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

Joe Hussein Mama

April 9th, 2012
1:50 pm

Jm — “Greenies should embrace nuclear”

Some of us do. Clearly you missed my earlier post.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
1:51 pm

TP @ 1:32 is another example of a parrot like Adam. Just repeat the same thing over and over, but never apply any real analysis. From his link:

“What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth’s history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we’ve experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.”

So, right after this paragraph one might expect some explanation of how and why the Earth has always cooled in the past following one of these warming periods. But, unfortunately, the article ends right there. Nada, Zip as to what homeostatic forces might be at work at the same time. So, just one side of the story being presented, in other words.

The only intelligent person from the Lib side on this blog today is DF, who at least demonstrated a working knowledge of feedback cycles and homeostasis.

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
1:54 pm

Both,

“So the US military, NASA, scientist at numerous think tanks, university scientists, scientists around the world working for government, profit, non profit are in on this GW secret?”

Did I say there was a secret? I just asked if the military might overstate a threat in order to advance their own agenda.

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
1:55 pm

Greenies should embrace nuclear

To echo JHM–I see nuclear energy as a bridge technology of sorts; a necessary evil, if you will. They’re incredibly (and, I might add, necessarily) expensive but they have to be part of our future.

Billybob

April 9th, 2012
1:55 pm

jay,
since climatologist would love some input, i’ve got some……….the intiial climate models were somehow destroyed and there are emails confirming data manipulation by the leading scientists of these studies……i’m going to say i see a defined ‘glaring hole’………jay, it’s not that they are stupid, it’s the fact that they think i am stupid……….phd liberal intellectuals are showing to be a little too smart for their britches in today’s society…….just like the voting id issue…………..easy and fun

Doggone/GA

April 9th, 2012
1:57 pm

“They’re incredibly (and, I might add, necessarily) expensive but they have to be part of our future”

All true…but I don’t see why they have to be so big. Not too long ago I read about one of our big nuclear subs that generates enough power to run a “small city” – so why not have smaller nuclear plants in many places, instead of a few huge ones? If they can make them safe for a sub, they can make them safe on land too.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
1:59 pm

I’m sure the climatologists would love your input into what these “glaring holes” might be, since clearly they are too stupid to spot them on their own.

Jay–I’ll have to assume that you’re distracted by other tasks right now and were too busy to return to my 12:49 which points out the glaring holes. Here’s a link for your convenience:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/04/09/11173/?cp=9#comment-919606

BTW, I “found” these glaring weaknesses on the NASA site which Adam put up ostensibly in support of AGW. At least the NASA site is honest enough to list some reasonable objecting arguments. All you’re going to get at Taxpayer’s sites is half the story. Of course, that’s enough for him.

How about you, Jay?? Is only half the story good enough for you?? Only open to evidence which supports your foregone conclusions??

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
1:59 pm

TP @ 1:32 is another example of a parrot like Adam. Just repeat the same thing over and over, but never apply any real analysis.

Bruno,

Do tell why an article dealing with one specific issue in a complex topic explain some random question you might pose on any given day? Further, I thought you already knew all there was to know about Milankovitch cycles. Does it need to be repeated in each and every discussion just for your benefit.

timbo

April 9th, 2012
2:00 pm

Climate alarmists amuse the shyte out of me. They will devour the internet and dayum near bring Google to its knees looking for data that supports their agenda. If anyone dares to question their hypothesis, they spin around in circles and their tiny heads explode.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:04 pm

From the state of Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection:

Israel ratified the UNFCCC in 1996 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2004 and is committed to contribute to the global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to combat the harmful impacts of climate change. The country is committed to making best efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to a business as usual scenario.

