.
5
By your logic, the baseline of temperature data is not valid for a very long period of time. So we can't know if the Earth goes through normal heating and cooling cycles.
In other words, your claim means that hysteria could be as justified as indifference.
In other words, your claim means that hysteria could be as justified as indifference.
2
Hottest year -- after the numbers are "adjusted."
1
NASA's data goes back to 1880, less than 150 years. Sure looks like a warming trend for what we consider a long period of time. How long has the earth been around? 3 BILLION years or more? Do we have any records to show whether the earth has experience natural increases in temperature of this magnitude or more in the past 200 million years even? I don't think so. Using scientific sampling techniques and testing methodologies, our sample size is way to small (actually grossly insignificant) to conclude that we know what is causing the warming trend. I am in favor of reasonable efforts to reduce pollution and excessive carbon gases but I am also against drawing alleged scientific conclusion on what the cause of the warming is when we do NOT have a sampling of data large enough to make any conclusions on the cause. That is a FACT based on proven and relied upon scientific sampling, testing and research methods. Articles like this state one simple fact (warming trend) and mandate we actually know what caused it. We don't know at this point because the evidence can't be compared to a large enough sample of the earth's true long term temperature and climate history (hundreds of millions of years or more). I know many people want to ignore these FACTS but to do so is like drawing a conclusion that if one leaf falls off a tree in one minute then the tree is dying.
4
Yes, but the physics is on the side of human-caused warming. To whit:
1. The Sun warms the Earth with shortwave radiation, and CO2 has a negligible interaction with it.
2. The planet radiates that heat back into space in the form of longwave radiation, and CO2 has a known and quantified interaction with it.
3. If you slow the planet's release of longwave radiation to space, the radiation builds up and the planet warms.
4. CO2 has increased by ~40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
1. The Sun warms the Earth with shortwave radiation, and CO2 has a negligible interaction with it.
2. The planet radiates that heat back into space in the form of longwave radiation, and CO2 has a known and quantified interaction with it.
3. If you slow the planet's release of longwave radiation to space, the radiation builds up and the planet warms.
4. CO2 has increased by ~40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
4
They do have ways of analyzing atmospheric gas content thousands of years in the past - it's called an ice core.
3
Taxman, as John and Dan point out, you are incorrect.
But for fun, look at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - PETM - which is considered to be a very large global warming episode caused by natural release of large amounts of carbon-based greenhouse gas over a geologically short time - 10,000 years or so.
We're releasing greenhouse gases faster than what happened back then, but as a sample from over 50 million years ago it will do for providing a longer baseline.
Anyway, this dumb "not a long enough baseline" argument is not applicable. We don't need to have measurements of every minute of earth history once we know the different drivers of climate - sun, orbital and rotational changes, oceans and location of shifting continents, life, etc.
It's like study of rivers. We know enough about many characteristics of water flow, erosion and the like that a trained expert can examine a few characteristics of an undocumented river and make some pretty good predictions about its future (provided humans don't appear and disrupt its natural state).
But for fun, look at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - PETM - which is considered to be a very large global warming episode caused by natural release of large amounts of carbon-based greenhouse gas over a geologically short time - 10,000 years or so.
We're releasing greenhouse gases faster than what happened back then, but as a sample from over 50 million years ago it will do for providing a longer baseline.
Anyway, this dumb "not a long enough baseline" argument is not applicable. We don't need to have measurements of every minute of earth history once we know the different drivers of climate - sun, orbital and rotational changes, oceans and location of shifting continents, life, etc.
It's like study of rivers. We know enough about many characteristics of water flow, erosion and the like that a trained expert can examine a few characteristics of an undocumented river and make some pretty good predictions about its future (provided humans don't appear and disrupt its natural state).
1
Laymen conflate weather with climate. Short-term weather is highly variable, whereas long-term climate temperatures can be analyzed for trends. The NASA trends are compelling. The climate is warming rapidly. The physics is clear -- CO2 is increasing due to man and is a greenhouse gas. As a physicist not involved in climate studies, I find the summary data provided by NASA compelling. The risk of rising seas for coastal cities where most of the world's population resides as the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt is great. Trump and the Republican Party of Climate-change deniers represent a clear and present danger that must be resisted.
10
You're quite generous in even claiming they're actually "conflating" something.
I see straight denial and deflection.
I see straight denial and deflection.
2
I'm afraid the millennials didn't stand up when they need it to. They've been told that they're the ones that will pay the price. They'll that ignorant in the flyover states to set the agenda for their future.
That's OK they know who the Kardashian's are.
That's OK they know who the Kardashian's are.
5
One of the greatest threat posed by global warming is the melting glaciers in the Arctic which are causing the sea levels to rise. However what is happening in the Arctic is that there has been a change in temperature in that its about about 20-30 degrees warmer than it has always been.
The numbers that the report are talking about, that 2016 has been the warmest year on record, are perhaps 1 or 2 degrees, low single digits. Therefore it makes no sense to say that the rise in the arctic of 10 or 20 degrees is related to the same single digit warming the rest of the earth has experienced. What is going in the Arctic is unique to it, and we need a unique explanation for why the Arctic is warming on a rate that is tens of times higher than the rest of the earth.
As such further study is needed to understand what is causing the Arctic to heat up the way that it is. And only once we understand the unique situation taking place in the Arctic can we understand if it is caused by something in nature, or that for some reason man made global warming is warming the Arctic at 10 times the rate of the rest of earth.
Because if what is causing the warming of the Arctic is not the same thing that is causing the single digit rise in the rest of the world, then doing all we can to reduce man made global warming will do nothing to stop the Arctic from melting.
The numbers that the report are talking about, that 2016 has been the warmest year on record, are perhaps 1 or 2 degrees, low single digits. Therefore it makes no sense to say that the rise in the arctic of 10 or 20 degrees is related to the same single digit warming the rest of the earth has experienced. What is going in the Arctic is unique to it, and we need a unique explanation for why the Arctic is warming on a rate that is tens of times higher than the rest of the earth.
As such further study is needed to understand what is causing the Arctic to heat up the way that it is. And only once we understand the unique situation taking place in the Arctic can we understand if it is caused by something in nature, or that for some reason man made global warming is warming the Arctic at 10 times the rate of the rest of earth.
Because if what is causing the warming of the Arctic is not the same thing that is causing the single digit rise in the rest of the world, then doing all we can to reduce man made global warming will do nothing to stop the Arctic from melting.
1
Unfortunately the world leader is Mr. Bombastic ignoramus.
7
I much prefer Global Warming to Global Cooling.
1
Yes, but you can always add more warming layers to your body. You can't take off your skin.
3
Isn't it time we all worked together, globally, to solve this and other pressing problems?
#OneGlobalDemocracy
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3067153/change-generation/the-case-for-elimi...
#OneGlobalDemocracy
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3067153/change-generation/the-case-for-elimi...
3
Let's be sure not to transpose some rain (such as we are receiving in California) for climate change. The planet is heating up and we are its principle contributor. Climate does not lend itself to quick fixes, only long, protracted changes in our behavior. And what supports THAT? Education, based on relevant truth. We call this science, and we had better take it in, and act upon it intelligently or our children, when they grow up, will sue.
5
The children won't sue. They will perish.
Our world is in dire peril while our markets reach all-time highs! We choose money over life. What fools we mortals be. We must harmonize the rules of business with the laws of nature, and somehow I don't think that's on the Trump agenda
3
Isn't interesting that the liberals at the "Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, a nonprofit California group set up to provide a temperature analysis INDEPENDENT of governments." didn't find that 2016 set a third straight record. In fact they found that in spite of the strong El Nino of 2015-2016 that 2010 and 2014 were hotter. And yet the NYT still went with the headline "Earth Sets Temp Record for the 3rd Straight Year." And isn't it interesting that the NYT emphasized the NASA data set which was the highest of the four they site? Could it be that they have a narrative to push and therefore are picking the data set that best fits their agenda? Why is there such discrepancy among the different entities tracking the temp. To me taking temps and figuring averages should be a pretty straightforward exercise... unless of course you complicate it to "correct for known problems" and taking "full account of Arctic temps", and then compare those numbers to ones over the last century for which you can't accurately make those same "corrections."
And the other fact the NYT, or others, don't include in this article is that even though it may have set a record the global temp is still 50% below the average temp predicted in the 1991 IPCC Executive Summary Report, and below 90% of the model predictions used in that report. But again, pointing that out wouldn't fit the narrative or the agenda of the liberal climate change alarmists.
And the other fact the NYT, or others, don't include in this article is that even though it may have set a record the global temp is still 50% below the average temp predicted in the 1991 IPCC Executive Summary Report, and below 90% of the model predictions used in that report. But again, pointing that out wouldn't fit the narrative or the agenda of the liberal climate change alarmists.
2
And what is your narrative agenda Mr. Alabama?
My question to everyone else besides you is, do we really need Alabama in the United States?
My question to everyone else besides you is, do we really need Alabama in the United States?
5
Mick - they tried to leave, but the Yankee imperialists would not allow them to.
4
Sounds like a case of inconvenient facts. As they say, facts are stubborn things.
2
The "perfect storm" of global warming, overpopulation, and rapid spread of antimicrobial resistance form a troika that can certainly produce, as the reader below mentions, an an extinction level event. With the shift in US political leadership from one that was science-based to one that is profit-based, the ensuing chaos may provide us with the fourth of the Four Horsemen. I hope the really smart, social responsible science and engineering students I teach can bail us out of the mess we've made.
7
The Russians have taught us that experts are all wrong.
3
Everyone is aware warm environs are better for life than frigid. Duh! Our present blip in the Earth’s history is in transition. Instead of shrill screams, why not embrace your demise? After all, your wonderful sage, Carl Sagan, has already established you are but cosmic dust! Silly children!!
This is the perfect opportunity to hire more people to build more air conditioners just as we did with fireplaces and heaters during to colder times. I really never hear a clear answer as to what you want us to do. Turn off our lights? Turn off the A/C? Stop driving cars? It is not going to happen.
Okay. It is possible that global warming (which cannot be disputed if you have even rudimentary scientific understanding, unless you feel it necessary to postulate a vast world conspiracy among scientists to fake the data) is merely a natural stage of the Earth's continually evolving weather. The problem is, only an ignorant fool would say that man has ZERO effect on that evolution. Therefore, the question is, does the continually increasing magnitude of man-made effects present a credible possibility of tipping the scales enough to cause evolution into an extinction level climate? Considering that humans are by far the most disproportionately nature-unbalancing life form on the planet, and there are already 7.5 billion of us?
Again, only an ignorant fool would be willing to take that chance. Correction: short-sighted, greedy people looking only to enrich themselves more by not spending anything to reduce the chances of an extinction level climate, because, heck, I'll be dead by the time it happens, might also be willing to take that chance.
Again, only an ignorant fool would be willing to take that chance. Correction: short-sighted, greedy people looking only to enrich themselves more by not spending anything to reduce the chances of an extinction level climate, because, heck, I'll be dead by the time it happens, might also be willing to take that chance.
4
We may eventually find that mother nature has the ultimate solution. It will be interesting to see if she has to take action. Too-bad that we will not be around to see what happens.
3
How do the deniers explain the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? How can they continue to insist that this is merely a phase that the Earth is going through? Can responsible GOP members convince the President that it is not a "Chinese plot?"
6
According to Trump there is no climate change. He is going to cancel the Paris Climate Accord. The planet is doomed.
4
Donald Trump calls climate change a "Chinese hoax". Interesting since a lot of his supporters live in states affected by this climate change in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic.
I wonder how much money Trump's going to allocate when we see more flooding in those states that were majority his during the election?
Just my thoughts.
I wonder how much money Trump's going to allocate when we see more flooding in those states that were majority his during the election?
Just my thoughts.
5
His personality, rep, past, and age,...says he'll show up to a hit area and blame the victims for having the nerve to have homes in Flooded, Tornado, Earth Quake,..areas.
And his supporters, including those victimized will love him for it.
And his supporters, including those victimized will love him for it.
5
I have a question: why is the increase in temperature greater at the northern polar area of the earth and just below than around the equator, which is closer to the sun?
Dear OWG4,
That's a good question. The equator is not all that much closer to the sun, maybe a third of the earth's diameter, which is negligible compared to the distance from the sun to the earth. The reason the effects are more pronounced at the poles is because, due to weather patterns, hotter atmosphere is being carried to the poles and staying there. Additionally, there is a drop in ozone at the poles, and ozone reflects more sunlight than atmosphere with less ozone, so at the poles more UV radiation in particular is getting through and producing more heat at the surface. This is just a quick summary of an answer but I hope it helps. Here's a recent study on the effect from NASA too:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html
That's a good question. The equator is not all that much closer to the sun, maybe a third of the earth's diameter, which is negligible compared to the distance from the sun to the earth. The reason the effects are more pronounced at the poles is because, due to weather patterns, hotter atmosphere is being carried to the poles and staying there. Additionally, there is a drop in ozone at the poles, and ozone reflects more sunlight than atmosphere with less ozone, so at the poles more UV radiation in particular is getting through and producing more heat at the surface. This is just a quick summary of an answer but I hope it helps. Here's a recent study on the effect from NASA too:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html
1
What a lot of people don't get is how incredibly thin our atmosphere is. We might think it is a big fat cushion covering the planet, but using the scale of an ordinary tabletop globe of the world, the habitable zone (about 2 or 3 kilometers above sea level) is about half as thick as the layer of paper of the map covering the globe. Yet we persist in spewing our waste products into it.
The basic science is not complicated - we thicken a warming blanket and earth gets warmer. The technical challenge of monitoring it precisely is. Having a cabinet of deniers who want to gut NASA's efforts fills me, for one, with dread.
The basic science is not complicated - we thicken a warming blanket and earth gets warmer. The technical challenge of monitoring it precisely is. Having a cabinet of deniers who want to gut NASA's efforts fills me, for one, with dread.
10
Day after day during the campaign, I watched and listened as climate change took a back seat. During the Clinton-Trump debates, it was mentioned 4 times, total, if memory serves. I heard no outcry, then, so the current wringing of hands strikes me as just a tad hypocritical. As a biologist, who turns a critical eye toward ongoing reports of threatened species — as link by link, the complex nexus of life on Earth is disassembled — I fear that we have already crossed the threshold of no-return.
4
If climate change was a big issue with voters Jill Stein and her crazy vice president Monja Monjo would have been elected.
That would've set us back 100 years.
That would've set us back 100 years.
1
Raw hysteria once again being stoked by the NYT. No mention of the measured change - 0.07 degrees fahrenheit- against the standard deviation with an adjustment for El Nino warming. Just this "For example, many experts on sea level believe that a rise of 15 or 20 feet has already become inevitable, though they cannot say how fast it will happen".
No, they can't say how fast but they can say it has risen in millimeters and will take centuries to rise a fraction of their apocalyptic prediction.
No, they can't say how fast but they can say it has risen in millimeters and will take centuries to rise a fraction of their apocalyptic prediction.
No accident that this article focuses on the arctic, where temperatures have indeed warmed. Meanwhile, in Antarctica, the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth occurred in 2016 (-135f).
Drought and famine in Africa? That's been occurring during every one of my 65 years on earth.
Drought and famine in Africa? That's been occurring during every one of my 65 years on earth.
So if only the Arctic Melts,..we're OK? Noted.
5
The problem is that in the US, and the world as a whole, the population is concentrated along the coast. In the US, there is a lot of room for good jobs, and profits for (mostly) Republican businessmen, building the infrastructure to cope with rising ocean levels. Let's all pray Trump comes to realize this. (Bangladesh is the place that worries me -- incredibly densely populated coastal area, and no resources to cope with rising ocean levels.)
"Ridiculously off the charts"! Hmmm. A scientific conclusion indeed.
"Temperatures are heading toward levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization". They forgot to say that temperatures headed there and receded many times in the last several million years. Extreme cold kills more people every winter in the Northern Hemisphere than extreme heat. And if CC theorists and their alarmist environmental warriors are so concerned about heat and human survival, they should stop trying to increase the cost of energy to levels that prevent ordinary people installing and paying for efficient airconditioning.
"Temperatures are heading toward levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization". They forgot to say that temperatures headed there and receded many times in the last several million years. Extreme cold kills more people every winter in the Northern Hemisphere than extreme heat. And if CC theorists and their alarmist environmental warriors are so concerned about heat and human survival, they should stop trying to increase the cost of energy to levels that prevent ordinary people installing and paying for efficient airconditioning.
Humans are to join the Dodo in extinction. As rather unintelligent species go,humans went.
2
It is so easily understandable what’s causing global warming – fire! Mankind maintains a fire day and night that if you would see it in its entity would blow your mind and shock you up. But it happens invisible in closed cavities such as engines, power plants, planes and ships. Consider the huge gigantic volume of fuel permanently consumed around the globe. If you would pure it on a flat surface, like the Sahara desert, and now consider the volume of fuel (!), you would see a fire with such a substantial extent leaving the wildfires in California for example compared to a burning match. But we don’t see it yet, we maintain it. Electricity could replace fuel; but it would only make sense if its generation will be possible with minimal pollution!
Lots of "many" and "most" in reference to scientists. Is there another side to this argument that those scientists not in the "many" and "most" advocate? If so, what is it? Or is this another editorial disguised as a news report?
You don't have to be a "climate change denier" to wonder what is so dangerous that it must be hidden from the reading public.
You don't have to be a "climate change denier" to wonder what is so dangerous that it must be hidden from the reading public.
This can make us feel powerless. So perhaps if we look at our own individual consumption on all levels (gas used, heat and ac, composting, packaging, clothing), and make small changes, we will at least feel active rather than passive. It can't hurt and it is one way to shift our consciousness.
2
"Perhaps"?! You say it so casually! There is no question. Hundreds of thousands of us have ALREADY been living this mindful way, for decades & decades now! Making these small changes, living mindfully, in a sustainable way, most of our lives. While others just saunter on, (NOT saying you, personally, since you seem aware it's a change in *consciousness* that is needed, above all), but millions just keep on doing the same things they've always done, careless or oblivious to the tremendous harm we continue to do to our precious but fragile little planet. (Yes! Small individual changes DO matter! It's many small drops make an ocean!)
Tree-huggers set the record in stupidity. The worse year on record.
Climate Change will make globalization as we know it impossible to justify in light of the harm to the planet. If one added up how much carbon fuel is wasted shipping components and raw materials around the world in what is essentially a search for cheap labor, advantageous taxation and minimal regulation the numbers would be staggering. Compared to a US Made Shirt made from cotton grown here, what is the carbon footprint of a shirt assembled in Jordan of Cotton grown in India that was printed/dyed in Pakistan and then shipped to the US? How can one justify shipping a Buck to the US from China compared to building it in Detroit when the carbon footprint is so huge.
Wasting oil and polluting our planet in search of the cheapest production costs is killing the planet. Apple FLIES iPhones here from China on jets- what is the carbon cost of your iPhone? Fiji Water gets shipped here burning Bunker Fuel or some other dirty carbon input. Those winter table grapes are likely from Chile or somewhere equidistant- they didn't get here on Solar Power. The concept of Food Miles needs to evolve to include the globalized world of manufactured goods and the carbon footprint they have.
Wasting oil and polluting our planet in search of the cheapest production costs is killing the planet. Apple FLIES iPhones here from China on jets- what is the carbon cost of your iPhone? Fiji Water gets shipped here burning Bunker Fuel or some other dirty carbon input. Those winter table grapes are likely from Chile or somewhere equidistant- they didn't get here on Solar Power. The concept of Food Miles needs to evolve to include the globalized world of manufactured goods and the carbon footprint they have.
3
First off, I'm not denying that the planet is getting hotter. But the worldwide city-by-city data is incorrect. Cape Town, where I have lived for 36 years, has not gotten 1.8°C hotter and has definitely not received 12 inches more rain! At the moment we have severe water restrictions here. Just saying.
Instead of trying to fight Mother Nature we need to find another planet to live. Or find a way to shield ourselves from the effects of climate change. The sun is a dying star and we will die with it. Or humble ourselves. The death of dinosaurs kicked off the evolution of humans. Perhaps it's time to give it back to the dinosaurs.
Fighting companies and taxing peons to prevent the inevitable just makes life miserable. Let's go humble and be happy.
Fighting companies and taxing peons to prevent the inevitable just makes life miserable. Let's go humble and be happy.
Reality is we'd just pollute another planet & make it unlivable, too! The problem isn't this planet. The problem is what's in our heads! The way we keep plowing ahead, oblivious to the need for balance & interrelatedness. Unless we become more aware & more mindful, we'd just go ahead & mess up the next planet, don't you think?!
1
What!? You mean to tell us that eight years of The Obama and all the money he spewed toward the likes of Solyndra - hey, where'd that money go anyway? - didn't fix that? How can you say such a thing about Obama's effectiveness!?
Why do you believe such a Problem could be "Fixed" in 8yrs by a POTUS, operating independently of CONgress, Senate,...?
5
Doesn't make any sense to blame one person! Doesn't make any sense to even blame one company who attempted & failed! We're on one very small planet. We're all in this together. As the saying goes: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Pointing a finger at someone else is counterproductive. We either work together, or we perish.
2
Gardeners know things are changing. My daffodils used to bloom in March. This year they bloomed in January.
2
Dear Humans; You are playing whack-a-mole. If you solve your excess CO2 and CH4 problems, you will still have your overpopulation problem--that is actually driving climate change. A carbon tax and then rebate is the only immediate option you have to reduce CO2 PPM. Then you will have to confront the other results of your excess numbers: deforestation, over fishing, the largest mass extinction in 65 million years and depletion of resources including food, clean air and water. We have given you the flora, the contraceptives, to control your numbers but you continue to increase while the populations of all other species of plants and animals decline. We ask you to please limit your offspring to one, perhaps by incentive, until you number one billion. We do not understand why 7.5 billion of you is better than 1 billion. Sincerely, the Earth.
5
For me it comes to this. It is no longer a debate about the merits, the pro's and con's, of the situation. It is a fact. The planet is warming. We're cooking it. And at this point there is nothing to be done to stop the projected temp rise, the environmental changes, and the concomitant impact and blowback upon us. All we can do is mitigate what is coming.
For those in coastal communities I have but one word of advice. Move. And do it now before you become part of a panicky mass migration. For those in the interior regions; you'd do best to find those areas that will be impacted upon the least while also being able to support you. Along with this you'll also need to consider the consequences of all the waves, the tsunami, of humans that will be coming your way as a consequence of that migration.
I do not wish to wax apocalyptic but things are going to get messy, folks. And messy after a fashion the human animal historically has never been known to manage themselves through very well. Our species was born in a nurturing, ecosystem. A web of life within which we thrived and grew. But it's a dynamic system always subject to change. By our very own actions we are causing it, while so enwrapped, to grow thorns and razors. If we are not wise in our actions from this point forward that web, that dynamic system, will cut us to pieces. And you haven't seen messy until you see +6B human beings being so cut up.
So it may go.
John~
American Net'Zen
For those in coastal communities I have but one word of advice. Move. And do it now before you become part of a panicky mass migration. For those in the interior regions; you'd do best to find those areas that will be impacted upon the least while also being able to support you. Along with this you'll also need to consider the consequences of all the waves, the tsunami, of humans that will be coming your way as a consequence of that migration.
I do not wish to wax apocalyptic but things are going to get messy, folks. And messy after a fashion the human animal historically has never been known to manage themselves through very well. Our species was born in a nurturing, ecosystem. A web of life within which we thrived and grew. But it's a dynamic system always subject to change. By our very own actions we are causing it, while so enwrapped, to grow thorns and razors. If we are not wise in our actions from this point forward that web, that dynamic system, will cut us to pieces. And you haven't seen messy until you see +6B human beings being so cut up.
So it may go.
John~
American Net'Zen
4
I listened to an informative scientific talk last night where it was explained how the numbers were skewed.
You don't need numbers. You KNOW climate change is occurring. Anecdotal evidence--obvious & everywhere & for decades & decades now. Significant changes evident all around us. (If you're interested, do a search on Dr David Suzuki, he's spent his entire life begging us to pay attention. Mainly to no avail!) Climate change is happening, whether we believe it or not, regardless of arguments & explainers & deniers. And regardless of numbers, skewed or otherwise.
2
It's a whole Earth global thing and it has taken some 187 years, assuming humans began affecting global temperatures with the advent of the industrial revolution, say 1830-ish, and not back when early humans learned to harness fire, prolifically burning fossil fuels to reach this current level of accumulated affect while, over the same time frame, we have increased our population to a little under 7 billion from a little over 1 billion.
Expecting to reverse or even halt the effects of those human activities allegedly causing global warming with an ever steepening population growth rate without a lot of changes and discoveries in way more than just the technology sectors, of which there are few, if any, examples, is a text-book example of the 'Fool's Errand'...and even thinking America will take any kind of action now is the icing on that cake.
Expecting to reverse or even halt the effects of those human activities allegedly causing global warming with an ever steepening population growth rate without a lot of changes and discoveries in way more than just the technology sectors, of which there are few, if any, examples, is a text-book example of the 'Fool's Errand'...and even thinking America will take any kind of action now is the icing on that cake.
1
Alaska is in upheaval as its icy lands vanish. We can know this not just from what we read but what we can see ourselves on film. The tundra that has been frozen for millennia is now melting in places. Homes -- which it supported like concrete foundations -- have sunk into the mush. Glaciers that have existed as far back as scientists can say are racing at ever greater speeds from up high to the shores, where they break off and soon dissolve into seawater. As is being reported and witnessed, rising tides heave up over the lands and slowly start sucking away villages. Polar bears depend for food on fishing off ice floes, which are now dissolving in great number, for greater periods, giving the bears less and less purchase from which to hunt prey. And the opening seas above Alaska, until recently made nearly impenetrable by polar ice, now provide increasing, seasonal passage from northern Pacific to Atlantic, meaning ships wouldn't have to head south to the Panama Canal. There are those people of commerce who find this promise a nice plus, along with the potential to drill offshore for oil more easily off Alaska's northern coast. Perhaps for some industries, climate change will be a nice change. But then, to admit that is to admit it's no hoax.
2
What I'm hoping is that the continued drop in costs for renewables, plus the realization that the US will fall badly behind competitively, will shake the Republicans from their Fox TV style brainwashing.
You mention Alaska.
"On September 14, 2007, former Governor Sarah Palin signed Administrative Order No. 238, officially forming the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet (see Press Release). The Sub-Cabinet is charged with preparing and implementing an Alaska Climate Change Strategy."
http://climatechange.alaska.gov/
Then fate intervened and a denier was born...
The fact that Trump's nominees aren't as blatantly in denial as was common with oh, Ted Cruz, is a very slightly positive sign. They finally realize that just lying is too stupid seeming.
You mention Alaska.
"On September 14, 2007, former Governor Sarah Palin signed Administrative Order No. 238, officially forming the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet (see Press Release). The Sub-Cabinet is charged with preparing and implementing an Alaska Climate Change Strategy."
http://climatechange.alaska.gov/
Then fate intervened and a denier was born...
The fact that Trump's nominees aren't as blatantly in denial as was common with oh, Ted Cruz, is a very slightly positive sign. They finally realize that just lying is too stupid seeming.
Like with any living thing that is infected with a threatening bacteria or virus, defence mechanisms kick in to fight it. Global warming is just one way the earth is fighting to protect itself. It's like the earth is sick and has a fever. But if we assume the virus is us, there are other mechanisms to fight the infection like drought, fire, reduced crop lands, social unrest, war and mass migration. Then there are ways to kill the virus with other viruses like pandemics. Anyway you look at, the earth is sick and the sickness is us.
1
A 10 kilometre deep lined and capped water well can convert all power stations to clean energy, a cut of 30% in CO2 emissions. A 20% cut would come from electrification of all vehicles. 41% would come from coating all buildings in Starlite. Aircraft and Ships could halve emissions by using fuel mixed with water using an ultrasonic dibber. Aircraft account for 6% of CO2, while shipping accounts for 4.5%, so another 5.25% can be saved. The total savings would then be 96.25%. Improving soil using biochar would then cut CO2 in the atmosphere by locking it in the ground.
It can all be paid for by eliminating mental illness using the Kadir-Buxton Method.
It can all be paid for by eliminating mental illness using the Kadir-Buxton Method.
Just a quick lesson in scientific enquiry for those that are ignorant about what science is. It starts with a hypothesis (a guess), then a method is proposed to test the hypothesis. If funds are required and they usually are, the proposal is submitted to the funding agency for review. Other scientists (in the know) determine is the methods are sound and if so, authorize funding. This is all well and good, but a scientist will want his results published, especially if it contributes to the sum total of knowledge on the subject. This requires a whole new set of proceedures, formalities and peer reviews. The more prestigous the journal, the more difficult the review process. It should be clear that not everything is published. Then thirdly, scientist involved in the subject in question read the article. If they agree, they may wish to replicate the experiments, or they may which to use a different methodology to see if they get the same results. Once you have a body of knowledge that agrees with the findings, it is accepted as fact until someone proves differently.
With global warming the consensus is that it is real and man made. If one scientist says differently, it does not mean that we have to doubt all other findings, or that all that came before rigged their data to get a certain answer. That's what politicians do, not scientists.
With global warming the consensus is that it is real and man made. If one scientist says differently, it does not mean that we have to doubt all other findings, or that all that came before rigged their data to get a certain answer. That's what politicians do, not scientists.
4
We must fight for massive public and private investment in clean energy technology right now in order to create millions of good jobs, ensure clean air and water, solve the climate crisis and save human civilization. As it stands now, humans are the only apparent instance of consciousness in the known universe. Good to prolong this astonishing, mysterious miracle a little longer. Deniers, please aspire to a grander heart and higher plane of thought. We only have one planet, and it's a sweet one.
Yes, global warming is happening. But how many of us will actually eat less meat or give up luxury food items that are shipped cross country (e.g. almonds, avocados, berries, etc.)? How many of us will eschew fast fashion and reduce waste? Unless you're vegan locavore who only eats sustainable food and mends their clothes, you're a part of the problem. It's easy to point fingers at corporations and the President-elect (who technically hasn't done anything yet), because they're larger targets. However, when 300 million Americans indulge in the same ugly habits, we add up to a pretty large percentage of the problem. The solutions demand a certain level of discipline and discomfort, to which we are all averse.
1
It is sad, but not enough people care. If we did we'd all be eating vegitarian, talking public transit, not having children etc. But we're not so therefore not enough care.
Our bed has been made.
Our bed has been made.
1
It would be even more remarkable if perhaps human population growth was plotted along with the global monthly temperature anomaly which would indicate the two completely coincide. (View world population growth here: http://www.amnh.org/explore/amnh.tv/(watch)/science-bulletins/human-popu.... It leaves little doubt humans and global warming are interrelated.
Now if every single human now living on the earth cut their carbon consumption by half and yet the world population continues to grow exponentially even at best we would be delaying the inevitable. I think you cannot talk about tackling global warming without talking about human population control - and unfortunately that would be more controversial than our current denial of global warming.
Alas, nature has a tendency to be self regulating. I fear we are heading into an abyss where both catastrophes of global warming and human overpopulation will work together hand in hand to drastically solve each on their own. Nature shall just continue on without us.
Now if every single human now living on the earth cut their carbon consumption by half and yet the world population continues to grow exponentially even at best we would be delaying the inevitable. I think you cannot talk about tackling global warming without talking about human population control - and unfortunately that would be more controversial than our current denial of global warming.
Alas, nature has a tendency to be self regulating. I fear we are heading into an abyss where both catastrophes of global warming and human overpopulation will work together hand in hand to drastically solve each on their own. Nature shall just continue on without us.
1
The heat extremes were especially pervasive in the Arctic, with temperatures in the fall running 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal across large stretches of the Arctic Ocean.
I am not a climate scientist but this looks like damning evidence of global warning along with the Arctic coasts erosion
I am not a climate scientist but this looks like damning evidence of global warning along with the Arctic coasts erosion
2
Well get ready for "Fake Science" to be added to the Lexicon. Or will it be "Fake Librul Science"?
1
Mark, you show us the "Librul Thermometer Factry" where thermometers show more warmth. Then show the "Librul Ice Melter Secrit Site" where liberals have been melting billions of tons of Arctic Sea Ice and you can call science anything you please.
The average U.S. temperature in 2016 was 54.9 degrees which ranked as the second warmest year in 122 years of record-keeping. I was not the hottest, the times reporter got it wrong.
That photo of the melted north pole was taken in January? I don't think so. Fake news again. And what about the increasingly icy and colder south pole? Is that not part of the same "global warming" ecosystem? Shame on the NYT.
1
Antarctic sea ice has been at the lowest levels ever for months.
3
Many commenters believing in the thermometers' data are forgetting that there are people between thermometers and them.
This should be the main headline everyday. This matters so much and yet we are all fighting. We need new political parties that prioritize our environment, are more moderate, and can bring us all together to focus on our natural world! Come on!!!! Left or right - this is key.
1
I myself am looking forward to mild winters in NYC. Thanks for the good news.
1
Mild winters will be fine. A twenty foot rise in sea level will inundate most of NYC though, and that won't be quite as enjoyable.
2
Trumpublicans, enablers and bullies all, think they can fix all this.
They want to repeal and replace the environment and the planet.
(h/t Bill Mahr)
They want to repeal and replace the environment and the planet.
(h/t Bill Mahr)
6
Massive extinction was going on whether or not the climate changed, due to human environmental depredation. Regardless of the climate shifting, thousands of species would have gone extinct anyway.
We're going to get an ignorant president who denies science, but there's not a lot we could have done about climate change anyway. The effects are already going to increase even if we ceased all use of fossil fuels tomorrow, and so on.
The acceleration of climate effects due to our ignorant leader, and due to the arms race he will generate, and the inevitable ramping up of coal mining, oil burning, and so on, will have a good effect. It will mean that the effects, rising sea levels and temperatures, will be more pronounced and catastrophic.
This will help out, because catastrophic effects stand to kill hundreds of millions of humans in a short time. That's exactly what we need, because all of the world's problems have a single cause, overpopulation. Humans are incapable of reducing their birth rate, so we desperately need a great increase in the death rate. Catastrophic environmental shifts should provide exactly that. I know that for my English AP Lang/Comp class, we had to read a good about the great extensions that threatened humanity.
So this problem will correct itself, and humanity will probably even learn something in the process, as it did from the ravages of the bubonic plague, eventually. A thousand years from now this will all seem minor.
We're going to get an ignorant president who denies science, but there's not a lot we could have done about climate change anyway. The effects are already going to increase even if we ceased all use of fossil fuels tomorrow, and so on.
The acceleration of climate effects due to our ignorant leader, and due to the arms race he will generate, and the inevitable ramping up of coal mining, oil burning, and so on, will have a good effect. It will mean that the effects, rising sea levels and temperatures, will be more pronounced and catastrophic.
This will help out, because catastrophic effects stand to kill hundreds of millions of humans in a short time. That's exactly what we need, because all of the world's problems have a single cause, overpopulation. Humans are incapable of reducing their birth rate, so we desperately need a great increase in the death rate. Catastrophic environmental shifts should provide exactly that. I know that for my English AP Lang/Comp class, we had to read a good about the great extensions that threatened humanity.
So this problem will correct itself, and humanity will probably even learn something in the process, as it did from the ravages of the bubonic plague, eventually. A thousand years from now this will all seem minor.
7
This is really remarkable plagiarism, copied & pasted my comment just below with no edits. It's like a Trump cabinet nominee or something.
Hehe so was this sarcasm, an incredible coincidence, or what?
Hehe so was this sarcasm, an incredible coincidence, or what?
1
When the Artic, the Antarctic and Greenland have completely melted, how much will the oceans have risen? Will there then we any major coastal cities remaining?
4
If the history of the planet is any guide, over 200 feet, probably in a few thousand years.
3
Yup, over 200 feet at recent estimates, and nope, no cities on the coast will remain, with the exception of Manhattan. Manhattan will be saved by a seawall of whatever height it takes, because it's just too cool to lose. All the rest won't be there, but Denver, for example, will be fine, probably.
Susan has it about right. In SC, sea levels were about 120 miles inland at the last time we suspect all arctic / Antarctic ice had melted. This 50-150 mile swath of land <200' above sea level wraps around much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, so no more Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville and many others.
1
The climate of Planet Earth is far too important to be wrong about. If even half of climate scientists say human activity is causing it then the only sane response is alarm.
8
So, what were the temperature averages in the recent record setting years? It would be interesting to know in numerical terms the answer.
1
Hi, rider650.
For NASA data you can look here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
For NOAA data you can look here: http://www.noaa.gov/climate-data-and-reports
NOAA also has a handy visualization tool you can look at trends and data with, nationally, globally, or cut into smaller regions of each. It will chart the data and trends for you and under the chart you can download the data used in it.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
For NASA data you can look here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
For NOAA data you can look here: http://www.noaa.gov/climate-data-and-reports
NOAA also has a handy visualization tool you can look at trends and data with, nationally, globally, or cut into smaller regions of each. It will chart the data and trends for you and under the chart you can download the data used in it.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year
Who set the the record - Earth or the scientists?
Who set the the record - Earth or the scientists?
We all did it together.
Trump tower, run by fossil fuel, is climate wise comfortable during winter blizzard and hot searing summer. Donald would twitter " I don't feel climate change in my penthouse. You guys are delusional!"
7
Hmmm. Under one tenth of one degree. Better turn on the a/c.
"Scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit produce the HadCRUT4 dataset, which is used to estimate global temperature. The global temperature series shows that 2016 was 0.77±0.1 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average, nominally a record since at least 1850."
"Scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit produce the HadCRUT4 dataset, which is used to estimate global temperature. The global temperature series shows that 2016 was 0.77±0.1 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average, nominally a record since at least 1850."
7
"How 2016 Became the Earths Hottest Year on Record", article with very good graphics accompanying this article, as an engineer/scientist I recommend looking at the graph, (fitting curves to it, its rate of rise or slope is clearly increasing has an exponential appearance), as we go from 1880's across to last several decades, the analogous circular animated graph is great too, in presenting the concept, these pictures are very impressive visually, and I wish they could be looked at by many people, at least as a starting point in their personal research if they are skeptics or deniers .... Thanks ...
