Changing climate alters the Southeast

Something was missing this year at the Masters. The stirring golf and the back-nine drama were there as always, but the stage on which it all played out was missing the vibrant pinks and reds of the azaleas and the white of the dogwoods. The traditional signs of a Southern spring at Augusta National had already come and gone, a consequence of the warmest Georgia spring on record.

You’d have to be housebound not to have noticed, and the hard data back it up. According to the Southeast Regional Climate Center, so far 2012 is the warmest year in Atlanta’s 83-year meteorological record. In fact, it’s not even close.

Since March 1, average temperatures in Atlanta have been almost 11 degrees higher than average and almost three degrees higher than the second warmest on record. According to the SRCC, those are temperatures more typical of Tampa than Atlanta.

Perhaps more ominously, the last 12 months have also been the driest April-to-April period on record, with total rainfall in Atlanta a full eight inches lower than the second driest April-to-April on record.

That data won’t come as a surprise to Aris Georgakakos, director of the Georgia Water Resources Institute at Georgia Tech. For the past five years, he and other researchers at the institute have been studying the impact of climate change, both past and future, on water resources in all of Georgia’s main watersheds.

According to that research — funded in part through a contract with the state Environmental Protection Division — Georgia’s climate has already changed significantly and is destined to change further. For example, the historical record tells us that “precipitation has already fallen by 9 to 16 percent” over the past 50 years in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint watershed, according to Georgakakis.

“I’m not going to discuss why it is changing,” Georgakakos says. “l don’t want to get into the debate of the bloggers. But we can say that we see evidence of climate change, and it is clear evidence. It is not something that we can debate because we have observed information.”

Climate models have grown accurate enough to closely mimic the significant changes that we’ve already witnessed, according to Georgakakos, which builds confidence that they can be a useful guide to what the region’s climate will do in the future. And what do they predict for the ACF watershed, including Lake Lanier?

Total annual precipitation is expected to stabilize, although it will come in spurts. “The wet will get wetter and the dry will get drier,” as Georgakakos puts it. Rare floods such as the 2009 disaster in Cobb County will occur more often.

Temperatures, however, are predicted to increase. “The conditions that you experience in South Georgia are going to migrate up toward Atlanta,” Georgakakos warns.

Higher temperatures will mean that water will evaporate more quickly; increasingly thirsty plants will also absorb more water. Soil moisture — already significantly lower than historic norms — will decrease as well, meaning agriculture will also need to draw more water for irrigation.

That leaves less water for other human uses and for fish and other aquatic life. The research predicts that water levels in Lake Lanier will fall significantly lower than they did in the crisis of a few years ago, and will do so much more often.

“For whatever reason, climate change is happening,” Georgakakos concludes. And the potential impacts on our water supply, energy production, agricultural industries and environment go well beyond the early departure of azalea blossoms.

seclimate

Source: Southeast Regional Climate Center

– Jay Bookman

801 comments Add your comment

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
8:48 am

The group’s new name, ConservAmerica, is designed to “explain the connection between conservatism and conservation” and underscore the group’s ethic of stewardship.

Zig Zieglar would have a hard time trying to sell that connection these days.

The last great environmental friendly GOP President, Richard Nixon seems like a couple of hundred years ago now…

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:49 am

ragnar: anthropogenic causes do exist. NASA says they are the major (not only, but Major with a big M) cause.

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
8:49 am

“It said that the OIC needed to promote climate change policies, including recommendations on lifestyle changes which would suit Islamic values.”

What’s that, colder temps so the ladies will be more comfortable in their Burkas?

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:50 am

Jm: B. I believe in global warming, but using annual weather to discuss it isn’t scientific

True.

BTW, thank you for that particular post. Hope you had a happy easter weekend!

Jm

April 9th, 2012
8:51 am

Gale

Those less concerned are going to outbreed you

You must shrink your family if you want to keep it to 0

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
8:51 am

NASA says they are the major (not only, but Major with a big M) cause.

Rocket scientists? The guys who gave us the Minuteman? Buncha commies!

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:52 am

ByteMe: 2) There’s a coming energy revolution, similar to the technology revolution of the 1990’s, that will make us energy independent without worrying about hydrocarbon byproducts.

The problem is you’re only thinking in U.S. terms. Countries that haven’t quite caught up to us are contributing more to the problem even as we are contributing less.