Don't Forget

April 9th, 2012
2:06 pm

bruno:
In a word, Jay, you’re wrong. If we are limited to observation only, then the difference between correlation can never be established. There are many famous “false correlations” throughout our history:

Bruno you’ve kind of changed the subject and for good reason….. you can’t do controlled experiments with climate. Period. If we discount any science for which controlled studies can be performed you’re wiping out a good bit of science. It should also be said that the strength of observational studies is not uniform can be cummulative if the results are consistent under changing conditions. And I’d also add that if a preponderance of observational data is suspect, then a data set that contradicts a larger body of data is even more suspect.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:06 pm

Twelve years ago the Hebes were going hysterical! (as the deniers say about everybody who believes in the science.)

In 2000, Israel submitted a long-awaited report under the UN Convention for Climate Change . The report offered a dispiriting summary of global warming’s likely environmental impacts on the country. The worst case scenarios contained the following effects:

An increase in average temperatures of 1.6° to 1.8°;

A drop of 4 to 8 percent drop in overall precipitation;

A 10% increase in evapotranspiration (which means plants will need to receive more water to grow at present rates);

Increased rain intensity and a shortened rainy season;

Greater seasonable variability in the temperatures;

Increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events;

A rise in the sea level rise of 12-88cm;

An increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 560ppmv by the year 2040-2065.

Billybob

April 9th, 2012
2:07 pm

bruno,
the us voting population is learning the fact that a liberal/leftist is always a liberal/leftist first……..loser for nov.

Aquagirl

April 9th, 2012
2:08 pm

Did I say there was a secret? I just asked if the military might overstate a threat in order to advance their own agenda.

I love it when conspiracy theorists act all coy.

They BOTH suck

April 9th, 2012
2:08 pm

godless

I didn’t say you said anything… the question mark meant I was asking a question…………..

Now I really have to get back to this analysis / report

Peace

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

Bruno,

Since you feel a need for a review of those ice core samples along with the rest of the story, here is something to help you along. Did you have some specific issue that bugs you with respect to those samples. Is it the duration of the past three interglacials compared to the present one, that should have ended based on those, or perhaps it is the one from 430,000 years past that most disturbs you.

JB

April 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

It’s going to be 42 Wednesday night in Augusta. I live here. It was so cold last year I had to leave ( The Masters) early. Global warming is pure politics to get rid of fossil fuel. I’m hollering BS.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

The Aussies have their own governmental department to address the universally accepted science…

It is important that Australia reduce its carbon pollution to minimize the severity of climate change. However, because some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years after they are first emitted, there will be some changes that cannot be avoided due to past and inevitable future global emissions.

The Australian Government’s position paper, Adapting to Climate Change in Australia, sets out the Government’s vision for adapting to the impacts of climate change and proposes practical steps to realize that vision.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/

Are you Republicans starting to get the picture yet.

NOBODY on the planet earth is aligned with you on this matter.

How can that be???

Billybob

April 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

i’m still waiting for barrack hussein obama, mmm, mmm, mmm to lower the sea levels……….

timbo

April 9th, 2012
2:10 pm

I think ‘Climate Change’ is the reason the Braves are 0-3 right now.

Joe Hussein Mama

April 9th, 2012
2:11 pm

Doggone — ” so why not have smaller nuclear plants in many places, instead of a few huge ones? If they can make them safe for a sub, they can make them safe on land too.”

There are nuclear generator designs that can be containerized and shipped by rail or air. They could be assembled in remote areas to provide power to rural towns where power transmission is problematic or expensive. There was a plan to put a Toshiba model into service in a town in Alaska, but Toshiba never applied for a permit from the US government. IIRC, it would take 3-4 years to get approval and get the plant up and running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_nuclear_reactor

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:12 pm

Thulsa: Really Adam? You can prove that this CO2 has caused the atmosphere to have risen “dramatically” and that its man made? Please define “dramatically” and please prove that its man made.

I’m not surprised you didn’t even go to my original link. Here it is again, for I don’t know how many times. http://climate.nasa.gov/

You’ll find the data on CO2 levels right there, one click away.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
2:12 pm

Also, TP, per your 1:36, it’s more crap, which I’ll explain why in a moment. The salient point is that again, you’ve put up a link which only tells part of the story.