7
All the more reason to increase the pace of technological progress and
convert humans to a self-sustaining machine civilization
to go colonize the galaxy.
convert humans to a self-sustaining machine civilization
to go colonize the galaxy.
3
In his last news conference, President Obama tried to reassure Americans that this is not the end of the world. "The end of the world is the end of the world."
This is not the end of the world, but it is the beginning of the end of the world.
This is not the end of the world, but it is the beginning of the end of the world.
17
I guess it's a handy thing that we've got a president who denies climate change and believes that if he says something, anything, that makes it true.
8
Angry liberal on the coasts have been steaming about Trump winning. That steam has been heating up the oceans they live next to. For the good of the world the left has to just let it go.
10
So the 2yrs prior they were practicing being Steamed?
The more I read about climate-change deniers, the more I am convinced their arguments are based less on principle and their reading of science and just based on being skinflints who are afraid it might cost them more on their taxes and being required to do some inconvenient recycling.
11
In considering the worst of what may occur regarding climate change, I always think back to November, 2000 in Florida. I didn’t realize the significance of what happened then myself at the time, but we may look back at that event as the tipping point in which, by a hair’s breadth, instead of initiating the peaceful development of sustainable energy sources, we instead began down the path of short-term greed and horrific, unnecessary violence, the underlying impetus for which was a struggle for cheap access to the fossil fuels which may be our demise. It’s Shakespearean tragedy on a global scale.
23
Thanks for such an in depth article. I agree with some of the comments from people who say we need to start listening to scientists who are providing this data. Making this a political debate is a disgrace and it teaches others to distrust these facts around global warming and the impact it will have on civilization.
12
No one will ever know what the earths true homeostatic temperature will be because the earth is always changing/evolving. Greenhouse emissions are one of many temp drivers.
The mountain ranges on our continents deflect heat just as the deserts absorb it. The continental locations affect where warm and cool water flow either towards or away from the poles. The axis tilt of the earth affects where ice caps form. Plants absorb heat and scrub greenhouse gas to produce O2, just as humans and animals alike produce methane, CO2, and others just by living.
Abandoning fossil energy will likely not be enough...
So, the easiest(meaning possible) ways we as humans may be able to affect a warming trend would be to irrigate our deserts to foster vegetation and to a much greater if not impossible undertaking, find a way to divert the warm equatorial seawater currents away from the earths poles. If we are truly facing extinction via warming trends then these methods may be examined closer in the future.
The mountain ranges on our continents deflect heat just as the deserts absorb it. The continental locations affect where warm and cool water flow either towards or away from the poles. The axis tilt of the earth affects where ice caps form. Plants absorb heat and scrub greenhouse gas to produce O2, just as humans and animals alike produce methane, CO2, and others just by living.
Abandoning fossil energy will likely not be enough...
So, the easiest(meaning possible) ways we as humans may be able to affect a warming trend would be to irrigate our deserts to foster vegetation and to a much greater if not impossible undertaking, find a way to divert the warm equatorial seawater currents away from the earths poles. If we are truly facing extinction via warming trends then these methods may be examined closer in the future.
1
Really folks, this will all work out for the best. Consider the following rationales.
Massive extinction was going on whether or not the climate changed, due to human environmental depredation. Regardless of the climate shifting, thousands of species would have gone extinct anyway.
We're going to get an ignorant president who denies science, but there's not a lot we could have done about climate change anyway. The effects are already going to increase even if we ceased all use of fossil fuels tomorrow, and so on.
The acceleration of climate effects due to our ignorant leader, and due to the arms race he will generate, and the inevitable ramping up of coal mining, oil burning, and so on, will have a good effect. It will mean that the effects, rising sea levels and temperatures, will be more pronounced and catastrophic.
This will help out, because catastrophic effects stand to kill hundreds of millions of humans in a short time. That's exactly what we need, because all of the world's problems have a single cause, overpopulation. Humans are incapable of reducing their birth rate, so we desperately need a great increase in the death rate. Catastrophic environmental shifts should provide exactly that.
So this problem will correct itself, and humanity will probably even learn something in the process, as it did from the ravages of the bubonic plague, eventually. A thousand years from now this will all seem minor.
Massive extinction was going on whether or not the climate changed, due to human environmental depredation. Regardless of the climate shifting, thousands of species would have gone extinct anyway.
We're going to get an ignorant president who denies science, but there's not a lot we could have done about climate change anyway. The effects are already going to increase even if we ceased all use of fossil fuels tomorrow, and so on.
The acceleration of climate effects due to our ignorant leader, and due to the arms race he will generate, and the inevitable ramping up of coal mining, oil burning, and so on, will have a good effect. It will mean that the effects, rising sea levels and temperatures, will be more pronounced and catastrophic.
This will help out, because catastrophic effects stand to kill hundreds of millions of humans in a short time. That's exactly what we need, because all of the world's problems have a single cause, overpopulation. Humans are incapable of reducing their birth rate, so we desperately need a great increase in the death rate. Catastrophic environmental shifts should provide exactly that.
So this problem will correct itself, and humanity will probably even learn something in the process, as it did from the ravages of the bubonic plague, eventually. A thousand years from now this will all seem minor.
4
Malthus was not only wrong, his ideas were dangerous to all of humanity. The idea that population growth is unsustainable ignores the fact that technology and our ability to find and use new resources increases at the same time. At its worst, it has given people in power a justification for social Darwinism. "If poor people die, it helps the planet" is a bad proposition not only logically but morally.
3
Dear Ben,
I'm not talking about Malthus. But our ability to find new resources is not unlimited, and this isn't about resources but environment. The environment will not sustain the current human population much longer, I know people don't like it, but it doesn't matter what we like. I'm not talking about enacting policy, I'm talking about what will happen due to human short-sightedness.
And I'm not talking about eliminating the poor. People in cold, mountainous, remote terrain are generally poor, and they are situated best to survive the environmental upheaval. The rich, urban people on the coasts are going to die from this. And it's not going to be survival of the fittest or anything Darwinian, survival is going to be based on geography and luck.
In any case, I'm not talking about what should be, just what will be. I see no reason to change my tune for now, if humanity shapes up I'll sing a different one; but I really don't think humanity is capable of shaping up in time.
I'm not talking about Malthus. But our ability to find new resources is not unlimited, and this isn't about resources but environment. The environment will not sustain the current human population much longer, I know people don't like it, but it doesn't matter what we like. I'm not talking about enacting policy, I'm talking about what will happen due to human short-sightedness.
And I'm not talking about eliminating the poor. People in cold, mountainous, remote terrain are generally poor, and they are situated best to survive the environmental upheaval. The rich, urban people on the coasts are going to die from this. And it's not going to be survival of the fittest or anything Darwinian, survival is going to be based on geography and luck.
In any case, I'm not talking about what should be, just what will be. I see no reason to change my tune for now, if humanity shapes up I'll sing a different one; but I really don't think humanity is capable of shaping up in time.
1
Malthus made a simple observation: increases in resources are linear. Increases in population are exponential. Technology, better mining or farming, whatever, will always be limiting since we have only one Earth.
2
Several years ago, I attended a Net Impact meeting at a highly respected private university in the Midwest. The panel was composed of 3 professors from 3 different business schools in the city, all experts in some aspect of sustainability representing the classic thee dimensions of sustainability - people, planet and profits. The professor representing profit was a finance professor from the hosting university. He opened his remarks with an apology to all in attendance. Paraphrasing and not doing justice to his eloquence, he said previous generations of business schools owe the current generation an apology. In the 80's, business adopted the mantra "shareholder value". While acknowledging that shareholder value is important it was never intended to be construed as shareholder value with total disregard for everything else. Now, this current generation is left to repair the damage done by sloppy management, naive and lazy decision making and motivated by greed.
Like others, I don't understand how anyone can argue with the data. And like many others, I prefer "heroes" who are educated and respect the data and science. I find it difficult to even listen to the specious arguments of climate change opposers, though I do feel a responsibility to hear them in order to at least attempt to help them understand their flawed arguments.
What I resent more than anything though is the smug attitudes of our cast of bizillionaires now poised to run - or I should say ruin - our country.
Like others, I don't understand how anyone can argue with the data. And like many others, I prefer "heroes" who are educated and respect the data and science. I find it difficult to even listen to the specious arguments of climate change opposers, though I do feel a responsibility to hear them in order to at least attempt to help them understand their flawed arguments.
What I resent more than anything though is the smug attitudes of our cast of bizillionaires now poised to run - or I should say ruin - our country.
8
The first chart shows temperature data from 1880. But, remember, that it's not easy to measure global temperatures. We can do so today, thanks to satellite technology, accurate thermometers, and the routine exchange of data between nations. Satellites are the most crucial tool, and have only been available for about 50 years. Before then, we really didn't have truly reliable data. So, be a little critical in how you read the chart.
There's not much doubt about global warming. The real questions are: is it accelerating, and is human activity the dominant cause. Most scientists believe the answers are yes and yes. But, remember, the great lakes formed about 14,000 years ago, due to global warming and the melting of the glaciers. Thus, global warming has been with use since before there was significant human activity. We know how to measure temperature, and least in recent years. But modeling the climate - trying to deduce causation - is a whole lot harder. And accurate, direct, global measurements didn't exist until recently.
Most scientists believe human activity is the major cause of global warming. But I don't think it's proof of morale turpitude if one at least considers the possibility that there may be other factors at work.
There's not much doubt about global warming. The real questions are: is it accelerating, and is human activity the dominant cause. Most scientists believe the answers are yes and yes. But, remember, the great lakes formed about 14,000 years ago, due to global warming and the melting of the glaciers. Thus, global warming has been with use since before there was significant human activity. We know how to measure temperature, and least in recent years. But modeling the climate - trying to deduce causation - is a whole lot harder. And accurate, direct, global measurements didn't exist until recently.
Most scientists believe human activity is the major cause of global warming. But I don't think it's proof of morale turpitude if one at least considers the possibility that there may be other factors at work.
2
Ah but don't forget - the proponents of the Theory of Global Warming, in an effort to explain the apparent lack of increased surface temperatures due to the massive increase in CO2 over the last 20+ years, are now claiming that the satellite data is suspect, because the satellite temperature sensors (which don't actually measure temperature) are "degraded".
See, the surface temperatures are supposed to be a lot higher than they actually are, due to the rapid increase in CO2, if the Theory of Global Warming is correct (the TGW predictions have diverged upward from the actual temperature record). If your theory's predictions don't match reality, you have two options: Correct the theory (because it's wrong), or challenge the data (because it's wrong). The proponents of TGW have chosen the latter option, most likely because they've invested their careers - and billions of dollars of government grant money - into it. Like Al Gore told us, follow the money.
See, the surface temperatures are supposed to be a lot higher than they actually are, due to the rapid increase in CO2, if the Theory of Global Warming is correct (the TGW predictions have diverged upward from the actual temperature record). If your theory's predictions don't match reality, you have two options: Correct the theory (because it's wrong), or challenge the data (because it's wrong). The proponents of TGW have chosen the latter option, most likely because they've invested their careers - and billions of dollars of government grant money - into it. Like Al Gore told us, follow the money.
2
The data clearly shows an increase in temperature of the oceans and the surface. I don't know why you think otherwise. No one is arguing that there will be devastation within the next 20 years. But arctic sea ice levels will continue to drop. You can welcome a warmer world caused by greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere if you like, but you can't stop it. My prediction: arctic sea ice extent in September 2050 will drop to 1 million square kilometers or less.
2
Karlos, you are so easily debunked. Satellite temperature trends measure Troposphere and Stratosphere. Here's a snip and link from REMSS, producers of the RSS satellite temperature records. And I quote:
"A new press release from Dr. Carl Mears using the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) dataset shows that 2016 is the warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. The previous record, set during the last major El Niño in 1998, was broken by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.
See the full document here: http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf"
Here's their time series browser - it shows warming over the entire record - you use 20 years because the noise in short-term data, especially in the atmosphere, makes it look the way you want.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Also check the "North Polar" on the Regions button on the right, and then go back to Global and click for "TLS" (that's lower stratosphere) on the left.
Two predictions of climate science say
1) that a greenhouse gas warming event will warm the Arctic faster that the global average. Check.
2) that a greenhouse warming event will cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere. Check.
Oceans hold over 90% of heat from warming. Trend since 1950 - warming, especially the last 20 years.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
"A new press release from Dr. Carl Mears using the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) dataset shows that 2016 is the warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. The previous record, set during the last major El Niño in 1998, was broken by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.
See the full document here: http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf"
Here's their time series browser - it shows warming over the entire record - you use 20 years because the noise in short-term data, especially in the atmosphere, makes it look the way you want.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Also check the "North Polar" on the Regions button on the right, and then go back to Global and click for "TLS" (that's lower stratosphere) on the left.
Two predictions of climate science say
1) that a greenhouse gas warming event will warm the Arctic faster that the global average. Check.
2) that a greenhouse warming event will cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere. Check.
Oceans hold over 90% of heat from warming. Trend since 1950 - warming, especially the last 20 years.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
Please remember that climate is a long term affair. Three successive record hot years are only a bit more probative than Darrell Issa's snowball made from snow gather on Capitol Hill disproved global warming.
What is significant is the increase of average winter temperatures since 1870. Also very worrisome is the increasing ocean acidification which in 50 or so years of business as usual will adversely affect shell fish and plankton.
What is significant is the increase of average winter temperatures since 1870. Also very worrisome is the increasing ocean acidification which in 50 or so years of business as usual will adversely affect shell fish and plankton.
5
That was not (Rep.) Darrell Issa. It was Senator James Inhofe.
2
Since we've thus far had nuclear policy 140 characters at a time, I'm not hopeful that we will get much more on climate change.
8
I hope someone sends Scott Pruitt this report since he doesn't seem to know much about anything, but how to sue the EPA and take money from fossil fuel companies. What about those earthquakes in OK and lead in the water of children -- not sure how much they can have - he hasn't read the dossier. The irony of this coming out today is not lost -- except on the money-grabbing candidate for the EPA director who does not believe the science. This could not be more depressing that watching this fossil fuel cheerleaders and money-grabber taking over the department he has spent his life suing for deregulation.
NO to Scott Pruitt.
NO to Scott Pruitt.
15
If we had taken action starting 50 years ago to taper off the use of fossil fuels and completed that transition 20 years ago I believe we would have just reached 1°C and gotten away with it. As it is, doing virtually nothing other than leveling off the emissions rate, we will be lucky to survive until the end of the century. There is NO current technology available to cool the Earth at the scale required, and even if the world stopped burning ALL fossil fuels tomorrow the best that would happen is that warming would continue to increase for ten more years, stabilise and then cool very slowly over several hundred years. It's also possible that as sequestered frozen methane is uncovered and starts to thaw in Arctic regions, we will lose any control we still have. It only takes 3 to 6°C to ensure our extinction, that's how serious this is.
17
I am so sick of hearing about global warming and rising seas as they relate to "future generations and our grandchildren and the end of the century". Snap out of it because it is happening now. All it will take is a one foot rise in sea levels by 2027 (10 years) and consensus that lots more is on the way and all hell will break loose. Any leader who turns their back on this threat now, will end up being reviled.
20
Total nonsense! The Earth has been around for over 5 billion years! Taking a sampling over a 100 years and calling it a trend is not science, it's absurd!
Plus, I look at the latest figures from NASA and NOAA with skepticism. Unless temps are measured in the same area with the same instruments at the same time, the numbers are useless. I also see lots of manipulation in the measurements.
So, unless someone can tell me the optimum temperature of the Earth, nobody knows what they are talking about.
Plus, I look at the latest figures from NASA and NOAA with skepticism. Unless temps are measured in the same area with the same instruments at the same time, the numbers are useless. I also see lots of manipulation in the measurements.
So, unless someone can tell me the optimum temperature of the Earth, nobody knows what they are talking about.
7
Well Matt, I say we reconvene in five billion years to see if that's true. I'll mark my calendar.
14
"I also see lots of manipulation in the measurements."
Where do you see manipulation?
How is it happening?
Who is doing the manipulating?
Why are they doing it?
In short, do you actually have any evidence at all to support what you're saying?
Where do you see manipulation?
How is it happening?
Who is doing the manipulating?
Why are they doing it?
In short, do you actually have any evidence at all to support what you're saying?
4
We understand climate variation and its relationship to CO2 quite well back about 1 million years, and to a reasonable degree by 5-10 million years. You need to be a geochemist, palynologist, glaciologist, or one of several other -ists to be able to read and appreciate the pre-1900 records and understanding. It's complicated, but extremely valid, like brain surgery. I'm a Quaternary geologist with years of study in the area (long before climate change become a thing), so I understand these records well.
That's no knock on anyone's intelligence. For similar reasons, I didn't perform my own hernia surgery a couple years ago, or replace my own AC system last year. There are also "-ists" for that, and I leave it to them.
That's no knock on anyone's intelligence. For similar reasons, I didn't perform my own hernia surgery a couple years ago, or replace my own AC system last year. There are also "-ists" for that, and I leave it to them.
2
Every time I read one of these dire stories about our planet and its climate, what comes to mind is a baby sitting in a dirty diaper crying for its mother to come and change it. Who and where is mommy? Certainly it can't do it by itself. But there are plenty of daddies holding their noses while looking for mommy and pointing to the baby.
3
Those who are so concerned about climate change should take action. Action does not mean exhorting others to take action. The most effective action would be to stop using energy produced from fossil fuels. This means switching to solar panels for all power for residences (including cooling and heating), purchasing electric cars and ceasing to travel on airplanes, ships or diesel powered buses and trains. If the millions of people who believe that earth is on the verge of destruction take the aforementioned actions, carbon emissions would decline drastically and the climate would cease to change - maybe.
7
It would continue to heat up for many decades. But... We don't have a choice. We must decarbonize while it's still warming. No one wants to accept their role to change i.e. Reduce, and will likely justify inaction with a variety of evasions.
3
I get that you're trying to make a point, but the most effective action will not be a single person here and there changing their lifestyle. That's like saying we don't need government to enforce laws against discrimination, we just need all the people who believe in equality to not discriminate and everything will be fine and dandy. The world just doesn't work that way. To fight the increase in greenhouse gasses it will take all major countries on earth changing their emissions policies. Snark will not get it done, but nice try.
14
Hey RGV, I am taking action by doing the things you say. You're right, plus I should do more, and yet that will never be enough until the likes of Peabody, Exxon, the military and the USG do it in a much bigger way. The personal is political, for sure, but the political is political too! Why can't we make it an all-out national priority to save our own lives and all the other species?
Best and keep it up, Brian
Best and keep it up, Brian
4
Yes indeed. We ARE, slowly, but surely killing ourselves with our own stubborn brand of human ignorance, stupidity, and immediate gratification self-indulgence. It is almost as if we've become nothing more than robotic zombies, where our common senses have been desensitized and then pre-programmed to ignore any and all of the increasing episodes of extreme weather and dangerous and deadly storms causing these excessive economic levels of suffering and tragedy.
I recently flew on a flight over central Florida and looking out my window of the plane, over the urban and suburban sprawl of Orlando, and I was shocked, absolutely shocked to see barely a one solar panel on any of these homes sitting smack dab in the middle of Sunshine STATE Florida. It was stunning, shocking, and then, just plain depressing. Or, what about our mind-numbing obsession, no, make that addiction, to manufacturing and consuming ever more carbon depleting, road damaging, gas guzzling 'sport utility vehicles'. Just because gas prices are low shouldn't or doesn't mean we take our focus off the bigger picture. Dear God.
What on Earth is wrong with us. I'm becoming increasingly convinced- We are simply- the American Idiots. A well deserved and self-perpetuated label of world wide disdain that we truly deserve. Wake me up only when the LED light bulbs finally go on in high tech and in Washington. If I'm not before then.
I recently flew on a flight over central Florida and looking out my window of the plane, over the urban and suburban sprawl of Orlando, and I was shocked, absolutely shocked to see barely a one solar panel on any of these homes sitting smack dab in the middle of Sunshine STATE Florida. It was stunning, shocking, and then, just plain depressing. Or, what about our mind-numbing obsession, no, make that addiction, to manufacturing and consuming ever more carbon depleting, road damaging, gas guzzling 'sport utility vehicles'. Just because gas prices are low shouldn't or doesn't mean we take our focus off the bigger picture. Dear God.
What on Earth is wrong with us. I'm becoming increasingly convinced- We are simply- the American Idiots. A well deserved and self-perpetuated label of world wide disdain that we truly deserve. Wake me up only when the LED light bulbs finally go on in high tech and in Washington. If I'm not before then.
16
Dear L,
You're right I think, but look at the bright side. We need a lot less humans. This is going to be drastic, but if we manage to cut humanity's numbers in half, it will create far better sustainability and survivability for humanity overall. The planet will be saved, if only we can manage to be dumb enough to die in massive numbers.
You're right I think, but look at the bright side. We need a lot less humans. This is going to be drastic, but if we manage to cut humanity's numbers in half, it will create far better sustainability and survivability for humanity overall. The planet will be saved, if only we can manage to be dumb enough to die in massive numbers.
Dan, your comment only exacerbates the indignation of the deniers, reactionaries, when you insist on raising extreme ideas as (snark) solutions. Interestingly enough, we don't need to have 'massive numbers' die to solve climate change. We just need 'massive numbers' to live less carelessly, thoughtlessly, and instead, more strategically, smarter. And to call out abusers of resources. Works where I live.
2
Dan, I doubt if the planet's going to shed any tears for us as it's climate takes us out. It may even breathe a huge sigh of relief. There will be no management necessary on our part, that reduction will be taken care of for us. How's that for service? Perhaps it will decide afterwards that it likes the peace and quiet and won't invite us back, just the animals, maybe. That will teach us some manners, albeit too late.
2
The question is not whether the climate is changing, but what we will do about it. Will we provide subsidies tax favors, and mandates to benefit politically connected industries, companies and individuals (e.g. General Electric, Ethanol, Elon Musk) or will we put a price on carbon and let competition provide the most cost effective means to reduce CO2 output?
So far we have mostly done the former, which hasn't really reduced CO2 output. (The switch from coal to natural gas, with no government support, has been the only material source of CO2 reduction in the US.)
So work on a bipartisan agreement to tax carbon, with proceeds fully refundable to citizens on a per capita basis, and eliminate all the subsidies, mandates and tax favors for all sources of energy. As long as climate change is seen as way for government to increase its power over the citizens of this country, it will never get support beyond its liberal bastions.
So far we have mostly done the former, which hasn't really reduced CO2 output. (The switch from coal to natural gas, with no government support, has been the only material source of CO2 reduction in the US.)
So work on a bipartisan agreement to tax carbon, with proceeds fully refundable to citizens on a per capita basis, and eliminate all the subsidies, mandates and tax favors for all sources of energy. As long as climate change is seen as way for government to increase its power over the citizens of this country, it will never get support beyond its liberal bastions.
3
What are you doing about your own behavior while the political machinery mobilizes? Once it does, you will most certainly have to face some hard choices if it's going to effective government intervention. So you ought to practice now.
The mechanism of warming is well known and the evidence of warming is pervasive. The temperatures during 2016 may be alarming to the public but they add little to what is already known. The science of warming is intricate and depends on extensive and multifaceted evidence. The temperatures last year are a matter of little significance.
It seems to me that the media is latching onto changes that don't mean much to science and thereby are talking down to readers. Perhaps this is an effort to rebut the nonsense of climate denial with evidence that seems important but is not. It is time for the media to abandon the senseless debate with deniers and move on to the likely consequences of warming, which are the present focus of those studying climate change. We all know about extreme weather and sea level rising but the world has many regions and the main effects of warming are local. I think telling people what science says about what is likely to happen where they live would be more informative than last year's weather.
It seems to me that the media is latching onto changes that don't mean much to science and thereby are talking down to readers. Perhaps this is an effort to rebut the nonsense of climate denial with evidence that seems important but is not. It is time for the media to abandon the senseless debate with deniers and move on to the likely consequences of warming, which are the present focus of those studying climate change. We all know about extreme weather and sea level rising but the world has many regions and the main effects of warming are local. I think telling people what science says about what is likely to happen where they live would be more informative than last year's weather.
3
Trees trees trees ! We've run out of time to reduce ghg emissions and the trend line sucks.
Stop deforestation, replant where possible and let the trees start taking back the carbon they love as good eatin. They take it from the air and into their bodies and back into the ground....where this fossil carbon came from in the first place.
Plant life currently removes about half of the carbon we emit annually.
Stop deforestation, replant where possible and let the trees start taking back the carbon they love as good eatin. They take it from the air and into their bodies and back into the ground....where this fossil carbon came from in the first place.
Plant life currently removes about half of the carbon we emit annually.
7
No. Sadly it's temporary sequestration.
There is no "issue." The climate is changing and we are largely responsible. We must act and act now.
There is no "issue" about Donald Trump being fit or qualified for the presidency, he isn't.
There is no "issue" about Donald Trump being fit or qualified for the presidency, he isn't.
20
Take comfort in the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world community accepts that climate change is occurring. And many are actively working to arrest it's pace. The very small percentage of those who still doubt the obvious evidence will be run-over by the efforts of the majority, in time.
4
Let's face it, the wealthy don't care and will never care as long as there is more money to be made by trashing the planet. The sad part is that they have millions of brainwashed people, gullible to and addicted to the partisan political fighting to care that they will be the ones suffering the most.
13
Also, the wealthy are fast developing plans to literally leave our planet and colonize, for example, Mars! Apparently, our moon is too close for their cushy comfort.
2
I had a career as a satellite communications technician and was impressed by how little math and common sense had to do with the job after dealing with Masters of the Universe MBA's. Why should climate change science be any different.
2
Satellite communications is a technology, a business, a product, hence the control of MBAs. It uses engineered tools to create a product - communication bandwidth that can be sold.
Climate science is science, and depends on long, tiresome accumulation of data, formulation and testing of hypotheses, and peer-reviewed publications to move along.
For a great place to see that, Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming: a History" is a good start. The bibiliography goes back to Joseph Fourier's papers about the greenhouse effect - back in the 1820s.
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Also, each of the IPCC climate reports reviews thousands of the most current peer-reviewed papers in the areas examined. Here's a link to the most current Scientific Basis report. Each chapter has it's own lists of references - some chapters review hundreds of papers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Climate science is science, and depends on long, tiresome accumulation of data, formulation and testing of hypotheses, and peer-reviewed publications to move along.
For a great place to see that, Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming: a History" is a good start. The bibiliography goes back to Joseph Fourier's papers about the greenhouse effect - back in the 1820s.
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Also, each of the IPCC climate reports reviews thousands of the most current peer-reviewed papers in the areas examined. Here's a link to the most current Scientific Basis report. Each chapter has it's own lists of references - some chapters review hundreds of papers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
2
If someone you know at work or socially denies the obvious, you think they're a nut. If someone in the public eye denies the obvious, you elect them to run the country? Denialism goes a lot further than mere stupidity. It's a type of dishonesty, or madness, for which there is no cure.
There are any number of things which could be done, easily and cheaply at the industrial level, to manage emissions. A lot more could also be done to manage dangerous airborne pollution, and make a significant impact on warming, almost immediately.
None of these things are being done, even on the most basic consumer levels. The obvious fact is that there is no intention to do anything at all. 20 years of useless talk and bizarre, truly psychotic behavior by denialists is no accident. This is systematic mismanagement, aggravated by totally absurd, downright primitive, economic mismanagement. How could anyone be so ignorant and so inept, honestly? How do you ignore high school level basic chemistry?
Current data suggests that the problem is compounding, driving itself. That's happened before, where the hotter conditions accelerate things like melts, which then drive more melting, etc.
Managing these problems is now in the hands of arguably the least imaginative, least intelligent, least honest people in human history. If global warming takes this "civilization" with it, it won't be all bad.
There are any number of things which could be done, easily and cheaply at the industrial level, to manage emissions. A lot more could also be done to manage dangerous airborne pollution, and make a significant impact on warming, almost immediately.
None of these things are being done, even on the most basic consumer levels. The obvious fact is that there is no intention to do anything at all. 20 years of useless talk and bizarre, truly psychotic behavior by denialists is no accident. This is systematic mismanagement, aggravated by totally absurd, downright primitive, economic mismanagement. How could anyone be so ignorant and so inept, honestly? How do you ignore high school level basic chemistry?
Current data suggests that the problem is compounding, driving itself. That's happened before, where the hotter conditions accelerate things like melts, which then drive more melting, etc.
Managing these problems is now in the hands of arguably the least imaginative, least intelligent, least honest people in human history. If global warming takes this "civilization" with it, it won't be all bad.
9
Yes! Plus It has been over 40 years of inaction. Back in the 1970's we were concerned about this
I am amazed by the number of liberal writing in and expressing opinions about a subject for which they have not done anything about!
More laws is not the answer. Have your elected leaders pass all the laws they want - they will be just as effective as the other!
Blame conservatives. That will solve all the problems won't it?
Until people (including liberals and conservatives) start making changes in their own lives, this problem will only get worse!
The problem with 80% of the people posting comments on this site, is the fact that they won't do anything about it other than posting comments!
Have they replaced their furnace and air conditioners with ultra-high efficiency models? At 10k to 14k, I doubt it. (I have!)
Have they installed solar or wind?
Have they stopped flying and taking cruises?
Have they replaced all light fixtures with LED?
Have they made one of their buildings 100% solar?
Have they reduced their energy consumption by 20%?
Have they purchased a new vehicle that gets 30 plus MPG on the highway?
I've done all of the above and more. In fact, I've spent over 20K and if none of the items fail, I will break even in just over 20 years. Saving energy and reducing CO2 is expensive!
Liberals? Well they they love talking about solar, wind, LED Bulbs, insulation, more laws, regulations, treaties, being nice to each other, bad republicans and if everyone just planted a tree... order would be restored in the cosmos.
Liberals don't have a clue!
More laws is not the answer. Have your elected leaders pass all the laws they want - they will be just as effective as the other!
Blame conservatives. That will solve all the problems won't it?
Until people (including liberals and conservatives) start making changes in their own lives, this problem will only get worse!
The problem with 80% of the people posting comments on this site, is the fact that they won't do anything about it other than posting comments!
Have they replaced their furnace and air conditioners with ultra-high efficiency models? At 10k to 14k, I doubt it. (I have!)
Have they installed solar or wind?
Have they stopped flying and taking cruises?
Have they replaced all light fixtures with LED?
Have they made one of their buildings 100% solar?
Have they reduced their energy consumption by 20%?
Have they purchased a new vehicle that gets 30 plus MPG on the highway?
I've done all of the above and more. In fact, I've spent over 20K and if none of the items fail, I will break even in just over 20 years. Saving energy and reducing CO2 is expensive!
Liberals? Well they they love talking about solar, wind, LED Bulbs, insulation, more laws, regulations, treaties, being nice to each other, bad republicans and if everyone just planted a tree... order would be restored in the cosmos.
Liberals don't have a clue!
6
Guess what - its capitalism and the fact that an electric car is upwards of 40k that I cannot purchase an electric car not any other reason!
5
I'm a liberal and I've done many of those things. However, individual actions alone will not solve the existential problem of climate change. Government standards and rules across energy, including the ending of direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
11
I've done all that. I don't drive and I walk or take the train everywhere. Nobody else seems to want to or even cares. No one wants to make the individual effort. Everyone I know is upper middle class NYC and they all just seem to brush it all aside. The cabs, the vacations. Didn't even want to switch the building to green energy even though it is the same price. I tried to get the people in my building to turbine energy( I've been on Ethical Electric now for three years ) and no one even wanted to hear about it. The lassitude is amazing. It's not really liberal or conservative. It's the fact people ( the average American ) seems to want everything done for them and doesn't want to give up anything.
I'm a liberal though. Survival is a bipartisan issue.
I'm a liberal though. Survival is a bipartisan issue.
5
Here is some context for the deniers - you could loose a LOT of money if you keep denying. I recommend reading: "The $2 trillion stranded assets danger zone: How fossil fuel firms risk destroying investor returns" http://www.carbontracker.org/report/stranded-assets-danger-zone/
Two trillion dollars. That is a lot of money. Report says it comes mostly from pension and retirement accounts. Simply put there is way too much risk in denying climate change. Meanwhile there's no risk in building wind farms. Zilch. OK, maybe if you are an Exxon or Shell executive. Does the US want all this $$$ risk? Remember the housing bubble and how painful that was? This is potentially bigger. And we can CHOOSE to avoid all that risk.
Two trillion dollars. That is a lot of money. Report says it comes mostly from pension and retirement accounts. Simply put there is way too much risk in denying climate change. Meanwhile there's no risk in building wind farms. Zilch. OK, maybe if you are an Exxon or Shell executive. Does the US want all this $$$ risk? Remember the housing bubble and how painful that was? This is potentially bigger. And we can CHOOSE to avoid all that risk.
5
Since climate change is becoming more apparent with world-wide examples becoming more visible the march toward alternate power sources continues, so there will come a point where the effects of climate change and our efficient use of technology will meet to stabilize the heat-up .
2
Those who think there are technological fixes, are fooling themselves. All of these fixes are based on the old paradigm of carbon-intensive modes of manufacturing and transportation. The most straightforward path: of reduced burning of fossil fuels, increased use of renewables and most importantly stabilizing the human population and reducing per capita consumption, will achieve far greater results in less time and at least give us a fighting chance. Once methane (1000x more potent than CO2 as a heat trapping gas) locked in the permafrost and under the ocean starts percolating into the atmosphere temps will rise too fast for humans to do much about anything.
10
In October 2012 we retired to Florida. Throughout the years I've been here many times, going back to the early 1960s. We often came down at Christmas in the 60s and 70s and after school let out we often took our young children to Disney World and other attractions. Winter was comfortable and summers were as expected, hot, muggy and sticky. But not impossible enough to ruin a vacation at Disney. Now however its changed down here. In 2015 we met our kids and grandkids at Disney and the heat was so terrible we had to stop often for cold drinks, ice cream and air conditioning wherever we could find it. It was grueling. The summer of 2016 was even worse. We often play golf, and I ride my bike in the usual relative coolness of the early morning. Not this last summer. We postponed golf and I rode less frequently and less distance too. We looked forward to twilight golf because afternoons were just too brutal.
There is no doubt in my view, that global warming is here and it is destructive as well as debilitating to humans and animals. Our land is parched, scorched and literally baking under unrelenting heat and extended drought. Winter snowfall isn't what it should be. Ice and glacier melting is a fact.
I am deeply troubled when Donald Trump professes that global warming is a hoax. I believe that the only hoax is the one that was perpetrated on the American people who voted for this science debunking pretender. We're in serious trouble from both climate change and Donald Trump.
There is no doubt in my view, that global warming is here and it is destructive as well as debilitating to humans and animals. Our land is parched, scorched and literally baking under unrelenting heat and extended drought. Winter snowfall isn't what it should be. Ice and glacier melting is a fact.
I am deeply troubled when Donald Trump professes that global warming is a hoax. I believe that the only hoax is the one that was perpetrated on the American people who voted for this science debunking pretender. We're in serious trouble from both climate change and Donald Trump.
14
As long as Petroleum industry has Republicans lawmakers in their pocket, we will not see any changes coming anytime soon. President-Elect is a dumber than a rock to realize. I hope Ivanka is reading this article to tell her father.
Those who are in the red states blaming god for more twisters, drought, floods and other calamities, they are forgetting that this is humans who are responsible not god for their misery. Too bad they are so naive to get this when they only watch Fox News.
Those who are in the red states blaming god for more twisters, drought, floods and other calamities, they are forgetting that this is humans who are responsible not god for their misery. Too bad they are so naive to get this when they only watch Fox News.
8
When the IPCC was created in 1988 there was little room for reasonable doubt about the AGW hypothesis. Now, almost 30 years later, it is a rock-solid, indisputable fact of nature. And we have hundreds of educated politicians continuing to deny its validity? Donald Trump is going to be President Trump in two days? And I'm not dreaming?
3
Climate change deniers need to go back to elementary school. All the first graders know this is fact already, and have, for some time. Quit glorifying stupidity. Ignoramuses aren't cool.
4
Coming President Trump assuredly needs to pay close attention to the science, now.
4
There goes much of New Jersey, NYC, Delaware and parts of coastal New England. Even parts of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolina low country and much of Florida and Louisiana.
6
Human-made climate change is a fast runaway train. We must continue to fight climate change, but we are at 11:59 p.m. We must not stop. We must not give up. We must do the best we can to stop and prevent further deleterious effects from occurring. Mother Nature does have a way of making course corrections --- the Great Flood (not Noah's flood, but the great archeological flood -- which could have served as the inspiration for Noah's flood, claim archeologists) famine, deserts, storms, but much gets destroyed in the process. Eventually, the earth will be OK, but we won't be here when it further destructs and not when it is eventually living again.
4
In the face of the trending data in this latest article what possible argument could climate change deniers possibly mount now? Greed. Oh, they don't call it that; instead, they call it jobs and economic opportunity, but in the end it's pure greed and the even more reprehensible notion that the deniers won't be around when things reach untenable conditions so why should they care.
12
Capitalism vs. the climate, people. Ditch your high-carbon lifestyles (including your endless google searches, which dump mountains of carbon into the atmosphere) and a all the rest. Learn to fight with knives.
1
Climate Change is not only a hoax, but a very profitable business for the elite that is pushing it.
It would cost $100 trillion to reduce the world's temperature just three tenths
of one degree by the end of the century. Think about it: A whole 70+ years to
reduce just three tenths of one degree.
This is the same fake science that Gore used to predict the North Pole could be
"ice-free" by 2013, he called it Global Warming, but unfortunately for him, global temperatures kept dropping, so now they call it Climate Change. Very smart. With that name they are covered no matter what happens. Nothing is happening? No problem, they came out with another name "The Pause".
And no, the Poles are not melting according to Dr. Benny Peiser, a global warming expert...and scientists Art Robinson, Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT),
Dr. Will Harper (Princeton), etc, etc, etc.
I agree with Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science"
It would cost $100 trillion to reduce the world's temperature just three tenths
of one degree by the end of the century. Think about it: A whole 70+ years to
reduce just three tenths of one degree.