Jm

April 9th, 2012
8:52 am

Adam
I would make a bad con

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:53 am

stevie ray: What a joke..yes it’s climate change Jay but it’s cyclical as opposed to one-time end of the world as we know it phenomenon

Do you have any kids? Grandkids? Would you like them to live?

Just asking….

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
8:54 am

The funny part is how the deniers here are the extremists of their own extremes…

A December Pew poll found that from 2009 to 2011, the percentage of moderate or liberal Republicans who say there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming jumped 22 percentage points, from 41% to 63% — 15 percentage points just since last year (from 48 to 63).

It’s not most Republicans who have moved away from the environment, it’s the extremist conservative wing that has moved so far away. So I’m not sure how “ConservAmerica” addresses that.

This issue is a huge loser for you rabid red Republicans.

Better get back to trying to teach creationism as standing side by side scientifically with Darwin in America’s public science classrooms…

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:54 am

Jay: This argument is repeatedly offered up when the topic is climate change, and it is nonsensical. We humans now number seven billion — 7,000,000,000 — and our presence has dramatically altered the planet on which we live. We have driven hundreds of other species into extinction, we have obliterated entire forests, we have replumbed the flow of water over its surface. The notion that we are too small to alter its atmosphere is ludicrous.

But the fact that it’s ludicrous doesn’t disqualify it from inclusion in the “Top Ten Things You Can Say To Rebut Climate Science” pamphlet.

Quoted for truth and the zing-factor

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
8:55 am

Jm, for the record, I had previously had some discussions with you about the so-called “Pickens Plan” which would, among other things, convert our long-haul trucks to natural gas. At the time I found it interesting and was willing to seriously consider such an effort–it seemed a win-win at the time, as did you.

I wish I could say I still did, but the more I’ve learned about the greenhouse gas issues associated with modern natural gas development, the more I’m skeptical of this energy resource as what some might call a “bridge fuel.”

Wondering if you’ve re-considered your position as well?

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
8:55 am

It doesn’t cost a person a damn extra penny to inflate the tires on his or her car to the proper pressure yet kayaker just cannot control his urge to pick on someone for ofering up a simple little thing thaat anyone with a car can afford to do in order to help just a little bit. Bravo, kayaker, for continuing to toe the party lie.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:56 am

I don’t doubt the climate is changing. Pretty obvious. The question is why.

Sorry, but that question, too, has already been answered. The why is us. We are the variable that is changing the climate more than any other.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
8:57 am

TaxPayer: Are the deniers posting here unwilling to actually discuss the science?

Evidence is not something that will help them make their point, so not really.

Glenn

April 9th, 2012
8:59 am

Well I hope this is just a cycle because there is nothing we can do about it . Developing nations will be the biggest carbon emitters from here on out .

Oscar

April 9th, 2012
9:00 am

From what I see, most people don’t really care. As long as they can get gas out of the pump and go about their business, one hundred years in the future or more is not something to worry about. People will party on up until the last drop of oil is gone and the last plastic toy produced. They they will look around for something else.

ByteMe - Thugs vs. Goons IN 3-D!!

April 9th, 2012
9:03 am

The problem is you’re only thinking in U.S. terms. Countries that haven’t quite caught up to us are contributing more to the problem even as we are contributing less

Actually, I’m not. What I’ve heard, once the technology is done, it’ll be cheap enough that any country will want it instead of their coal/oil/gas-fired options. It’s still about 10-20 years out, but it’s coming faster than the oil companies will want to admit.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:03 am

Oscar: You’re probably right. Something has to happen to make them care. Of course, that something also cannot happen as the backlash to it voting wise would cause them to not care again. It’s a double edged sword.

Perhaps it’s best that other countries are outpacing us in alternative energy innovation.

Soothsayer

April 9th, 2012
9:03 am

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:04 am

ByteMe: If true, good news.

Lyman Hall

April 9th, 2012
9:04 am

Soothsyer———–
.
If you do not know of the USSR’s attempt at climate legislation schemes (they were well ahead of you later-day Marxists)…..and if you do not know of the pollution caused by corrupt government centrally-managed economies……………………………then,
there really is no hope for you.
Except maybe for some spectacular dementia drugs recently produced by the private sector…..despite Government.
.
Google it dude…….its as old as Nazis attempting to quell smoking tobacco and obesity and the USSR’s attempt to “nationalize” women.
Progressives never go away, ..they go dormant for short periods,,,,,,then they just metestephy.