“We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.”

Anyone with a background in statistical modeling understands that modeling the past is pretty easy. Give me any finite number of data points, and I can give you an exact algebraic expression to include all of those points. BFD. Does that “created” equation accurately describe the future?? Not usually. Otherwise it would be easy to make millions in the stock market.

JB

April 9th, 2012
2:13 pm

Find me a liberal who’s wrong…………….And I’ll show you a miracle. I ‘ve never seen a group who because they read it or said it…It’s true….GEEZ.

Generation$crewed

April 9th, 2012
2:13 pm

Let’s assume that the current climate is caused for the most part by man made issues.

What is the plan to fix it?

Everyone is aware that America ain’t the main polluter in the world. Also we don’t have the most people.

So what is the plan to make China get on board or India,maybe russia, or how to get Germany on board?

So without a deal to assure that these countries will be making the same type of cuts as us, what is the benefit of any actions other than to make ourselves a lesser player in economic affairs?

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:14 pm

Jay: I’m sure the climatologists would love your input into what these “glaring holes” might be, since clearly they are too stupid to spot them on their own.

Not to mention how stupid they must be to rely on those models and post the problems they have with those models on the SAME SITE.

Bruno: How about you, Jay?? Is only half the story good enough for you??

This coming from the guy who only wants to portray HIS half. The fact that you still don’t get how the scientists can admit there are holes and still be completely correct with a high degree of accuracy is actually astonishing. I bet you apply that same logic to evolution, but I wonder if you apply it to other scientific “theories” like relativity and gravity?

timbo

April 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

OK, someone queue up some really scarry music here;

Twelve years ago the Hebes were going hysterical! (as the deniers say about everybody who believes in the science.)

In 2000, Israel submitted a long-awaited report under the UN Convention for Climate Change . The report offered a dispiriting summary of global warming’s likely environmental impacts on the country. The worst case scenarios contained the following effects:

An increase in average temperatures of 1.6° to 1.8°;

A drop of 4 to 8 percent drop in overall precipitation;

A 10% increase in evapotranspiration (which means plants will need to receive more water to grow at present rates);

Increased rain intensity and a shortened rainy season;

Greater seasonable variability in the temperatures;

Increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events;

A rise in the sea level rise of 12-88cm;

An increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 560ppmv by the year 2040-2065.

Oh my God….we’re all gonna die. Save yourselves everyone, save yourselves everyone!

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:15 pm

Bruno: Does that “created” equation accurately describe the future?? Not usually. Otherwise it would be easy to make millions in the stock market.

An analogy that does not apply, seeing as 1) An interpolated equation is not what is being used and 2) The stock market is an entirely different thing.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:16 pm

Having hosted the Kyoto Protocol, or United Nations Climate Change Conference, of course, the Japanese government and people have long been primary partners is educating people on man made climate change and finding ways to mitigate it’s effects.

There are dozens of great sites which speak to this effort…

ken

April 9th, 2012
2:17 pm

Global warming might be ending in Nov.. If Obama gets relected we will not be making any pollution..

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:21 pm

timbo, it just shows that they were that far ahead of you Republicans, twelve years ago!

Think of the gap now.

Again, how can you explain that your political party stands completely alone against the rest of mankind on this matter?

You have no one – as in nada, nary, nil, zero, zip – on your side.

Either you are the smartest MFers in the world or you are one bizarre collection of uninformed ostriches.

The debate is over.

LOL.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
2:23 pm

To echo JHM–I see nuclear energy as a bridge technology of sorts; a necessary evil, if you will. They’re incredibly (and, I might add, necessarily) expensive but they have to be part of our future.