This is the same fake science that Gore used to predict the North Pole could be
"ice-free" by 2013, he called it Global Warming, but unfortunately for him, global temperatures kept dropping, so now they call it Climate Change. Very smart. With that name they are covered no matter what happens. Nothing is happening? No problem, they came out with another name "The Pause".
And no, the Poles are not melting according to Dr. Benny Peiser, a global warming expert...and scientists Art Robinson, Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT),
Dr. Will Harper (Princeton), etc, etc, etc.
I agree with Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science"
5
You are so wrong about so much here. During December, global sea ice extent coverage fell to an amazing 4.4 million square kilometers below average. This is far, far outside the 2 standard deviation range — passing to fully 8 standard deviations beyond the typical yearly average. In addition, temperatures in the Arctic have been 55 degrees above normal recently. Nothing to do with science??
6
I am not arguing the constant change of the Earth, but the "warming" being caused by CO2, given that it constitutes 38/1000th of 1% of atmospheric gases.
I spent a lot of time (days) looking into the subject, and weighted both sides of the argument, coming to the conclusion that it is
totally false.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12...
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
I spent a lot of time (days) looking into the subject, and weighted both sides of the argument, coming to the conclusion that it is
totally false.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12...
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
Global warming is not a hoax. Just ask the low-lying pacific islanders who are feeling the effects for some real world verification. Donald Trump's campaign platform is a good example of a hoax. Stream of consciousness drivel repeatedly dispelled by real world observation.
1
Baby it's not cold outside...
2
This article contains a serious misstatement. El Nino ocean temperatures peaked in November 2015, and dipped into La Nina territory in the early summer of 2016. 2016 was supposed to be cooler than 2015 as a consequence, but it wasn't. It was warmer! It does not follow that 2017 will be much cooler. El Nino/La Nina are important, but something else is becoming even more influential.
2
A planet to most people is something in outer space, not realizing they live on one. It revolves around the sun at 66,000 miles per hour and rotates on axis at 1000 miles per hour. It is a fragile thing that supports our form of life. We are not going anywhere else that has that capability. Ignorance and selfishness is keeping our species and of course other species from reaching its full potential in years ahead. We will be responsible for earth to turn into Mars. Lifeless and desolate for an eternity. But, since this won't happen in our lifetime the reality of it all doesn't exist in our minds.
2
By electing an irresponsible climate change denier as President of the USA, the voters of the country have imperiled the future of all humanity. The women who voted for Trump probably are the kind of women who would let him do anything to them because he was a 'star'. The men and women who voted for him do not believe that they need to leave a habitable earth foe their children and grandchildren.
2
I will bet that Trumps Twitter finger will stay idle on this news.
4
The South of England is differently warmer for the last 5 years. summers have been supper hot and the winters very moderate.
The population of the Earth has only one planet to live on. As such we have no choice but to look after it. Either that or we all die.
Even if there is no such thing as global warming looking after the Earth should be are main priority as we have no where else to go.
The population of the Earth has only one planet to live on. As such we have no choice but to look after it. Either that or we all die.
Even if there is no such thing as global warming looking after the Earth should be are main priority as we have no where else to go.
3
Except the super-wealthy, i.e. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, are fast making plans to get the heck out of here and colonize Mars. Everyone, go watch "Wall-e" again. It is not that far-fetched now.
President Obama has been in the White House for 8 years and despite passing laws and regulations to curb global warming, and he has failed to reverse the global warming trend. Year after year earth temperature continues to set new high under President Obama's watch. Clearly, President Obama has failed miserably in controlling global warming.
2
Will Americans’ faith in their government institutions and elected officials go up or go down as a result of putting such grossly unfit people in charge of agencies they wish to dismantle?
Attempting to hide behind shrinking ambiguity is not incompetence or ignorance. Attempting to convince with facts has no effect, as these are wiped away by the triumph of ideology over evidence. What is it that we don’t see at the hearing – curiosity, a data-driven mentality, a desire to uphold the mission of the agency and existing laws. What we do see is arrogance and a closed mind. This is malfeasance, and especially at a scale which has such an effect on so many people now and into the future, we should call it what it is – evil.
When this Administration ends, let's learn from its legacy via the Trump Rules:
No one will be approved for an agency or executive position who:
- Is openly hostile to its mission, as demonstrated via past or present behaviors.
- Claims ignorance or rejects basic facts when the position itself requires vision, a world-view, and the means to adjust to a dynamic world.
- Cannot or will not describe an approach for how he will conduct his tenure.
- Is devoid of experience in actually running an agency of its size and complexity.
- Is unable or unwilling to complete all the required ethics background information.
- Is unable or unwilling to conform to long-standing ethics norms, especially regarding conflict of interest.
Attempting to hide behind shrinking ambiguity is not incompetence or ignorance. Attempting to convince with facts has no effect, as these are wiped away by the triumph of ideology over evidence. What is it that we don’t see at the hearing – curiosity, a data-driven mentality, a desire to uphold the mission of the agency and existing laws. What we do see is arrogance and a closed mind. This is malfeasance, and especially at a scale which has such an effect on so many people now and into the future, we should call it what it is – evil.
When this Administration ends, let's learn from its legacy via the Trump Rules:
No one will be approved for an agency or executive position who:
- Is openly hostile to its mission, as demonstrated via past or present behaviors.
- Claims ignorance or rejects basic facts when the position itself requires vision, a world-view, and the means to adjust to a dynamic world.
- Cannot or will not describe an approach for how he will conduct his tenure.
- Is devoid of experience in actually running an agency of its size and complexity.
- Is unable or unwilling to complete all the required ethics background information.
- Is unable or unwilling to conform to long-standing ethics norms, especially regarding conflict of interest.
1
The further the first likely climate refugees are from D.C., the easier it is for GOP climate deniers to turn up their noses. Alaska's too far, Africa's too poor, island nations too remote. California's coastal residents are too wealthy to worry about and Florida's beach bums have no one to blame but themselves. It's all a hoax, anyway, and if that's not enough, a Chinese plot. But please, find a way to explain the rationale of the latter to us. It's just a final step too, well, too bizarre.
3
If the current trend really is related to human activity everybody could disappear today and there would still be decades, maybe even even centuries, of effects. The silly notion that somehow electric cars, banning coal plants, etc, etc is going to solve the problem is classic example of mankind's silly God complex.
2
We are nature's sorcerer's apprentices here. We could try using crispr to create a diatom to precipitate dissolved carbon dioxide out of the ocean and start another ice age when we can't turn it off.
3
So, we can't fix it so we should do nothing?
Wake up. Every little thing helps. Apathy and despair are forms of laziness.
Wake up. Every little thing helps. Apathy and despair are forms of laziness.
4
Incorrect, marksv. "Solve the problem" isn't what we have to do right now. "Lessen the impacts" is what we have to do now.
Think of it like the choices for a 35-year-old who smoked heavily for 15 years - they can quit or they can keep smoking. Which path will lessen the additional damage of the first 15 years of the habit?
I find that people who throw in the idea of playing God if we do something about climate change never seem to point out we're playing God by warming the place in the first place.
We are changing the Earth's climate.
We have to decide how much of the impact we leave to future generations.
Moral people don't hurt others needlessly.
Think of it like the choices for a 35-year-old who smoked heavily for 15 years - they can quit or they can keep smoking. Which path will lessen the additional damage of the first 15 years of the habit?
I find that people who throw in the idea of playing God if we do something about climate change never seem to point out we're playing God by warming the place in the first place.
We are changing the Earth's climate.
We have to decide how much of the impact we leave to future generations.
Moral people don't hurt others needlessly.
4
i have already trained my children how to breath methane. the youngest had a hard time getting used to it till i told her that chinese people were starving and she had better keep up. well that went over with her like a rock filled balloon. we all know that climate change is a hoax according to the new guy that gets sworn in friday. what climate change. he knows all. he is not at all fazed by it or the ramifications of climate change. i guess he does not have any children or grand children. well just goes to show we have a true dolt about to assume that office. look out climate.
4
I think many vocal climate change deniers believe that it's real, but they harbor some kind of mental illness in that they desire cataclysmic events to occur, whether through nature's forces or by electing an unstable man who could start world war 3, because they want to witness the "end-times"-that is, they think that Jesus will show up and everything will be alright. They've all lost their minds.
1
For those questioning based on unskeptical "skeptic" dominance of the political arguments, here's a superb resource:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Have a look. It addresses all the common arguments in an accessible way.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Have a look. It addresses all the common arguments in an accessible way.
2
I did, thanks for the reference, but it's very misleading.
The graph(s) show "temperature anomaly" which they explain as a difference from the "1880-1910 Average". If you want to really understand this, you need to ask a couple of questions:
Why pick 1880-1910?
How was the 1880-1910 "average" calculated?
Given that 24/7 worldwide temperatures were only really possible as a result of satellite readings, how is the temperature value from which the 1880-1910 average is subtracted, calculated?
Without answers to those questions, the entire Bloomberg resource is worthless.
The graph(s) show "temperature anomaly" which they explain as a difference from the "1880-1910 Average". If you want to really understand this, you need to ask a couple of questions:
Why pick 1880-1910?
How was the 1880-1910 "average" calculated?
Given that 24/7 worldwide temperatures were only really possible as a result of satellite readings, how is the temperature value from which the 1880-1910 average is subtracted, calculated?
Without answers to those questions, the entire Bloomberg resource is worthless.
1
KTJ: a silly response. Others should take a look. It provides an apples to apples comparison for all the inputs on the same time scale. So typical to say something that sounds clever and has nothing to do with the subject.
2
Gee Karlos, I owe you an apology before I point out more of what you missed. I didn't look at the excellent Bloomberg link and thought you were referencing this articles graphics.
Anyway - the Bloomberg link is a great tool, thanks Ms. Anderson.
They picked 1880-1910 because you need a baseline of 30 years to set where the 0-point of the chart goes. Nothing about the resulting animations would be different if they chose, for example, 1951-1980 for the Bloomberg piece except all temperature movements would be far lower on the chart, from start to end.
They also discuss methodology for what they chart at the bottom, and include links to the data used.
Here's the link to GISS temperatures, by the way
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Susan, thanks for posting the Bloomberg link. It clarifies the different impacts we have on climate, including the cooling from particulates and land use changes, as well as warming from greenhouse gases.
Anyway - the Bloomberg link is a great tool, thanks Ms. Anderson.
They picked 1880-1910 because you need a baseline of 30 years to set where the 0-point of the chart goes. Nothing about the resulting animations would be different if they chose, for example, 1951-1980 for the Bloomberg piece except all temperature movements would be far lower on the chart, from start to end.
They also discuss methodology for what they chart at the bottom, and include links to the data used.
Here's the link to GISS temperatures, by the way
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Susan, thanks for posting the Bloomberg link. It clarifies the different impacts we have on climate, including the cooling from particulates and land use changes, as well as warming from greenhouse gases.
2
Another article says 2/3 of primates are threatened with extinction. Look at the photos, the extraordinary features of these animals, and think of the millions of years of natural selection that created them. Life is the art of the universe. The only known place it exists is here. In proper perspective, the existence of even the smallest leaf is a miracle. What we are doing to our singular, beautiful planet is a reckless endangerment and criminal indifference that can only be called evil.
7
gw, I noticed the primate article as well. Turns out their extinction is more because of hunting, agriculture, and mining. Climate change, not so much.
Read "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery if you want to see a different perspective on how changing climates have affected and currently affect the different species.
Read "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery if you want to see a different perspective on how changing climates have affected and currently affect the different species.
1
Fred Singer is a sad example of a scientist who used to be active and productive in his field, only to slip into crackpottery as he aged. In his case, it started with fronting the tobacco industry with their junk-science attempts to shield their industry from the reality of the impact smoking has on humans. He's just continuing with his "work" on climate as a paid disinformer for Heartland Institute and anyone else funded by the anti-regulation-minded.
IF "Unstoppable Global Warming" shows the CO2 increase is due to natural causes, how does he explain where the greenhouse gas generated by burning all that well-documented fossil fuel goes?
The sun's the other source of heat. It's been cooling slightly as recent decades have consecutively been record-warmest.
No, Karlos, stop peddling crankery.
IF "Unstoppable Global Warming" shows the CO2 increase is due to natural causes, how does he explain where the greenhouse gas generated by burning all that well-documented fossil fuel goes?
The sun's the other source of heat. It's been cooling slightly as recent decades have consecutively been record-warmest.
No, Karlos, stop peddling crankery.
2
bf: Singer's book doesn't claim that the CO2 increase is due to natural causes. What he claims is that the temperature changes are no different statistically from natural variation. Cranks like you don't have a background in any kind of rational science, so you ape what other cranks have to say.
The sun is the ONLY source of heat, but you don't have any background in things like physics or thermodynamics or astrophysics to comprehend that. There is no "other" source of heat.
No, bf, stop speaking like a child when adults are talking.
The sun is the ONLY source of heat, but you don't have any background in things like physics or thermodynamics or astrophysics to comprehend that. There is no "other" source of heat.
No, bf, stop speaking like a child when adults are talking.
The day that scientists market a cure for mortality is the day that the shamelessly greedy and selfish will begin to care about climate change.
2
We show pictures of Greenland and Antarctica or a small island in pacific.
If you look closely, we have much more serious issues of climate change in US itself. Just start with OK citizens from our EPA nominee.. and then walk through each states, they are getting worse day by day.
Sometimes I dream about a world where Al Gore had won instead of Bush by SCOTUS.
We lost a lot in those 8 years and now we will be loosing way more in next 4.
If you look closely, we have much more serious issues of climate change in US itself. Just start with OK citizens from our EPA nominee.. and then walk through each states, they are getting worse day by day.
Sometimes I dream about a world where Al Gore had won instead of Bush by SCOTUS.
We lost a lot in those 8 years and now we will be loosing way more in next 4.
1
Actually, the Arctic and Antarctic ice are crucial for keeping the planet's temperature regulated. Watch "Earth from Space" on NOVA and you'll be astonished at how the Earth's systems work, and how we've destroyed them.
4
China cancelled all new coal based power plants.
We elected DJT to bring coal jobs back.
We elected DJT to bring coal jobs back.
9
they are instead creating natural gas from coal which is 3x a carbon intensive but cuts particulate matter.
The game is over, team. We had a great run. Trump and team will drive the final nails in the coffin. Live the best that you can and cry for your children.
8
Folks watching the presidential debates got a pretty good idea of the importance of climate change and of the candidates' views on the subject. Too bad that took time away from Hillary's emails. But, thankfully, our national news media and its "personalities" are much more than merely a struggling minor segment of the entertainment industry. Speaking of personalities, didn't NBC News hire a blonde away from Fox News recently? Will she feature there in a mud wrestling match for charity with Ivanka Trump?
2
When Gov Perry , Mr Pruitt or most republicans politicians look at the photo of that melting ice illustrating this article, they see financial(drilling) opportunities while the rest of us see global warming.
4
The archaeological record shows the planet was at times much warmer before humans started keeping temperature records. They suggest the planet will continue to warm until the next ice age intervenes.
6
Archaeologist records show that most of Florida was once under ten feet of water. Hey, no problem
5
Yes, it was much warmer during the Big Bang, which was more than 6,000 years ago. Update your knowledge. Maybe getting out of Texas would help you get some accurate information.
3
What they say and what will be are two different things. When the earth went through period of warming and cooling it was a natural cycle of things, without our interference. No one put the pedal to the metal. Think of a pressure gauge. It has a red zone. If the operator is careful the needle doesn't go into the red zone. If the operator is inattentive, the neighborhood is at risk.
3
And yet people like Donald J. Trump will scoff at such claims as "a Chinese hoax", outright dismissing any credible scientific evidence. Plus, he has staffed his cabinet with people who also erroneously believe in the "fake news" that human induced climate change is a fallacy.
What will it take to get through to such arrogant people? If we go too far on the symptoms, it will be WAY TOO LATE for a cure.
What will it take to get through to such arrogant people? If we go too far on the symptoms, it will be WAY TOO LATE for a cure.
6
the Chinese are so concerned that they are liquefying coal which adds 3x the carbon but reduces smog
Bingo! The US jumps into the deep end of stupid just as the global temperature arrives at the knee of the hockey stick curve.
11
Actually the total disregard (except for lip service) of global warming is a good thing for the earth - which has for a majority of its existence not included humans. So when humans self extinct themselves , it will do very well without them. good job brownie - mission accomplished.
3
Our science deniers are helping to accelerate the demise of humans and all life on earth. But don't worry for our planet. George Carlin said that the earth will shake us off like a flea. The planet will be fine, just life on it will cease to exist.
2
Unfortunately everyone alive wants to keep on living the best life they can possibly afford at the cost of near-eradication of the future. That is human selfishness and it knows no boundaries. Unless the problem is right in our faces, we will not react, in the best case scenario. We can only attack the problem individually, walking more, reading more, using less, buying less. It seems unlikely that we will assimilate the gravity of this long term problem when we are so used to immediate gratification. When our standard of well being is defined by things we can buy, opportunities we buy for our family, the interconnection that we have the rest of things on this planet becomes almost invisible. In the long run, chances are that oxygen-dependent life on this planet will perish unless we all, individually, become more conscious of our daily actions.
2
After seeing the movie "Rogue One", the latest Star Wars film, I noticed one of their location sites as being the Maldives. When I got home I looked on Google Earth its location and to zoom in on some of the atolls that comprise it. I also learned that the highest point of the Maldives is 8 feet above sea level. Eight feet, not much wiggle room for a rising sea. Well, for many the loss of the Maldives may not be significant, but as a February 2016 article in McClatchyDC on the Maldives asks, "Is this the future along the coasts of Florida, the Carolinas?". According to the Miami Herald in March of 2015, "State environmental officials ordered not to use the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in any government communications, emails, or reports.". This policy was adopted after Governor Scott took office in 2011. This ban did not stop sunny day flooding in Miami increase. With a new administration coming in that calls climate change a Chinese hoax, will the term "climate change" be banned in our executive branch too?
3
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Who knew that was a prediction rather than a historical event.
1
Duh, the Sun is still growing. It's going to get a lot hotter. Our future is Venus's present, no matter what humans do.
Don't worry the sun will explode in 5 million years. So what's the urgency.
If you expect to live 100 million years, that's true, d. But we're not going to live 100 million years, so the problems of the tiny little decades and centuries of the near-future have more significance for humans.
2
I don't know where you heard that the sun is growing, but it makes no sense. The sun very slowly loses mass due to the production of energy by fusion. However, given that E =mc^2, and c being such a large number, the amount of mass needed to produce energy is relatively tiny. The sun will still have 99.9% of its mass by the end of its lifetime! almost no real change.
2
Want to hear something depressing? I read that climate change is irreversible and that in 500 years the Earth is doomed, so your grandkid's grandkid's will suffer. So do not reproduce.
Who wants to meet me at the pub in an hour to discuss this depressing news?
Who wants to meet me at the pub in an hour to discuss this depressing news?
1
Global warming will receive a cool reception from the new kids on the block. I'm working on a portmanteau for arrogance and ignorance. Agnorance? Any suggestions?
2
Trumptelligence. The latter in the ironic sense that a redhead's called 'bluey' down under.
If you read Eduardo Porter's piece from yesterday, you'll see that had "green" California not shuttered both its existing nuclear power plants and all plans for new ones, "only 27% of the power produced in California would come from fossil sources … as opposed to 66% today. And carbon omissions from power generation would be only 40% of what they are today."
There are other issues with existing nuclear power, of course, but that is extremely significant. (Fusion is another matter; let's cheer on those tokamaks and stellarators.) There is a certain Luddism that worries me among the anti-GMO environmental socialists. We have to understand that technology got us here, and it must help to get us out.
Let's face the fact that, barring a miracle, the world is going to blow through its emissions ceiling. That means we have to adapt; and we have to think about geoengineering. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but unless I'm missing something, such seems to be our reality.
There are other issues with existing nuclear power, of course, but that is extremely significant. (Fusion is another matter; let's cheer on those tokamaks and stellarators.) There is a certain Luddism that worries me among the anti-GMO environmental socialists. We have to understand that technology got us here, and it must help to get us out.
Let's face the fact that, barring a miracle, the world is going to blow through its emissions ceiling. That means we have to adapt; and we have to think about geoengineering. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but unless I'm missing something, such seems to be our reality.
2
My grandchildren and their offspring will have to deal with my generation's "head in the sand" attitude toward climate change. The world desperately needs to move away from climate-damaging fossil fuels and towards safer methods of generating power.
3
Ultimately, the only comfort we can take from what has been happening in the world is that it doesn't matter, our fate was sealed years ago. Yes, things like the policies proposed by Trump might speed up certain events, but inevitably the human race will face extinction from global warming sooner or later.
Perhaps we had a chance to avoid this a few decades ago, but it is too late now. Why do I say that? Well, the reality is that the climate we are currently dealing with was created by what we did in the past. In other words, we are already locked into a rise of global temperatures well above what will be sustainable. Trump may well "rip up" the Paris agreement, but it doesn't matter since the Paris agreement was already in tatters given what will happen to the climate in the next few years.
For someone like myself who is now well into middle-age, I should still have a chance at a normal life span, but anyone under 30 should seriously consider how they see the next 50+ years playing out. It isn't going to be pretty.
Perhaps we had a chance to avoid this a few decades ago, but it is too late now. Why do I say that? Well, the reality is that the climate we are currently dealing with was created by what we did in the past. In other words, we are already locked into a rise of global temperatures well above what will be sustainable. Trump may well "rip up" the Paris agreement, but it doesn't matter since the Paris agreement was already in tatters given what will happen to the climate in the next few years.
For someone like myself who is now well into middle-age, I should still have a chance at a normal life span, but anyone under 30 should seriously consider how they see the next 50+ years playing out. It isn't going to be pretty.
2
The only actual solution to climate change: less people on the planet. Good luck trying to work out the politics of that.
6
Well you have just stated the real inconvenient truth... people. What's not in the media is the 10X effect of methane vs CO2. Methane comes mostly from agriculture, food processing, and food waste. The reason this is not a popular topic is because the solutions are to either reduce the human population or convince everyone to eat a lot less. Buying an electric car isn't going to help. Going solar isn't going to help. Good luck getting people to stop breeding or eating.
1
Don't worry. Donald Trump has a plan to use Global Warming and it's "terrific". Everyone gets beachfront property in Kansas.
4
The precipitation chart in the accompanying interactive graphic (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/world/how-much-warmer-was... is silly. One cannot compare daily _cumulative_ monthly data to an _average_ figure. Please find a better graphical representation.
"Fear has erupted within the agencies about whether their data will now be subject to political manipulation."
Oh hey that's pretty funny.
Oh hey that's pretty funny.
3
The climate and therefore science and FACTS deniers are in charge here starting Friday.
My question to them all is if they get cancer, do they rely on the science of medicine to save their lives?
If they desperately need heart surgery, do they trust the accumulated science and knowledge to keep them ticking?
Do they still believe that tobacco doesn't cause cancer?
Is the earth flat, and will they fall off if they sail too far in any direction?
Is there a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?
The climate is changing. It's science. It's a fact.
What is wrong with us?
Greed. Short sighted greed.
My question to them all is if they get cancer, do they rely on the science of medicine to save their lives?
If they desperately need heart surgery, do they trust the accumulated science and knowledge to keep them ticking?
Do they still believe that tobacco doesn't cause cancer?
Is the earth flat, and will they fall off if they sail too far in any direction?
Is there a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?
The climate is changing. It's science. It's a fact.
What is wrong with us?
Greed. Short sighted greed.
1
As an individual I don’t like Trump or Putin.
I would never personally brag about being capable of solving the world problems. I would try to explain that only the right principles could turn us into the great team able to eliminate the troubles. I would never bomb the civilians in Syria. Aiding any side in the conflict doesn’t solve the problem but only makes it perpetual. That’s why it has lasted for 14 centuries. It’s the divisions among the people that turn them against each other.
We have to understand the cause of the problems, explain them better and eliminate permanently.
But as a faithful person I have to love both of them. I have no choice but to look for the good consequences of their reckless actions.
Trump’s import fees on the foreign goods would make the things more expensive, thus we would afford fewer things. Less purchases, less manufacturing and less used energy would lead to reduced global warming.
The extremely bloody sectarian war in Syria makes us ask ourselves why those people have fought each other for many centuries. Putin’s actions have turned our attention to this chronic problem. If it were over in just a few days, we would keep ignoring the internal divisions and never look for the better solutions and correct implementation of the faith.
Only the true faith can make this world better for the future generations, reverse the global warming, end the sectarian conflicts, stop the wars, feed the hungry and protect the weak.
I would never personally brag about being capable of solving the world problems. I would try to explain that only the right principles could turn us into the great team able to eliminate the troubles. I would never bomb the civilians in Syria. Aiding any side in the conflict doesn’t solve the problem but only makes it perpetual. That’s why it has lasted for 14 centuries. It’s the divisions among the people that turn them against each other.
We have to understand the cause of the problems, explain them better and eliminate permanently.
But as a faithful person I have to love both of them. I have no choice but to look for the good consequences of their reckless actions.
Trump’s import fees on the foreign goods would make the things more expensive, thus we would afford fewer things. Less purchases, less manufacturing and less used energy would lead to reduced global warming.
The extremely bloody sectarian war in Syria makes us ask ourselves why those people have fought each other for many centuries. Putin’s actions have turned our attention to this chronic problem. If it were over in just a few days, we would keep ignoring the internal divisions and never look for the better solutions and correct implementation of the faith.
Only the true faith can make this world better for the future generations, reverse the global warming, end the sectarian conflicts, stop the wars, feed the hungry and protect the weak.
1
Interesting that you have data for Pittsburg, CA but not Pittsburgh, PA. I know we aren't as large as we once were, but still.
My oh my, Those Chinese hoaxers are so clever they made the whole planet warmer, and hid all the sea ice, just to destroy the US economy.
Or else we had best act quickly before we are not able to live in our terrarium any more as a species.
Or else we had best act quickly before we are not able to live in our terrarium any more as a species.
3
Climate scientists are also more or less unanimous in projecting that "global warming stopped in 2016" will become a common refrain by this time next year, and a new "pause" will be loudly proclaimed if none of 2017, 2018, or 2019 manage to surpass 2016.
The next IPCC report should consider modeling the behavior of global warming denialists. They're pretty easy to predict - I don't think it will take much computational power. Interactions between them and carbon emissions caused by their influence on policy would be more interesting though.
The next IPCC report should consider modeling the behavior of global warming denialists. They're pretty easy to predict - I don't think it will take much computational power. Interactions between them and carbon emissions caused by their influence on policy would be more interesting though.
2
Ok. The world was the warmest on record last year. We have what, maybe 200 years of reliable records. What's 200 divided by 4.5 billion?
But scientists tell us it's too late to reverse the warming by reducing greenhouse gases. So, Why worry over something that can't be changed?
Everyone talks about the climate, but no one ever does anything about it. Kinda like the weather.
But scientists tell us it's too late to reverse the warming by reducing greenhouse gases. So, Why worry over something that can't be changed?
Everyone talks about the climate, but no one ever does anything about it. Kinda like the weather.
1
We have at least 200,000 years of reliable CO2 records from core samples and other indicators, during which times there have been multiple ice ages and tropical flooding periods. The CO2 percentage has spiked off the charts, way higher than any prior flood period, in the last few decades. Real time progressing changes in the acidification of the oceans were measured by Exxon when they began researching in 1977.
Have an open mind, learn the science, and then voice an educated opinion.
Have an open mind, learn the science, and then voice an educated opinion.
4
There is a lot of momentum built into the current rate of change.
1
Look at the ice core data. There is several hundred thousand years of isotopic abundance data - a surrogate for temperature - that shows there has not been nothing like this in recent geologic time scales. Yes, there have been fluctuations in the past, but they took tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.
And it is true we cannot stop the trend today. From what I've seen, even if we stopped all emissions today things will continue to warm for another ~ 100 years. But that doesn't mean we should continue to make it even worse than it need be.
And it is true we cannot stop the trend today. From what I've seen, even if we stopped all emissions today things will continue to warm for another ~ 100 years. But that doesn't mean we should continue to make it even worse than it need be.
4
Efforts to develop scientific solutions to global problems simply cannot move ahead without the weight of broad-based public support to lend them traction. A recent editorial in the journal Science may have said it best: “The ability of science to deliver on its promise of practical and timely solutions to the world’s problems does not depend solely on research accomplishments but also on the receptivity of society to the implications of scientific discoveries” (“Bridging Science and Society,” Science 327 [February 19, 2010]: 921).
For better or worse, these days it is not enough that scientists and engineers understand how science works; a working majority of the general public must also be conversant in matters of scientific discovery and fact-based reasoning if we are to wield this knowledge—and the power it imposes—without destroying ourselves in the process. As much as we might like to think otherwise, there is no escaping the dangers created by a scientifically naive and grossly misinformed global populace. Sink or swim, we are all in this together.
Dennis R. Trumble, Department of Biomedical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University
For better or worse, these days it is not enough that scientists and engineers understand how science works; a working majority of the general public must also be conversant in matters of scientific discovery and fact-based reasoning if we are to wield this knowledge—and the power it imposes—without destroying ourselves in the process. As much as we might like to think otherwise, there is no escaping the dangers created by a scientifically naive and grossly misinformed global populace. Sink or swim, we are all in this together.
Dennis R. Trumble, Department of Biomedical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University
4
The world needs to stop doing everything undertaken on the presumption that "God will provide" for it.
The true threat from Global warming is to human-kind, not the planet. Chernobyl is a prime example of how nature roars back in the absence of man, even after sustaining cataclysmic man-made damage. The Gulf of Mexico is possibly another. Perhaps the elites worried over the value of, and the cost to maintain, their multi-million dollar waterfront properties are the true alarmists.
Solve Global Warming, trade subsidies insure the poor of Africa continue to starve; urbanization, mobile phone use, electric and self-driving vehicles, Google, Facebook, computers and the internet, all guarantee an endless demand for alternative sources of energy that ultimately harm the environment at rates equivalent to coal.
Global Warming is possibly the planet's most effective tool in its war on mankind. Environmentalists should cheer it, not fear it. To oppose it is a very self-serving, human thing to do.
Solve Global Warming, trade subsidies insure the poor of Africa continue to starve; urbanization, mobile phone use, electric and self-driving vehicles, Google, Facebook, computers and the internet, all guarantee an endless demand for alternative sources of energy that ultimately harm the environment at rates equivalent to coal.
Global Warming is possibly the planet's most effective tool in its war on mankind. Environmentalists should cheer it, not fear it. To oppose it is a very self-serving, human thing to do.
2
Yes, of course it is common sense, and based on an understanding of physics, that climate change is real and caused by carbon released to the atmosphere. What is also common sense, and based on an understanding of physics, is that the Earth is finite in size. I am not sure what gets me more annoyed- climate change deniers, or those that say we can convert to renewable energy, create jobs while growing the economy, continue in our consumer lifestyle, and live happily ever after.
Sorry, but we will just find another way to make our planet uninhabitable, like destroy our water tables mining lithium for batteries, or strip the oceans bare of fish, or pump our farms so full of pesticides they can no longer feed 7, 8,9, 10 billion people. Unless we realize that population growth and consumption are also primary factors in our predicament, nothing will change.
Sorry, but we will just find another way to make our planet uninhabitable, like destroy our water tables mining lithium for batteries, or strip the oceans bare of fish, or pump our farms so full of pesticides they can no longer feed 7, 8,9, 10 billion people. Unless we realize that population growth and consumption are also primary factors in our predicament, nothing will change.
5
Strange, but based on physics the theory of Global Warming demands higher temperatures now than we actually have, if the CO2-causation part of your screed is real. CO2 levels have increased (assuming you believe that measuring CO2 levels in close proximity to an active Hawaiian volcano is the most unbiased location to do so), but global average temperatures have been relatively flat the past 20 years. So there's some kind of "sense" missing from your particular "common sense".
2
Im not denying climate change im not denying mans impact on the planet. But i have to question if this article is based on complete facts, Why van i find information from climatologists from European countries saying that the southern ice sheet is replacing its self faster then its disappearing? And why when i look at other data from European climatologists they say that the earths overall global temp has not risen out of the normal and os not at abnormal temperatures now?
2
Because you are being selective in what you look at. Meanwhile, you're wrong about the southern ice, which has recently added its losses to the Arctic ones.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-aga...
Meanwhile, have a look around you. Seasons have changed. Oceans are rising. Climate migrations are exacerbating conflict. The military and the insurance industry regard climate change as a "threat multiplier".
Yes, there are a few outliers, but they are mostly related to industry funding, and big fossil has a *lot* of money and power.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-aga...
Meanwhile, have a look around you. Seasons have changed. Oceans are rising. Climate migrations are exacerbating conflict. The military and the insurance industry regard climate change as a "threat multiplier".
Yes, there are a few outliers, but they are mostly related to industry funding, and big fossil has a *lot* of money and power.
6
The branding of "Europeans" as being unified in fake climate science skepticism is also wrong. This brand of special pleading is less acceptable elsewhere, not moreso. Our peculiar politics make it easier to spread and believe phony information (except in the Putin sphere of influence, and do you really want to live like that?).
4
Kevin -- just which "European scientists" are you speaking of? As to Antarctic ice loss, look here:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7w70w956
These are the GRACE satellite data -- they measure the small changes in the gravitational field due to ice loss or accretion -- these data are fundamental and extremely hard to argue with. Antarctica has been losing ice, and all indications are that this will accelerate.
And then those "other European....." again, who? Published where?
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7w70w956
These are the GRACE satellite data -- they measure the small changes in the gravitational field due to ice loss or accretion -- these data are fundamental and extremely hard to argue with. Antarctica has been losing ice, and all indications are that this will accelerate.
And then those "other European....." again, who? Published where?
2
This article with it's "surface" temperature measurements only tells a small part of the climate changing story. What's going on deep in our oceans, with respect to carbon absorption and ocean acidification and the "storage" and hiding away of excess heat should also be included. Terrence McKenna wondered, when talking about biosphere destruction, what it would take to "get those monkeys running." Apparently a lot and as bad as it looks, we're still not at enough.
2
As a climate scientist, let me get facts into the NYT that are agree by all climate scientists.
1. This is NOT the hottest year "on record", unless one cherry picks the record to make it so. While proxies for the past are subject to discussion (no, "the" science is not "settled") a current consensus view (e.g. Marcott et al. Science 339, 1198) is that temperatures today are ~ 75th percentile since the end of the last ice age 11000 years ago. "Fact or Friction" distorts Happer's remarks (no fault of Mr./Ms. Friction; NYT does it all the time).
2. Because time "compresses" as we go back, people consider current events more than past. However, Gillis and Schwartz inexcusably deny fact by the cherry-picking that "the modern era of global warming began around 1970." No, the modern era of global warming began with the end of the Little Ice Age 250 years ago. Temperatures rose since BEFORE anthropogenic CO2 was in play more than since, a consensus fact agreed by everyone that the NYT consistently refuses to print. Indeed, recent temperature is more stable than any of our models predict based on CO2 numbers.
3. Current proposals for US legislation will have no measurable impact on CO2. Period. To deny this is simply to admit that you cannot add. The only hope is that China, which has already done more to limit population growth (which will always overwhelm US action), will say "OK, the US did this, so we will do the same", not the more likely "The US did this. Great. Give us more."
1. This is NOT the hottest year "on record", unless one cherry picks the record to make it so. While proxies for the past are subject to discussion (no, "the" science is not "settled") a current consensus view (e.g. Marcott et al. Science 339, 1198) is that temperatures today are ~ 75th percentile since the end of the last ice age 11000 years ago. "Fact or Friction" distorts Happer's remarks (no fault of Mr./Ms. Friction; NYT does it all the time).
2. Because time "compresses" as we go back, people consider current events more than past. However, Gillis and Schwartz inexcusably deny fact by the cherry-picking that "the modern era of global warming began around 1970." No, the modern era of global warming began with the end of the Little Ice Age 250 years ago. Temperatures rose since BEFORE anthropogenic CO2 was in play more than since, a consensus fact agreed by everyone that the NYT consistently refuses to print. Indeed, recent temperature is more stable than any of our models predict based on CO2 numbers.
3. Current proposals for US legislation will have no measurable impact on CO2. Period. To deny this is simply to admit that you cannot add. The only hope is that China, which has already done more to limit population growth (which will always overwhelm US action), will say "OK, the US did this, so we will do the same", not the more likely "The US did this. Great. Give us more."
4
As a climate scientist I'd prefer you provide us with references to your published research articles in climate science journals.
1
And with the president-elect's picks for EPA, energy will this scientific data once again be dismissed as "fake news?" Maybe when Mara Lago is under 6 feet of water our president-elect will begin to accept the science regarding climate change. Sadly, such a logical conclusion cannot be assured.
1
I've been a faithful NYT reader for at least a decade. I'm starting though to get irritated with this reporting. We live in a country where denying science, and facts in general, is a mainstream approach to life itself. By publishing this, the NYT is just preaching to the choir.
How about putting as a top line story something that focuses on more basic things like the current assault on democracy, voting rights, social justice...? How about we prioritize human rights and hold our president elect accountable for his appalling conduct?
I am fully aware that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, but when millions of our compatriots can't afford healthcare or even their next meal, I doubt there can be much traction on climate change issues.
How about putting as a top line story something that focuses on more basic things like the current assault on democracy, voting rights, social justice...? How about we prioritize human rights and hold our president elect accountable for his appalling conduct?
I am fully aware that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, but when millions of our compatriots can't afford healthcare or even their next meal, I doubt there can be much traction on climate change issues.
1
Chicken Little vs. Little Hands. Science wins every time.
Learn about meteorology and how the earth receives and radiates heat back into space. I took a class in meteorology because I needed a science class and a few more units to fill up my schedule. The instructor had a PhD and worked at a community college because he enjoyed sharing knowledge.
Learn about meteorology and how the earth receives and radiates heat back into space. I took a class in meteorology because I needed a science class and a few more units to fill up my schedule. The instructor had a PhD and worked at a community college because he enjoyed sharing knowledge.
1
People still debate evolution. School districts in Texas mandate teaching creationism. During Galileo's time it was whether the earth was the center of the universe. The issues change. The capacity of man to deny facts doesn't.