St Simons - sea level rising-not a theory, trust me

April 9th, 2012
9:05 am

“The great thing about Science, is that it’s true whether or not
you believe in it.” – Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson

There’s a big post out where the water used to be 30 years ago, and
a post where it is now. Cmon, all you big con talkers, let’s see how
much you believe what you regurgitate off the radio. Lets tie all you
deniers to the pole you believe in, and wait for high tide. Get some “skin
in yo game” Ain’t that what they say on the AM radio? Cmon bock bock
Yeah, that’s what I thought.

ByteMe - Thugs vs. Goons IN 3-D!!

April 9th, 2012
9:06 am

Developing nations will be the biggest carbon emitters from here on out .

China — with over 1 billion people — is the problem child for now. We’re number 2 with only 310 million people. The entirety of Europe is #3, the rest are also-rans far down the list.

China’s buying up oil and gas fields for a reason. They’re betting heavily on it. Be good to prove them wrong, wouldn’t it?

kayaker 71

April 9th, 2012
9:06 am

Taxpayer, 8:55,

No, it doesn’t hurt anything and might help, if you inflate your tires and get a tuneup. And for those who can afford it, the Chevy Volt might be just what you need. Algae fuels? Not, what you would say, just around the corner. Most of America wants our president to offer some other kinds of solutions to this fuel crisis other than band aids on a tumor. He won’t let us drill in ANWAR, he has effectively closed most federal lands to drilling, he sends money to Brazil to enhance their drilling capabilities, he won’t allow Keystone to proceed….. You figure it out. As we get closer to November, this gas thing, along with continued unemployment (where over 8% is now considered the norm) will raise it’s ugly head to a new level. And that’s not “continuing to toe the party lie”, my friend……. that’s reality.

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 9th, 2012
9:06 am

Perhaps the reason that Augusta still doesn’t allow woman members is because even people who write a blog about how morally wrong it is still watch the Masters on TV.

Mr Right

April 9th, 2012
9:06 am

CLUCK CLUCK says Henny Penny!!!

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
9:07 am

Lyman, it is not surprising that you have your own “science”.

You have your own language! (metestephy???)

So what is it going to take to get the last bastion of holdouts on the planet – you Tea Party/extremist/McCarthyist elements of the Republican Party – to finally join in with the community of man and take this problem seriously?

And to once again become real conservatives?

ByteMe - Thugs vs. Goons IN 3-D!!

April 9th, 2012
9:09 am

If true, good news.

The oil-based internal combustion engine is 19th century technology. It’ll die soon enough.

The future is solar, but not in the way people think now.

Soothsayer

April 9th, 2012
9:10 am

Lyman: how about you google it and present us all with a link.

By the way, now that you’ve gotten your “period,” might I suggest that you go ahead and finish high school?

It would be doing us all a great, big favor.

weetamoe

April 9th, 2012
9:13 am

As a firm believer in evolution, as that explained by Darwin, S. Jay Gould, and the rest, I welcome climate change as inevitable in the great scheme of things. The apostates are those who claim to be true believers but live their lives quite differently from what they preach to the masses.

Soothsayer

April 9th, 2012
9:14 am

By the way, Lyman, WTF is metestephy? Is that something Lush taught you? It must be real new ’cause I ain’t never heared of it!

carlosgvv

April 9th, 2012
9:17 am

Lyman

If you are still around in 2050, there is an excellent chance you’ll look back on this time period as the “good old days”. Further, you’ll roundly curse the Big Business sociopaths who poisoned the atmosphere for greed and profit and made your life a living hell.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:17 am

Interesting, just read an article that seems to dovetail this with the jobs numbers – So called seasonal adjustment may not be accurate thanks to a very mild winter, meaning the jobs numbers we have seen that seemed so great are actually somehow “stolen” from future months. I won’t pretend to totally understand until I read up on it more, but interesting nonetheless.

barking frog

April 9th, 2012
9:18 am

JamVet and kayaker
agree on metestephy.

barking frog

April 9th, 2012
9:20 am

918 should be JamVet
and soothsayer.