I’d love to jump on the nuclear bandwagon with you all, but there’s only one small problem. The half-life of some of the radioactive by-products of nuclear fission is in the millions of years. Our current “strategy” for containing these spent by-products is to bury them in the ground, encased with concrete. Though they’re buried away from major fault lines, I see no guarantee that new fault lines may develop in the future due to plate tectonics or other geological forces.

I think we should jettison it into space, but rockets sometimes explode. Maybe one day we’ll develop a nuclear “pipeline” into outer space.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:25 pm

More evidence that ACC is nothing but a Democratic Party conspiracy…

In Germany Angela Merkel, then secretary of the environment during the conservative Helmut Kohl government, lead the German Kyoto Delegation and had a substantial role in making the Kyoto agreement possible.

Even Pope Benedict XVI stood against you Republicans.

Lyman Hall

April 9th, 2012
2:26 pm

Electing Ron Paul would make the world………….cooler.

barking frog

April 9th, 2012
2:27 pm

bruno
now there would be
shuttle worth funding.
send the nuclear waste into the sun.

Aquagirl

April 9th, 2012
2:27 pm

The Aussies have their own governmental department

OMG, not the Aussies! There’s your proof! No one is beyond the Global Warming Conspiracy’s reach!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFnSxeDfENk

Billybob

April 9th, 2012
2:28 pm

jam,
‘the debate is over’……….wow

Doggone/GA

April 9th, 2012
2:29 pm

“send the nuclear waste into the sun”

I’ve been saying that for AT LEAST the last 30 years!

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 9th, 2012
2:30 pm

mwuahahahahaha

Elizabeth Warren just caught the political world by surprise, announcing that her campaign raised nearly $7 million in the first three months of the year. That’s more than twice the amount that her opponent, Republican incumbent Scott Brown, brought in, and it apparently represents one of the biggest quarterly hauls ever posted by a Senate candidate.
salon.com

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:30 pm

bob, have you nothing to say regarding how the GOP is the ONLY outlier on the planet regarding this science?

I thought not…

USMC

April 9th, 2012
2:31 pm

“Changing climate alters the Southeast”–Comrade JAY BOOKMAN

Quickly now, someone roll out the FAINTING COUCH for poor Comrade Bookman! :-)
(I think Jay has Heartburn from eating more than his fair share of Borscht!)

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
2:32 pm

Here is a single link that encompasses much of that climate change story into one single post for you, Bruno. By the way, you proclaiming me to be “full of crap” is lame but typical of your childish behavior. If you represent Mudd’s academic prowess, they should disown you.

barking frog

April 9th, 2012
2:32 pm

doggone
i guess the scientists
don’t think it’s feasible.

USMC

April 9th, 2012
2:32 pm

“An analogy that does not apply, seeing as 1) An interpolated equation is not what is being used and 2) The stock market is an entirely different thing.”–ADAM

(Not intended to be Factual information)

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
2:33 pm

If we discount any science for which controlled studies can be performed you’re wiping out a good bit of science. It should also be said that the strength of observational studies is not uniform can be cummulative if the results are consistent under changing conditions. And I’d also add that if a preponderance of observational data is suspect, then a data set that contradicts a larger body of data is even more suspect

DF–Nice to have you back. Glad to hear an original voice in a room full of parrots here.

Per your comments on Science and reliability, I’m not suggesting that we limit ourselves to seeking truths which can only be confirmed by double-blind studies. Obviously medicine doesn’t operate that way, otherwise a substantial number of drugs would have to be taken off the market immediately.

All I’m saying today is when we venture away from the path of hard-core physics, in which verifiable experimental data is the gold standard, we need to tread carefully. In the case of climatology, the models currently in use admittedly don’t take into account numerous factors which obviously affect the climate. As such, I’m having a hard time understanding why I shouldn’t keep questioning. As stated above, one’s attitude toward the veracity of climatology in no way precludes taking a prudent course of action in the stewardship of our earth.