"Never argue with a man whose job depends on his not being convinced." H.L. Mencken
"Never argue with a man whose job depends on his not being convinced." H.L. Mencken
2
You know the thing about climate change/ Global warming? Whether or not you believe it. Most people, the majority do not care.
I for one, Do not Care. Not even a little bit.
I'm not going to say that it wont cause some issues (if its true) But technology and people that care will do what it takes to make it bearable. By the time it gets to the point that it is a REAL issue.
My self, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren will be long gone.
So..... Mehh
I for one, Do not Care. Not even a little bit.
I'm not going to say that it wont cause some issues (if its true) But technology and people that care will do what it takes to make it bearable. By the time it gets to the point that it is a REAL issue.
My self, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren will be long gone.
So..... Mehh
2
How much does the technology cost, mindlessdotcom?
Miami is already spending hundreds of millions they shouldn't have to to install pumps for moving sea water off their roads during high tides without storms. Annapolis gets this too. Our naval base at Norfolk is getting a double-whammy - land subsidence plus rising sea levels.
You think it's great-grandchildren's kids who pay? We're starting to pay already, and remember, too, that we all probably know people alive now who will be alive in 2100, suffering impacts from what we do or don't do in the next couple decades.
The military is working on preparedness for this - you seem to have retired.
Miami is already spending hundreds of millions they shouldn't have to to install pumps for moving sea water off their roads during high tides without storms. Annapolis gets this too. Our naval base at Norfolk is getting a double-whammy - land subsidence plus rising sea levels.
You think it's great-grandchildren's kids who pay? We're starting to pay already, and remember, too, that we all probably know people alive now who will be alive in 2100, suffering impacts from what we do or don't do in the next couple decades.
The military is working on preparedness for this - you seem to have retired.
1
One of the easiest ways to curb climate change? A carbon tax. It's the only way to get people to support spending in mass transit and cyclist & pedestrian friendly cities. It does exactly what a tax is supposed to do: make the price of a good reflect its ACTUAL cost. Currently, price of gas does not take into account effect on environment, security spending in volatile regions with huge oil supply, etc. A carbon tax is the simplest solution to our problems.
4
Not fighting climate change is nothing less than child abuse.
6
Brad - very dramatic.
1
There is little in the way of reasonable technically based arguments against the idea that anthropogenic carbon (man-caused) is at least contributing to, if not dominating the warming effect. The problem is us. We as a culture do not want to believe in and respond to a problem that has not yet had catastrophic impacts on us. This is particularly true in that the policy for responding to it is blamed by many for threatening to be a large drag on the economy. Perception rules in elections. Even with the incoming administration, progress will be made at state levels. Also, technological solutions previously eschewed, such as a new generation of nuclear technology and capture of carbon from fossil fuels, can be readied for commercial deployment.
I often wondered if climate change deniers like Trump were ignorant or evil. Then Harvard grad Ted Cruz cherry picked data like this on the ocean temperature, citing the temperature of just one out of 16 layers that are measured to make the case that the oceans aren't heating, and I had to conclude it was the later.
5
The Paris Agreement kills another argument of the do-nothing groups. It was convenient for them to say the US shouldn't act if India and China weren't, as it was convenient for people selling fuel to India and China to say the US should act first.
Then Obama got China to agree to participate. Based on that, India also joined. Goal set by China and the US were both attainable, too, if the will is there.
But it isn't just climate change that forced their hand. China admitted several years ago that over 1.2 million Chinese die annually from the pollution. India faces similar death tolls from burning without proper emissions controls. Their rising middle classes don't want to die from smog, and are vocal.
India is also wary of needing to import massive quantities of fuels, especially as China is increasingly assertive in the sea channels their fuel ships through.
SO:
India aims to become 100% e-vehicle nation by 2030:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51551706.cms?utm_source=...
China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-po...
And the old argument that global growth depends on fossil consumption is also no-longer-true. US economy has been growing as energy intensity declines. Global GDP grows even if electricity comes from wind, or solar, or from simply using less energy.
Then Obama got China to agree to participate. Based on that, India also joined. Goal set by China and the US were both attainable, too, if the will is there.
But it isn't just climate change that forced their hand. China admitted several years ago that over 1.2 million Chinese die annually from the pollution. India faces similar death tolls from burning without proper emissions controls. Their rising middle classes don't want to die from smog, and are vocal.
India is also wary of needing to import massive quantities of fuels, especially as China is increasingly assertive in the sea channels their fuel ships through.
SO:
India aims to become 100% e-vehicle nation by 2030:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51551706.cms?utm_source=...
China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-po...
And the old argument that global growth depends on fossil consumption is also no-longer-true. US economy has been growing as energy intensity declines. Global GDP grows even if electricity comes from wind, or solar, or from simply using less energy.
2
Earth, Gaia knows how to balance things out. Life will go on, global climate will continue to change. Changing climate may force humans to move from coastal cities, possibly on a large scale. Humanity faces the choice of slowing greenhouse gas emissions or carry on until big climate changes force humans to change where we live, grow food, who knows what?
Never underestimate the ingenuity of human invention when forced to do so. Possibly in 2-3 generations greenhouse gas emissions will be declining and temperatures will be declining.
Trump was a poor choice for the environment.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of human invention when forced to do so. Possibly in 2-3 generations greenhouse gas emissions will be declining and temperatures will be declining.
Trump was a poor choice for the environment.
3
Meanwhile, every TV Show keep saying that giving birth is such a marvelous thing and religions keep condamning contraception. I guess that it's more fun to fry together on a planet of 10 billions people than to live in harmony at 2 billions...
9
Seems to me the 14th paragraph must be false. If the last sentence is true ("Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have now occurred since 2000."), then every year after 2000 set a new heat record - 16 records in a row - but that contradicts the first sentence ("...the past three years mark the first time in that period [the period after 1970] that three records were set in a row."). Am I misreading it?
2
Thanks for the clarification, Justin. I see that I misread it. That last sentence simply means that every year but one since 2000 was warmer than every year but one before 2000.
Wes ... not at all. Consider the following series of numbers:
10, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Only the first is the largest of them. Yet every one of these is larger than zero. If all previous data were zero or less then these ten are the largest ever, but only one of them is "the record."
10, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Only the first is the largest of them. Yet every one of these is larger than zero. If all previous data were zero or less then these ten are the largest ever, but only one of them is "the record."
1
Besides a technical analysis of the methods leading to the forecasts about the future climate of earth - i.e. the analysis of the mathematical models on which these forecasts are based - and the technical analysis of the method to collect past and present data on climate, I wonder how one can consider the variation of the average temperature of earth of the last decades as a rigorous indicatorof an effective climate change. The climate of earth is linked to geological eras, which last millions of years, or on portion of them - of the order of tens of thousands years. Hence, it is self-evident that the variation - positive or negative - of the temperature in interval of time amounting to few decades or - worst to few years - cannot be considered a scientifically rigorous index of anything. In addition, as far as my knowledge extends, rigorus meausrements of temperatures started only few Centuries ago. I.e., one doesn't know exactly whether, e.g., the climate of first half of the XII. Century did show an increase of temperatures like the one earth seems to experience in the present days
1
agree --- plus most of the global temps are based on very sketchy data - a lot of estimates and extrapolations. The arctic and antarctic regions didn't have temp stations until the 1950's -- nor did huge swaths of continents. The contiguous US has much better data collection since 1895 (more density temp stations, common measurement methods under the auspices of a single data gathering network) and the US temperature pattern, while correlated with global temps, shows more of a variation around a mean. Higher average temps are driven by higher lows, rather than higher highs. And much of the contiguous US show no significant warming since 1895 -- and some areas actually show cooling. The areas that show the greatest temp increase in the US are primarily highly urbanized areas (Coastal cal, urban northeast, florida). So the US temp record would not set off alarm bells. One wonders whether the increase in global temps over the last 120 years is really an artifact of measurement issues. Or at least a large part of it.
Scientists and their instruments can measure rainfall, temperature and other environmental factors through core samples. It is not a fiction. We are far beyond guessing.
3
Trump and the Republicans still maintain climate change is a Chinese hoax. Yet, the Chinese just committed $360 billion USD into green energy. That's a lot of money to spend on a hoax.
But hey, after 8 years of Trump, our wages may be so low Chinese energy companies will open their wind turbine factories here.
But hey, after 8 years of Trump, our wages may be so low Chinese energy companies will open their wind turbine factories here.
4
Don't know who edits these "news" stories by NYT "reporters", but whoever they might be, they need a "trouncing".
The reason this story is headline NYT today, as opposed to two weeks ago and two weeks from Friday is that obviously it is part of the Sovietized narrative coming out of New York City's corporate media.
As the "reporters" wrote: "Two of the agencies that issued Wednesday’s figures, NOAA and NASA, will soon report to cabinet secretaries appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has expressed doubt about the findings of climate science."
Need to get the new guy lined up like the one heading out the door with "the world's coming to an end" thesis being promoted by the "high-priests" in the "scientific community" who believe, it seems, we're witnessing the greatest "climate change" since Snowball earth. Give me a four-billion-year break, please.
The real problem is out-of-control population growth on planet earth. Where's Napoleon when you really need him?
The reason this story is headline NYT today, as opposed to two weeks ago and two weeks from Friday is that obviously it is part of the Sovietized narrative coming out of New York City's corporate media.
As the "reporters" wrote: "Two of the agencies that issued Wednesday’s figures, NOAA and NASA, will soon report to cabinet secretaries appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has expressed doubt about the findings of climate science."
Need to get the new guy lined up like the one heading out the door with "the world's coming to an end" thesis being promoted by the "high-priests" in the "scientific community" who believe, it seems, we're witnessing the greatest "climate change" since Snowball earth. Give me a four-billion-year break, please.
The real problem is out-of-control population growth on planet earth. Where's Napoleon when you really need him?
2
The bubonic plague? World War III?
You cannot think up any smarter solution?
You cannot think up any smarter solution?
2
Would you prefer "salmon mousse", perhaps?
1
The salmon mousse is an excellent Monty Python reference, from The Meaning of Life, for those who don't know.
1
This trend requires the international agencies to mobilize technical solutions to make the shift away from fossil fuels at an accelerated pace and at the same time improve the standard of living for the World's peoples. This means restructuring the missions of the international institutions that were established near the end of WWII, such as the World Bank, UN, IMF, etc. to focus on developing scale solutions to global warming. In "Silent Earth", Dr. James Powell, Franklin Medalist, recommends a pathway which envisions an international Maglev space launch capability to place a system of solar satellites in geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to Earth receivers to create very cheap electricity to replace, and help to replace fossil energy technologies for electric power generation, and assist in the conversion of transport to much more efficient electric transport. Powell invented superconducting Maglev and has continued to work and has developed magnets with the capability to carry fully loaded freight trucks for 300 mph guided surface transport for passengers and freight to provide the goods our urban life requires. To ease the transition, we propose the manufacture of synthetic fuels from air and water but the ultimate system will be the one powered by cheap electricity to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in deep rock formations.
We are in a race to avoid triggering an uncontrollable release of greenhouse gasses from the Arctic permafrost.
We are in a race to avoid triggering an uncontrollable release of greenhouse gasses from the Arctic permafrost.
1
As the trends in global warming continue to reveal themselves it will affect our food supply. Stresses on human food supply have historically led to collapse of civilization. It may already be too late to reverse course and prevent the uncontrollable release of global warming from the release of greenhouse gasses currently locked in the frozen Arctic permafrost and millions of tons of frozen methane (Hydrates) in the depths of the ocean. There is also the problem of ocean acidification which impacts the food web.
We just do not know if it is too late or not but for just a small fraction of the current and future gross world product we may be able to shift to space solar where the sun always shines. When we run the problem space solar will provides very cheap electricity, about 2 cents per kilowatt hour, which will be beneficial to the entire planet. Since the problem is global, it makes sense for the already established international organizations to begin investing in technology solutions. I believe the problem is urgent enough that we also should invest in extracting carbon dioxide from the air and sequestering the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are several initiatives underway and we should begin to compete these technoogies so that we can begin the enormous task of scaling to the humongous scale required.
I regret that the US is lagging in technology leadership but the sooner we get started the better.
We just do not know if it is too late or not but for just a small fraction of the current and future gross world product we may be able to shift to space solar where the sun always shines. When we run the problem space solar will provides very cheap electricity, about 2 cents per kilowatt hour, which will be beneficial to the entire planet. Since the problem is global, it makes sense for the already established international organizations to begin investing in technology solutions. I believe the problem is urgent enough that we also should invest in extracting carbon dioxide from the air and sequestering the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are several initiatives underway and we should begin to compete these technoogies so that we can begin the enormous task of scaling to the humongous scale required.
I regret that the US is lagging in technology leadership but the sooner we get started the better.
1
Global climate change will kill many more people than ISIS will. But nothing gets the attention of our politicians, people and the media as torture and beheadings do. If there is any justice for their willful ignorance, the slimy media, the slimy politicians and their progeny will also be swallowed up. Too bad the good people and animals will perish as well. Just like the ascendance of a Trump type of president was predicable and ignored for decades, so was global warming.
2
Leave it to liberals to carp when we set a new record. In the new world that dawned November 9, we will celebrate such achievements!
1
I think most people want their lives to be like a game show or reality tv. We're all so disconnected from the earth, noses in our iphones. It's a habit that's costing us our conscience, common sense, and our hearts. And our spiritual development. Did I say common sense?
2
When there is a large El Nino the USA doesn't have many, if any, hurricanes that make landfall. That's a savings of billions of dollars in emergency response and damage recovery. Of course other countries have massively dangerous storms, but we don't. That shouldn't bother people in the USA. We start wars all over the world that destroy societies and the American people don't care. Do people in New York or Washington DC care if there is a deadly hurricane in Louisiana or Mississippi, other red states?
If it was mandated that everyone paint their roof white America could do more than its part in reducing reliance on fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gases.
If it was mandated that everyone paint their roof white America could do more than its part in reducing reliance on fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gases.
1
Temperatures seem to have risen more rapidly after the beginning of the computer age....models vs real measurements? No, couldn't be. "Scientists" receiving government money wouldn't massage the models I'm sure.
2
Elections have consequences. This year's election of Donald Trump may have the ultimate consequence.
2
Exxon has known since 1977 that Global Flooding is real via their own research. They have waged a disinformational PR campaign ever since.
The Saudis know the same, hence their "Vision 2030" program to diversify out of oil economy dependence. And their continuing disinformation through Fox News, which they own a large piece of.
They all want to keep the party going as long as possible, milk every dime before we are inundated by the truth & no turning back.
Trump & Co: grabbing Mother Nature by the pu**y. Father Time's response will not be kind.
The Saudis know the same, hence their "Vision 2030" program to diversify out of oil economy dependence. And their continuing disinformation through Fox News, which they own a large piece of.
They all want to keep the party going as long as possible, milk every dime before we are inundated by the truth & no turning back.
Trump & Co: grabbing Mother Nature by the pu**y. Father Time's response will not be kind.
2
The gravy train for these researchers is coming to an end. You are going to have to get a real job!
2
Remarkable the nonsense that emanates from Republicans. The researchers have real jobs, and in all likelihood they'll keep them. Your boy Trump is not going to be as all-powerful as he thinks.
3
Right, Marty. All that effort to earn a PhD and conduct research was just lollygagging. Sheesh.
3
Don't stay up too late at night waiting for Trump's promise for the return of those blue-collar jobs to come true anytime soon bud.
1
The arguments against reality become more fossilized as each year goes by:
1 "No it isn't" was great in the heydey of Monty Python, but not very new
2 "Data is faked" has to be proved - and blaming NASA or NOAA still leaves the British data, the Japanese data, the Berkeley Earth data, the UAH and RSS satellite data, the balloon and radiosonde data. And the melting ice - it doesn't read thermometers.
3 "switching is ruinously expensive" - in the 1970s. But wind is cheaper than natural gas in many areas now, and solar, too. Plus they keep getting cheaper each year, as does energy storage. In the meantime, the coal plants built after the OPEC oil embargoes are aging
4 "we can adapt" means "pay more and more reacting to preventable disasters" Which will get even more expensive as insurers cut their increasing losses.
Here's a tiny price check on adapting. This article is about a 4-mile bit of coastal road. From the Southampton Press 6/23/15: "Elected officials [...] have been pressuring the federal government for years to raise the stretch of Dune Road that runs between the Quogue Village border and the Shinnecock Inlet in Hampton Bays that is prone to flooding. They’ve estimated that the work could cost about $8 million to complete."
That stretch of road is 4 miles long. $2 million a mile to raise an existing road. Multiply by length of Eastern and Gulf coastal roads. Add in sewage treatment plants, port infrastructure, oh, and cities.
1 "No it isn't" was great in the heydey of Monty Python, but not very new
2 "Data is faked" has to be proved - and blaming NASA or NOAA still leaves the British data, the Japanese data, the Berkeley Earth data, the UAH and RSS satellite data, the balloon and radiosonde data. And the melting ice - it doesn't read thermometers.
3 "switching is ruinously expensive" - in the 1970s. But wind is cheaper than natural gas in many areas now, and solar, too. Plus they keep getting cheaper each year, as does energy storage. In the meantime, the coal plants built after the OPEC oil embargoes are aging
4 "we can adapt" means "pay more and more reacting to preventable disasters" Which will get even more expensive as insurers cut their increasing losses.
Here's a tiny price check on adapting. This article is about a 4-mile bit of coastal road. From the Southampton Press 6/23/15: "Elected officials [...] have been pressuring the federal government for years to raise the stretch of Dune Road that runs between the Quogue Village border and the Shinnecock Inlet in Hampton Bays that is prone to flooding. They’ve estimated that the work could cost about $8 million to complete."
That stretch of road is 4 miles long. $2 million a mile to raise an existing road. Multiply by length of Eastern and Gulf coastal roads. Add in sewage treatment plants, port infrastructure, oh, and cities.
1
In reading the comments, it becomes clear that even those that understand Global warming is real, underestimate all other human impacts to the planet. We are dealing with collapse of the Biosphere (Breaking news?). In other words, all the sinks are saturated, all systems critical to human survival, whether it is the atmosphere, water, land, etc. and the regenerative processes are now diminishing exponentially. In order to address any of this you have to have a plan, but unfortunately, part of that plan is a completely different economic system that is not capitalism. We are currently living in the corpse of capitalism and the oligarchy is going down hard, which has been obvious some time and has reached a level of absurdity during this last election cycle. Human population is going to drop rapidly, much, much, faster than anyone can imagine. This is because, just as in this article, the primary premise is that the worst affects are out there, say middle of next century, so yeah we got time, no reason to panic.
1
I find it amazing the number of people who comment that our "Ignorant President-Elect and Congress" needs to wake up (or other similar derogatory comments) and wonder if they actually know anything about the subject of climate change or what it actually takes to reduce energy usage and their CO2 emissions.
Even if the entire world were to reduce their CO2 emissions to 1952 levels, would that stop rising CO2 levels? The answer is an emphatic NO! The simple reason? CO2 levels were rising in 1952.
So the sad reality is that none of the current agreements will prevent temperatures from rising!
It is too little too late!
I even find it amazing to have "Liberals" (who take offense with my comments) post things about 'Solar' or 'Wind Turbines' and who only have "Armchair General" experience and actually know nothing about the subject.
Folks, I have reduced my energy consumption by 20% and I also have solar. Reducing energy consumption is expensive!
80% of the people posting on NYT don't have the funds, or drive, to make significant energy reductions. 12% are thinking about it, but it just doesn't make sense yet. 5% of the readers could make the investment but won't. So that leaves the 3% like me who have actually done something!
So what does the 80% do? They post comments saying there should be laws and our leaders are not doing enough. The US can pass all the laws you want, it won't change reality - too many people, limited resources!
They don't have a clue!
Even if the entire world were to reduce their CO2 emissions to 1952 levels, would that stop rising CO2 levels? The answer is an emphatic NO! The simple reason? CO2 levels were rising in 1952.
So the sad reality is that none of the current agreements will prevent temperatures from rising!
It is too little too late!
I even find it amazing to have "Liberals" (who take offense with my comments) post things about 'Solar' or 'Wind Turbines' and who only have "Armchair General" experience and actually know nothing about the subject.
Folks, I have reduced my energy consumption by 20% and I also have solar. Reducing energy consumption is expensive!
80% of the people posting on NYT don't have the funds, or drive, to make significant energy reductions. 12% are thinking about it, but it just doesn't make sense yet. 5% of the readers could make the investment but won't. So that leaves the 3% like me who have actually done something!
So what does the 80% do? They post comments saying there should be laws and our leaders are not doing enough. The US can pass all the laws you want, it won't change reality - too many people, limited resources!
They don't have a clue!
1
Like it or not, addressing climate change involves a redistribution of wealth and power. It will come at the expense of some people's ability to extract wealth from the earth and spend it as they see fit. This involves yielding power to the government. For reactionary conservatives that means empowering people that they despise and fear. They would sooner see the earth become uninhabitable than relinquish power over it.
If only this were front page news on every other source - if only this news, these facts, could take precedence over Mr. Trump's latest tweet, or the most recent meme sweeping the internet, or the most recent "crisis" involving some minute fraction of the population, or a local house fire, or the latest phone, or just about any other small shiny object that passes for "news" these days. But I suspect that won't be the case. I suspect it will be derided by Fox and disregarded by the administration. I suspect that it is too late and the brilliant promise of our species will suffer its demise along with the loss of the environment in which it thrived for 10000 years.
2
Man China must be REALLY good & powerful if this is just their hoax.
4
When Trump needs scuba gear to get to his beloved Mar-a-Lago, maybe he'll concede that global warming is s real thing.
1
Unfortunately, at 70 he's unlikely to experience the consequences of his (in)actions. Apparently, like taxes, consequences are for suckers.
2
As long as we keep yowling about denial, or efficiencies, or foresight - we're missing the forest for the trees.
Even Kerry, at Cop 20 in Paris, never once mentioned the C word. Consumption.
We can acknowledge climate change and work as hard as we can to generate greener energy - but as long as we're lashed to an extractive economy that measures quality of life by how much stuff we amass - as long as we view growth-based economies as sacrosanct - we're done.
Even Kerry, at Cop 20 in Paris, never once mentioned the C word. Consumption.
We can acknowledge climate change and work as hard as we can to generate greener energy - but as long as we're lashed to an extractive economy that measures quality of life by how much stuff we amass - as long as we view growth-based economies as sacrosanct - we're done.
1
Not to worry in 25 years the states will bring a class action suit against the oil companies and we will finally be able to pay for free public college! Just like we did with the tobacco companies!!! Its not climate change its geoengineering!
This is a Chinese hoax. We know that because Donald Trump told us so. And, I am sure Energy Secretary Designate Perry will also tell us so. Drill Baby Drill. And let's get those coal mines working again.
Another Chinese stratagem...
Will someone please decide what to set the thermostat to? I like it warmer, there is less of that nasty ice and snow around, so I vote in favor of global warming. One o those wealthy types with a vacation house on a barrier island might not agree with that, but then they are choosing based on their personal benefit scale the same way I am.
Regardless, the first objective is to decide on a target set point, then on a method-- I favor orbital geo-engineering...
Regardless, the first objective is to decide on a target set point, then on a method-- I favor orbital geo-engineering...
This is what happens when you marry science deniers with educational ideologues.
1
"2016 hottest year on record - & scientists think humans are to blame." (The Guardian today)
1
Climate change reveals some of the most fateful human flaws which may ultimately mean our extinction. Humans have never been able to collectively organize, put aside our egos, and submit to a greater good on the scale necessary to stop or reverse existing climate trends.
Instead, we like to nibble around the edges and talk of feel-good things like recycling or emission controls as long as we still 'get ours' and maintain our 'freedom' at all costs. Freedom to drive whatever we want, freedom to have as many children as we want, etc. Nature has a way of preserving a balance and it doesn't look good for humans. My only hope is that we don't try an export our 'brand' to other planets; we don't deserve to keep this one let alone ruin another.
Instead, we like to nibble around the edges and talk of feel-good things like recycling or emission controls as long as we still 'get ours' and maintain our 'freedom' at all costs. Freedom to drive whatever we want, freedom to have as many children as we want, etc. Nature has a way of preserving a balance and it doesn't look good for humans. My only hope is that we don't try an export our 'brand' to other planets; we don't deserve to keep this one let alone ruin another.
1
I'm to the point where I'm indifferent to the plight of human beings. Most of us deserve what we will be getting, either through active destruction or passive bystanding as this planet is destroyed. The day the last human takes its last gasp will be one of joy for the two or three species that are left on poor Earth.
It's the quirky, beautiful, complex, amazing, industrious, majestic array of other, non-human species that I feel bad for, from stick insects and butterflies to leopards to rhinos and elephants to bees and robins and coral reefs. From giant sequoias to delicate primroses, from lily pads to wiggly catfish, We don't deserve to inhabit the same place as they do.
It's the quirky, beautiful, complex, amazing, industrious, majestic array of other, non-human species that I feel bad for, from stick insects and butterflies to leopards to rhinos and elephants to bees and robins and coral reefs. From giant sequoias to delicate primroses, from lily pads to wiggly catfish, We don't deserve to inhabit the same place as they do.
5
What do they mean by "a threat to both the natural world and human civilization" ?
How serious "a threat" ? Is the planet going to become a dead planet ? Is civilization going away ?
I don't doubt that, on average, this is more "bad news" than "good news", but I don't think civilization is going away. Nor are all the plants and wild animals going to die.
The unexaggerated truth is always the best answer. All those people wearing "save the planet" t-shirts, they push feeble minded folks into the hands of the Trump crowd. Who are even more feeble minded.
How serious "a threat" ? Is the planet going to become a dead planet ? Is civilization going away ?
I don't doubt that, on average, this is more "bad news" than "good news", but I don't think civilization is going away. Nor are all the plants and wild animals going to die.
The unexaggerated truth is always the best answer. All those people wearing "save the planet" t-shirts, they push feeble minded folks into the hands of the Trump crowd. Who are even more feeble minded.
1
Agent Smith was right, human beings aren't even mammals. Mammals instinctively live in balance with their environment, we do not. Humans are going to consume every natural resource of our planet like a virus until we destroy it.
2
Climate change is here! Year after year of record heat. What is wrong with people who are ordinary citizens or billionaires who have children that will live in the future?
1
It is seeing the situation as a symptom of greed. It is conservativism. The only cure for life is more. Gimme. Gimme. Gimme.
It may be based on a fundamental desire to have enough resources to survive in the most positive way, but it incorporates assumptions about what is most positive that would seem to have entirely negative consequences.
It may be based on a fundamental desire to have enough resources to survive in the most positive way, but it incorporates assumptions about what is most positive that would seem to have entirely negative consequences.
We have been recording the earth's temperature for a little over 100 years. The earth is over 4B years old. That equates to .000000000025 of the earth's history.
Betcha none of the Cabinet picks even believe in global warming. No doubt they consider it someone's liberal propaganda.
2
We've been keeping track of these temperatures since 1880, but the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
How confident are we that this is material at all ?
This seems too small a sample to be meaningful.
How confident are we that this is material at all ?
This seems too small a sample to be meaningful.
1
A hundred and thirty six years is a small sample? Look, just keep denying it, there is no sense in trying to convert fanatics to reason. Buy beachfront property and when the tide comes in, deny that too.
1
Well, g. Look at it this way. We don't care what the temperature of the Earth was before civilization - humans are very much into how things affect us. Civilization is less than 10,000 years old - basically since the last melting of the ice sheets on North America and Europe.
So, in perspective, we are now setting ourselves to go past peak temperatures since the beginning of civilization. Since we now have billions to feed, and lots of expensive infrastructure along coasts and rivers worldwide, it's very much a thing.
But looking at it from your perspective, let's take your question to its illogical extreme: The universe is over 13 billion years old, and the Atlantic Ocean formed less than 200 million years ago. So, does the Atlantic really exist?
So, in perspective, we are now setting ourselves to go past peak temperatures since the beginning of civilization. Since we now have billions to feed, and lots of expensive infrastructure along coasts and rivers worldwide, it's very much a thing.
But looking at it from your perspective, let's take your question to its illogical extreme: The universe is over 13 billion years old, and the Atlantic Ocean formed less than 200 million years ago. So, does the Atlantic really exist?
1
Will the ostriches still try to hide their heads in the sand, when the sand is under water?
Please?
2
I like to say the you believe in Grow Or Die! Now if you do believe in the principle then you also realize that climate change is real and we as people on the planet need to do something about it. By the way that spells GOD!
1
Fishermen, an independent, self-sufficient lot (except when asking for subsidies for the lack of fish) have been reporting here in the Northeast that the fish and lobsters are moving north to the cooler waters of the Gulf of Maine and Canada and away from the warming waters off NJ, NY, and southern NE.
The deniers have a solution though. Annex Canada and call it America so that they can continue to fish off the American coast!
The deniers have a solution though. Annex Canada and call it America so that they can continue to fish off the American coast!
2
I thought it would be interesting to see what Fox News is saying about last year being the hottest on record. In the Science section the headline story is about a 16th Century treasure ship being found off of Florida. There is simply no mention about the climate change report. Nada. Nothing. You want an explanation for climate change denial you have it there. In the right wing echo chamber scientific reports are simply not news. The propaganda machine continues to do its work with an effectiveness that Goebbels would envy.
5
Another threat to all of life by the environmentalists. Better listen up! After all they were right about: The New Ice Age, Acid Rain, The Hole in the Ozone Layer, The Evaporation of the Oceans, The Melting of the Ice Caps - on and on and on and on. Wrong about absolutely everything. They bat 1000 for being wrong. I'm sure this is it though! Run and hide! The death of all humanity is right around the corner! After all, they're so credible! Instead of environmentalists, I have another name for them: boors.
2
I suppose the saying that ignorance is bliss must be comforting to you. I keep seeing this LIE about the alleged prediction of a new ice age that is endlessly rolled out to "prove" that scientists who are concerned about human-induced climate change are wrong. It never happened. There was no such overall consensus that we were about to enter a new ice age. Maybe a magazine had a cover with this story. That is not sufficient evidence for this claim. I do understand that in the face of uncomfortable facts one might prefer to not believe them. Live your life as you see fit. But, your belief system is flawed, based on the comment posted here, and there is an actual objective reality!
3
Wow, Dave.
In the 1970s the majority of climate scientists predicted warming from greenhouse gases - despite a few mainstream media reports hyping of cooling from smog we've since reined in. Now the 2010s are well on their way to becoming the fourth consecutive "warmest decade in temperature records" back to 1850.
The ice caps are melting - minor increase in Eastern Antarctica don't balance losses in Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. Greenland also is net losing ice mass.
Ozone hole is finally starting to show signs of shrinking, decades after nations successfully worked together to create and act on the Montreal Protocols - I hope the Paris Agreement leads to similar success with greenhouse emissions. The ozone hole was an issue that would have increased plant and animal mutations from increased ultraviolet light reaching the surface - not a thing to want.
Evaporation of the oceans? No, we're getting too much ocean instead. Though warming does increase evaporation, leading to intensifying precipitation. That's been observed, especially in places like the US northeast.
So thanks for helping point out the successes from science. It proves (especially with the work to limit acid rain and CFCs) that we can succeed if we look at the evidence and act on it in time.
In the 1970s the majority of climate scientists predicted warming from greenhouse gases - despite a few mainstream media reports hyping of cooling from smog we've since reined in. Now the 2010s are well on their way to becoming the fourth consecutive "warmest decade in temperature records" back to 1850.
The ice caps are melting - minor increase in Eastern Antarctica don't balance losses in Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. Greenland also is net losing ice mass.
Ozone hole is finally starting to show signs of shrinking, decades after nations successfully worked together to create and act on the Montreal Protocols - I hope the Paris Agreement leads to similar success with greenhouse emissions. The ozone hole was an issue that would have increased plant and animal mutations from increased ultraviolet light reaching the surface - not a thing to want.
Evaporation of the oceans? No, we're getting too much ocean instead. Though warming does increase evaporation, leading to intensifying precipitation. That's been observed, especially in places like the US northeast.
So thanks for helping point out the successes from science. It proves (especially with the work to limit acid rain and CFCs) that we can succeed if we look at the evidence and act on it in time.
1
Those pesky thermometers must be liberals.
I'm just glad that for once the morons who doubt the science are right in the cross hairs for the inevitable au
I'm just glad that for once the morons who doubt the science are right in the cross hairs for the inevitable au
3
It is unfathomable to me that we are not discussing the real issue at play here: human population. A quick scroll through the comments - Trump, China, take shorter showers, science is still unsettled, etc. Not one mention of the fact that our global population is projected to be 10 billion by 2050. As citizens of this earth, we need to recognize that there can only be so many of us on this planet. It's an uncomfortable topic and surely to be met with howls of opposition from all sides, but it is the reality we must face.
All of the recycling, shorter showers, and vegetarian diets help reduce our individual footprints and are admirable goals. However, achieving these goals on an individual level is simply not enough if our population keeps skyrocketing. Imagine 3 billion more humans on this planet (440 million in the US alone by 2050!) fighting for housing, jobs, healthcare, education, and food and water to sustain themselves. The future does not look pretty in my mind.
All of the recycling, shorter showers, and vegetarian diets help reduce our individual footprints and are admirable goals. However, achieving these goals on an individual level is simply not enough if our population keeps skyrocketing. Imagine 3 billion more humans on this planet (440 million in the US alone by 2050!) fighting for housing, jobs, healthcare, education, and food and water to sustain themselves. The future does not look pretty in my mind.
3
Saw a documentation that projected population to run up to 11 billion and then settle or even reduce. The problem area is Africa.
Did you know that the average nr of children of a family in Bangladesh is 2? That is encouraging.
As long a the churches despise contraception Africa will still grow.
Oh well, religion.
Did you know that the average nr of children of a family in Bangladesh is 2? That is encouraging.
As long a the churches despise contraception Africa will still grow.
Oh well, religion.
3
Prediction: The New York Times' headline on January 18, 2021 will read "Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Seventh Straight Year, Republicans Still Deny Climate Change".
It's very unlikely we'll have another hottest year in a row next year, but I'll offer a change to your headline that will be very likely (at least the first half)
""Earth Experiences Fourth Consecutive Warmest Decade in the Temperature Record, Republicans Still Deny Climate Change"
I really hope that Republicans un-fossilize their brains enough to make the second half unlikely.
""Earth Experiences Fourth Consecutive Warmest Decade in the Temperature Record, Republicans Still Deny Climate Change"
I really hope that Republicans un-fossilize their brains enough to make the second half unlikely.
Now the GOP is so eager to grab the power that even an imminent catastrophe menacing the entire humanity would be insignificant. Unless some scientist would prove to Donald Trump that his Mar-a-Lago golf course would be submerged by the rising ocean...
Oh, thank goodness our new leader denigrates all this. Whew! At least now we don't have to worry.
1
This is excellent Journalism, and worthy of the front page. Since the 1960's. we have known that burning fossil fuels was killing the Planet, and thus, ourselves. Study, after Scientific study were argued over between Big Oil's scientists, and the rest of the World. And now, we are at, or past, the tipping point.
Interestingly, the NY Times had a piece just yesterday about China's building Wind Power generation for electricity - enough to power entire cities. The only problem is that other fuel sources (coal) were still too cheap for wind to compete. But, the technology for this non-polluting, and renewable energy source is definitely here, and ready to step forward.
Should we choose Oil? No. Coal? No. Nuclear?? No. Can you say "Fukushima"? Can you safeguard toxic plutonium for 250 to 500 THOUSAND years ?? No, you can't. It gets into the ground water. It gets into terrorist's hands. Nuclear is a bigger poison than Coal or Oil.
Peace on Earth might be more easily achieved if everyone had abundant electricity to use, and that electricity came from non-polluting, renewable sources. We have known this for decades. We know it now. What is keeping this transformation from taking place ?
Greed.
Interestingly, the NY Times had a piece just yesterday about China's building Wind Power generation for electricity - enough to power entire cities. The only problem is that other fuel sources (coal) were still too cheap for wind to compete. But, the technology for this non-polluting, and renewable energy source is definitely here, and ready to step forward.
Should we choose Oil? No. Coal? No. Nuclear?? No. Can you say "Fukushima"? Can you safeguard toxic plutonium for 250 to 500 THOUSAND years ?? No, you can't. It gets into the ground water. It gets into terrorist's hands. Nuclear is a bigger poison than Coal or Oil.
Peace on Earth might be more easily achieved if everyone had abundant electricity to use, and that electricity came from non-polluting, renewable sources. We have known this for decades. We know it now. What is keeping this transformation from taking place ?
Greed.
2
I'm as worried as anyone, but it would be helpful to get the perspective of people who argue we're experiencing "global lukewarming." They acknowledge climate change is human-caused and they aren't the typical climate change deniers, but rather skeptics about the accuracy of the model that predicts the rate of warming. See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticis....
Assuming they're wrong, what precisely are we to do about this situation, and when? I try to keep my carbon footprint low by doing as much as possible by bicycle, not car. But just one flight to Europe every year or two, the eating of red meat, and many hours spent on this computer mean I fall short of the ideal. The Internet's carbon footprint is said to be "as much as all the coal, oil and gas burned in Turkey or Poland, or more than half of the fossil fuels burned in the UK." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-int...
Assuming they're wrong, what precisely are we to do about this situation, and when? I try to keep my carbon footprint low by doing as much as possible by bicycle, not car. But just one flight to Europe every year or two, the eating of red meat, and many hours spent on this computer mean I fall short of the ideal. The Internet's carbon footprint is said to be "as much as all the coal, oil and gas burned in Turkey or Poland, or more than half of the fossil fuels burned in the UK." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-int...
1
The question to ask about the "lukewarmers" is this: How can they be so sure that the uncertainty in the models will always break our way, leading to less impact rather than more?
Nic Lewis, in your first article, is doing research, but is not open to accepting the reality that his research - at best - illustrates the low end of a range of possible climate responses. He can be no more certain of his 1.5°C per doubling than the researchers who calculate 4.5°C or higher.
There are decades of research and the fact is we have to take into account the possibility of reality quite possibly coming out on the hot end just as it might come out on the cooler end.