Jefferson

April 9th, 2012
9:20 am

Some folks don’t think it will affect them and care little about others.

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 9th, 2012
9:22 am

carlosgvv@9:17

It’s always someone else who gets the blame. When are the American people going to accept that they play a role in pollution?

Just saying..

April 9th, 2012
9:24 am

No worries. That esteemed scholar Rush Limbaugh has assured his many listeners it’s all a put up job. There’s a reason they call them sheep, uh, ditto heads.

Smug Alert:

April 9th, 2012
9:25 am

barking frog

April 9th, 2012
9:25 am

make a big dent in oil
consumption by stopping
the use of asphalt for
roads.

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
9:27 am

Wendall Cox, WSJ:

“California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet.

“Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.”

Libbie utopia. All the people stacked on top of one another and riding the train like cattle to slaughter. No guns, no smoking, no BBQing, no SUVs, and no freedom.

RB from Gwinnett

April 9th, 2012
9:28 am

Jay, “we have obliterated entire forests, “.

You do know there are more trees growing in this country today than there were 100 years ago, don’t you?

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
9:28 am

It doesn’t cost a person a damn extra penny to inflate the tires on his or her car

it does at most of the gas stations I visit. (grumble, grumble.)

actually, now that I think of it–wonder what an national mandate that gasoline retailers provide compressed air free of charge to customers would actually cost, compared to the benefit in saved fuel costs? anyone ever calculate that?

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
9:31 am

You do know there are more trees growing in this country today than there were 100 years ago, don’t you?

for the slower among us…

Quantity over quality?

The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement. The greatest diversity is found in the oldest forests, so there may be more forest now, but because it is so young, it is home for fewer animals, plants, insects and other organisms than a fully developed, mature forest ecosystem. It also means that protecting old growth forests is imperative.

Got what he meant by “obliterate” now, or do we need to use smaller words?

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 9th, 2012
9:31 am

“it does at most of the gas stations I visit. (grumble, grumble.)”

Even though it says 75 cents. If you go to Kroger, just tell them at the window and they will hit a button and turn the power on and your air is free for gas customers.

Lyman Hall

April 9th, 2012
9:34 am

You statists are obviously confusing a smart person with the R&D Washington Statist party.
.
There is a term for that, (one that thinks that if a person isn’t on THEIR rowing side of a stupid little canoe club..then he HAS to be on the other rowing side).
I would state the term……..but………the only argument would be my spelling.
Tooo funny.
.
The Ron Paul Revolution transcends….stupid little canoe clubs.

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
9:34 am

just tell them at the window and they will hit a button and turn the power on and your air is free for gas customers.

I’ll remember that, thanks. (I do know of a Quick Trip that has free air, along my commute; that’s my usual fill-up spot.)

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:34 am

A few quick question for the “scientists” on board who have climatology down to an “exact” science:

What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
9:35 am

kayaker,

You continue to toe the party lie and apparently you either do not know it or do not care. For example, have you even read the first paper on response capabilities in the arctic to an oil spill there as compared to say, a little spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Here’s one to get you started.

Jm

April 9th, 2012
9:38 am

Sfd 8:55

I still firmly believe natural gas is cleaner than gasoline, by about 25% on CO2. Don’t buy into the arguments of radical folks who think we can live on sunshine and rice cakes today

And it’s 100% American made and owned

Gale

April 9th, 2012
9:38 am

True, it does not help a lot when we replant old growth hardwood forests with fast growing pulpwood.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

April 9th, 2012
9:39 am

“Changing climate alters the Southeast”

Air conditioners altered the Southeast (or most Northerners would still be up there !).

Don’t forget the blizzard of around March 12th of 1992 I think it was.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:39 am

How about it, Taxpayer:

What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

RB from Gwinnett

April 9th, 2012
9:39 am

Sorry stands, I thought the issue was climate change. Please share with us how fewer insects in the forest is making it warmer in Georgia. Thanks in advance.

kayaker 71

April 9th, 2012
9:39 am

sfd,

Flying to Texas on US Air last week, I experienced the latest in those extra charges. Bags at $25 each. Seat selection based on some formula where you pay extra for some seats in coach. No food. A beer was $5. A first class upgrade was $100. The flight attendants were fat and ugly but a diet coke was still free.

lynnie gal

April 9th, 2012
9:41 am

If it’s raining outside and Fox News says it’s not raining outside, Republicans would believe their TV rather than go outside and see themselves if it’s raining. Then, if one of them did go out to see for themselves and got rained on, they’d deny that they were wet.