“Love Your Mother”

Doggone/GA

April 9th, 2012
2:34 pm

“i guess the scientists
don’t think it’s feasible”

I doubt feasiblity even enters into it. Of course it’s feasible. When it might not be is cost effective.

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
2:35 pm

Aquagirl: “I love it when conspiracy theorists act all coy.”

So now I’m a conspiracy theorist? Good grief. I simply asked AmVet a question about the military overstating a threat. I love how before 2008 you libbies wouldn’t trust a DoD statement as far as you could throw an Abrams tank, but now that the Obama is in charge, every DoD utterance is gospel truth.

timbo

April 9th, 2012
2:35 pm

Jamvet,

Sorry I can’t supply all the links that you alarmists produce. Guess I am just a common man that uses common sense. My common sense tells me that the folks who are screaming the loudest about climate change are also the ones to make the most financial gain (see AlGore). No one has definitively proven that man is THE cause of climate change.

There, now the debate is over.

JayPaul Krugman

April 9th, 2012
2:36 pm

We can solve this with a 10 percent carbon tax.
.
Its all transitory.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:37 pm

USMC: “An analogy that does not apply, seeing as 1) An interpolated equation is not what is being used and 2) The stock market is an entirely different thing.”–ADAM

(Not intended to be Factual information)

Oh please, DO tell me how I am wrong here. PLEASE!

Don't Forget

April 9th, 2012
2:38 pm

Bruno,
I think the carbon cycle is basically viewed as a constant by most climate models. I agree that that assumption is flawed but I don’t think it is unreasonable given the fact that those mechanism may be either enhanced or degraded by warming itself. You have to make some assumption if you wish to do science and in areas like climate and biological science that is unavoidable. Increased CO2 may stimulate plant growth but, by the same token, rising ocean temperatures could increase CO2 levels since warmer liquids can’t hold as much dissolved gases as cooler liquids.
This is why I stuck with what I believe to be irrefutable, the fact that CO2 traps heat. The question is whether there is reasonable doubt and there is less and less of that every day and it ultimately boils down to a risk/reward analysis. If these models are correct, the results could be catastrophic for future generations and dramatically change the world. I guess it’s kind of a Clint Eastwood kind of dilemma……… Are you feeling lucky??? (note I left the punk part out :lol: )

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:39 pm

Well, well, well, what do you know?

The right wing think tank heavily invested in denying man-made global warming was caught trying to buy some credibility.

As detailed in the papers, Heartland’s plans for this year included paying an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach schoolchildren that mainstream global- warming science is in dispute, even though it is a fact accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization.

It also pays prominent global-warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature-records website.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-02-18-PNI0218wir-think-tankPNIBrd_ST_U.htm

Peer-reviewed science, not Republican politics is what the world is going to rely upon…

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:39 pm

Bruno: Glad to hear an original voice in a room full of parrots here.

As opposed to your continued parroting of the ice core data.

Al Bore

April 9th, 2012
2:39 pm

Voter support for a Human CO2 climate crisis will continue to slip away until the millions of people in the global scientific community start acting like climate change is the “greatest threat to the planet” and to their children as well.
Deny that.
So with support all but gone, continuing to alienate voters by condemning their children to the greenhouse gas ovens will keep Conservatives in power forever.
REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed the crisis wasn’t real.
Deny that.
And some day, threatening our children like this will have real legal consequences. your comments here

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:40 pm

“The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”

I’m still waiting for Adam or some other liberal to explain why there are periods in Earth’s history with CO2 concentrations 12 times or greater than today yet global temps were the same as today.

My contention is very simple. That there are other factors at play and that we don’t know enough to prove one way or another if the climate is really warming due to man made activities. We don’t know what we don’t know.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:43 pm

Sorry I can’t supply all the links that you alarmists produce.

And there is your downfall.

Data, facts, evidence, measurements, readings, white papers, expert analysis, computer modeling, peer-review, this is how this science works.