I look at it this way - taking the appropriate steps to energy efficiency and away from fossil fuels will, even if Lewis is right, give the world cleaner air, cleaner water, less fuel spills on land, eliminate petro-politics and the wars that's caused - and will also minimize acidification.
Lukewarmers tend to think that's not a problem, either. My fear is accepting peoples views when they only choose the mildest of outcomes is an unrealistically Pollyanna approach, and lulls us into a situation where if they are wrong, we have a much worse outcome to deal with and less time to do so.
Nic Lewis, in your first article, is doing research, but is not open to accepting the reality that his research - at best - illustrates the low end of a range of possible climate responses. He can be no more certain of his 1.5°C per doubling than the researchers who calculate 4.5°C or higher.
There are decades of research and the fact is we have to take into account the possibility of reality quite possibly coming out on the hot end just as it might come out on the cooler end.
I look at it this way - taking the appropriate steps to energy efficiency and away from fossil fuels will, even if Lewis is right, give the world cleaner air, cleaner water, less fuel spills on land, eliminate petro-politics and the wars that's caused - and will also minimize acidification.
Lukewarmers tend to think that's not a problem, either. My fear is accepting peoples views when they only choose the mildest of outcomes is an unrealistically Pollyanna approach, and lulls us into a situation where if they are wrong, we have a much worse outcome to deal with and less time to do so.
Hi, B Fagan — I agree with you that since we can't know that global warming will continue to be at the low end of the forecast range, we have to increase energy efficiency and cleanliness. Moreover, even if it is at the low end of the range, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
"The Economist" magazine ran an optimistic cover story on the economics of this transition a few weeks ago. In essence, it concluded that even if the Trump administration ignores climate change worries, the economics are shifting so quickly toward clean energy that its obduracy will little matter.
I hope the magazine is right. It is one of the most level-headed, dispassionate, and thoughtful news sources in the English-speaking world. It is not given to Pollyannaishness, if that's a word.
We don't want to give into scare-mongering from environmental pressure groups that raise lots of money by scaring people gratuitously, and that also press for government regulations whose costs can vastly exceed their environmental benefits. In terms of resolving grave environmental problems, I look to economists, engineers, and scientists for solutions—not the solicitors who pitch for funds outside seemingly every Whole Foods store in this state, and not their masters either.
"The Economist" magazine ran an optimistic cover story on the economics of this transition a few weeks ago. In essence, it concluded that even if the Trump administration ignores climate change worries, the economics are shifting so quickly toward clean energy that its obduracy will little matter.
I hope the magazine is right. It is one of the most level-headed, dispassionate, and thoughtful news sources in the English-speaking world. It is not given to Pollyannaishness, if that's a word.
We don't want to give into scare-mongering from environmental pressure groups that raise lots of money by scaring people gratuitously, and that also press for government regulations whose costs can vastly exceed their environmental benefits. In terms of resolving grave environmental problems, I look to economists, engineers, and scientists for solutions—not the solicitors who pitch for funds outside seemingly every Whole Foods store in this state, and not their masters either.
1
Temperature records are so incomplete, corrupt and disjointed that it is simply impossible to credibly allege any global temperature records. Someone is hyping something.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
2
Have you ever wondered why your views are not those of the vast majority of climate scientists? Your "numbers" are so clear. They must be a winning argument.
Why the disconnect?
Why the disconnect?
1
Everyone was asking the wrong questions. The right questions are:
1) Where does limestone come from?
2) Why can abundant sea creatures with lifespans of weeks readily create calcite from CO2 dissolved in seawater? (Dissolved CO2 to
carbonate sediment in weeks!) Why is the population of those creatures growing dramatically?
3) What are the reaction rates and end products of a weak acid (CO2) dissolved in a basic solution (seawater)?
4) What is the most important carbon reservoir anyway? (No, not plant material!)
5) How did earth's atmosphere evolve from its original composition of methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide to its present one of nitrogen, oxygen and argon? (Carbon dioxide missed the cut.)
6) What is the likely consequence of the fact that the reaction CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 is exothermic?
7) Most of the fossil fuels that ever existed burned up naturally, and continue to do so. How come we're not toast?
Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere drives calcification rates. More CO2, faster calcification, and sequestration in sediments. It is shown that CO2 lags temperature. Ambient CO2 is the DEPENDENT variable. Temperature changes, from other causes, is the INDEPENDENT variable that drives natural CO2 emissions. Dead flora rots faster in warm temperatures.
1) Where does limestone come from?
2) Why can abundant sea creatures with lifespans of weeks readily create calcite from CO2 dissolved in seawater? (Dissolved CO2 to
carbonate sediment in weeks!) Why is the population of those creatures growing dramatically?
3) What are the reaction rates and end products of a weak acid (CO2) dissolved in a basic solution (seawater)?
4) What is the most important carbon reservoir anyway? (No, not plant material!)
5) How did earth's atmosphere evolve from its original composition of methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide to its present one of nitrogen, oxygen and argon? (Carbon dioxide missed the cut.)
6) What is the likely consequence of the fact that the reaction CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 is exothermic?
7) Most of the fossil fuels that ever existed burned up naturally, and continue to do so. How come we're not toast?
Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere drives calcification rates. More CO2, faster calcification, and sequestration in sediments. It is shown that CO2 lags temperature. Ambient CO2 is the DEPENDENT variable. Temperature changes, from other causes, is the INDEPENDENT variable that drives natural CO2 emissions. Dead flora rots faster in warm temperatures.
1
Get back in the coal mine, Miner. The issue is that the extensive fossil carbon we're putting into the atmosphere by digging it up and burning it is causing changes that affect human civilization.
So questions that involve 10s of thousands of years or longer don't change the issue.
CO2 does not "always" lag temperature - you are generalizing from a special case of recent ice ages only.
Ambient CO2 is the dependent variable only if additional CO2 isn't added to the climate system. We're adding fossil carbon.
Temperature changes from a number of causes - the primary long-term ones are changes in solar output, variations in Earth's orbit and rotation, and concentrations of greenhouse gas. All three are causes, and greenhouse gas is also a feedback.
So questions that involve 10s of thousands of years or longer don't change the issue.
CO2 does not "always" lag temperature - you are generalizing from a special case of recent ice ages only.
Ambient CO2 is the dependent variable only if additional CO2 isn't added to the climate system. We're adding fossil carbon.
Temperature changes from a number of causes - the primary long-term ones are changes in solar output, variations in Earth's orbit and rotation, and concentrations of greenhouse gas. All three are causes, and greenhouse gas is also a feedback.
No kidding. The Times is better than most, but maybe you have ideas for releasing our major media companies- especially television news- from the grip of the oil companies.
The United States is a petro state, no better than Venezuela or (gulp) Russia.
The United States is a petro state, no better than Venezuela or (gulp) Russia.
1
A wholly owned subsidiary of marketing and infotainment, per Orwell's 1984!
1
"It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row."
Was there a pre-modern era of global warming data? Modern here is otiose and lends an air of hysteria to the article.
Was there a pre-modern era of global warming data? Modern here is otiose and lends an air of hysteria to the article.
If you want a car to move slower, take off a foot from a gas pedal!
If you want to slow down the global warming, stop blaming the GOP and Trump!
It’s so easy to be liberal in America! You constantly crisscross between New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco seated in the first class flights, but always blame the conservatives for the rising temperatures!
The rising temperatures are the direct consequence of the increased consumption. From the global warming standpoint, it’s irrelevant whether you are a conservative or a liberal family as long as you have four cars on your driveway!
See, if Donald Trump actually imposed the import fees on the foreign goods to eliminate our chronic trade deficits and protect the American jobs that would be good for the environment. Of course, the domestically produced goods will be more expensive so we are going to buy less things. Fewer produced things, less manufacturing, less the global warming… As you know, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to produce the goods in America and in China…
If we imposed the mandatory requirement for the balanced federal budgets, that would do more for reversal of the global warming than the entire combined cacophony of all the liberal media outlets in the USA.
Those fighting for the balanced foreign trade and the balanced budget might be the socially conservative but their policies are environmentally friendly!
Never pay attention to what the people say but only to what they actually do!
If you want to slow down the global warming, stop blaming the GOP and Trump!
It’s so easy to be liberal in America! You constantly crisscross between New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco seated in the first class flights, but always blame the conservatives for the rising temperatures!
The rising temperatures are the direct consequence of the increased consumption. From the global warming standpoint, it’s irrelevant whether you are a conservative or a liberal family as long as you have four cars on your driveway!
See, if Donald Trump actually imposed the import fees on the foreign goods to eliminate our chronic trade deficits and protect the American jobs that would be good for the environment. Of course, the domestically produced goods will be more expensive so we are going to buy less things. Fewer produced things, less manufacturing, less the global warming… As you know, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to produce the goods in America and in China…
If we imposed the mandatory requirement for the balanced federal budgets, that would do more for reversal of the global warming than the entire combined cacophony of all the liberal media outlets in the USA.
Those fighting for the balanced foreign trade and the balanced budget might be the socially conservative but their policies are environmentally friendly!
Never pay attention to what the people say but only to what they actually do!
1
The time for equating opinions with facts on climate change is long past. Let's hope that the majority of people realize that this is detrimental to all of us and that everyone should commit to doing what they can to protect our planet.
1
Repubs always talk about American leadership on a global stage and that it supposedly waned during Obama's tenure... well, here is a chance for them to actually demonstrate some leadership... although I'm not holding my breathe.
1
Reality check united states is directly responsible for globel warming. All about money an the mis use of power. USA could very well become independant an make everything concumes an waste . But insted those in high office set on ruling the world threw use of enslaving other countrys who arnt free to manufactor our products for us .Insted of choosing to make better world we all buyed into fact where getting something for nothing or this scase cheaper. When in fact we ruining childrens future
Impeccable timing. Trump's nominee for HHS, Tom Price, just confirmed his disdain for climate science. while claiming he would rely on scientific evidence to craft a replacement for the ACA. He would have us cough our way to Trump care while drinking fracked water.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
3
The Trumpean Solution to Climate Change
1) ignore it.
2) ramp up the fossil fuel industry. bring back coal.
3) stop all aid to developing countries - especially if it has to do with delivering food/water to drought areas.
4. Media warned not to mention droughts, or crop failures.
5. Consider forest fires a natural weeding out of dead trees.
6. Keep watering golf courses despite drought condition. Important people golf there.
7. Consider floods an asset. More coastlines!
8. Ban images of animals and people who have died because of starvation, dehydration.
9. Learn how to build an ark.
1) ignore it.
2) ramp up the fossil fuel industry. bring back coal.
3) stop all aid to developing countries - especially if it has to do with delivering food/water to drought areas.
4. Media warned not to mention droughts, or crop failures.
5. Consider forest fires a natural weeding out of dead trees.
6. Keep watering golf courses despite drought condition. Important people golf there.
7. Consider floods an asset. More coastlines!
8. Ban images of animals and people who have died because of starvation, dehydration.
9. Learn how to build an ark.
5
Now this is a good example of the kind of threat that just pales in comparison to the horrors that would have ensued by electing for President an experienced public servant who dared use a private email server. Whew! Dodged that bullet.
2
The only thing increasing faster than world temperatures is the idiocy of American voters.
4
Climate change is a moral issue. The U.S. and China are the primary energy users, but its the people in the developing world who lack the resources to relocate or otherwise adjust who suffer the most from rising oceans, drought and natural disasters like hurricanes. In the U.S., those of us in the middle class like to point fingers at the 1% for the unfairness of income inequality. But on a global scale, everyone in the U.S. is like the 1% -- we are not paying our fair share for the benefits we receive from conventional energy sources or for the tremendous havoc this usage, through its effects to the climate, is having on some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.
4
While I agree that we are going through a climate change, and a lot of it has to do with the actions of human beings, why does the New York Times, inject personal opinions in another news article? If you don't see it, look closely?!
Thank-you pResident OBomba for continuing on with the multi-trillion dollar genocidal, ecocidal wars of terror to prop up the global warming fossil fuel monopoly, and continuing on with US fracking, off shore drilling and pipeline laying. The fossil fuel monopoly and defense industry appreciate all that you have done for them.
1
This is a massively complicated issue that has been unfortunately reduced to headlines and buzz words. How can something so deeply complex have so many experts? X% say's it's a 'hoax,' Y% says it's 'the most serious problem we face today.' Such extreme positions for something so poorly understood...
We do not have enough data to make any accurate predictions. Even if we did, there would not be enough supercomputing resources on the planet to determine what our grandkids' world will look like... As far as we know, these data points are just white noise on a much larger timescale...
This is not good science and everyone knows it... but there is a PILE of money available for anyone that pens 'global warming' or 'climate change' on a research proposal. I watch my own professor massively exaggerate research claims, just to get a chunk of the cash. This is pervasive and does absolutely nothing constructive -- but it's gold for publication hungry researchers.
This well has been poisoned... If we wish to make any progress over the next 4 years,
climate scientists need to change the conversation. They need to better explain the issues with less divisive language. More importantly, however, focus on the many, many ancillary benefits of simply reducing pollution and increasing efficiency. It's very difficult to argue with that.
We do not have enough data to make any accurate predictions. Even if we did, there would not be enough supercomputing resources on the planet to determine what our grandkids' world will look like... As far as we know, these data points are just white noise on a much larger timescale...
This is not good science and everyone knows it... but there is a PILE of money available for anyone that pens 'global warming' or 'climate change' on a research proposal. I watch my own professor massively exaggerate research claims, just to get a chunk of the cash. This is pervasive and does absolutely nothing constructive -- but it's gold for publication hungry researchers.
This well has been poisoned... If we wish to make any progress over the next 4 years,
climate scientists need to change the conversation. They need to better explain the issues with less divisive language. More importantly, however, focus on the many, many ancillary benefits of simply reducing pollution and increasing efficiency. It's very difficult to argue with that.
sp - if you want the scientific language without "divisive language" then start with the IPCC report summaries at ipcc.ch
Or look at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's site http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
As for divisive, please note that reporting the facts and potential outcomes shouldn't be seen as divisive, even if the likely outcomes are uncomfortable.
Or look at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's site http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
As for divisive, please note that reporting the facts and potential outcomes shouldn't be seen as divisive, even if the likely outcomes are uncomfortable.
Al Gore was skewered 12-years ago for bringing this critical issue to the long overdue surface. He gave a TED talk in 2006 outlining clearly how the process can be slowed. Others preceded and followed, and the Vatican finally rose to the issues as well. All too little and too late.
We continue to ruin this planet for ourselves, future generations, and for all other species, as selfish consumerism, consumption, and wanton disregard of limited and precious resources are tragically trashed.
Biblical "stewards" of the earth, indeed...
We continue to ruin this planet for ourselves, future generations, and for all other species, as selfish consumerism, consumption, and wanton disregard of limited and precious resources are tragically trashed.
Biblical "stewards" of the earth, indeed...
4
I don't need scientists or politicians to tell me that 7 billion people, billions of farmed cows, pigs and chickens, 750 million cars and hundreds of thousands of carbon spewing factories are going to have a negative affect on our relatively small, enclosed atmosphere.
2
What will Trump have to say? Which climate change-denying Republican will be first to admit he/she was wrong? I fear that human civilization has peaked.
2
Do folks know about the holes we blew in the West with nukes trying to find a domestic use for the split atom?
An old Energy Department retiree told me that Rulison has been spewing methane like a blow hole since the late 1960s, and we just got it under control by 2005, so some of this warming is due to idiocy, not just the use of fossil fuels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAvX1Qjriw
I'd never have head of it, but I shared with the retiree I blew through a box of tissue every time I drove through the area. I assumed it was cedar wood fires. He advised me I got a good nose for benzene, another gas escaping with all that methane.
Kinda makes you wonder if the drought we're experiencing wasn't due to methane blanketing of the West.
An old Energy Department retiree told me that Rulison has been spewing methane like a blow hole since the late 1960s, and we just got it under control by 2005, so some of this warming is due to idiocy, not just the use of fossil fuels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAvX1Qjriw
I'd never have head of it, but I shared with the retiree I blew through a box of tissue every time I drove through the area. I assumed it was cedar wood fires. He advised me I got a good nose for benzene, another gas escaping with all that methane.
Kinda makes you wonder if the drought we're experiencing wasn't due to methane blanketing of the West.
1
Unlike water vapor and CO2, methane stays in the atmosphere for 20 years. Plus we know that right now CO2 is driving the climate change. There is not enough methane coming from that hole to affect the world. It is small in comparison with the amount of methane released by cattle and hogs in this country.
Once the arctic melts though, the amount of methane released will be much greater than any other source.
By the way, another major methane release is fracking and drilling, we don't capture the methane that escapes while drilling.
Once the arctic melts though, the amount of methane released will be much greater than any other source.
By the way, another major methane release is fracking and drilling, we don't capture the methane that escapes while drilling.
2
How can one dispute science? There use to be a time when we, with full trust, let the experts who have had years of schooling and experience inform us on matters related to scientific facts from medicine to nuclear energy to global warming. It is only the arrogant and egoists among us, who have a more self-serving agenda, who dismiss climate change. And, unfortunately, it is those thousands of us Americans who choose to follow this threatening trend because their "leaders" tell us so. Tweets, Fox News, or unsubstantiated press releases from questionable sources are now the new paradigm. Do these individuals not see what is happening world-wide, from our drought-stricken states here in the US to the Mid East and parts of Africa? Or are these images fabricated or "doctored" by modern day technology?
2
If people believe that the universe was created in seven days, that the earth is only 5000 years old, how are they going to believe any real scientific facts?
7
Not to worry .... it is just Natural Selection. The human race will become extinct. It is Nature's way of cleaning stuff up. Those species that should survive do. Clearly after the results of our last election we are not in the species surviving category. It is just Nature .... we were just a temporary infection of the planet that didn't work out ....one of many, many.
2
The sun is burning hotter than ever. Might want to look into that.
Dear Anonie,
Thanks, I did, and it's false. The sun's temperature has been slightly dropping since the 80's.
Thanks, I did, and it's false. The sun's temperature has been slightly dropping since the 80's.
3
Apparently the sun has been slightly cooling in the last 40 years.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
3
No it isn't. We are in a cool period for the sun. The scientists have already looked at all possible explanations and examined real evidence. Which is why when the CO2 in the atmosphere has the signature of fossil fuels on it, we know where it came from.
All carbon has isotopes and thus we can tell exactly where the carbon came from. Coal, oil, natural gas have the isotope of when they were created. Thus when released by burning we can know what source it came from.
All carbon has isotopes and thus we can tell exactly where the carbon came from. Coal, oil, natural gas have the isotope of when they were created. Thus when released by burning we can know what source it came from.
3
Challenging climate change deniers: If I'm wrong... well, we'll have just spent a lot of money for less benefit. If you're wrong.... your descendants will come running to the scientists who'd been warning about this for years and all they will be able to say is, "Alas." But you'll be long dead by then and the problem will be for your children’s children’s children.
No doubt the incoming scientific ignoramus and moronic troglodyte in chief will say the numbers are false and rigged.
Sad!
Sad!
5
It's honestly not that hard to figure out. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels started going up right as we figured out we could burn coal to power factories, ships, and trains. They shot up further still when we discovered oil, figured out how to cheaply refine it, and cars became paramount.
Interestingly enough, the concentration of Deuterium Ions in Antarctic Ice Cores has been going up in a near parallel manner to CO2 levels. Deuterium is used for a proxy for global temperatures.
Our secretary of energy, environment, and state would like you to believe that this is just a coincidence. It's no coincidence that those who have the most to gain financially from fossil fuel extraction ignore basic science.
My generation was sold out by robber-barons, science deniers, and right wing fundamentalists who believe that our planet is 6000 years old and all science is a farce. We won't forget who did this to us. George Bush, Scott Pruitt and the likes of them will live on in their grandchildren's history books as the greedy and selfish individuals they have shown themselves to be.
--
Aaron, College Student.
Interestingly enough, the concentration of Deuterium Ions in Antarctic Ice Cores has been going up in a near parallel manner to CO2 levels. Deuterium is used for a proxy for global temperatures.
Our secretary of energy, environment, and state would like you to believe that this is just a coincidence. It's no coincidence that those who have the most to gain financially from fossil fuel extraction ignore basic science.
My generation was sold out by robber-barons, science deniers, and right wing fundamentalists who believe that our planet is 6000 years old and all science is a farce. We won't forget who did this to us. George Bush, Scott Pruitt and the likes of them will live on in their grandchildren's history books as the greedy and selfish individuals they have shown themselves to be.
--
Aaron, College Student.
8
I can see by the comments here and in many other places, in reference to temperature readings, that there is a real lack of understanding of one of the most profound but little known, (among non-scientists), aspects of warming in the Arctic.
Technically it is known as heat of fusion, which is that amount of heat which must be liberated from water to make it freeze, or conversely, that amount of heat which must be absorbed to make ice thaw. This is the energy required to effect a phase change, e.g. from ice to water.
A simple experiment demonstrates this. Two identical pots are placed on a stove. One contains water at 32 f, the other solid ice also at 32 f. Even though heat is pouring into both vessels at the same rate, the one with water will be 170f when the other is just tuning into liquid water...still at 32f.
What is the point? the point is that ice in the arctic, whether it's sea ice or permafrost, can and must absorb a huge amount of heat..with NO sensible rise in temperature, before it melts. Therefore temperature readings alone do not tell us what is going on inside the ice...an enormous amount of heat is being stored in this ice and there is no way to detect it with thermometers, it only becomes evident as it melts. This also explains why the change is irreversible.....it would take a series of incredibly cold winters to make it re-freeze, since that same amount of heat must be released to cause a phase change.
Technically it is known as heat of fusion, which is that amount of heat which must be liberated from water to make it freeze, or conversely, that amount of heat which must be absorbed to make ice thaw. This is the energy required to effect a phase change, e.g. from ice to water.
A simple experiment demonstrates this. Two identical pots are placed on a stove. One contains water at 32 f, the other solid ice also at 32 f. Even though heat is pouring into both vessels at the same rate, the one with water will be 170f when the other is just tuning into liquid water...still at 32f.
What is the point? the point is that ice in the arctic, whether it's sea ice or permafrost, can and must absorb a huge amount of heat..with NO sensible rise in temperature, before it melts. Therefore temperature readings alone do not tell us what is going on inside the ice...an enormous amount of heat is being stored in this ice and there is no way to detect it with thermometers, it only becomes evident as it melts. This also explains why the change is irreversible.....it would take a series of incredibly cold winters to make it re-freeze, since that same amount of heat must be released to cause a phase change.
1
Like with any organism that is infected with a bacteria or virus, defence mechanisms kick in to fight it. Global warming is just one way the earth is fighting for it's life against the infection we lovingly call humanity. For centuries we were like the millions of bacteria that inhabit our bodies, we caused no harm. But we have become so numerous we are now an infection. The earth is sick and global warming is a fever. But there are other defence mechanisms at play as well, like drought, fire, lack of food and water, and social unrest like war and mass migration, and of course antibodies (called pandemics) all of which will eventually kill the infection so the earth can go on living as before.
2
Money talks. Big oil is lining the pockets of policy makers to put off the needed transition to green energy. Therefore we must create incentives that will motivate Exxon, Chevron, BP etc. to take the lead in developing green energy fuel sources. If their bottom line is not threatened, they will adapt in months rather than years.
3
Here's six things that skeer me more'n global warmin' does:
1. coronal mass ejections, e.g. the Carrington event
2. gamma ray bursts
3. asteroid strike
4. volcanoes
5. earthquakes
6. neglected infrastructure, Amtrak train derails into the orphanage.
7. my cousin's job at the nuclear power plant.
Global warmin' likely we can fix.
But watch we don't take our fix too far,
or in eighty years there's hand wringin'
over the inadvertent ice age we
cooled our collective heels into.
1. coronal mass ejections, e.g. the Carrington event
2. gamma ray bursts
3. asteroid strike
4. volcanoes
5. earthquakes
6. neglected infrastructure, Amtrak train derails into the orphanage.
7. my cousin's job at the nuclear power plant.
Global warmin' likely we can fix.
But watch we don't take our fix too far,
or in eighty years there's hand wringin'
over the inadvertent ice age we
cooled our collective heels into.
1
I don't think climate change deniers are really trying to wish away the problem. I think climate change deniers are trying to capitalize on the problem. Property above the 45th parallel is fast becoming highly desirable real estate. Intervention and mitigation doesn't seem a worthwhile investment when you can use existing technology to drill and profit in new places. Good for you if you hold stock in the industry. The whole existential threat to humanity part doesn't seem to register.
You wonder if dinosaurs debated the end of their species before or after the asteroid hit. You wonder what the hedge would be. Meanwhile, we humans appear to be descending into a new phase of elite tribalism rather than taxonomic unity. The wealthy, the smart, and the geographically lucky will hold out longest but we'll all be gone eventually. The outcome is predictable among societies experiencing environmental collapse. Forgive me if I'm not exactly reassured though.
You wonder if dinosaurs debated the end of their species before or after the asteroid hit. You wonder what the hedge would be. Meanwhile, we humans appear to be descending into a new phase of elite tribalism rather than taxonomic unity. The wealthy, the smart, and the geographically lucky will hold out longest but we'll all be gone eventually. The outcome is predictable among societies experiencing environmental collapse. Forgive me if I'm not exactly reassured though.
2
The real hoax is Trump's Presidency, which looks less like an authentic Presidency every day and he isn't even in office yet. Imagine what's to come.
Only a fool would dispute incontrovertible scientific evidence that the planet is taking hits it can't sustain in the long run.
You're the problem Donald, not the Chinese.
Only a fool would dispute incontrovertible scientific evidence that the planet is taking hits it can't sustain in the long run.
You're the problem Donald, not the Chinese.
2
Mr Trump tweets that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to damage our manufacturing capacity. Actually, China is now the biggest contributor to global warming with it's coal fired electrical grid. SAD
Cason companies will spring up around Manhattan. There's a growth market.
1
I guess I picked a good time to move to Canada then. Within 5 years Toronto will have NJ- like weather and within 20 Lakeside Park in Port Dalhousie will be like Ft Lauderdale. I just hope Canada builds a wall and denies climate refugees entry .
2
Do those scientists allow denialists to check their data and methods?
No.
1
Larz is wrong, they do. The studies are published publicly, with all the data and methods. Try reading it, maybe you'll realize it's idiotic to deny climate change.
4
@Dan,
No, people and other scientists cannot get the requested info:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to...
No, people and other scientists cannot get the requested info:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to...
With Trump and Republican's in power, we stand little chance of improving (perhaps even keeping) environmental policies... UNLESS Democrats are bold and vocal and stand up unified against the Republican's.
2
The only way the earth is going to save itself from destruction is by killing off billions of people, hopefully the climate change deniers first. Tragically most of those of who will die will be totally innocent. Our fate is in the hands of billionaire morons.
5
"Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year" - The third time is NOT a charm in this case.
2
I am reminded of Isaac Cordal's sculpture "Politicians Debating Global Warming" which was displayed in Berlin. To the uninitiated, this work depicts the heads of politicians, some partially submerged others, totally under the water, continuing the inane and, pointless argument denying climate change.
Trumpf's denial is perplexing to be sure but, more disturbing is that the evidence is there. Florida and Louisiana lose more and more ground to the sea and, the intensity of storms is increasing. And, like Nero, Trumpf continues to fiddle away.
Trumpf's denial is perplexing to be sure but, more disturbing is that the evidence is there. Florida and Louisiana lose more and more ground to the sea and, the intensity of storms is increasing. And, like Nero, Trumpf continues to fiddle away.
2
I was born in 1942. I can still remember my parent's Victory Garden with corn and vegetables growing. They raised chickens for our family and for our relatives. There were Ration Books for groceries and other necessities.
It was a time when the citizens in the United States (most of us) were united against an obvious enemy when losing the war meant catastrophic consequences for our country. Some people took advantage of the wartime situation (an uncle of my wife, for example) to make profits via the black market.
Climate change is a slow motion threat that will have catastrophic consequences for our country and the entire planet. There are no bombs being dropped but the consequences can be seen even today. But, like my wife's uncle who saw a way to profit during World War II, there are those who value short term profit (and generous campaign contributions) over long term consequences.
There will be people perishing (there already are) due to droughts and lack of water resources here and abroad as the result of the warming planet. Will it take droughts and the failure of corn crops in our Midwest and vegetables in California's Imperial Valley to convince the revenue minded skeptics and congressmen that the warming is real?
I won't live long enough to see the full effect but my grandchildren will have to live (I hope) through it. I wonder if the profit minded skeptics feel that they won't live long enough to see the consequences so it really doesn't matter?
It was a time when the citizens in the United States (most of us) were united against an obvious enemy when losing the war meant catastrophic consequences for our country. Some people took advantage of the wartime situation (an uncle of my wife, for example) to make profits via the black market.
Climate change is a slow motion threat that will have catastrophic consequences for our country and the entire planet. There are no bombs being dropped but the consequences can be seen even today. But, like my wife's uncle who saw a way to profit during World War II, there are those who value short term profit (and generous campaign contributions) over long term consequences.
There will be people perishing (there already are) due to droughts and lack of water resources here and abroad as the result of the warming planet. Will it take droughts and the failure of corn crops in our Midwest and vegetables in California's Imperial Valley to convince the revenue minded skeptics and congressmen that the warming is real?
I won't live long enough to see the full effect but my grandchildren will have to live (I hope) through it. I wonder if the profit minded skeptics feel that they won't live long enough to see the consequences so it really doesn't matter?
67
They won't live through it; they will live with it. My heart brakes for my children. Most of us who have spent time reading about Climate change and understand the science realize that if it's not too late already, it will be after Trump.
I'm afraid that is EXACTLY the case...all of the deniers in government are those who stand to profit by continuing the status quo or who would suffer by having to make sacrifices, the most evil and contemptible among them being those with children and grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences. Average Americans who deny/doubt climate change are simply being conned by larger forces or are deluding themselves because they are unwilling to make the sacrifices that would be necessary if you admit that global warming is happening and that we need to do something about it.
1
Think of it this way: the failure of corn crops will result in less high fructose corn syrup and fewer grossly obese people so the death toll will decline.
From defending lead in gasoline to questioning climate change, the GOP has never missed an opportunity to look absolutely dumb in the face of health and science. Should be no surprise, that the party of Lincoln stop caring about our health in the name of making more money for the already wealthy.
Once the Trump Circus finally comes to town, I can't wait to see the faces of the red state old white men when they get bad air, bad water, no jobs, with a McMuffin size tax break.
Once the Trump Circus finally comes to town, I can't wait to see the faces of the red state old white men when they get bad air, bad water, no jobs, with a McMuffin size tax break.
1
Scott Pruitt,
Let's put this in a way you might understand -- Trump's beloved Mira Lago (where he keeps the $10,000 portrait of himself purchased with monies donated to his foundation), may soon be under water. That's not a reference to the terms of the real estate loan, either.
Let's put this in a way you might understand -- Trump's beloved Mira Lago (where he keeps the $10,000 portrait of himself purchased with monies donated to his foundation), may soon be under water. That's not a reference to the terms of the real estate loan, either.
3
The climate doesn't care at all what Trump or Pruitt think. Their stupid ravings are entirely irrelevant to the facts on the ground.
How fitting that this news breaks on the same day that the Times exposes a trustee of the American Museum of Natural History, Rebekah Mercer, as a climate change denialist. Since the other story does not have readers' comments, I will write here what I would have written there: The president of the museum, Ellen Futter, must demand Ms. Mercer's resignation. If she does not, we must demand the resignation of Ms. Futter.
1
Haven't you heard?
Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
The above would be hilarious if it wasn't so damning... I can stomach most of the drivel that is currently overwhelming us, but climate change deniers and their conspiracy theories really undo me and, I suspect, a great many other people in this world.
Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
The above would be hilarious if it wasn't so damning... I can stomach most of the drivel that is currently overwhelming us, but climate change deniers and their conspiracy theories really undo me and, I suspect, a great many other people in this world.
6
Let's see.... Hell is hot.... and we're getting hotter....
Pity our children, and theirs....
... unlike the critters, we foul our nests...
... proving, yet again, that we don't deserve Paradise...
Pity our children, and theirs....
... unlike the critters, we foul our nests...
... proving, yet again, that we don't deserve Paradise...
4
"causing the ocean to rise at what appears to be an accelerating pace"
"appears" because there is no actual proof.
Specifically, how much have sea levels risen in the past 3 years to substantiate your claims Justin and John?
"appears" because there is no actual proof.
Specifically, how much have sea levels risen in the past 3 years to substantiate your claims Justin and John?
1
It’s the education stupid! As long as uneducated fools vote for people who will take our globe to a tipping point and beyond there is no hope to stop the inevitable. The millions of ignoramuses will drag us down with them.
1
Global warming (I dislike the evasive term "climate change") is a threat of the highest order to human beings and life on Earth. It is absolutely incredible that most of the Republican party denies its existence.
2
Donald Trump and his adult children were signers of a full-page ad in the NY Times in 2009, asking the government to take action against climate change.
http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times
Sen. John McCain was trying for most of the decade before 2008 to get a national CO2 emissions law passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts
The Republican governors of Plains States should be fighting FOR wind power, since it puts money in their landowners pockets, doesn't spill or cause earthquakes, and adds revenue to county and state budgets.
But their federal legislators pack fossil-fuel lovers into committees, hindering their revenue growth.
ExxonMobil and many other large US corporations use carbon emissions pricing in their forecasts and want the certainty of it for planning purposes.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/10/exxonmobil-carbon-tax/
And wind and solar energy prices are dropping - power storage prices, too. Texas gets ~10% of their electricity from wind today, and trends show that wind and solar is cost-equivalent with inexpensive natural gas generation in many areas of the country - so even when tax breaks taper off a few years from now, the fossils will be fighting an ever-tougher rearguard action against multiple realities.
http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times
Sen. John McCain was trying for most of the decade before 2008 to get a national CO2 emissions law passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts
The Republican governors of Plains States should be fighting FOR wind power, since it puts money in their landowners pockets, doesn't spill or cause earthquakes, and adds revenue to county and state budgets.
But their federal legislators pack fossil-fuel lovers into committees, hindering their revenue growth.
ExxonMobil and many other large US corporations use carbon emissions pricing in their forecasts and want the certainty of it for planning purposes.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/10/exxonmobil-carbon-tax/
And wind and solar energy prices are dropping - power storage prices, too. Texas gets ~10% of their electricity from wind today, and trends show that wind and solar is cost-equivalent with inexpensive natural gas generation in many areas of the country - so even when tax breaks taper off a few years from now, the fossils will be fighting an ever-tougher rearguard action against multiple realities.
1
Luckily, we are going to build a wall around 'Merica to solve this problem.
2
Shore front owners spent billions of dollars on seawalls to protect
properties, (temporary solution). But since the government does't
acknowledge climate change, no help is coming.
Larger problem is, Alaskan native people are in a fight of their life,
along with the beautiful polar bears because of melting ice.
Why our venerable institutions NASA, EPA can't make the
crooked billionaires and science deniers understand that
they all will suffer the consequences with the rest of us.
properties, (temporary solution). But since the government does't
acknowledge climate change, no help is coming.
Larger problem is, Alaskan native people are in a fight of their life,
along with the beautiful polar bears because of melting ice.
Why our venerable institutions NASA, EPA can't make the
crooked billionaires and science deniers understand that
they all will suffer the consequences with the rest of us.
2
This headline may be read by some as:
Earth = This
Sets = Is
Temperature = Fake
Records = News
Again = Sad!
Sad, indeed.
Earth = This
Sets = Is
Temperature = Fake
Records = News
Again = Sad!
Sad, indeed.
1
No need to worry. The republicans assure us global warming isn't really happening and, if it is, it was probably caused by Obama.
1
No problem.
Trump has a beautiful plan to make climate great again.
He will unveil it any day now, right after the release of his tax returns.
Trump has a beautiful plan to make climate great again.
He will unveil it any day now, right after the release of his tax returns.
3
China puts up one power windmill per hour, Germany has reduced its mCO2 emission since 1990 by 27% and raising renewable electrical energy to 27%. Trump & minions deny GW.
US, the leader in science in politically caused denial. Inhofe throwing snowballs.
US, the leader in science in politically caused denial. Inhofe throwing snowballs.
1
While not a Trump supporter at all, I am happy to see that the first article in the NY Times is not a story slamming Trump. Although it does not take you long to get there. The paper gets on a tear and does not know when readers are tired of the same thing over and over. I wake up every mooring (good thing) and wonder how the paper is going to glorify Obama and vilify Trump and Israel on the front and Opinion page. It's a bit disappointing, and you never disappoint to disappoint.
I find it funny that this story has the "breaking news" alert around it on the front page. This conclusion is no surprise to anyone who has been following the data and ongoing fact based news around climate change. There has been little contest nor little question, year after year for the past three years.
Pro-tip to those just tuning in, pay attention to the Arctic melt in 2017. There seems to be a quasi-periodic pattern emerging of very significant melts happening every 5 years (2007, 2012, now potentially 2017). The ice is simply not freezing like it should this winter. Too much heat is making its way to the Arctic. Despite it being winter, a larger than normal amount of thick multiyear ice is getting exported. And what ice is forming is being preconditioned for what could be another record smashing drop in observed lows in extent, area, and volume—numbers far below anything ever observed by humans.
Pro-tip to those just tuning in, pay attention to the Arctic melt in 2017. There seems to be a quasi-periodic pattern emerging of very significant melts happening every 5 years (2007, 2012, now potentially 2017). The ice is simply not freezing like it should this winter. Too much heat is making its way to the Arctic. Despite it being winter, a larger than normal amount of thick multiyear ice is getting exported. And what ice is forming is being preconditioned for what could be another record smashing drop in observed lows in extent, area, and volume—numbers far below anything ever observed by humans.
1
Isn't it great that we now have a President and Congress that don't believe in science? "It's just a theory" they say. Like electrodynamics (which runs the world's cell phones and computers), quantum mechanics (ditto), general and special relativity (which governs GPS systems), and germ theory (which saves millions of lives a year.) Yes, they're all theories, and stupid Americans don't believe in any of them. Magical unicorns? Now there's a science they can get behind.
4
Trump did not call global warming (per se) "a Chinese plot"...rather that the 'claim' or 'hypothesis' of global warming is a Chinese plot (or some boogeyman du jour). There's a difference.