Nathanael Greene

April 9th, 2012
9:41 am

NASA ScienceCasts: The Surprising Power of a Solar Storm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EEFQHDSYP1I

The Sun’s storms are also heating the atmosphere this year. I guess since it’s not a meteor, they’re not giving it much credit … !0!z

Joe the Prophet

April 9th, 2012
9:42 am

I think the tornadoes in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia, and the hurricanes in Louisiana and Texas are more directly God’s hand…..Trying to tell those foks they need to change how they vote…!!!!!!!

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
9:42 am

Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth’s land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.

One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second. And estimates of 137 plant, animal and insect species being lost every day.

A huge percentage of the world’s rainforests, including nearly half of the world’s species of plants, animals and microorganisms, have been destroyed. Forever, in practical terms.

RB, a bunch of immature pine trees – most to be harvested in 10 – 20 years anyway – replacing old growth forests is not much of an answer.

You fail Tree Hugger 101.

Lyman, why do you hate the Boy Scouts of America? Did they do something to you?

The willfully ignorant neocons have no earthly clue how big the problem is:

Mankind pumps 4,408,000,000,000 pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere.

Every single year.

And try to get your heads around how much gaseous and particulate matter it takes to make a pound of pollutants.

THAT is the scale of the problem we face.

Joe the Prophet

April 9th, 2012
9:43 am

FOLKS…!!!! Not foks….!!! But, whatever….:-)…..

Jay

April 9th, 2012
9:43 am

“Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house.”

That’s a hilariously wrong-headed piece, godless. In fact, I may even write a blog post on it. For one thing, the traditional suburban housing model that Cox celebrates is itself a product of government regulation. Those tracts were created by zoning laws that mandated a minimum lot size and prohibited density, neither of which would have happened through economics.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:46 am

To help you with your data collection, Taxpayer, you might consider this nice, colorful graph which shows temperature variations over the past 400,000 + years.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Somewhere around 130,000 years ago, we hit a big temperature spike, higher than that of today. All without man’s input. And, somehow, some way, this trend reversed itself, all without the help of Al Gore. Since you are the self-appointed resident expert on all things climatically, help my small brain understand this, Taxpayer.

Scooter

April 9th, 2012
9:47 am

Rather than run into the arms of those altruistic politicians, who would love the power to control our weather, I choose to look forward to longer growing seasons. Which of course will help feed our growing population. But, there will always be people like Jay, who will trust politicians, well Democrats at least, to solve just about anything. So, we will give them the power now and then can measure their results in 20 years for methane and 100 years for CO2… oh the naivety.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:48 am

Bruno: What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

While I cannot speak to the prevailing idea during a specific time period that global cooling was a possibility, I can say that the scientific consensus is that global warming has actual evidence to back up its existence and that humans are THE major cause of the change. You can look here for more information, if you are so inclined: http://climate.nasa.gov/

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:48 am

So, how about it, Jay:

What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

Jefferson

April 9th, 2012
9:48 am

Next thing you are going to try to tell me is Atlanta doesn’t have a water problem. Don’t get in my way of money, main.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 9th, 2012
9:51 am

-Start of 2012, March shatter US heat records-

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren’t just broken, they were deep-fried.

Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records.

The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it’s the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated.

“Everybody has this uneasy feeling. This is weird. This is not good,” said Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist who specializes in extreme weather at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “It’s a guilty pleasure. You’re out enjoying this nice March weather, but you know it’s not a good thing.”

http://news.yahoo.com/start-2012-march-shatter-us-heat-records-042848594.html

Citation Needed

April 9th, 2012
9:51 am

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:51 am

Bruno: Is there a reason to believe that only the homeostatic forces are currently at work changing our climate? Is there any evidence at all to indicate that they are the only or major cause of our climate change? Or, is there evidence to back up the opposite? Do you have answers for these questions, ready and waiting?