This ACC denial is becoming the Republican Party’s new Scopes Monkey trial.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 9th, 2012
2:43 pm

Leeeeeeroy Jenkins: “At least I have chicken”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:44 pm

“We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth’s present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.”

I think Time magazine got it right when it wrote its cover story in May 1975 that the majority of the earth’s scientists said we are about to enter a new ice age.

Global cooling! Its coming for you and the sky is falling!

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:45 pm

Bruno: As such, I’m having a hard time understanding why I shouldn’t keep questioning. As stated above, one’s attitude toward the veracity of climatology in no way precludes taking a prudent course of action in the stewardship of our earth.

A good position to have. However, you are asking questions that have already been answered. It’s one thing to come up with a new reason why Climate Change should be questioned, but the ice core data is an old one, and it already has been shown to basically confirm what scientists already have figured out – that CO2 levels are a major component of the warming, and we are a major cause of that major increase. We also contribute in other major ways.

As Thulsa Doom no doubt looked up the info on the site I gave you, as you did, he/she will no doubt back me up that the CO2 levels are rising, the temperature is rising, and the reason CO2 is a large factor is there as well. Isn’t that right Thulsa? ;)

However I would like to point out that regardless of what you consider to be “parroting,” there’s a reason I keep bringing up this data and these statistics. You aren’t simply questioning them, you are saying they have come to the wrong conclusions simply because they do not have a completely controlled model to work from. I think DF is right to point out that you can’t simply discount that. You yourself admit as such. So why do you characterize it as though you’re only asking questions?

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
2:45 pm

Since you feel a need for a review of those ice core samples along with the rest of the story, here is something to help you along.

TP @ 2:10—Last response to your wimp-assed, one-sided website/posts. I’ve given you far too much attention today, but didn’t want any Libs here to claim that I was dodging your “proof”. So far your batting 0 for 4, so let’s make it 0 for 5. From your link:

“To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.”

Yet the article goes on to discount the effect of changes in the earths’ orbit and tilt in today’s world, leaving them only with CO2 as a possible culprit. And you guys think this somehow qualifies as legitimate Science?? Discovery through the process of elimination?? GMAFB, will you??

Last post to you today, TP. You’ve proven once again that you couldn’t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:46 pm

Joe Mama,

Got a neat trivia question for you since you mentioned Mauna Launa. Do you know what’s the tallest mountain in the world from base to the top?

godless heathen©

April 9th, 2012
2:47 pm

“Our current “strategy” for containing these spent by-products is to bury them in the ground, encased with concrete. Though they’re buried away from major fault lines, I see no guarantee that new fault lines may develop in the future due to plate tectonics or other geological forces.”

The current court challenge to the Yucca depository is that they only modeled the depositories safety for 10,000 years. You aren’t one of those that thinks that in 10,000 years a little bit of escaping radiation would be a problem to us earthlings are you? Long before 10,000 years we will probably be digging up the nuclear waste to feed the droids.

125 years ago New York City’s biggest environmental concern was what to with all the horse manure they scraped off the streets each day.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:47 pm

Even the giant oil companies themselves no longer deny the science!

You GOPers have no one left but each other.

So please, in your last futile gesture of defiance and intransigence, would the last Republican left, turn out the lights when you leave?

Peter

April 9th, 2012
2:47 pm

Pretty soon the climate change deniers will have to switch all of their arguments from “climate change is not happening” to “climate change is not man made”

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:48 pm

“TP.You’ve proven once again that you couldn’t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.”

Sooooooooo- what else is new?

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:48 pm

<I’m still waiting for Adam or some other liberal to explain why there are periods in Earth’s history with CO2 concentrations 12 times or greater than today yet global temps were the same as today.

Here’s your answer, Thulsa:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

Next question?