This is for our time what the threat of nuclear war was to my generation. I grew up at a time when we practiced air raid drills in school and I was issued a dog tag so that I, or my ashes could be identified.
While this current data is not as dramatic as a nuclear annihilation, it should be. What frightens me most is that when human's are faced with the numbers of a human calamity at this scale our brain cannot even comprehend it. So we protect ourselves by simply going blank.
We can re-connect to the problem when it has a human face at the scale of the immediate; something that we are use to touching and feeling, but the idea of millions dying or never ever seeing a live lion or giraffe again is beyond our senses.
I fear that when this happens it will already be too late. Somehow we have to get people to see that the flood in West Virginia and the drought in South Texas are connected and those areas aren't simply going though a cycle. They won't come back. When Miami Beach is under water it is just gone.
Since our politicians only respond to money so when banks won't issue mortgages and insurance companies ant issue polices for the entire coastal region maybe then they will listen.
While this current data is not as dramatic as a nuclear annihilation, it should be. What frightens me most is that when human's are faced with the numbers of a human calamity at this scale our brain cannot even comprehend it. So we protect ourselves by simply going blank.
We can re-connect to the problem when it has a human face at the scale of the immediate; something that we are use to touching and feeling, but the idea of millions dying or never ever seeing a live lion or giraffe again is beyond our senses.
I fear that when this happens it will already be too late. Somehow we have to get people to see that the flood in West Virginia and the drought in South Texas are connected and those areas aren't simply going though a cycle. They won't come back. When Miami Beach is under water it is just gone.
Since our politicians only respond to money so when banks won't issue mortgages and insurance companies ant issue polices for the entire coastal region maybe then they will listen.
1
Notice what is glaringly missing in this article, the actual temperature numbers. Republicans agree that the earth is warming. What they do not believe is AGW. BIG difference!!
Can anyone tell me what was the average two years ago and the average last year? It doesn't appear in the article.
Holy cow. Thank goodness Trump and his trusty team are all over this, being so thoughtful and considerate, being so sophisticated and knowing, full of all the leadership qualities one hopes for at such a dire time, humility and great wisdom and all, oh yes, thank goodness for all of that.
1
You know who doesn't buy a minute of Trump's nonsense? Insurance companies. They've been paying out like a glacier on crack, so try doing business without their backup. You can't, unless you are a Russian leaker.
My FinL's daddy beat Humble in court, so of course they gave him a desk right next to their president's office. He figured out how to insure crack heads, those explosive towers that refine oil under pressure and high temperature. GROUP insurance.
This is why Tillerson doesn't take up Trump's foolish language. His industry NEEDS insurers and doesn't pretend the risk is a Chinese hoax.
My FinL's daddy beat Humble in court, so of course they gave him a desk right next to their president's office. He figured out how to insure crack heads, those explosive towers that refine oil under pressure and high temperature. GROUP insurance.
This is why Tillerson doesn't take up Trump's foolish language. His industry NEEDS insurers and doesn't pretend the risk is a Chinese hoax.
Perhaps present this article to Scott Pruitt, nominee for EPA, as well as the panel directing inquiry.
>It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.
Choosing the modern era is as arbitrary and scientifically invalid as Bigfoot, UFOs, grey UN helicopters, birtherism, the I Ching and Popper's nihilist conjectures and refutations. Pre-industrial temps were higher. There is no 97% anti-objectivity consensus on catastrophic global warming. Leftist respect for science is merely Pragmatic, a method, at this stage in history, for powerlust. Leftists were for freedom of speech and press when they were out of power. Now, in power, they oppose freedom of speech and press. Environmentalism is anti-humanist nihilism, a hysterical hatred, by conceptually disintegrated modernists, of man's independent mind and the resulting politics and economics of capitalist industrialism. Leftists are One with "Chelsea" Manning, choosing imagination and emotion over focusing mind onto concrete reality. See the Center For Industrial Policy for a rational environment.
Choosing the modern era is as arbitrary and scientifically invalid as Bigfoot, UFOs, grey UN helicopters, birtherism, the I Ching and Popper's nihilist conjectures and refutations. Pre-industrial temps were higher. There is no 97% anti-objectivity consensus on catastrophic global warming. Leftist respect for science is merely Pragmatic, a method, at this stage in history, for powerlust. Leftists were for freedom of speech and press when they were out of power. Now, in power, they oppose freedom of speech and press. Environmentalism is anti-humanist nihilism, a hysterical hatred, by conceptually disintegrated modernists, of man's independent mind and the resulting politics and economics of capitalist industrialism. Leftists are One with "Chelsea" Manning, choosing imagination and emotion over focusing mind onto concrete reality. See the Center For Industrial Policy for a rational environment.
"Temperatures are heading toward levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization."
Global warming may be a threat to human "civilization" but it is not a threat to the natural world. It is the natural world. Nature is resolving this issue on her own terms.
Global warming may be a threat to human "civilization" but it is not a threat to the natural world. It is the natural world. Nature is resolving this issue on her own terms.
Not dire enough for all the carbon foot-printers to fly to DC for their swear-at the swear-in.
1
There was always that crazy guy in a robe with unkempt beard and hair and a sign reading The End is Near. This president will hasten that end every chance he gets. I have been going to Florida for 12 years in Winter and every year gets worse as the limestone base gets more saturated.
1
It looks like their ongoing work in shutting down rural temperature monitoring stations and reinstalling them in urban "heat islands" is having the desired effect on the reported temperature curve.
1
Can we just throw away all science and switch to witchcraft or something? I don't want to pay more for gas, but it's too much trouble to make the argument why that's okay. Easier to just ditch science. Thanks!
1
For about ten seconds, I resolved to contact my senators to voice my opposition to Scott Pruitt, whose actions as our attorney general show that he is an irresponsible choice to head the EPA. Then I opened the local paper to read that one of my senators, Jim Inhofe, holds that "Scott Pruitt is the ideal candidate to lead the EPA. Pruitt has seen first-hand the abuses of power at the hands of this agency and has fought back to ensure environmental quality without sacrificing jobs.” And my other senator, James Lankford, is equally benighted: "Pruitt has served Oklahoma as a tireless defender of justice and law, and I am confident that he will serve America well. I look forward to working with him to restore a balanced approach to regulations and governance that fosters economic growth, advances energy independence and ensures stewardship for the environment. Scott Pruitt knows the difference between a state responsibility and a federal responsibility. The American people deserve an EPA that rejects extreme activism and instead returns to its proper interpretation of environmental law." I'm still waiting for replies from them regarding contacts about health care. In Oklahoma, unless you hold the right-wing ideology, you have no voice.
1
The article illustrates that we are talking about the wrong things. Americans are great problem solvers. Instead of discussing the hotly-contested causes, our pragmatism is more useful to work on impacts. It is expected that portions of cities like Norfolk will be under water if there is a significant increase in sea level. The same goes for much of coastal America. Working on that one simple, yet expensive problem should be a priority. So instead of centering the discussion on global warming, focus on specific problems. It's what we do best.
Gee, it's a good thing this global warming is a hoax, otherwise I'd be pretty depressed about this.
Hardly surprising given all the hot air Trump has released into the atmosphere.
2
It still astonishes me that people could be so greedy that they don't consider saving their own planet before themselves. I wonder if they realize that if this planet dies, they die as well.
Also, I can't believe that some people still don't think that global warming is real, even though the evidence is all around us. I really hope that we could all come together as one to combat and reverse climate change.
Also, I can't believe that some people still don't think that global warming is real, even though the evidence is all around us. I really hope that we could all come together as one to combat and reverse climate change.
1
Trump Koan #1: Does this all mean that Trump will rethink getting the coal industry back on its feet?
My born again evangelical friends all are Climate Change deniers.. some even claim to be scientists like the Ben Carson.. I always wondered why.. is it something in their religious teachings ? I wonder.
No clue how they do it, but Al Gore and scientists have been busy messing with the weather to support their agenda.
Why climate change pushers don't allow skeptics to look at their methodology and data?
The easy answer is, they do, it's all published publicly. You just need to read it, and skeptics tend not to read anything they disagree with.
@ Dan,
Example, adjustments:
The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network–Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) Technical Advisory Forum released a report in 2015 confirming that the Surface Air Temperatures were being adjusted, confirming the process is called Homogenization, confirming that other weather monitoring institutions around the world are making these same adjustments and purporting to justify why the adjustments are being made. Observing practices change, thermometers change, stations move from one location to another and new weather stations are installed. They REFUSED to release their complex mathematical formula used to make the adjustments.
...the flat refusal of the adjusters to reveal the methodology by which the adjustments have been made. For example, ... a heating consultant in Maine named Michael Brakey, who was just trying to get accurate temperature data to inform his business, stumbled on major recent downward adjustments of earlier temperatures in that state. Attempting to get the details of the adjustments, the best that NOAA would give him was this vague and preposterous statement:
“…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to...
Example, adjustments:
The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network–Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) Technical Advisory Forum released a report in 2015 confirming that the Surface Air Temperatures were being adjusted, confirming the process is called Homogenization, confirming that other weather monitoring institutions around the world are making these same adjustments and purporting to justify why the adjustments are being made. Observing practices change, thermometers change, stations move from one location to another and new weather stations are installed. They REFUSED to release their complex mathematical formula used to make the adjustments.
...the flat refusal of the adjusters to reveal the methodology by which the adjustments have been made. For example, ... a heating consultant in Maine named Michael Brakey, who was just trying to get accurate temperature data to inform his business, stumbled on major recent downward adjustments of earlier temperatures in that state. Attempting to get the details of the adjustments, the best that NOAA would give him was this vague and preposterous statement:
“…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to...
Dear Areader,
Looks like you came up an example of how I'm right, that you can read and analyze the data for yourself.
But more importantly, I don't aim to convince you about climate change. I don't believe you are capable of changing your mind. Climate change deniers are generally basing their denial on religion or some similar superstition, and there's no arguing with that.
And I have no hope that humanity will do enough about climate change, or be able to stop the onrushing doom. It annoys me to see the denialists lie about it, but really it doesn't make any difference. We need to have our numbers cut in half, at least, and the less we do about climate change the more likely that is.
Looks like you came up an example of how I'm right, that you can read and analyze the data for yourself.
But more importantly, I don't aim to convince you about climate change. I don't believe you are capable of changing your mind. Climate change deniers are generally basing their denial on religion or some similar superstition, and there's no arguing with that.
And I have no hope that humanity will do enough about climate change, or be able to stop the onrushing doom. It annoys me to see the denialists lie about it, but really it doesn't make any difference. We need to have our numbers cut in half, at least, and the less we do about climate change the more likely that is.
What's most surprising about Trump's denial of climate change is the impact it will have to his coastal real estate developments especially his beloved Mar-a-Lago. It's surprising that the most influential people in his life, his children, haven't pushed him to change his view given it will have a direct, significant impact to his real estate legacy and their inheritance.
The problem isn’t climate change deniers, Republicans, etc., the problem is that the world isn’t taking the issue seriously. Yes, concerned people get together, agree upon targets, discuss ways to achieve the targets, but we aren’t meeting them. We aren’t meeting the targets because enough people don’t want to give up their coal, fuel, and gas fired power plants, and even those who say that they are working to addressing towards meeting the targets are putting nuclear plants offline and bringing more coal fired plants online. If people want to see who is causing the problem give them a mirror.
If the climate change believers are wrong, billions of dollars will be spent (not necessarily wasted if purer air reduces lung diseases).
If climate change deniers are wrong, fill in the blank for the money to be spent because of erosion, the disruption in the food supply and much more.
Simple business analysis.
If climate change deniers are wrong, fill in the blank for the money to be spent because of erosion, the disruption in the food supply and much more.
Simple business analysis.
1
As Trump eclipses his callow and boorish behavior on a daily basis, those of us who are appalled at what we are witnessing must not just sit there believing "common sense will prevail", that things will eventually even themselves out. We need to voice our opinions calling our representatives in office, donate to those who will run in the mid-term elections, and give our time to causes to help get the vote out. Because what we're witnessing now, our earth warming at such an alarming pace and this president-elect not believing the science behind the rising temperatures, demands action on our parts. No matter what Team Trump says, what happened in 1930's Germany when Adolph Hitler used the results of the Versailles Treaty as the reason Germany became a third rate nation could easily happen here, especially when you look at the themes Trump has been exploiting to solidify his support: loss of jobs, stature in the world, and hope in a prosperous tomorrow, and like Hitler, only 'he' can rectify this. Polls show his support has slipped to 40% and still sinking. He won by a whisker, all told, 39,000 votes in those key states that made the difference. And he encouraged the likes of President Putin and FBI Director Comey to help him pull it off. And will the Hearings being talked about in regards to the Trump Campaign being in contact with Russian Officials during the campaign result in espionage charges being filed against President Trump? We'll see.
1
There are too many people for the Earth to support. Solve the population problem and you'll stop additional global warming. Humans are reaching the limits of what our environment can sustain.
1
If you are really interested in cutting down on pollution the best thing you can do is support Trump's trade approach on China and Mexico.
The typical liberal response is that although it will increase US jobs for some, it will also cause the price of goods to go up a little for all. EXACTLY. We don't need all this junk from China that crams our lives and pollutes our planet. Take an honest look around your house or office and question whether our addiction to the cheap badly-made garbage we buy from Walmart, Target and Amazon is really helping us. We have become junk-addicted impulse purchasers. Why? Because it's so cheap we can't help ourselves. Once upon a time people lived with much less - but of higher lasting quality. That goes for furniture, home goods, food, sporting goods on and on.
We will buy less, American made, of better quality, and we - and US jobs, and the planet - will be better for it. There is no greater movement to stop pollution than Trump's approach to trade.
The typical liberal response is that although it will increase US jobs for some, it will also cause the price of goods to go up a little for all. EXACTLY. We don't need all this junk from China that crams our lives and pollutes our planet. Take an honest look around your house or office and question whether our addiction to the cheap badly-made garbage we buy from Walmart, Target and Amazon is really helping us. We have become junk-addicted impulse purchasers. Why? Because it's so cheap we can't help ourselves. Once upon a time people lived with much less - but of higher lasting quality. That goes for furniture, home goods, food, sporting goods on and on.
We will buy less, American made, of better quality, and we - and US jobs, and the planet - will be better for it. There is no greater movement to stop pollution than Trump's approach to trade.
Fact, there were more than seventeen million vehicles sold in the U.S.A (2016). The total number of electric vehicles: 150,000.
The solar numbers aren't anything great either. Before you all launch into attacks of the next president the current one accomplished next to zero in regards to the environment. A lot of 'talk' but not much substance during the last eight years.
The solar numbers aren't anything great either. Before you all launch into attacks of the next president the current one accomplished next to zero in regards to the environment. A lot of 'talk' but not much substance during the last eight years.
As a non-American, I thought about reasons why I should march on Saturday. A conclusion: T's denial of climate change, and insistence on powering up on fossil fuel for the enrichment of self and others. When it comes to the planet, all countries need to work together - we don't need renegades like Trump saying science is fake. Climate change, whether caused by humans or "natural" because that's what our planet does, is happening: taking action will benefit our planet for the good of all.
Let's see if we get a Trump tweet boasting that since he's been elected the temperatures are on an upward trend. New record! Make America (and the rest of the planet) hot again!
It is known. We the people and scientists involved will never forget the severance of global warming.
1
People use too much stuff. We are unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good. Hence, there is little chance we will solve this problem. People are reactive by nature, but the worse problems of global warming are not hitting the richest people with the power to stop the problems.
We should place a 35 percent climate tariff on imports from heavy carbon polluting nations like China and Mexico.
When Trump appeared to have won on the night of November 8, one of my first thoughts was that we were doomed to fail to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change. While Clinton never proposed the sorts of bold "cold turkey" steps that I think scientists believe are necessary, she did not deny the science and wanted to take some steps in the right direction. Trump not only denies the science, his inclination is to make things worse but propping up coal and dirty energy dependent industries notwithstanding the market forces that are shuttering those. His election signaled to the world that America does not care whether climate change is happening and that America is selfish and stupid.
Why wasn't the amount of rise stated in the body of the article? I've read it twice and see no number representing the amount of increase. This is inexplicable. How do you write an article on the science of temperature change but give no numbers representing the three year changes? Please explain.
1
Trump says that global warming is a Chinese Hoax. Either he's wrong or all the thermometers are wrong. And we know Trump is never wrong. Perhaps the thermometers are made in China?
1
@paul,
You forgot - there are people between thermometers and you...
You forgot - there are people between thermometers and you...
Modern society has moved so far away from the natural world I imagine most people have a limited perspective of the implications a warming planet have for life on earth. By continuing along this same path, humans have defacto decided to sacrifice the bountiful resources, diverse plants and animals by failing to take action to the point where we may very well be jeopardizing nearly all life on earth, particularly our own. I do not see us working our way out of this mess solely through technology. There's not an App for that. Big sacrifices are ahead even if extreme action is undertaken soon. It took human kind less than 5 centuries to create this mess. I guess we have less than 1 century to fix it. Remember, we need earth, not the other way around.
Kevin is correct. Overpopulation is the cause of climate change, pollution, overfishing, etc. The earth simply cannot sustain 7 billion people, and the population is going up, not down. Add Donald Trump to the mix, and you have a pretty unpleasant future ahead--because no one is going to do anything about the population. I'm old enough that I will likely not see the worst of it. If you are a youngster, I'd suggest you get active.
5
Climate change is a hoax just like DT won in a " landslide". I cannot grasp the ignorance and audacity.
4
@susan,
Trump won by 74 votes. There were 538 votes in play. A basketball game has an average total of 200-208 points a game. For an election it's about 2.7 times more. In a basketball game Trump's win would be by 27-28 points. It's called a rout.
Trump won by 74 votes. There were 538 votes in play. A basketball game has an average total of 200-208 points a game. For an election it's about 2.7 times more. In a basketball game Trump's win would be by 27-28 points. It's called a rout.
It was warmer in the Middle Ages and man had nothing to do with it. The world did not end. The hysteria in the articles and in the comments sections over-the-top. If man, by some miracle, were to arrest CO2 production, it would make only a miniscule difference. How many have planted a tree so that it can suck up CO2? Probably none of you. What has been done to get the greatest polluter, China, to change policy? Seems all the wrath is directed at the United States, who is a leader in pollution control.
3
"It was warmer in the Middle Ages and man had nothing to do with it."
Greenland got its name because it had forests in 1000AD
Greenland got its name because it had forests in 1000AD
Larz Larzen: You declare that "it was warmer in the Middle Ages while climate datas started to be collected in 1880? I guess that in your demented bubble the 19 century is "The Middle Age" .
Nice timing: "The findings come two days before the inauguration of an American president who has called global warming a Chinese plot and vowed to roll back his predecessor’s efforts to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases."
More NYT "truth" or, perhaps, bullying: "The data show that politicians cannot wish the problem away."
What the reporters fail to tell us, though, is that Pleistocene "politicians" tried to "wish" away a similar problem, but, unfortunately, the world wags on with not care, plants, animals, humans, or scientists "findings".
More NYT "truth" or, perhaps, bullying: "The data show that politicians cannot wish the problem away."
What the reporters fail to tell us, though, is that Pleistocene "politicians" tried to "wish" away a similar problem, but, unfortunately, the world wags on with not care, plants, animals, humans, or scientists "findings".
4
Frighting news coming out two days before a new administration takes over which believes "Global warming is a Chinese hoax," plans to gut the E.P.A, wants to expand drilling, and dismantle subsidies for green technology.
2
Don't expect our esteemed "what, me worry" crowd to look at the data and take action. Or admit man's at fault. In the groundwater contamination business, a corner gas station, where contaminated groundwater travels off site, can become an unsolvable legal problem. Let's say there are gas stations on all four corners. The groundwater contamination may eventually move towards a housing development. In between lies a daycare center for poor kids with leadership potential. So you got lawyers representing each gas station owner, the housing association, and big green representing the daycare. Not only is there issues of physical condition degradation and health impact, but there's the issue of whose tank leaked and whose didn't.
For our climate take the scenario above and multiply complexity by a bazillion. At the heart of the matter is assignment of liability for causing global warming. Climate change investigation (what climate scientists are doing), mitigation (what renewables folks do) and adaptation (what seawall builders will do) are just remedial investigation and action behind assignment of liability for a messed up planet under warming conditions. What Trump's team may be doing is putting climate data and interpretation outside the reach of the public and under attorney/client privilege. Real estate developers usually know what environmental data needs to be privileged. Oil and gas dudes really know. Or not. Maybe Trump will keep www.climate.gov going.
For our climate take the scenario above and multiply complexity by a bazillion. At the heart of the matter is assignment of liability for causing global warming. Climate change investigation (what climate scientists are doing), mitigation (what renewables folks do) and adaptation (what seawall builders will do) are just remedial investigation and action behind assignment of liability for a messed up planet under warming conditions. What Trump's team may be doing is putting climate data and interpretation outside the reach of the public and under attorney/client privilege. Real estate developers usually know what environmental data needs to be privileged. Oil and gas dudes really know. Or not. Maybe Trump will keep www.climate.gov going.
2
So, we're all worried about the earth and it's demise. Sorry, the earth will go on and purify itself of the human species neglect and greed over the next thousand to million years. The ignorant human species will have cleverly committed suicide by not acting on climate change fast enough. "You don't see no hearses with luggage racks."
2
They're already awake, fully cognizant of what they are doing. They just don't care.
1
Climate change and all other environmental problems are purely a result of far too many people on earth, all demanding energy and ever-improving lifestyles. The earth could support one or two billion people with American levels of consumption, but the planet will die as ten billion strive for high energy consumption and all the goods that brings. And as automation reduces the number of workers needed to produce all those goods, more people become economically irrelevant and environmentally destructive.
We will see no amelioration of envirnmental destruction until the world's people and politicians get serious about birth control and gradual population reduction. If we don't, Nature will deal with the problem through mass mortality, and that won't be pretty.
We will see no amelioration of envirnmental destruction until the world's people and politicians get serious about birth control and gradual population reduction. If we don't, Nature will deal with the problem through mass mortality, and that won't be pretty.
65
Words of truth. The global population, and its continued projected rise, is the elephant in the room. Our sturdy little boat called earth has a maximum occupancy sign that most are ignoring at the peril of all.
> The earth could support one or two billion people with American levels of consumption, but the planet will die as ten billion strive for high energy consumption and all the goods that brings.
You evade man's independent, inventive mind.
You evade man's independent, inventive mind.
You are 100% correct AND make a point that no one in the media is ever willing to raise. At the end of the day, it is all about population.
I don't know how people with children are keeping it together. I don't know how you would wake up on mornings like this and not go fetal thinking of the climate the children today will have to survive in. Honestly, today of all days, when one of most glaring unfit man is about to be put in charge of the very agency Americans rely on to protect our lands, our air, our seas. How do you keep up with such heartbreak?
10
An astute emotional/psychological observation Heather. As a parent of 2 children under the specter of climate change and the narcissistic sociopath on the doorstep of becoming POTUS I am assailed by an abiding range of difficult emotions...guilt for bringing children into such a world as ours presently, guilt for feeling such guilt, despair and depression that my children are active witnesses to the despoliation/demise of our beautiful planet,...the list goes on. My only mooring in this senseless storm is my faith. I get by on some manner of hope, some modicum of courage (albeit slight), and an undying hunger/longing for life and meaning.
1
Must be fake news because the Donald doesn't agree with it. With him soon to be at the helm, we're all in a lot of trouble.
3
People aren't looking at this problem in the right places. They are also confusing climate change with global warming. It's not just sea levels, which the press likes to report on, that's the problem. Melting ice caps is only the peak of the iceberg, excuse the metaphor. If we put emphasis on things that people can relate to like a pending ecological refugee problem, where people can no longer live because it is too wet, too hot, too dry, etc., and where these displaced people will go and who will care for them, then we have a starting point. How about changing habitats, i.e. reduced fish stocks, new diseases, invasive species and pest control; then there is reduced food supply due to drought, flooding and fire; reduced access to potable water, aquifers being drained and not replenished and surface waters more polluted than ever; and most importantly, the possibility of social disruption due to inequalities, over population, war and mass migrations, then we see the threat in clear terms. This is not an assumption of some future scenario, it is with us today and getting worse each year.
2
A majority of Americans want "the government" to do something about global warming. Independent of the possibility of the government taking power on January 20th of this year, the vast vast majority of Americans will not be able to make the personal changes necessary to combat climate change. Here is what Americans would have to give up to stop or reverse this trend.
1. Airline travel
2. All internal combustion engineered powered hobbies
3. 95% or travel by car, with the remaining cars being Prius sized
4. Most meat
And so on. It would take a radical reconstruction of our patterns of human settlement, resulting in the loss of almost all suburban housing and infrastructure, as well as the level of comfort to which we have become accustomed.
Our household has anticipated all this and would be minimally impacted. But our footprint is probably 1/3 that of the average American's already.
I don't see humans capable of this level of self denial. Game over.
1. Airline travel
2. All internal combustion engineered powered hobbies
3. 95% or travel by car, with the remaining cars being Prius sized
4. Most meat
And so on. It would take a radical reconstruction of our patterns of human settlement, resulting in the loss of almost all suburban housing and infrastructure, as well as the level of comfort to which we have become accustomed.
Our household has anticipated all this and would be minimally impacted. But our footprint is probably 1/3 that of the average American's already.
I don't see humans capable of this level of self denial. Game over.
4
Repubs don't care. There is $ to be made pandering to deniers....but implicit in that is that they feel or show no obligation to anyone or any living thing beyond themselves and their pursuit of fortune during their own small time here...even of their children or grandchildren or great grandchildren. I'm getting mine while it's mine to get.
The cap(s) will continue to recede, spurring an already salivating race among the superpowers to exploit these regions for oil. An environmental and ecological disaster would most certainly and inevitably follow, exacerbated by the relatively alien and inhospitable environmental conditions. Skirmishes, if not open conflict between states would certainly threaten, if not break out.
Would love to be and hoping to be completely wrong.
The cap(s) will continue to recede, spurring an already salivating race among the superpowers to exploit these regions for oil. An environmental and ecological disaster would most certainly and inevitably follow, exacerbated by the relatively alien and inhospitable environmental conditions. Skirmishes, if not open conflict between states would certainly threaten, if not break out.
Would love to be and hoping to be completely wrong.
3
And people still keep having kids. Lots of them. At $250,000 each they must have jobs in the oil industry.
7
An articles which speaks about the three records in a row - but never states what the temperature record was, or the tempertures in the other two years???
1
Try "Open Graphic"
We have no children, but fear for the future of our species. The politicians may have an increasingly difficult time finding sand to stick their heads into, as beaches erode and ocean levels rise. We were looking for a beachfront summer home on the Connecticut shoreline for the past several years, and multiple homes literally had the water lapping at the entry stairways. Whoever purchases those homes now will never be able to sell them in a few years. The multifaceted environmental problems will not likely have a detrimental impact on me during my relatively few remaining years, but good luck to the rest of you! Try electing smarter leaders.
8
Yes Scott, he does, but only stocks - and this graph is an indication (to him) that all is well....buy and hold....
When you try to enact change, first people will laugh at you, then they will fight you, and then they will follow you. Sadly, with the election of Donald Trump, climate change seems to have jumped straight to step three.
1
Forget it. We live in a country populated by Duck Dynasty imbeciles driving pickups, carrying guns and going to church. There is some hope that other countries, where people speak more than one language, aren't home schooled and actually believe in science, may help avert this disaster. The irony is that there is lots of money to be made in green technology but republicans are too dumb to understand that.
14
Stereotype much?
After decades of this conversation most of us get this. But some people only register the reality it affects them directly. A family member dies or they lose their job or their spouse cheats on them. It opens up their eyes. Still others will never admit to being wrong; it is part of the new phenomena of only accepting facts that fit into your narrative of life.
Congress loves junkets. Perhaps someone can arrange for a trip to the arctic circle, with all the frills and even a hefty political campaign contribution to entice them should they show up.
Humans are a short-sighted group, more so these days of instant gratification. So I expect us to stumble rather badly here. In fact if I were a political cartoonist, I would dress Trump and his new cabinet in togas, equip them with musical instruments (Trump with the fiddle of course) and have them playing in concert against a back drop of the smoldering planet earth starting to ignite.
My caption would be; Humanity tunes up for one last concert.
Congress loves junkets. Perhaps someone can arrange for a trip to the arctic circle, with all the frills and even a hefty political campaign contribution to entice them should they show up.
Humans are a short-sighted group, more so these days of instant gratification. So I expect us to stumble rather badly here. In fact if I were a political cartoonist, I would dress Trump and his new cabinet in togas, equip them with musical instruments (Trump with the fiddle of course) and have them playing in concert against a back drop of the smoldering planet earth starting to ignite.
My caption would be; Humanity tunes up for one last concert.
67
Truly, and in total agreement. And I'm 75 years old! Aaah, yes, history does have a way of repeating itself. Only this time, there won't be a reprise! Reminds us of that terrific finale to that great anti-war film by Stanley Kubrick, "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned To Love The Bomb and Live With It"!
2
> Humans are a short-sighted group, more so these days of instant gratification.
Leftists are not human?
Leftists are not human?
Were the temperature measurements adjusted?
1
We elected Donald J. Trump as President in 2016. Someone who is anti-science based both on his comments about climate change and his appointments to his cabinet. For shame. For shame.
4
Well, as long as we didn't just somehow elect a president who blames this all on China. Oh, wait..
4
Not everyone agrees. For the Bible Scientists, a flood that covers the entire earth is a great step forward.
5
I am an official climate change denier. as i stand here in a place that was once under 200 feet of sea water long before there were humans, I wonder how the human species is going to be able to survive when the debate has been settled and people like me have been silenced. there is no dispute: the oceans will rise , nobody denies that. much infrastructure, bridges, sea walls, levies will need to be built. how is the human species going to pay for all of the costs? If we give up all of our cars, double the price of electricity , and ride our bikes to work , do you think we will ever have the resources to deal with this problem? constant gloom and doom does nothing to help. let's talk about the good aspects of climate change , for example, the ability to grow more crops. maybe we can actually solve problems with it, like ending world hunger, malaria.
1
Arguing the Global Warming point with the unbelievers seems futile.....why not just think of things in terms of POLLUTION...we keep driving more and more and increasingly exhausting toxins into the atmosphere ....at the same time we are cutting down more and more trees...no wonder the Chinese are wearing masks. Never mind India...anyone who doubts the effects of Carbon Monoxide just needs to read up on the results of running a car or generator or grill in a confined location and learn of what they call ...CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING !! Whether or not it's melting a glacier and causing weather issues....it's not good....It's downright DEADLY !!
We can only hope that history records the actions of the climate change nay-sayers so that in posterity mankind will know who advanced the extinction of our species in the name of political expediency.
The warming of the planet Earth has already passed the point of no return.
The warming of the planet Earth has already passed the point of no return.
4
And we have a prospective head of the EPA who still thinks that global warming is a myth. We ignore this data at our peril, and at the peril of our progeny.
But global warming is just the tip of the iceberg for the Trump administration. Air and water pollution are going to return to pre-EPA levels, and the natural landscape will be despoiled by strip mining and fracking. More earthquakes anyone?
But global warming is just the tip of the iceberg for the Trump administration. Air and water pollution are going to return to pre-EPA levels, and the natural landscape will be despoiled by strip mining and fracking. More earthquakes anyone?
4
If the climate scientists are wrong and the warming is not due to emissions what harm will there be in having erred on the side of caution? Clean air, less smog...
BUT is they are right and we do nothing/little the result is calamity of unimaginable proportions.
I'm not politically correct....only a moron would ponder which path to take.
BUT is they are right and we do nothing/little the result is calamity of unimaginable proportions.
I'm not politically correct....only a moron would ponder which path to take.
8
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology.
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope the Russians love their children too
Sting sang that in 1985 concerned by the threat of nuclear war.
Can we substitute 'Russians' with 'Republicans' when it comes to climate change? Why is the task of protecting our grand children and their children only being shouldered by the Democrats?
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope the Russians love their children too
Sting sang that in 1985 concerned by the threat of nuclear war.
Can we substitute 'Russians' with 'Republicans' when it comes to climate change? Why is the task of protecting our grand children and their children only being shouldered by the Democrats?
4
People don't care and aren't listening. So Congress doesn't care either. And part of the problem is vagueness, like the reference here to a "profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization."
Please explain exactly what this entails. Higher tides threaten civilization? Warmer winters threaten the natural world? How?
Stop preaching to the converted and give details about specific results we can expect. Will the Gulf Stream be thrown off course by melting ice caps and higher seas, leaving Europe with the climate of Canada, ruining farming and destroying self sufficiency? Say so!
Please explain exactly what this entails. Higher tides threaten civilization? Warmer winters threaten the natural world? How?
Stop preaching to the converted and give details about specific results we can expect. Will the Gulf Stream be thrown off course by melting ice caps and higher seas, leaving Europe with the climate of Canada, ruining farming and destroying self sufficiency? Say so!
4
Part of Trump's inner circle on climate is Princeton physicist William Happer who, in 2015 testimony to the US Senate, said:
"The benefits that more CO2 brings from increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”
"Since more CO2 is beneficial, current US policies to limit CO2 are harmful."
"Few realize that the world has been in a CO2 famine for millions of years, a long time for us, but a passing moment in geological history. Over the past 550 million years since the Cambrian, when abundant fossils first appeared in the sedimentary record, CO2 levels have averaged many thousands of parts per million (ppm) not today's few hundred ppm."
Uh, right, let's allow CO2 levels to increase dramatically because that's what the Earth was like 550 million years ago.
You couldn't make this stuff up. We're doomed.
PS - Princeton should be ashamed.
"The benefits that more CO2 brings from increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”
"Since more CO2 is beneficial, current US policies to limit CO2 are harmful."
"Few realize that the world has been in a CO2 famine for millions of years, a long time for us, but a passing moment in geological history. Over the past 550 million years since the Cambrian, when abundant fossils first appeared in the sedimentary record, CO2 levels have averaged many thousands of parts per million (ppm) not today's few hundred ppm."
Uh, right, let's allow CO2 levels to increase dramatically because that's what the Earth was like 550 million years ago.
You couldn't make this stuff up. We're doomed.
PS - Princeton should be ashamed.
6
Happer has isolated himself, but those who claim universities shut out fake skeptics should take note that he will not lose his job, just link Lindzen at MIT. They make themselves irrelevant, but they are not fired.
Trump, now, he likes to fire people if they bother him (and cheat and lie).
Trump, now, he likes to fire people if they bother him (and cheat and lie).
3
Common sense tells you that it's a Chinese hoax. Easy to figure that one out.
1
As I heard one climatologist state, we have already passed the tipping point, we can now consider the earth like a patient in hospice. The worst part might be that when we are forcibly evicted from the face of the earth, we are going to take the rest of the animal kingdom with us. It will be left up to the cockroaches again to survive another mass extinction and restore other species on earth.
5
Shouldn't there come a time when common sense prevails in the end? For crying out loud, what will it take for ANY administration to get serious and see the ramifications of this planet's slow yet continual decline and possible demise? The most important function scientists provide is the back up documentation of what people all over the world are experiencing EVERY SINGLE DAY. Polar ice caps are shrinking and disappearing at an alarming rate; storms in this country are no longer "routine"; various species are disappearing more now than ever; the list of extremes goes on and on.
I too keep hearing a Carole King tune in my head, "I feel the earth move under my feet." If this situation wasn't so dire, the two Carole King tunes sited would be almost funny.
I too keep hearing a Carole King tune in my head, "I feel the earth move under my feet." If this situation wasn't so dire, the two Carole King tunes sited would be almost funny.
3
When people can look at retreating glaciers right here in the US, where people can actually remember when glaciers were bigger and we have watched them melt over the past few decades, how do you claim there isn't global warming?
Ice can't join in on a hoax or conspiracy. Glaciers are melting because it is significantly warmer.
Ice can't join in on a hoax or conspiracy. Glaciers are melting because it is significantly warmer.
3
Based on what the Republicans want to do, we will break this record next year and do it bigly.
3
Unsettling as the situation described in this article is, the overall outlook is worse. The article neglects the temperature increases in the world ocean, which are only now coming to light as it is considerably more difficult to measure temperatures beneath the ocean surface than in the atmosphere. The increase in temperature of ocean water entering the eastern Arctic Ocean from the North Atlantic likely plays a significant role in the loss of Arctic sea ice. It is equally likely that the increase in ocean temperatures is a major cause of the ongoing acceleration of the degradation of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, with concurrent sea level rise. Our incoming president doesn't seem to have any idea of what he's talking about, given that he's contradicted himself more than once now as to his own ability to accept global warming. The so-called GOP (it no longer has any legitimate claim to the title) and the "hoax" dodge in their platform are an embarrassment for the entire country. It's hard to imagine any sort of sane activity coming from the incoming administration. One hopes that it will not take a major catastrophe to remove the blinders.
2
well, good material and succinct analysis; I lived for years in Seattle, and I suppose that this fact encouraged me to comment. My piece, by the way, suggest my own feeling of being simply disgusted by it all! I finally made my escape from the land of "shameless savages", (I jest or purposely exaggerate here) fleeing to more endurable climes, far away, expecting to end my days in pleasant Ireland (backwards, but with pleasant people). Indeed, that the GOP has lost any kind of legitimacy (your point) is well put. Ta-Ta!
We cannot allow Trump and his associates to destroy the planet. There is no place to go, no environmental bankruptcy law that will let us start over.
6
"The data show that politicians cannot wish the problem away."
I think Gillis and Schwartz underestimates the GOP's power to rule unchecked these days, and the depths of the parties successful march to get rid of government accountability to science, scientists, and the environment. They are rewriting the rules of government as we read this article (NYT reported that GOP changing rules that protect civil servants), and placing blatant demagogues and ant-science rogues in high office. James Hansen's revelation in '05 about a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees years ago was a small prelude to what is to come.
Not to worry our new one party government will make all worry about melting arctic ice disappear into thin air, with lots of shallow "talking points' from the offices of Roger Ailes and Karl Rove's to Fox news production staff. The blatant demagogue Trump loves to bully and persecute any credible public decent. It's how he got to be president. Since most of the country no longer has local papers and journalists reporting they get their news from the politically corrupt news on TV and radio. They will shun this article, because they've been told about the lying liberal media.