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:52 am

Adam–Thanks for the link. If you will go to the section entitled “Uncertainties”, you will see this nice tidbit of info:

“Clouds. Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth’s climate, reflecting back into space about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth’s atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, cloud patterns may change, altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities. NASA and its research partners in industry, academia, and other nations have a small flotilla of spacecraft and aircraft studying clouds and the closely related phenomenon of aerosols.”

So, is it possible that current climate models may be incomplete??

kayaker 71

April 9th, 2012
9:52 am

Taxpayer, 9:35

Thank you for the link. Looks like something that everyone should read. Fragile ecosystems with unproven technology are together a recipe for disaster. However, with our economy depending entirely on fossil fuels for it’s existence, we face a dilemma, do we not?

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
9:53 am

Jay,

“For one thing, the traditional suburban housing model that Cox celebrates is itself a product of government regulation. Those tracts were created by zoning laws that mandated a minimum lot size and prohibited density, neither of which would have happened through economics.”

Yes because the governments didn’t want the blight of high density housing in their communities. They wanted lawns and flowers instead of all rooftops and asphalt. They wanted the improved quality of life that suburban living offered over in-town living.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
9:53 am

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 9th, 2012
9:53 am

I believe there is global warming but I am still open to how much is a natural cycle and how much is from mankind.

Just curious…..do any of you science buffs know if they are able to determine temps on the moon or Mars and what those temps are doing?

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:54 am

So, is it possible that current climate models may be incomplete??

Is it possible that saying it’s just a cycle is an incomplete explanation? Is it possible that explanation is even more incomplete than the rest of climate science?

Jack

April 9th, 2012
9:55 am

Tropical weather in moving north from Florida. That prediction was made before Bookman was born. No big deal.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:56 am

All of you will have to thank Adam for the next 4 posts:

“Carbon cycle. Currently, natural processes remove about half of each year’s human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, although this varies a bit year to year. It isn’t well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn’t well understood either. The planned Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission will mark NASA’s first attempt to answer some of these questions via space observations.”

Key phrase in this paragraph– “But this possibility isn’t well understood either.”

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:56 am

Steve – USA: Let me jump ahead of your questions a little bit and get to your point:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Adam

April 9th, 2012
9:57 am

Bruno: Is it possible that Bruno’s posts are cherry picked and meant to imply that science doesn’t know what the hell it’s doing? I’m JUST ASKING!

JohnnyReb

April 9th, 2012
9:58 am

Mimumm building lot size is determined by sewage.

Where there are central potable water and sewer systems, high density is a possibliity that can be controlled by politicians.

Where there is no central sewer, politicanis are over-rode by the Health Department who mandates the lot size determined by the space needed for a septic tank system. It is usually 1/3 acre. With no central water system, the minimum lot size grows substantially due to the required distance between a septic tank drail field and a water well.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:58 am

Now, this paragraph strikes more directly at Jay’s doomsday scenarios:

“Ocean circulation. One very popular hypothesis about climate change is that as the Earth as a whole warms, ocean circulation in the Atlantic will change to produce cooling in Western Europe. In its most extreme form, this hypothesis has advancing European ice sheets triggering a new ice age. A global-warming induced ice age is not considered very likely among climate scientists. But the idea highlights the importance of ocean circulation in maintaining regional climates. Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes.”

In case any of you missed it, Glenn Burns stated a few weeks ago that our warm winter has no bearing on our weather for the rest of the year, and that it was due to ocean current patterns changing.

RB from Gwinnett

April 9th, 2012
9:59 am

Gee Jammie, it would appear you’ve already been provided info showing this managed forests absorb more CO2 than old growth. What other BS do you want to float today?

Also, can you provide specifics on which of our states rain forests are being decimated at those rates?

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
9:59 am

“Precipitation. Human civilization is dependent upon where and when rain and snow fall. We need it for drinking water and for growing our food. Global climate models show that precipitation will generally increase, but not in all regions. Some regions will dry instead. Scientists and policymakers would like to use climate models to assess regional changes, but the models currently show wide variation in their results. For just one example, some models forecast less precipitation in the American southwest, where JPL is, while others foresee more precipitation. This lack of agreement on even the direction of change makes planning very difficult. There’s much research to be done on this question.”

Hmmmmm–Models not agreeing with each other. But why let the facts get in the way of a good political rant??