Mighty Righty

April 9th, 2012
2:50 pm

So now, “climate change” is effeting our little piece of the planet called Georgia or is it North Georgia, or perhaps Cobb county, Jay, you have lost it. I suggest professional help. At the same time research how and become knowledgeable in how the rain comes down, then evaporates, rises into clouds which then turns back into rain and the cycle starts all over. Also, while you are at it look at some civil war era pictures of the Atlanta area and note the absence of trees which now flourish in this area. Also, observe how concrete, like in cities, increases the temperature of an area. Also please explain why winter 2010 was one of the snowiest here in Georgia in years. I guess you have already forgottn about the major snow storms in the North East alnog with huge floods in New England just a few months ago. This has also has been a very cold year in Alaska with more snow than the natives can remember. It’s called weather Jay. Its been changing since Joseph was made a prince by Pharoah as a reward for his ability to forcast droughts. But then that was as recent as a few thousand years ago. I have to give liberals credit. Some of them have found a way to make a very nice living by predicting the obvious. Who would have thought that someone could make money off of forcecasting that climate will change when everyone knew (we thought) that climate always changes and has always changed since the beginning of time. Best of all, they get government grants to study the obvious and now are even asking for a tax on the entire world to protect us from a temperature increasing planet that has been going on for more than a hundred thousand years. Jay, I am sure you will be blowing the tax everyone scheme on behalf of the globalists left winf nuts in our current administration. BTW just what is the ideal temperature of our planet? This whole thing would be funny if the absence of common sense were not so tragic.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:51 pm

Bruno: So far your batting 0 for 4, so let’s make it 0 for 5.

Only someone who has already made up their mind on Climate Change would make that statement.

I acknowledge that you have presented valid data in the ice core sample. However, what you have failed to do is see how it’s one variable among many that has ALREADY been taken into account by the climate scientists – and they have come to the opposite conclusion.

Now it’s your turn. Acknowledge some truth in what I have given you, beyond the “Uncertainties” page that you focused in on.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:52 pm

Peter, that effort is well under way…

>i>Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got people’s attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:52 pm

“as you did, he/she will no doubt back me up that the CO2 levels are rising,”

So.

” the temperature is rising,”

Eight tenths of one degree over the past century? Surely you jest.

“and the reason CO2 is a large factor is there as well.”

If CO2 is the large factor then for the 3rd time today please explain to me as to why there have been other periods in Earth’s history when CO2 concentrations were 12 times or more greater today and yet the Earth’s temperatures were no warmer than today. I patiently await your explanation on this.

timbo

April 9th, 2012
2:53 pm

Jamvet

And all your Data, facts, evidence, measurements, readings, white papers, expert analysis, computer modeling, peer-review, this is how this science works. don’t mean squat. For every ’scientist’ that claims man is the cause of ‘Climate Change’, there are just as many scientists on the other side that say it is false. Until it is 100% proof positive that man is the cause, I will continue to believe that it is a money making scam. And why did all those ’scientists’ manipulate that data?

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:53 pm

Bruno: Yet the article goes on to discount the effect of changes in the earths’ orbit and tilt in today’s world, leaving them only with CO2 as a possible culprit. And you guys think this somehow qualifies as legitimate Science?? Discovery through the process of elimination??

That site is meant to distill information into an understandable form. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but rather a summary of the reasoning and conclusions. Again I am surprised you are focused on that. How about some intellectual honesty about that?

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:53 pm

Edited for readability…

Peter, that effort is well under way…

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got people’s attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
2:53 pm

should be 12 times or more greater THAN today.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:54 pm

Thulsa: If CO2 is the large factor then for the 3rd time today please explain to me as to why there have been other periods in Earth’s history when CO2 concentrations were 12 times or more greater today and yet the Earth’s temperatures were no warmer than today. I patiently await your explanation on this.

Already answered you.

Next question.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
2:55 pm

Thulsa: Eight tenths of one degree over the past century? Surely you jest.