I think Gillis and Schwartz underestimates the GOP's power to rule unchecked these days, and the depths of the parties successful march to get rid of government accountability to science, scientists, and the environment. They are rewriting the rules of government as we read this article (NYT reported that GOP changing rules that protect civil servants), and placing blatant demagogues and ant-science rogues in high office. James Hansen's revelation in '05 about a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees years ago was a small prelude to what is to come.
Not to worry our new one party government will make all worry about melting arctic ice disappear into thin air, with lots of shallow "talking points' from the offices of Roger Ailes and Karl Rove's to Fox news production staff. The blatant demagogue Trump loves to bully and persecute any credible public decent. It's how he got to be president. Since most of the country no longer has local papers and journalists reporting they get their news from the politically corrupt news on TV and radio. They will shun this article, because they've been told about the lying liberal media.
3
I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that most people who call climate change into question really believe what they are saying. Here is their problem:
1) Their true position is that they DO NOT CARE about climate change. The riches from plundering the environment now mean more to them than the costs this will impose on the future (since they won't live long enough to experience and hope their kids are so rich they can always buy their way out of the problem).
2) The popular and political argument on caring about the environment has been won. Not even the horrendous bully of Trump will dare to say he doesn't care about the environment. We should take this as a sign of a huge moral victory.
3) Faced with 1) and 2) the only option left is to claim the science is bad...as if we can send a man to the moon, test the gender of a baby with a mother's blood and yet can't reliably measure temperature. The goal is simply to sow the seeds of "confusion" and sponsor endless debate so as to stall action on a problem they don't care about. All of our talk about this "controversy" plays right into this strategy.
1) Their true position is that they DO NOT CARE about climate change. The riches from plundering the environment now mean more to them than the costs this will impose on the future (since they won't live long enough to experience and hope their kids are so rich they can always buy their way out of the problem).
2) The popular and political argument on caring about the environment has been won. Not even the horrendous bully of Trump will dare to say he doesn't care about the environment. We should take this as a sign of a huge moral victory.
3) Faced with 1) and 2) the only option left is to claim the science is bad...as if we can send a man to the moon, test the gender of a baby with a mother's blood and yet can't reliably measure temperature. The goal is simply to sow the seeds of "confusion" and sponsor endless debate so as to stall action on a problem they don't care about. All of our talk about this "controversy" plays right into this strategy.
5
Time for another NY Times article on the 50 best places to jet off to in 2017.
1
Brace yourselves! Two days left until the earth really burns. We haven't seen anything, yet.
2
still beats global cooling.
1
Dan Rather said, let's build a global warming wall of shame to honor climate deniers in real time:
"I think we should erect a monument built from materials impervious to the elements and list the names of all the elected officials and others in positions of power today in the United States who refuse to stand with the science on climate change.
We can put this monument on the coast - say off Miami - and have its base equal to the lapping waves of high tide. As sea levels rise, the monument will begin to be submerged, at increasingly greater depths. It will become a symbol of the cynicism, stupidity, and folly of our age. And it will be important for future generations to know who was responsible for this failure of action and imagination as this global crisis crescendoed. When I see Donald Trump cast doubt on climate change, I am deeply disappointed. When I see him appoint climate change deniers to key posts in his cabinet, I am deeply worried. When I see those in the scientific community and elsewhere pushing back, I am determined to bring these voices of reason to light.
To cherry pick the science you like is to show you really don't understand much of anything. That is your right. But when it affects my life, that of my family, the future direction of my country, and the health of our planet, than the ignorance is far from harmless. The world must remember what is happening here and perhaps the judgement of history might induce some to the action we so desperately need."
"I think we should erect a monument built from materials impervious to the elements and list the names of all the elected officials and others in positions of power today in the United States who refuse to stand with the science on climate change.
We can put this monument on the coast - say off Miami - and have its base equal to the lapping waves of high tide. As sea levels rise, the monument will begin to be submerged, at increasingly greater depths. It will become a symbol of the cynicism, stupidity, and folly of our age. And it will be important for future generations to know who was responsible for this failure of action and imagination as this global crisis crescendoed. When I see Donald Trump cast doubt on climate change, I am deeply disappointed. When I see him appoint climate change deniers to key posts in his cabinet, I am deeply worried. When I see those in the scientific community and elsewhere pushing back, I am determined to bring these voices of reason to light.
To cherry pick the science you like is to show you really don't understand much of anything. That is your right. But when it affects my life, that of my family, the future direction of my country, and the health of our planet, than the ignorance is far from harmless. The world must remember what is happening here and perhaps the judgement of history might induce some to the action we so desperately need."
4
"its highest temperature on record in 2016"
The records reflect a tiny, tiny fraction of the history of the Earth.
This is absolutely lost on people who don't have a strong science background, who nevertheless feel free to pontificate about how certain they are, based, really, on political tribe etc. etc. but here's the truth:
Climate changes. Always has and will. For 99.999999% of Earth's history, natural processes produced change.
Because of the politicization of this area of science by journalism majors, and because of the stupidity of politicians who are mainly lawyers or businesspeople...THERE HAS BEENA LACK OF RESEARCH INTO THE *NATURAL PROCESSES* THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE VARIATIONS.
Sorry, kids, but it is absolutely, positively not 'settled science' that variations in climate are mainly or even significantly human caused...BECAUSE THE SCIENCE OF NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN NEGLECTED.
Sorry for the caps, but the point has to be driven home over and over because people who have no idea of the science at all are unable to grasp the nuance here and see all dissent as reactionary.
What is reactionary is to demand orthodoxy as a major part of the question, natural processes, is entirely neglected due to the hyperventilization of the ignorant.
Judith Curry knows more about climate change than just about anyone commenting here.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry
Her treatment by purported scientists is shameful.
The records reflect a tiny, tiny fraction of the history of the Earth.
This is absolutely lost on people who don't have a strong science background, who nevertheless feel free to pontificate about how certain they are, based, really, on political tribe etc. etc. but here's the truth:
Climate changes. Always has and will. For 99.999999% of Earth's history, natural processes produced change.
Because of the politicization of this area of science by journalism majors, and because of the stupidity of politicians who are mainly lawyers or businesspeople...THERE HAS BEENA LACK OF RESEARCH INTO THE *NATURAL PROCESSES* THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE VARIATIONS.
Sorry, kids, but it is absolutely, positively not 'settled science' that variations in climate are mainly or even significantly human caused...BECAUSE THE SCIENCE OF NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN NEGLECTED.
Sorry for the caps, but the point has to be driven home over and over because people who have no idea of the science at all are unable to grasp the nuance here and see all dissent as reactionary.
What is reactionary is to demand orthodoxy as a major part of the question, natural processes, is entirely neglected due to the hyperventilization of the ignorant.
Judith Curry knows more about climate change than just about anyone commenting here.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry
Her treatment by purported scientists is shameful.
Ms. Curry is a well known denier.
1
LL, please explain why you try to pretent the IPCC reports have continually included evaluations of all known impacts on climate, natural as well as anthropogenic?
All of the inputs are necessary in order to figure out how much is due to our impacts. Dr. Judy happens to disagree with what most climatologists feel are the likely trends, and she's treated many of them shamefully. The fact that she is one of the few actual scientists that a Lamar Smith or Ted Cruz has on their Rolodex for show-hearings is an example of how off-base her personal views of climate are.
I've read some of her testimony and her ability to pretend the literature is "too certain" for her taste is matched only by her dead certainty that ending fossil use is too expensive. She's not an economist, but she isn't uncertain about that conviction for some reason. So she gets her invites from Ted and Lamar.
All of the inputs are necessary in order to figure out how much is due to our impacts. Dr. Judy happens to disagree with what most climatologists feel are the likely trends, and she's treated many of them shamefully. The fact that she is one of the few actual scientists that a Lamar Smith or Ted Cruz has on their Rolodex for show-hearings is an example of how off-base her personal views of climate are.
I've read some of her testimony and her ability to pretend the literature is "too certain" for her taste is matched only by her dead certainty that ending fossil use is too expensive. She's not an economist, but she isn't uncertain about that conviction for some reason. So she gets her invites from Ted and Lamar.
As a grandmother of six now, six small people who will come of age when the very serious effects of Global Warming begin to hit us hard, I am blaming the Republicans and every single conservative who denied....denied!
The disaster that is coming is on the head of the deniers! Idiots!
The disaster that is coming is on the head of the deniers! Idiots!
1
Those in denial of climate change often say that they recognize the temperature climbing, but they refuse to blame it on the burning of fossil fuels. They just believe that this is a periodic change like the Ice Age. This is a convenient explanation because then they don't have to justify the cost of changing the wa we do things. Sad to say those in denial won't be around to see the havoc that their inaction will cause.
2
"What me worry?"
Alfred E. Neuman
"Disgusting"
Commander 'n Cheat
Alfred E. Neuman
"Disgusting"
Commander 'n Cheat
1
Before Dick Cheney demanded NOAH cheese their rackets on the impact of global warming, I got the good news I could use.
I was told while I live in a drought ridden environment, but this pattern would become more tropical, thus providing us what we need most in the futre. Water.
Just gotta capture it and keep it undercover because it's gonna burn off as fast as it's falling. So I see a future I might be able to survive if the storms don't get too violent. I can live with that.
I was told while I live in a drought ridden environment, but this pattern would become more tropical, thus providing us what we need most in the futre. Water.
Just gotta capture it and keep it undercover because it's gonna burn off as fast as it's falling. So I see a future I might be able to survive if the storms don't get too violent. I can live with that.
You expect a nation of grasshoppers to listen to the ants?. Don't get me wrong - the grasshoppers are not the lied to working class that voted Donny into office. its the coupon clippers and business "leaders" who don't want their current place on top of the heap disturbed by truth.
2
Sorry, NOAA, I know you don't deal in arks. But maybe New Jersey might be interested?
It's so easy to complain about the president-elect, but what I would love to see are more ideas for what we can do as "normal" people to turn this around. We all know to bike instead of drive or to take shorter showers, but how can I feel like I am really making an impact? Since solar panels are not necessarily realistic for everyone, especially New Yorkers!, I think education and a modern "50 simple things you can do to save the Earth" are so important. We also really need to keep in mind: what's the real cost of Amazon Prime or that avocado toast?
Donald Trump misses the fact that climate change is the biggest threat to the security of the United States. Far greater than any terrorist group or illegal immigration issue. This report is terrifying in that it seems that we've passed the point of no return.
2
Would the records in 1939, 1940, and 1941 have anything to do with World War II?
1
I'm curious to know if the recent "polar vortex" intrusions of super cold Arctic air into the lower 48 is related to increasing polar temperatures. Seems possible to me that as the poles warm up there could be a mixing dynamic increasingly in play, that air masses once separated by large differences in temperature are now able to break through stratification barriers to intrude in both directions. Anybody know about atmospheric mixing dynamics?
Tragically, science and its conclusions are not in the forefront of most voters' or media attention as shown by the 2016 election campaign. The energy lobby is strong in Congress and the Senate. Putin, who helped Trump with cyber-warfare, is eager to have sanctions lifted and exploit Russia's Arctic oil reserves. While the likely Secretary of State, Tillerson, deflected criticism by seeming to accept the possibility of global warming, Exxon has donated to every group working against climate change awareness.
Increasingly, the prospect is of frequent and intense weather-related disasters, droughts and failure of the means of subsistence for the world's poor, famines, wars and mass flows of refugees as societies break down. In this scenario, America's heartland of wheat, maize, and soybean will be devastated and its coasts ravaged. Trump will be long gone, but the consequences of the next presidency will last for a very long time.
Increasingly, the prospect is of frequent and intense weather-related disasters, droughts and failure of the means of subsistence for the world's poor, famines, wars and mass flows of refugees as societies break down. In this scenario, America's heartland of wheat, maize, and soybean will be devastated and its coasts ravaged. Trump will be long gone, but the consequences of the next presidency will last for a very long time.
1
The truth is terrifying. And part of that terrifying truth is that Trump, Pruitt, and other climate denying Republicans would rather attempt to mitigate climate change in the future than take steps now to prevent the worst from happening. Why? A fossil-fuel primed economy is good for their pocketbooks. Their own enrichment, and the continued enrichment of the current winners in our world economy, is the underlying reason. Make hay while the sun shines. Until it doesn't.
1
Eventually, everyone and his dog is going to be screaming for action. The 'Art of the Deal' for the next few years is to hold that off as long as possible, because once that screaming starts the Carbon Bubble pops, the World's largest corporations become worthless, and the global stock markets plunge, as in 2008. This is why Rosneft (i.e. Putin) and Exxon urgently need Trump to lift the economic sanctions on Russia, which I'm sure he will and that his family will eventually receive billions of dollars of 'gratitude' from both companies. Likewise Keystone XL approval: its important to pretend, to investors, that fossil fuels have a future. Trumps antagonism toward China and the EU can also be put in this context: the center of non-fossil-power innovation now shifts to those countries. If they can be delayed, fossil fuel can keep its price just a few critical years longer. Exxon's Siberian oil leases are worth half-a-trillion dollars at today's prices. What Trump is doing for them is a big deal. Paying the Climate consequences will fall to the little people.
1
Yet I am sure that the Mayan civilization would argue with scientists of today that this has not happened before. Around 240 AD their destruction began. Must have been all of those Cadillac SUV's they were buzzing around in that caused it.
Next press conference it would be interesting to have a brave journalist recite the facts and ask, if nothing else: where can we go if have an administration that does not trust objective science? Where can we go if we cant trust our own intelligence communities. Where can we go if we have our health care taken away. Being great again is going to get us all killed.
1
What a tragedy. The whole world's held hostage by the Neanderthals Americans prefer running their gubment.
We picked a power obsessed narcissistic carnival barker to be president....a man who couldn't care less about you much less the world. A man who has picked an oil executive with direct ties to 67 MILLION RUSSIAN acres of fossil fuel development rights to do "diplomacy" with the Kremlin!
We have no shame! "USA, USA, USA!!" "The greatest nation on Earth!!" Divinely selected to FLUSH Earth's remainder down a greedy bottomless toilet...because we CAN!
USA, USA, USA. Sad.
We picked a power obsessed narcissistic carnival barker to be president....a man who couldn't care less about you much less the world. A man who has picked an oil executive with direct ties to 67 MILLION RUSSIAN acres of fossil fuel development rights to do "diplomacy" with the Kremlin!
We have no shame! "USA, USA, USA!!" "The greatest nation on Earth!!" Divinely selected to FLUSH Earth's remainder down a greedy bottomless toilet...because we CAN!
USA, USA, USA. Sad.
1
What bother many is the smug, arrogant attitude that the climate issue is a "done deal" not subject to any further scrutiny. Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that nothing is ever really "proven" beyond doubt - it's only until additional knowledge and insights become available.
Anyone for a flat earth?
The history of NASA "correcting" data cannot be so easily dismissed - independent reviews (other than the NASA supporters) raise some serious questions about how NASA "adjusted" the data. Those studies are, of course, not mentioned here.
The issue of the Antarctica ice cap growing while the Arctic ice cap shrinks is another interesting debate.
What is bothersome about the tone of this NYT article is the smug self-rightousness.
As with all things "science" - necessary to maintain an open mind to all views.
Anyone for a flat earth?
The history of NASA "correcting" data cannot be so easily dismissed - independent reviews (other than the NASA supporters) raise some serious questions about how NASA "adjusted" the data. Those studies are, of course, not mentioned here.
The issue of the Antarctica ice cap growing while the Arctic ice cap shrinks is another interesting debate.
What is bothersome about the tone of this NYT article is the smug self-rightousness.
As with all things "science" - necessary to maintain an open mind to all views.
"The data show that temperatures are heading toward levels that many believe will pose a profound threat to civilization."
It's scare-mongering like this which alienates well-meaning people who otherwise are not sufficiently trained in climate science.
It's scare-mongering like this which alienates well-meaning people who otherwise are not sufficiently trained in climate science.
1
Many if not most of the climate change models I’ve seen over the past decade tended to indicate that both global temperature increase and the effects from the increasing temperature (such as sea level rise) would be linear - a straight line. Although I haven’t done the calculations to verify this, the line that you’re showing of increasing temperatures is not linear, but curvilinear, an accelerating curve.
I’m not a climate scientist, but I’ve seen curves like this one where there is a feedback effect. That is, an amplification brought on by the initial effect or process, setting other processes that accelerate the initial effect creating the accelerating curve. If what I am seeing is real, then both global warming will accelerate and the effects resulting from it will come on far earlier than initially expected. Also, the detection of an accelerating curve can indicate that a tipping point has been reached. More evidence will be required to determine if we have reached that point. If we have, then the we should expect a future climate completely different from what we have experience in the recent past. And we should begin to start seeing things such as rapid and accelerating Greenland ice melts and significant, very noticeable sea level rises in the near future.
I’m not a climate scientist, but I’ve seen curves like this one where there is a feedback effect. That is, an amplification brought on by the initial effect or process, setting other processes that accelerate the initial effect creating the accelerating curve. If what I am seeing is real, then both global warming will accelerate and the effects resulting from it will come on far earlier than initially expected. Also, the detection of an accelerating curve can indicate that a tipping point has been reached. More evidence will be required to determine if we have reached that point. If we have, then the we should expect a future climate completely different from what we have experience in the recent past. And we should begin to start seeing things such as rapid and accelerating Greenland ice melts and significant, very noticeable sea level rises in the near future.
1
Or, as the Right would say, "Fake News".
The earth's been warming since the Pleistocene glaciers melted and yes humanity, particularly wealthy minority industrialized humanity, contributes to this warming.
How are we going to get the whole planet on board with this hot issue when the majority of humanity, by developed nation standards, don't share in the wealth or contribute as much carbon to the atmosphere due to their poverty?
The still-developing nations like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. etc. still want two cars in every garage a flat screen TV in every room and an iPhone in every right hand and more jet travel to holiday hotspots like we the wealthy nations do?
Not to be skeptical about doing the climate kumbaya but their looks to be more than some hypocrisy about all this and humanity's goose may already be cooked as we're all too addicted to cheap carbon energy? Anyone who doesn't drive a carbon fueled car or fly in carbon fueled jets or used carbon-fueled heating or electronic gadgets can beg to differ?
How's this going to work across the globe, carbon cut-backs by the wealthy and straight to solar wind and hydrogen for the poor? It's assumed here nuclear power is not a viable alternative to carbon. But what if it is, if proper storage methods are found for nuclear waste?
How are we going to get the whole planet on board with this hot issue when the majority of humanity, by developed nation standards, don't share in the wealth or contribute as much carbon to the atmosphere due to their poverty?
The still-developing nations like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. etc. still want two cars in every garage a flat screen TV in every room and an iPhone in every right hand and more jet travel to holiday hotspots like we the wealthy nations do?
Not to be skeptical about doing the climate kumbaya but their looks to be more than some hypocrisy about all this and humanity's goose may already be cooked as we're all too addicted to cheap carbon energy? Anyone who doesn't drive a carbon fueled car or fly in carbon fueled jets or used carbon-fueled heating or electronic gadgets can beg to differ?
How's this going to work across the globe, carbon cut-backs by the wealthy and straight to solar wind and hydrogen for the poor? It's assumed here nuclear power is not a viable alternative to carbon. But what if it is, if proper storage methods are found for nuclear waste?
1
More Chinese hoax.
Liberal crybabies like Hillary.
Losers
Sad.
Believe me.
(Trying to get the Donald's Tweeting cadence. Am I close?)
Liberal crybabies like Hillary.
Losers
Sad.
Believe me.
(Trying to get the Donald's Tweeting cadence. Am I close?)
1
Our incoming miscreant of a POTUS still tweets about a "Chinese hoax" whenever the subject of global climate change arises. I suppose he believes that the record melting of the glaciers, the destruction of permafrost in Alaska and elsewhere, the rising ocean levels, are also "hoaxes?" He, of course, grandiosely claims that he "knows more than the generals do - believe me," but he would be far better served to accept a long-held view of our entire defense department, namely, that global climate change is the greatest threat to our national security. His party is populated by people relying upon ridiculous biblical parables and "end times" psychobabble, because they plan to "ascend to their collective rapture," leaving the rest of the world to drown, burn, or starve, and by fossil fuel billionaires who want yet another bag of gold to augment their platinum-lined pockets and bank accounts. Our scientific prowess is being systematically gutted and undermined by a party determined to send us back to the 1800's - we are an international disgrace, and worse, the GOTP's spectacularly reckless stupidity and willful denial threatens the world. 1/18, 12:22 PM
2
What is the US supposed to do with 3.5 billion Africans, Chinese and Indians burning as much fossil fuel as they can find? What is the impact of population growth on climate, deforestation, fishing stock, etc.
I'm neither a Trump supporter nor a Republican. But the answer here can't be solely to blame Republicans.
I'm neither a Trump supporter nor a Republican. But the answer here can't be solely to blame Republicans.
1
We're looking at a future straight out of a dystopian science fiction novel. Droughts, floods, and worldwide chaos for most of humanity, while the rich build giant glass domes with filtered air in gated communities, with full fledged militias to fend off the zombie hoard that is us. Welcome to Trump's view of infrastructure projects.
1
Why doesn't anyone care?
On New Years Day it was nearly 50 degrees in Chicago. No snow. I've never seen Chicago without snow in January.
On New Years Day it was nearly 50 degrees in Chicago. No snow. I've never seen Chicago without snow in January.
I think we must accept as observed reality that the plant is warming up. I also think we must accept that it does not matter why except insofar as that understanding will help better to mitigate the consequences. At this point, we should be focusing on potential solutions.
Unfortunately, this article provides none. Why not write about the most promising options available, the attendant trade-offs (economic and otherwise) and the difficulties in implementation on a scale commensurate to the perceived problem? That would advance our discourse. This article, however, merely devolves into yet another bit of speculation into what MIGHT happen under a Trump administration. Given the importance of the topic at hand, I like to see more serious reportage than that provided here.
Unfortunately, this article provides none. Why not write about the most promising options available, the attendant trade-offs (economic and otherwise) and the difficulties in implementation on a scale commensurate to the perceived problem? That would advance our discourse. This article, however, merely devolves into yet another bit of speculation into what MIGHT happen under a Trump administration. Given the importance of the topic at hand, I like to see more serious reportage than that provided here.
32
IF CO2 increase is a proxy for climate change impact then an obvious immediate tactic that is dirt cheap and which literally everyone between the ages of 1 to 100 can do is......plant a plant. Any kind will do.
1
How long have we been talking about climate change? Al Gore was a champion of dealing with climate change back in the Clinton administration. You cannot just blame Republicans and now Trump.
Let's face it, we are a short sighted species who will only react when the disaster arrives. Are people willing to allow nuclear power plants to be built near where they live? How about giving up air travel which is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases? Maybe cut back on ordering from Amazon Prime so you can get next day shipping? I doubt it.
Let's face it, we are a short sighted species who will only react when the disaster arrives. Are people willing to allow nuclear power plants to be built near where they live? How about giving up air travel which is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases? Maybe cut back on ordering from Amazon Prime so you can get next day shipping? I doubt it.
2
I cannot believe that people still use energy that they don't need to.
This entitlement for air travel for vacations to go to second homes etc etc.
Either we as a planet use ONLY what is NEEDED---which starts with the individual can we begin to extrapolate ourselves from this impeding disaster.
We won't though because we confuse WANTS with NEEDS.
Which is heartbreaking.
Enjoy that hot shower in the morning folks.
Hope you like those paper and plastic bags from the market.
Enjoy that drive in the country.
LA if you are listening---where is the rail system?
Enjoy that fast food in those containers everyone.
Remember when people drank coffee at home? Before they went to work?
This entitlement for air travel for vacations to go to second homes etc etc.
Either we as a planet use ONLY what is NEEDED---which starts with the individual can we begin to extrapolate ourselves from this impeding disaster.
We won't though because we confuse WANTS with NEEDS.
Which is heartbreaking.
Enjoy that hot shower in the morning folks.
Hope you like those paper and plastic bags from the market.
Enjoy that drive in the country.
LA if you are listening---where is the rail system?
Enjoy that fast food in those containers everyone.
Remember when people drank coffee at home? Before they went to work?
1
Who is - we as a planet ? Most of the people on this planet do not fit this description
Americans fit this description. Our massive consumer consumption fits this description. Most people don't have two homes, other than that---Americans fit this description.
The two-paragraph summary of this story on the e-front page is a great example journalists' refusal to report established facts out of a misunderstanding of what balance is.
THE "MODERN ERA" OF GLOBAL WARMING:
The first paragraph in the summary describes this as "the first time in the modern era of global warming..." It's so modern! Edgy! Not passe'! What about describing it as the "first time since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution" or the "first time during the fossil-fuel era"? Global warming may be "modern," but our politicians' response is decidedly anti-modern. Let's leave "modern" out of this until we come up with a "modern" solution.
"THE DATA SHOW" YET "MANY BELIEVE"
The second e-summary paragraph reads: "The data show that temperatures are heading toward levels that many believe will pose a profound threat to civilization." Well, if the DATA SHOW it, then is it really so extreme to report the FACT that the global warming, SHOWN BY DATA, WILL pose a profound threat to civilization? MANY BELIEVE is a rhetorical sleight of hand in this context, where industry-funded think tanks and industry-funded politicians have spent billions trying to get people to ignore the data and the CONSEQUENCES. Let's reserve "many believe" for things like this: Many believe that cats are better than dogs. Or many believe that Italian is a more beautiful language than Danish.
The science and the ethics are clear. Global warming poses a threat to civilization.
THE "MODERN ERA" OF GLOBAL WARMING:
The first paragraph in the summary describes this as "the first time in the modern era of global warming..." It's so modern! Edgy! Not passe'! What about describing it as the "first time since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution" or the "first time during the fossil-fuel era"? Global warming may be "modern," but our politicians' response is decidedly anti-modern. Let's leave "modern" out of this until we come up with a "modern" solution.
"THE DATA SHOW" YET "MANY BELIEVE"
The second e-summary paragraph reads: "The data show that temperatures are heading toward levels that many believe will pose a profound threat to civilization." Well, if the DATA SHOW it, then is it really so extreme to report the FACT that the global warming, SHOWN BY DATA, WILL pose a profound threat to civilization? MANY BELIEVE is a rhetorical sleight of hand in this context, where industry-funded think tanks and industry-funded politicians have spent billions trying to get people to ignore the data and the CONSEQUENCES. Let's reserve "many believe" for things like this: Many believe that cats are better than dogs. Or many believe that Italian is a more beautiful language than Danish.
The science and the ethics are clear. Global warming poses a threat to civilization.
2
We better soon accept the indisputable truth that climate change is but an invention of politicians and their ilk. not to be believed. On the contrary, we, the elect, must stand up and be counted! Those scientists, who assert that the climate is changing, have clearly been duped. How silly they really are, but, also, quite dangerous! They should all be jailed for frightening clean and decent people. Where does the Bible (that blessed document) even suggest that climate change may occur? Climate Change, like evolution and the moons of Jupiter are no more than inventions of men with diseased brains who belch up inflammatory arguments to deceive the faithful. No one with any decency should entertain any of this kind of rubbish. And, now to quote Leviticus...!
1
Leviticus is the best part of the Bible. That really tells us how to live. Praise the Lord for giving us the King James Bible in all its glorious Poetry.
How absurd are we to continually use phrases like "on record" and "in history" to refer to the period between 1880 and today? The earth is roughly 4 billion years old and has gone through immense and often catastrophic climate and geological changes over the millennia ... long before man or even Exxon-Mobile existed.
Is man contributing to current global climate changes? Yes. Is he the SOLE cause? Of course not. Should we do all we can to reduce man's contribution? Absolutely. Is this likely to happen if the Democratic left and mainstream media continue to engage in hysterical hyperbole and demonization of anyone who dares question climate orthodoxy? Just ask Trump.
Is man contributing to current global climate changes? Yes. Is he the SOLE cause? Of course not. Should we do all we can to reduce man's contribution? Absolutely. Is this likely to happen if the Democratic left and mainstream media continue to engage in hysterical hyperbole and demonization of anyone who dares question climate orthodoxy? Just ask Trump.
2
Much of the climate change denial is fueled by the widespread belief that Jesus will return soon and make everything perfect again; it will be just like the garden of eden. Didn't James Watt say something like this back in the eighties?
3
No, no!! The sky is falling! Climate change is a liberal, left-wing hoax. Don't trust professional scientists. Read the Bible! It's God's vengeance on a sinning mankind. He promised never to destroy the earth again with water so He's bringing the fire this time.
Scott Pruitt (deep in the pockets of the Koch Bottles and ExxonMobil); Big (Mitch McConnell's underwriters) Coal; Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill"; Keystone Pipeline; Rick "Oops" Perry and all the polluters-for-profit told us so.
Scott Pruitt (deep in the pockets of the Koch Bottles and ExxonMobil); Big (Mitch McConnell's underwriters) Coal; Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill"; Keystone Pipeline; Rick "Oops" Perry and all the polluters-for-profit told us so.
2
Dear Chicken Little,
This graph shows numbers from the last 140 years or so. How misleading is the headline "Earth sets record Temperature" which sounds like this a historical record. Earth's temperature has normal rises and falls over its greater history. This time period is a minuscule blip. How can you generalize to greater conclusions based on such a small sample? Even if you claim you can the headline is still very FalseNews-ish which doesn't help your trust issue.
Secondly, Indian and China have had 43% pollution increases in last years while US is down 11%. (Google it) We had our industrial revolution - now they are having theirs. After they finish joining the first world nations they will also be able to cut down. Give them their chance to catch up. Don't be all pious and virtue signaling on the backs of desperate people living in squalor and poverty who would like to join civilization. Easy for us to lecture and burden them now that we are rich and fat.
Finally, if you are really interested in cutting down on pollution the best thing you can do is support Trump's trade war on China and Mexico. The typical liberal response is that this will cause the price of goods to go up for all. EXACTLY. We don't need all this junk from China that crams our lives. We will buy less, of better quality, and we - and the planet will be better for it. There is no greater movement to stop pollution than Trump's approach to trade.
This graph shows numbers from the last 140 years or so. How misleading is the headline "Earth sets record Temperature" which sounds like this a historical record. Earth's temperature has normal rises and falls over its greater history. This time period is a minuscule blip. How can you generalize to greater conclusions based on such a small sample? Even if you claim you can the headline is still very FalseNews-ish which doesn't help your trust issue.
Secondly, Indian and China have had 43% pollution increases in last years while US is down 11%. (Google it) We had our industrial revolution - now they are having theirs. After they finish joining the first world nations they will also be able to cut down. Give them their chance to catch up. Don't be all pious and virtue signaling on the backs of desperate people living in squalor and poverty who would like to join civilization. Easy for us to lecture and burden them now that we are rich and fat.
Finally, if you are really interested in cutting down on pollution the best thing you can do is support Trump's trade war on China and Mexico. The typical liberal response is that this will cause the price of goods to go up for all. EXACTLY. We don't need all this junk from China that crams our lives. We will buy less, of better quality, and we - and the planet will be better for it. There is no greater movement to stop pollution than Trump's approach to trade.
2
The thermostats are rigged by the 400 pound gorilla who tried to influence the election!
4
In fifty years, in a hundred years, the only thing about our era anyone will care about is this:
"Temperatures are heading toward levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization."
They will whole-heartedly condemn all of us for not doing more.
"Temperatures are heading toward levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat to both the natural world and to human civilization."
They will whole-heartedly condemn all of us for not doing more.
1
What more can we do besides impeach the President, Vice-President and Speaker of the House? Apparently more than 60 million voted for Trump and many more voted to install this Republican Congress. What will all the "Right to Life" crowd do when they find out they are condemning their grandchildren to early deaths.
Good thing the same guys who think rolling back healthcare is a great idea are the same ones who will solve this problem for us. I'm no scientist, but...
2
It's the population, stupid. Cultures that are prone to severe over-population rarely end well, unless they know how to sporulate.
1
Finally, someone with more brains than the other commentors here.
Is sporulation anything like sending expeditions to Mars? It won't be long before Mars is more hospitable to life than Earth. Thanks to the American voters for the wonderful new Congress and President you have given the world..
Its industrial level beef/meat consumption.
I'm delighted to see the NYT urge rejection of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.
Some FACTS that cannot be denied must be dealt with NOW.
Some FACTS that cannot be denied must be dealt with NOW.
3
Click-bait.
If you're rational, intelligent, and analytical, pay close attention to the words Justin and John used in the article.
- "first time in the modern era of global warming data": So, the past two decades is what we're talking here.
- "long beyond serious scientific dispute": Obviously neither author is a scientist, because real scientists understand that nothing is EVER beyond scientific dispute.
- "levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat": Unverifiable statement made by unnamed experts. Kind of like religion. I can name experts who don't have that viewpoint: Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Richard Lindzen. These are actual scientists, unlike the authors.
Note the scary graph. Note that it does NOT display temperature vs. date - it displays "temperature anomaly." Note that the authors don't bother to explain what an "anomaly" actually is for temperature. Because they'd have to tell you it's the "distance from the 1951-1980 average", which is a pretty cold time regime. Why not distance from the 1920-1940 average? Well, because that 20 years is pretty warm, and the graph wouldn't look as scary.
Welcome to "MSM science", which actual scientists find appalling.
If you're rational, intelligent, and analytical, pay close attention to the words Justin and John used in the article.
- "first time in the modern era of global warming data": So, the past two decades is what we're talking here.
- "long beyond serious scientific dispute": Obviously neither author is a scientist, because real scientists understand that nothing is EVER beyond scientific dispute.
- "levels that many experts believe will pose a profound threat": Unverifiable statement made by unnamed experts. Kind of like religion. I can name experts who don't have that viewpoint: Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Richard Lindzen. These are actual scientists, unlike the authors.
Note the scary graph. Note that it does NOT display temperature vs. date - it displays "temperature anomaly." Note that the authors don't bother to explain what an "anomaly" actually is for temperature. Because they'd have to tell you it's the "distance from the 1951-1980 average", which is a pretty cold time regime. Why not distance from the 1920-1940 average? Well, because that 20 years is pretty warm, and the graph wouldn't look as scary.
Welcome to "MSM science", which actual scientists find appalling.
1
I am confident that the science is right and the climate is warming. For the anti-science folks, look at it from a risk perspective. If all the scientists are wrong and the earth is not warming, and we take action like limiting greenhouse gas emissions and pushing energy efficiency the only downside is we have a cleaner planet and a technologically more sophisticated energy system. If you are wrong, however, we will end up with a likely uninhabitable planet and extinction of most species, including ourselves. The conservative thing to do is to minimize risk, and assume it is real. Unless that is not the real reason why the science is being resisted.....
5
It’s not climate change. It was Trump hot air.
To the "skeptics" who claim they are still not absolutely 100% certain...no sensible business person would wait until they were 100% certain of a problem before they did anything about it. By the time you are certain it is almost always too late. If you were 80% sure your employees were stealing from the cash register then you would do something. If we are 80% sure that human activity is overheating the planet (since we have a ton of credible evidence to confirm this) then sensible people would act.
Why do so many people crave for "business logic" and then refuse to apply it?
Why do so many people crave for "business logic" and then refuse to apply it?
4
Sometimes it seems to me that it is really a miracle mankind has survived this long since so many of us seem bent on self-destruction.
Climate change is not a matter for debate. It is real. You don't need to be a scientist to know that. Ask any person you know who grows fruits or veggies in their garden and you may find that the droughts and erratic weather that are causing massive refugee crises all over the world could soon effect our ability to feed our own population. I had to use a lot more water in my garden this year than ever before because of low rain and so did my neighbor who is in his 80's and has been gardening/farming since childhood, and we got maybe half the yield of previous years (This is only my 3rd year). Even tomatoes and cucumbers which are as easy to grow as it gets.
Climate change is not a matter for debate. It is real. You don't need to be a scientist to know that. Ask any person you know who grows fruits or veggies in their garden and you may find that the droughts and erratic weather that are causing massive refugee crises all over the world could soon effect our ability to feed our own population. I had to use a lot more water in my garden this year than ever before because of low rain and so did my neighbor who is in his 80's and has been gardening/farming since childhood, and we got maybe half the yield of previous years (This is only my 3rd year). Even tomatoes and cucumbers which are as easy to grow as it gets.
50
The "first frost" horticultural tables were changed quietly a few years ago, too. Another example of how climate change realities have been absorbed by the natural sciences......biologists, agriculturists, botanists, foresters, oceanographers, engineers, etc. for practical, apolitical purposes of predictive science, even as deniers scream climatologists made it all up.
1
It's negligible. Average surface temperatures in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 2015 -- Washington Post
Or maybe its not a miracle and this global warming isnt true?
Human societies seem designed to deny facts and accept lies on climate and many other things. Resulting past disasters have been of limited duration, extent, and consequence, but now we face catastrophes of a magnitude that we've can't really imagine. Leading the list: 1. Global climate change that will last for tens of thousands of years. 2. The potential for nuclear war with thousands of weapons in the arsenals. 3. Tremendous overpopulation that can't possibly end gently or well.
19
Is it perverse to point out that #2, and its resultant nuclear winter, would solve #1 and #3 pretty quickly?
My day was already bumming me out. Thanks for the reality check.
The events of 2016 serve to illustrate than mankind has evolved very little from the moment it's beginnings crawled from the swamp tens of millions of years ago.
9
In defense of a colder climate, it cools off hotheads and helps ameliorate wars which will undoubtedly increase in frequency with a warming climate. This may be a more troublesome reality beyond sea level rise, which in itself may cause war.
1
The greatest media failure of the campaign was not to bring up climate change once in the three Presidential debates.
25
YES! Thank you for saying that!
Stop printing fake news, we all know that global warning is a hoax. The fact that 75 nations from across the world have all looked at the science and concluded it to be real thus spending billions to tackle the problem shows how fake news can influence even the smartest people.
Fox, the GOP and incoming "President" are all in agreement...it's fake.
Fox, the GOP and incoming "President" are all in agreement...it's fake.