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
10:00 am

“Sea level rise. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used new satellite data to conclude that shrinkage of ice sheets may contribute more to sea level rise than it had thought as recently as 2001. The panel concluded that it could not “provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise” over the next century due to their lack of knowledge about Earth’s ice.2 There are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet, and 6-7 meters in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, while the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably not vulnerable to widespread melting in the next century. Many hundreds of millions of people live within that range of sea level increase, so our inability to predict what sea level rise is likely over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.”

Key phrases: “May”, “might”, “probably”. Kind of like the old “woulda, coulda, shoulda”.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
10:01 am

However, with our economy depending entirely on fossil fuels for it’s existence, we face a dilemma, do we not?

Yes. And the solutions to our problems take time and resources. We all know that we will continue to utilize fossil fuels but apparantly too few are willing to accept the fact that we cannot continue down this path. Fossil fuels are getting more scarce and more expensive and they pollute in more ways than one. We need alternatives and the oil, coal and gas companies do not have the incentives needed to work toward those alternatives. Their goals are to make profits doing what their charters call for — extraction of fossil fuels. I do not expect anything else from them. It would be like my asking a solar cell manufacturer to extract oil as part of its business model.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
10:01 am

From Astronomy for Kids:

The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day.

Because the earth’s moon obviously has no atmosphere this is the surface temperature and is irrelevant vis a vis any discussion of atmospheric temperature changes on earth.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
10:01 am

I’m surprised Bruno. It seems you think people are unable to click on the link and peruse themselves. Perhaps they would find somethingl ike this:

Causes:

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as “forcing” climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as “feedbacks.”

Intown

April 9th, 2012
10:02 am

The warming is due to the La Nina cycle, which, is becoming more frequent thanks to …[drumroll]… human caused global warming.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
10:02 am

Bruno: Is it possible that Bruno’s posts are cherry picked and meant to imply that science doesn’t know what the hell it’s doing? I’m JUST ASKING!

Adam–All of the above quotes came from the NASA link you provided, the one you likely didn’t read at all before putting up. Are you now disputing your own link??

Adam

April 9th, 2012
10:02 am

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

carlosgvv

April 9th, 2012
10:02 am

Bruno

Repeat after me:

Do not confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind.

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 9th, 2012
10:03 am

Adam@9:56

That was a good read, Thanks. I actually didn’t have a point, I was just wondering.

I actually think the $60,000 question is not if there is global warming but what are the proposed solutions to that problem.

Doggone/GA

April 9th, 2012
10:03 am

“The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement.”

Can’t remember where I read it, but something like this: the US forests have been halved in height and halved in extent since the first Europeans set foot here.

Aquagirl

April 9th, 2012
10:03 am

help my small brain understand this, Taxpayer.

Let me help your small brain, which apparently doesn’t understand things can have both natural and man-made causes. One does not negate the other. Avalanches, fires, and floods all happen naturally. Does that mean they can’t be caused by human intervention?

If your house is on fire and you see someone running away with a gas can and a lighter, you might suspect it wasn’t a natural cause. Or you would if you had any common sense. If it’s their child, a Republican will promptly blame a bolt of lightning from a blue sky.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
10:05 am

Is it possible Bruno is trying to make it seem like parts of my own link, found easily under “Uncertainties,” mean that science does not know what it is doing (when, in fact, this is exactly how science works)? Is it possible that point is false and irrelevant?

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
10:06 am

RB, the problem is worldwide global warming not American warming.

It is PLANETARY in scale.

Jeebus…

Bruno, by the very chart you provided the temperature spike you speak of is not one at all. It took 10,000 years to manifest itself.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
10:06 am

Septic tanks fill up and the contents must be removed periodically and “disposed of”. Perhaps those contents should be disposed of on the property that generated the waste to begin with. Now that would be interesting. It could even generate quite the stink with respect to private property rights.

Mick

April 9th, 2012
10:06 am

yaker

I haven’t flown for at least a year now, a most unpleasant experience, thanks for the heads up on baggage charges. I always shoot for the red eye or early bird flight. They took all the glamor out of flight, that’s why no attractive women are getting into it these days…

Adam

April 9th, 2012
10:06 am

Steve – USA: I actually think the $60,000 question is not if there is global warming but what are the proposed solutions to that problem.

If we can’t agree there is a problem and that humans are the major cause, then we can’t agree on solutions either.