2
Folliwvtge money. There is no reason for scientists and thise ither countrues to lie about global warming. However, there is a reason for Mr. Trump and his wealthy friends in the fossil fuel business to lie to make more money.
Here inNYC where the climate changes more than Atlanta the change in the past 30 years has been drastic.
I belive the more North one goes the more the climate is warming.
When I moved here when I was 24 from California it was freezing. The snow was so great! The leaves would be fully dropped by November 1st. It wouldn't start to get warm until May.
The scariest part is that the warming is coming on faster and faster. Forgive my pun but it is snowballing.
November is the new October and still the leaves don't drop until December---if at all.
Also a separate issue is pollution. And the extinction of animals not due to warming.
It's really sad. I'm glad I got to experience the seasons. Now I am a conservationist. Just individually. I wish everyone would do the same.
I belive the more North one goes the more the climate is warming.
When I moved here when I was 24 from California it was freezing. The snow was so great! The leaves would be fully dropped by November 1st. It wouldn't start to get warm until May.
The scariest part is that the warming is coming on faster and faster. Forgive my pun but it is snowballing.
November is the new October and still the leaves don't drop until December---if at all.
Also a separate issue is pollution. And the extinction of animals not due to warming.
It's really sad. I'm glad I got to experience the seasons. Now I am a conservationist. Just individually. I wish everyone would do the same.
Three years of record temperature, not good. To add insult to injury we have an incoming President that believes "global warming is a Chinese hoax while Congress and the EPA appointee Scott Pruitt are beholding to fósil fuel. What can we do? Those of us who care about this issue should fight relentlessly to prevent rollbacks on the gains President Obama made over the last eight years. I certainly hope he continues to be a voice on this issue.
8
The laws of the universe are not suspended for you. What you want is not relevant; what you believe is not relevant. The universe proceeds with indifference.
11
The Trumpians do not listen to facts in general, thus our problem will exacerbate over the next 4 years. I think of it like a moth to the flame, instead of being able to respond to data/truth, the Republicans/Trumpians only respond to their bottom line. Thus, capitalism in its most extreme form, is not sustainable. As a concerned scientist, our hurdle for communicating the truth is now so much higher with Trump's impending presidency. We have little hope, if far right oligarchy, remains the flavor of the day and future.
6
I’m constantly astounded that taking action on climate change is a politically polarizing issue. Rather than attempting to stimulate the economy by entering unwarranted armed conflicts—needlessly eliminating human life and diminishing our nation’s standing in the international arena—why don’t we tackle climate change head on, generating countless jobs and spurring enormous technical innovations in the process? Climate action is a nontraditional way of achieving traditionally conservative goals, and Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together swiftly and professionally to protect citizens from the greatest existential threat our race has ever encountered.
Climate action is not some pet project of vocal hippie tree-huggers on the fringes of society. It’s about public health. It’s about staying in your home. It’s about human rights. It’s about avoiding natural disasters. It’s about keeping your job. It’s about being able to afford to put food on your family’s table. If that’s not reason enough to put everything our nation has into mitigation and adaptation strategies, then I don’t know what is.
I can only suppose those in power are confident their wealth, standing, and connections will allow them to weather any storm this century and the next will send their way. I think they underestimate the power of an angry populous with nothing to lose.
Climate action is not some pet project of vocal hippie tree-huggers on the fringes of society. It’s about public health. It’s about staying in your home. It’s about human rights. It’s about avoiding natural disasters. It’s about keeping your job. It’s about being able to afford to put food on your family’s table. If that’s not reason enough to put everything our nation has into mitigation and adaptation strategies, then I don’t know what is.
I can only suppose those in power are confident their wealth, standing, and connections will allow them to weather any storm this century and the next will send their way. I think they underestimate the power of an angry populous with nothing to lose.
24
I agree, Tim. But the Pentagon has not ignored the power of angry masses or climate refugee issues. If the GOP is really the party of national security, they must be challenged with this:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pentagon+cli...
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pentagon+cli...
To the comments that ask about perspective over 5 billion years-IT DOESN'T MATTER. We are are warming fast right now, at a time when humans, frail as we are, are the dominant life on this earth. Regardless of whether the warming trend is natural or man-made, we need to change our ways to adapt and ensure the well being of generations to come.
8
“Global” warming. Big hoax. Earth flat. Sad.—unRealDarnoldTromp
5
Meanwhile the Dems expect us to care that a Muslim in a burka got a funny look, Bradley Manning doesn't like his treatment in prison and millions of unskilled illegals might have to go home.
This is the real problem but the Dems are bogged down in utter nonsense.
This is the real problem but the Dems are bogged down in utter nonsense.
1
@The cat in the hat: We Dems manage to care about a multiplicity of things at once. Climate science is one. American xenophobia and racism directed against Moslems is another. Chelsea Manning is another.
Your feeble attempt at ridicule just make YOU look foolish.
Your feeble attempt at ridicule just make YOU look foolish.
1
How could you have it SO wrong?
Only one party has shown any inclination to deal with climate change, and it's the Democrats.
Only one party has shown any inclination to deal with climate change, and it's the Democrats.
1
It is possible to care about more than one thing.
Conservatives - being all about no change, preserving the status quo, holding onto their property, farms, and ranches etc., should be the first group of people alarmed at the change in the temperatures in our environment. But they aren't. Why not?
Is it because they can read but feel powerless to do anything to preserve their world, or that they don't want to engage in work or in spending of money - thus taking a different tack at "conservative"?
Then there are those who want to compare "now" to some ancient point in the past, say during the last ice age, or the Triassic and say, it was different then too, what does it matter? Change will come regardless of our actions (even if we hasten it - which we have to deny to preserve cognitive dissonance) and we shouldn't spend money.
But regarding the latter it is the "now" that we care about. It is the world that we've known for hundreds, even the last few thousand years, with it's temperate climates where we built our civilizations that . It doesn't matter if the world was hotter or colder in the past, it is the world that has allowed to more the survive but flourish that we care about. The question is why don't the conservatives? Did they all buy land that they expect to become waterfront? When the military base commanders with water creeping up ask for money to more or keep the facilities from being swept away in the next storm will they be told to keep their imaginations to themselves?
Is it because they can read but feel powerless to do anything to preserve their world, or that they don't want to engage in work or in spending of money - thus taking a different tack at "conservative"?
Then there are those who want to compare "now" to some ancient point in the past, say during the last ice age, or the Triassic and say, it was different then too, what does it matter? Change will come regardless of our actions (even if we hasten it - which we have to deny to preserve cognitive dissonance) and we shouldn't spend money.
But regarding the latter it is the "now" that we care about. It is the world that we've known for hundreds, even the last few thousand years, with it's temperate climates where we built our civilizations that . It doesn't matter if the world was hotter or colder in the past, it is the world that has allowed to more the survive but flourish that we care about. The question is why don't the conservatives? Did they all buy land that they expect to become waterfront? When the military base commanders with water creeping up ask for money to more or keep the facilities from being swept away in the next storm will they be told to keep their imaginations to themselves?
3
How on earth (!) did the Chinese manage to pull off this hoax? Thank goodness the PEOTUS and his henchmen will finally relieve us all of the burden of worrying ... along with relieving us of a livable environment.
13
Just remember anything Trump is good and anything anti-Trump is bad. As long as we keep this in mind and regard troublesome facts as fake news, we will be safe from all harm. Praise be the name of Trump and blessed is his wisdom.
Yes, the world is getting warmer. But as we all know, it is so because of a devious plot launched by the Chinese to undermine our nation's economic competitiveness. It must be true! Why would our POTUS elect believe it if it wasn't?
Or is he all wet - metaphorically speaking?
Or is he all wet - metaphorically speaking?
8
The hysteria here is overwhelming. The article cited intimidation of climate change scientists, but conveniently ignores the banishment of many so-called climate skeptics from the Academy. There are really two concerns: whether there is warming, and why. The first point seems to be true, the second is a matter of wild speculation-not "settled" science. The UN statements on the second point seem to say that the whole aggregate of human carbon activities amount to a small fraction of one percent of the total warming effect. If that is true, then we are hurting ourselves with carbon mitigation strategies by crippling our economies right when we need the assets to mitigate the other consequences of warming. More useful would be sensible strategies to limit damage of rising waters and repair the environment, particularly the green biosphere.
As for the first point, there are climatologists who assert that we have been in a 30 to 40 year cyclical warming trend, and we will, and perhaps are, returning to a cooling cycle. The news media has taken Chicken Little's role repeatedly, like the dire "news" of an impending ice age trumpeted in the covers of news mags in the 1970's. Here in Idaho we have a severe winter not seen in decades as has California. A harbinger of things to come? So stop the hysterical news proclamations and just be FAIR with the data!
As for the first point, there are climatologists who assert that we have been in a 30 to 40 year cyclical warming trend, and we will, and perhaps are, returning to a cooling cycle. The news media has taken Chicken Little's role repeatedly, like the dire "news" of an impending ice age trumpeted in the covers of news mags in the 1970's. Here in Idaho we have a severe winter not seen in decades as has California. A harbinger of things to come? So stop the hysterical news proclamations and just be FAIR with the data!
5
This is nonsense straight from the mirror universe of unskeptical "skepticism". Have a look at the history and the evidence. Then follow the money. Big fossil has been the wealthiest industry on earth. It is always easier to destroy and to imitate than to create, and your "authorities" are carefully constructed to deceive you.
Here's a good summary of the history of climate science: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
Then open your eyes and look beyond your backyard. Rising seas, melting icecaps, increases in extreme weather, climate migrations. The earth itself is acting, and it knows nothing of politics or conspiracies.
Fact is, shoe's on the other foot. You wouldn't do this with your health, your computer, or anything else you depend on, seek out someone who says what you want to hear and ignore the evidence from the vast majority of experts.
Here's a good summary of the history of climate science: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
Then open your eyes and look beyond your backyard. Rising seas, melting icecaps, increases in extreme weather, climate migrations. The earth itself is acting, and it knows nothing of politics or conspiracies.
Fact is, shoe's on the other foot. You wouldn't do this with your health, your computer, or anything else you depend on, seek out someone who says what you want to hear and ignore the evidence from the vast majority of experts.
2
Where is your evidence that regulating emissions will slow the economy?
Yeah, ONE article in the 70s talking about the possibility of cooling and the deniers get all hysterical. Amusing, really.
Oh, and thanks for describing the WEATHER out there this winter, not the CLIMATE. See the difference? You want more weather? We have a local TV station that's giving away a snowblower to some lucky viewer if we get at least two inches of snow in one storm. It's now January 18 and they still have the snowblower. And will for probably another 10 days at least. We simply haven't had a >2 inch snowfall this winter. But that's WEATHER, not CLIMATE.
There's NO evidence that we're entering a cooling cycle. None. Will 2017 be cooler than 2016? No doubt, but that's not the real question. The real question is whether 2017 will be warmer than 1984 and 1999, the years after similarly strong El Ninos, as was the one we just had.
I understand that those with carbon based investments are panicking and pulling out all stops to try to get those investments to pay off. It might even work. But please, don't wrap that propaganda effort around some baloney and try to call it science. More and more, people aren't buying it.
Oh, and thanks for describing the WEATHER out there this winter, not the CLIMATE. See the difference? You want more weather? We have a local TV station that's giving away a snowblower to some lucky viewer if we get at least two inches of snow in one storm. It's now January 18 and they still have the snowblower. And will for probably another 10 days at least. We simply haven't had a >2 inch snowfall this winter. But that's WEATHER, not CLIMATE.
There's NO evidence that we're entering a cooling cycle. None. Will 2017 be cooler than 2016? No doubt, but that's not the real question. The real question is whether 2017 will be warmer than 1984 and 1999, the years after similarly strong El Ninos, as was the one we just had.
I understand that those with carbon based investments are panicking and pulling out all stops to try to get those investments to pay off. It might even work. But please, don't wrap that propaganda effort around some baloney and try to call it science. More and more, people aren't buying it.
1
I'm trying to imagine the thoughts of a young man or woman, 200 years from now, looking back at us.
2
If there is anybody around to look back, there will likely be history books written that say there once was handsome orange man called Donald J. Trump whose leadership was so beautiful that people praised his name and inscribed it in gold on buildings all over the world. After putting down many insurrections, his followers proclaimed him saviour of the Universe and protector of the Right and his name will live forever.
Will there be any humans around who have the time to study history in 200 years? Earth will be here, humans may not - at least in current numbers
I don't think the graph of the increase will turn out to be a straight line. The increase will slow after a few degrees. Costal cities will protect themselves from higher water. Life will go on.
So, it's a heat wave?
I'm not as concerned about warmer temperatures per se as I am about pandemics that will be caused from new/old microbes and viruses that will thrive in the earthly petri-dish.
2
It really doesn't matter if it's warmer temperatures or pandemics, the earth will eventually rid itself of the virus called humanity. Thanks to Trump that end may come quicker than predicted.
1
Yes, that's just ONE of the reasons that the Pentagon determined over a decade ago that climate change is the biggest threat to national security.
Not Russia. Not terrorists. Not a rogue nuclear power. Climate change.
Pandemics, massive migration, famines, desperate governments and rising oceans are all in our very near future.
Not Russia. Not terrorists. Not a rogue nuclear power. Climate change.
Pandemics, massive migration, famines, desperate governments and rising oceans are all in our very near future.
1
Saying temperatures have "blown past" or are "trouncing" previous levels is hyperbole. There is measurable change: it ranges within a couple of degrees over a very long time series, under unequal technology and control criteria. Temperature is otherwise the wrong metric as it cannot be reliably managed, or reliably measured including an ability to filter normal temperature variation from induced sources, including geoengineering effects. A far better environmental measurement and management handle is actual pollution levels (air and water) and conversion rates to clean energy (including modular nuclear). The public (and the science community) may more productively ponder if they would wish to swim in the Hudson; drink water from Illinois' Salt Creek; jog in Mumbai; consume Lake Erie treated water or observe garbage barges dumping plastic in the Atlantic. In the meantime there remain over 1,000 unregulated industrial chemicals imbedded in your ecosystem and household (see NYTimes reporting on this matter in 2013). Readers may otherwise enjoy my opinions in the FT, WSJ and The Guardian on warming and carbon, including the so-called Paris arrangement.
1
"Be fruitful and multiply".....said the 'conservative ' religious environmental terrorists.....and fight like the Devil against every form of birth control.
"Let us pray".....for more destructive ignorance.
"Let us pray".....for more destructive ignorance.
75
Quoting The Bible seems appropriate in this context. My selection is Exodus 20:5: "for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Today's iniquitous are probably safe from the effects of global warming, but their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are in big trouble.
1
"Beginning in 2015, for instance, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, issued subpoenas to NOAA, seeking to prove that adjustments the agency made to its data set were a deliberate attempt to make global warming appear worse."
Why is it almost always the GOP that ridicules science? Is it something they are injected with when they join or a pre-existing condition that is also a pre-requisite for joining a party that refuses to understand how science works unless it concerns abortion, rape, or something else they can use to hurt people or the environment? Over the years, from Reagan onward, the GOP has demonstrated a complete inability to deal with theories that are true because science doesn't say 100% certainty on anything. 99.995% is usually as close as one gets to certainty. We saw Senator Frist, an MD, making a diagnosis on Terry Schiavo without an examination: no reputable MD will do that but he did. Why? It suited his political agenda.
Climate change may not suit the GOP's political agenda but it's going to happen. Whether it's man made or not, we will suffer the consequences. As stewards of our country and as the face of our country, the GOP should be acting in our interests. Jobs can and will be created to solve the problems caused by global warming. The GOP can be a catalyst for change or they can take refuge in their wealth. I hope it's the former but knowing them, it will be the latter.
Why is it almost always the GOP that ridicules science? Is it something they are injected with when they join or a pre-existing condition that is also a pre-requisite for joining a party that refuses to understand how science works unless it concerns abortion, rape, or something else they can use to hurt people or the environment? Over the years, from Reagan onward, the GOP has demonstrated a complete inability to deal with theories that are true because science doesn't say 100% certainty on anything. 99.995% is usually as close as one gets to certainty. We saw Senator Frist, an MD, making a diagnosis on Terry Schiavo without an examination: no reputable MD will do that but he did. Why? It suited his political agenda.
Climate change may not suit the GOP's political agenda but it's going to happen. Whether it's man made or not, we will suffer the consequences. As stewards of our country and as the face of our country, the GOP should be acting in our interests. Jobs can and will be created to solve the problems caused by global warming. The GOP can be a catalyst for change or they can take refuge in their wealth. I hope it's the former but knowing them, it will be the latter.
38
Keep an eye out for Judicial Watch. They were instigators, after decades long campaigns against the Clintons and Obama, of the made-up email "scandal".
They are active with Rep. Smith and the rest of the witchhunters in persecuting the evidence via NOAA and climate scientists. Now fake skeptics are in the driver's seat, look for more. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/opinion/house-arms-itself-for-witch-h... "House Arms Itself for Witchhunts"
They are active with Rep. Smith and the rest of the witchhunters in persecuting the evidence via NOAA and climate scientists. Now fake skeptics are in the driver's seat, look for more. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/opinion/house-arms-itself-for-witch-h... "House Arms Itself for Witchhunts"
4
Well, there's a quote by Upton Sinclair that's been getting a lot of usage lately:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
3
Every Trump pick so far is a member of the climate science denial industry, supported by the wealthiest industries on earth. Big fossil: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Trump doesn't have an analytical mind, but a huge insecure ego that needs massaging, and these guys are up to every trick in the book.
Here's a good summary of the history of climate science: a decent summary by the BBC’s Richard Black: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
Here's a good summary of recent climate disasters. I pay attention to these things, and was surprised to discover I'd forgotten earlier ones because there were so many ... https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/a-swarm-of-30-billiondolla...
"A Swarm of 30 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Socked the Planet in 2016"
Even moderates have been shocked at the recent winter Arctic diminishing. Alarmist is likely all too soon to become a realist term rather than an insult. Sad, even tragic, that we cannot comprehend that politics can't stop a single drop of rain, let alone an inevitable increase in energy (heat) in the system from emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, witchhunts on the way to kill the messenger! And a few outlier scientists willing to corrupt themselves and align with corrupt Trumpians for petty advantage. Jeff Sessions is particularly dangerous with his fixation on his selfish version of god.
Welcome to the Kleptocracy.
Here's a good summary of the history of climate science: a decent summary by the BBC’s Richard Black: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
Here's a good summary of recent climate disasters. I pay attention to these things, and was surprised to discover I'd forgotten earlier ones because there were so many ... https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/a-swarm-of-30-billiondolla...
"A Swarm of 30 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Socked the Planet in 2016"
Even moderates have been shocked at the recent winter Arctic diminishing. Alarmist is likely all too soon to become a realist term rather than an insult. Sad, even tragic, that we cannot comprehend that politics can't stop a single drop of rain, let alone an inevitable increase in energy (heat) in the system from emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, witchhunts on the way to kill the messenger! And a few outlier scientists willing to corrupt themselves and align with corrupt Trumpians for petty advantage. Jeff Sessions is particularly dangerous with his fixation on his selfish version of god.
Welcome to the Kleptocracy.
35
Welcome to the Klepto-Kakistocracy (government by the thieves and the worst), or KKKakistan. It will depend on the states more than ever to counter global warming (and provide healthcare and mitigate cuts in social security when the time comes) to the best of their abilities and fortunately the progressive states are the most densely populated... Vote the thieves and idiots out in 2018 and 2020!
2
Climate-related catastrophes are often characterized as something in the near to distant future. But they are happening now. A prolonged drought in Syria was one of the key factors leading to that country's horrific civil war. These are the disruptions that climate change is causing, and they will continue to lead to massive loss of life and dislocation of large numbers of people.
Those who want to dismiss the likelihood of global disaster are looking out from their comfortable safe spaces for single gigantic events and ignoring the very real effects on less advantaged human beings.
Those who want to dismiss the likelihood of global disaster are looking out from their comfortable safe spaces for single gigantic events and ignoring the very real effects on less advantaged human beings.
142
People might be able to debate the cause, but ANYONE who denies climate change is delusional or in denial. I'm not surprised after hearing from supporting comrades for our incoming administration.
These are insightful comments. How is this similar to 7 years of drought that occurred many times in history? And how is it new and different than the droughts and wars of the past? Why do people shy away from solutions? There is potential profit in everything, including doing the right thing.
Why does the media never talk about the positives of climate change? Far more people are killed each year by cold than heat. There will be many benefits to a greener, warmer planet. To ignore this scientific fact is intellectually dishonest.
1
Even those of us who believe the science need not really worry. DJT and his merry band will drown in their money and someone (Trump? Maybe. I don't know, someone....maybe) might push a button that will make the water and air on our planet a moot point. Bet all those who can afford it will once again make sure their bomb shelters are well stocked.
4
Time to book your cruise to see the glaciers before they are gone. This generation is actually blessed. Being able to witness a global phenomena as all the glaciers melting and the Antarctic ice sliding off the continent into the ocean is truly a privilege. I can't wait for for the websites to post real-time video and nightly recaps.
5
Not meaning to sound like an environmentally correct scold, but these cruises are a small part of the problem IMO. Giant floating bathtubs taking the terminally incurious from nowhere to nowhere in most cases. One could observe glaciers' disappearance in more benign ways, like via satellite photos.
1
This must be a hoax ! The thermometers are rigged !
25
Perhaps the EPA was too ahead of it's time. Had we allowed pollution to worsen and become more visible in the 70's and 80's than perhaps there'd be a more universal response against climate change.
China has seen the light- by literally being unable to due to smog. We still haven't seen light due to the shine of greed.
China has seen the light- by literally being unable to due to smog. We still haven't seen light due to the shine of greed.
18
The smog will reflect the sunlight back into space, and global warming will cease! cough cough, choke, choke.
If world leaders are unwilling to confront the irrefutable seriousness, borderline horror of global warming, perhaps they should pass the baton to their children and grandchildren, and let them meet at Davos.
Most grade school children have a more informed opinion about global warning.
Most grade school children have a more informed opinion about global warning.
22
Davos? Are you serious? This is where the billionaire brigands who have plundered and ravaged the earth meet with their politician puppets to plot their globalist agenda for more destruction and concentration of wealth for the coming year. How about getting new patriots and loyalists in every nation to take their governments back from the One World Globalist Mafia and meet somewhere like coastal areas of the North Sea or South Pacific Islands where rising tides show the relevance of polar ice cap melt and adopt stringent conservation and pollution measures along with humane population control measures and commit to finding new sources of energy that are clean, safe and cheap and getting completely off fossil fuels. That is what make sense to save the earth for future generations to have a place worth living in.
The climate change debate is a very superficial discussion.
This is not just about leaders who refuse to recognize science. The reality is that the majority of the US population is not ready to accept the measures required to mount an effective fight against climate change, nor are the populations in most other countries of the world. The options are (i) to acknowledge this and carry on, (ii) to avoid the guilt and simply deny that it is happening, or (iii) to pay lip service to it and spend a lot of money on half measures, harm the economy and ask the population to make many personal sacrifices in a token, ineffective and wasteful effort.
To change this, the reality of climate change must hit far harder than it has so far, there must be more dramatic events with a clear causal relationship, tangible damage, physical consequences, large areas of submerged land. A flood of Mar-a-Lago, that would help.
There must also be more viable solutions. The work Bill Gates is doing on nuclear power looks promising. When the realization does finally come, better to be economically strong and have a plan that will work than to have wasted billions or trillions on half measures that have yielded little or nothing.
This is not just about leaders who refuse to recognize science. The reality is that the majority of the US population is not ready to accept the measures required to mount an effective fight against climate change, nor are the populations in most other countries of the world. The options are (i) to acknowledge this and carry on, (ii) to avoid the guilt and simply deny that it is happening, or (iii) to pay lip service to it and spend a lot of money on half measures, harm the economy and ask the population to make many personal sacrifices in a token, ineffective and wasteful effort.
To change this, the reality of climate change must hit far harder than it has so far, there must be more dramatic events with a clear causal relationship, tangible damage, physical consequences, large areas of submerged land. A flood of Mar-a-Lago, that would help.
There must also be more viable solutions. The work Bill Gates is doing on nuclear power looks promising. When the realization does finally come, better to be economically strong and have a plan that will work than to have wasted billions or trillions on half measures that have yielded little or nothing.
7
I would rather believe Sultan Donald's proclamation that " Climate change is a Chinese hoax" to prevent America from becoming great again than some nerds sitting in the Arctic and Antarctica having nothing better to do than sticking thermometers in the ice and telling us that the Planet is melting!! Nothing bad is going to happen to the US of A for as long as a minority of 62 million bright and intelligent Americans living under the rocks of the Rust Belt, the Bible belt and just about any other belt where facts and reason are in short supply, have believed that Sultan Trump will make America Great Again! So, take your thermometers out of the ice and go somewhere warm and toasty. God is Great! Long Live the Sultan and Death to Climate Scientists!
12
Well said Comrade!
Take the bus everyday, give up steaks for a while, separate your trash religiously, take shorter showers, plant a tree or three in your yard, use florescent light bulbs. It starts with personal responsibility. Criticizing others won't save this planet. Neither will Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio jetting around the world.
9
All good suggestions minus the fluorescent lightbulbs, they contain poisonous mercury. Better to use LED's these days, they use less power, last much longer, and produce much less heat.
But Ted Cruz said we're in a "pause". Who are we to believe? Ted Cruz or all of the reputable climate scientists in the world?
22
I'll believe him when he produces a relevant degree along with his research and credible sources. So basically, never.
"In a pause!" Sort of like "With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, their number one act and priority. "
Tim - you mean Ted Cruz whose state now has major flooding going on there.
Even if there was no climate change it does not negate the respiratory disease, cancer and environment problems caused by burning fossil fuel as a primary energy source. The impact of these issues results in billions for healthcare and environmental clean up costs. There are two side to this coin and both sides are devastating our planet.
11
That's so 50 years ago. Nobody remembers "eat your soup before it gets dirty" or not being able to see New Jersey. It's as if it never happened. Smog alert!
Somehow, we need to give CO2 emissions a color - say, pea-green. Then, NASA could be like, "Here's a image of Earth from our Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite. The atmosphere is now pea-green. That's CO2, and it traps heat from reflecting back to space. Get it, now?"
Simple solutions, people. :)
Simple solutions, people. :)
6
Debate if the global warming is man made or not? How hard is it to imagine 7-billion humans - all consuming energy in one form or another by burning fossil fuels? Coal and natural gas in the industrial countries - wood and dung in the third world and the vast tracts of trees in Asia, Africa and South America being burned to clear land for food and cattle. Countries like China and India now having more autos than the US and Europe combined as these countries create new middle classes all wanting the same life style we enjoy.
Now imagine 10-billion people at the end of the century - this is not cannot continue without some change in our energy use and the type energy used.
Now imagine 10-billion people at the end of the century - this is not cannot continue without some change in our energy use and the type energy used.
8
The percent of CO2 released by all human activity including breathing is about 0.3% of the CO2 in our environment. That means what is produced by fossil fuel alone are likely significantly less and most of it is produced by China.Furthermore, there is evidence there was climate change before humans even existed.
Good news - global temperature is set to plummet over the next four years under Trump's NOAA and NASA! Something will have to be done about that pesky Berkeley NGO, but I'm sure Tillerson and his pals will be able to scrape together enough cash to drown out their findings.
5
Speaking to the GOP in the only terms it seems to care about, which is money and profit, the GOP is ignoring the most profitable business model that exists for the remainder of this century: renewable energy. Renewable energy is the future, and some country or another will take the lead. It could have been us. We could have created hundreds of thousands or millions of good jobs as an industry leader, while doing right for our home to boot. We truly could have made America great again.
But the GOP would rather spite itself. Just because.
But the GOP would rather spite itself. Just because.
13
Unfortunately, this article says nothing about ocean warming, which is very important as water holds 4000 times as much heat as air. In the recently released IUCN report "Ocean Warming:...", geophysicists reported that were it not for ocean heat absorption surface temps would be 65deg warmer now than in 1955 on daily average. Up here in Wisconsin this winter that sounds great, but not the prospect of 155degF summer days! These same scientists have no idea how much more heat the oceans can contain, but ocean ecology has already been impacted, as the seafood industry is well aware.
8
I know it wasn't a lot Greely, but it wasn't "nothing": "The sea is also absorbing most of the heat trapped by human emissions. Those factors are causing the ocean to rise at what appears to be an accelerating pace, and coastal communities in the United States are spending billions of dollars to fight increased tidal flooding. Their pleas for help from Congress have largely been ignored."
All of us who read the NYT are usually educated people. Our nation has too many Americans are not educated, resulting in their representatives voting against climate change remediation. This is why we need courageous leadership. I am frustrated by our bought meat leaders who just want to get reelected and stay on the tax payer funded gravy train.
No worries, because coal companies can go chop off another mountain top in West Virginia to burn more coal. And as Sarah-the-genius-Palin said, drill bay drill. The GOP party is toxic. Sadly, Democrats are weak.
No worries, because coal companies can go chop off another mountain top in West Virginia to burn more coal. And as Sarah-the-genius-Palin said, drill bay drill. The GOP party is toxic. Sadly, Democrats are weak.
11
What are your degrees?I just want to know. I happen to have a degree in microbiology with a minor and chemistry and I see many, many flaws with the climate change negative and the lie that it is a direct result of burning fossil fuels! But all the left does is completely ignore scientists that dispute this political narrative and the EPA only funds research projects that present certain findings that can be used to argue in favor of this narrative.
So go ahead and blindly insult large groups of people that disagree with your highly politicized opinion. Because that's what the left is good at!
So go ahead and blindly insult large groups of people that disagree with your highly politicized opinion. Because that's what the left is good at!
I am concerned that many do not realize that global warming is also a product of runaway population growth that was a major concern in the 60 and 70's. Regulating and controlling emissions is important, but will become futile if population growth is not addressed at the same time. We simply can't continue to increase the population, increase economic output without consequences.
17
So why did Americans elect Republican majorities that wish to defund Planned Parenthood?
Let's not do anything about it. The ~0.05% chance that scientists are wrong is plenty persuasive that profits are supremely important.
9
The first public warnings of global warming and sea level rise were back in the 1970's and consider all that has been done to solve the problem.
We're doomed.
We're doomed.
7
Whatever is the truth Climate Change regulation will Mean People get to do less, consume less, see a Lower quality of Life , and this is SERFDOM . So don't believe anyone who tries to sell you the idea that they will create Prosperity and advance your quality of life if you just give them power and control over your needs .
3
Tommy....thanks for reducing the discussion to your personal selfishness; 'society ' is just an illusion in your view of reality.
13
Tommy, the planet will cut back on your quality of life quick enough without any help from politicians. It doesn't care about your politics, and millions are already suffering. "A Swarm of 30 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Socked the Planet in 2016" https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/a-swarm-of-30-billiondolla...
2
No, it's not serfdom.
Serfdom is when you're bound to land owned by an overlord who in turn owns you. You can't leave, you can't do anything other than work for / provide for your lord, and be grateful for what little % he allows you to keep. Serfdom means you are bound and there's no hope for a different tomorrow.
Serfdom is when you're bound to land owned by an overlord who in turn owns you. You can't leave, you can't do anything other than work for / provide for your lord, and be grateful for what little % he allows you to keep. Serfdom means you are bound and there's no hope for a different tomorrow.
Exxon has just taken over the presidency of the USA for the next 4 years (even if the Trumplestilzchen gets impeached). You don't actually believe that anything will get done in this sector, do you? In addition to that, technical/engineering advances in the oil industry are confined to fracking procedures, not the environment (there's no difference how they handled oil spils in the 1960ies and in the 2010s, except that they add detergents to the oil so it looks better). Thus, I will resign to the fact that the temperature will keep going up in a CO2 concentration dependent manner. I understand that we will have to subsidize farming insurance but I am loathe paying to rebuild coastal settlements. Get insured, rich people.
13
"While analysts differ on the exact circumstances, virtually all agree that the people of Western civilization knew what was heppening to them but were unable to stop it. Indeed the most startling aspect of this story is just how much these people knew, and how unable they were to act upon what they knew."
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, The Collapse of Western Civilization, A View from the Future.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, The Collapse of Western Civilization, A View from the Future.
12
Sorry the word should be unwilling not unable. They were mostly referring to mass migration invasion from the Third World into the First World but the same words are true for both stopping the invasion and reversing climate change.
As an analogy, what would have happened if in 1942, the Manhattan Project was open to public debate as climate change currently is? The concept of atomic fission, even the existence of atoms, would have been deemed science fiction by the general public, especially if, as now, they were armed with oppositional data supplied by paid shills. When informed of the price tag, the public would have insisted the device not be built. Perhaps we should listen to scientists on matters of science - especially when the stakes couldn't be higher.
10
Of course would we not all be better off if atomic weapons were never invented?
The arctic sea ice extent, which is measured daily, is also a meaningful indicator of current and ongoing warming, and as of January 17, 2017 the sea ice extent was significantly more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average which has been the case since early in October 2016. The month of November marked the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever recorded, while December marked the 2nd lowest:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
13
Who on Earth will volunteer to be Donald Trump's science advisor, assuming he thinks one is desirable?
3
Hopefully he selects one who is actually a scientist who still practices science - unlike Obama's latest.
One of his relatives who took a creation-biology class at Heartland.
My favorite phrase: "many believe will pose a profound threat to civilization"
Sounds like a religious experience for the "many" who "believe". However, the certain and real "profound threat" is the earth's J-curve population growth--need to get that number down a couple billion.
Sounds like a religious experience for the "many" who "believe". However, the certain and real "profound threat" is the earth's J-curve population growth--need to get that number down a couple billion.
4
Like with any living thing that is infected with a bacteria or virus, defence mechanisms kick in to fight it. Global warming is just one way the earth is fighting for it's life against the infection we lovingly call humanity. It's like the earth is sick and has a fever. But there are other mechanisms as well, like drought, fire, lack of food and social unrest like war and mass migration, and of course antibodies (called pandemics) all of which will eventually kill the infection so the earth can go on as before.
1
Trump and his bro (Putin) have a plan for that (which involves nuclear weapons)
Congratulations to all polluters everywhere on your three-peat?
Will you make it four--or will the world finally wake up?
Will you make it four--or will the world finally wake up?
4
For our denier-in-chief won't it be interesting when the salt water starts lapping at the foundation of Mar-a-Lago. Not to worry. It will probably qualify as another tax write-off. I'm certain that the Republicans will take into consideration all of their rich supporter that own beach front property when they rewrite the tax code.
6
The Trump Organization filed for permission to construct a protective sea-wall along one of their properties - Ireland or Scotland, I don't recall exactly - due to the expected increase in sea level.
Per NOAA, sea level change hasn't accelerated significantly in the last 100 years. Oceanfront property is always at risk due to hurricanes though.
I can see it now: the "Beachfront Property Relief Act of 2022"
Unless ALL of our government representatives and all nations begin to address this issue seriously and not treat it as a political football, our children and grandchildren are doomed.
6
Take heart, doom isn't around the corner - certainly not for your children or theirs due to climate change. How about we get politics out of science and let scientists go out and gather the data they need without political payments.
Come on, we are adaptable. My ancestors used to live in Doggerland, and it was seriously waterlogged.
No, possibly your great great great great grandchildren. But before that.... Don't stress your self out.
Perhaps -- through evaporation -- the Earth is the only viable candidate that can "drain the swamp".
10
By "drain the swamp" he meant literally, so he could build a golf course.
Scientists, academic institutions and philanthropic organizations all over the world should come together to create an educational outlet geared toward the millions of citizens whose thinking about global warming include thoughts like, "Do [scientists] bother to take into account the record cold and blizzard conditions?"
The dearth of critical thinking skills among so many global citizens must be addressed.
The dearth of critical thinking skills among so many global citizens must be addressed.
7
How about this - equally fund scientists on both sides of the argument and stop the personal attacks on scientists that don't agree with consensus. Science isn't driven by consensus but by data.
If you think that scientists have not already taken into account this and many other questions raised by an uninformed public, you have no concept of what science is.
The power of the solar systems laughs at how important you think you are. Earth is 4.543 BILLION years old and these records are for 128 yrs of that history. Just fyi long before spray deodorant there were 5 ice ages and melts.
8
That's fine Jabouj, if you regard our valiant attempts to destroy the planet as just another cataclysmic event. Although I am sure the planet will bounce back, I am equally sure the human race won't be in it.
Lucky for you, Boise was recently rated as a location where climate change would have a small effect. But for residents of low-lying Pacific atolls that are already going underwater, your ignorance is no comfort.
Each one 10,000 years long. Not enough change each year to notice a trend even over 128 years. Now, 30 years? Not an ice age.
Us: Our cars are catching on fire!
CC deniers: So what? Your car's temperature has changed before.
CC deniers: So what? Your car's temperature has changed before.
9
2016 is just barely warmer than 1998 - that is 18 years with 2/100 of a degree of actual warming.
2015 is the 4th warmest in the past 38 years - not the 2nd and 2014 is the 8th. 4 years in the 21st century have been colder than 1995 Every year in the 21st century except 2016 has been colder than 1998.
Absolutely the earth continues to warm - as it has since the 1700's. But the rate of warming has nearly stalled.
Anything can happen in the remaining 84 years of the 21st century, but a warming rate of .01c/decade is not going to get us 4C of warming - or even .1c of additional warming.
03 2010 +0.34
04 2015 +0.26
05 2002 +0.22
06 2005 +0.20
07 2003 +0.19
08 2014 +0.18
09 2007 +0.16
10 2013 +0.13
11 2001 +0.12
12 2006 +0.11
13 2009 +0.10
14 2004 +0.08
15 1995 +0.07
16 2012 +0.06
17 1987 +0.05
18 1988 +0.04
19 2011 +0.02
20 1991 +0.02
21 1990 +0.01
22 1997 -0.01
23 1996 -0.01
24 1999 -0.02
25 2000 -0.02
26 1983 -0.04
27 1980 -0.04
28 1994 -0.06
29 2008 -0.10
30 1981 -0.11
31 1993 -0.20
32 1989 -0.21
33 1979 -0.21
34 1986 -0.22
35 1984 -0.24
36 1992 -0.28
37 1982 -0.30
38 1985 -0.36