Is that, or is that not, an increase? What is being debated here, whether global warming is happening, or whether or not it is happening ENOUGH for you?

rd

April 9th, 2012
2:56 pm

From a Republican meteorologist….

“My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-’90s I noticed startling changes in the weather floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change — along with 97 percent of published, peer-reviewed Ph.D.s, who link a 40 percent spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.”

He writes a good article -
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/04/02/douglas/

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
2:58 pm

For every ’scientist’ that claims man is the cause of ‘Climate Change’, there are just as many scientists on the other side that say it is false.

timbo, that is preposterous! Absurd! Nonsensical!

Look at my last link, if you dare.

The ultra prestigious National Academy of Sciences – created by none other than President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 – writes that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field support ACC.

For the mathematically challenged that is not 50 – 50. It is 49 to 1.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
3:00 pm

Last response to your wimp-assed, one-sided website/posts.I’ve given you far too much attention today, but didn’t want any Libs here to claim that I was dodging your “proof”. So far your batting 0 for 4, so let’s make it 0 for 5. From your link:

Bruno,

As usual, you proclaim yourself to be something exceptional. Yet all I see in your posts is someone exceptionally arrogant. Your lame attacks on me speak for themself. As usual, you are the loser here, Bruno. For once again you have proven yourself incapable of simply discussing the facts.

Lyman Hall

April 9th, 2012
3:02 pm

Actually, the real culprit is NOT climate change.
.
It is POLAR MAGNETIC CHANGE.
It is all shifting.Shifting of magnetic north, actually. It’s been accelerating recently, and its positioning correlates remarkably well with the fact that warming is greater to the east coast and lesser/nonexistent to the west. Also, there is a near bookmatch with the fact that on the other side of the globe, europe has had its coldest winter in over a decade.
.
CLIMATE CHANGE is just easier for Federal-Government-Educated-Seals to understand.(Obamaa/Romney supporters).

The U.S. is closer to the magnetic equator now. That is all.
.
Stay tuned for December 21,2012.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
3:03 pm

Here’s your answer, Thulsa:

Now Adam is trying to reference the same bogus link that TP kept trotting out. Let me handle this one, TD. Wouldn’t want you to get a fingernail dirty. From the link, Adam:

“This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006).”

If you read through the entire website, Adam, they can’t seem to make up their minds as to how great of an effect that solar output has in determining our climate. When it supports their AGW argument, they trump up its effect. When it’s the other way around, they claim the opposite. See TP’s earlier link in which they claimed it had minimal effect in today’s world.

The bottom line is that we don’t have a mathematical model which is complex enough to account for all the various factors which determine weather. In fact, depending on the nature of the underlying dynamics, there may not BE any explicit mathematical formula which can quantify our climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Joe Hussein Mama

April 9th, 2012
3:04 pm

Bruno — “I’d love to jump on the nuclear bandwagon with you all, but there’s only one small problem. The half-life of some of the radioactive by-products of nuclear fission is in the millions of years. Our current “strategy” for containing these spent by-products is to bury them in the ground, encased with concrete. Though they’re buried away from major fault lines, I see no guarantee that new fault lines may develop in the future due to plate tectonics or other geological forces.

Read up on pebble-bed reactor technology. The fuel elements are encased in pyrolitic graphite spheres before they ever go into the reactor, thereby practically eliminating the risk of accidental environmental contamination via escape of the by-products to which you refer. In addition, as the fuel elements are already individually containerized, fuel decommissioning and storage is greatly simplified, with concomitant increases in safety.

JamVet

April 9th, 2012
3:04 pm

Lyman, if nothing else, you are good for a chuckle. (Are you a big SyFy fan? LOL)

Out for a run…

oblama

April 9th, 2012
3:05 pm

OblamaNation (an abomination) – blaming everyone else but your self for this economic disaster we are facing. Look in the mirror – quit blaming every one else- if you voted for the expansion of government – you are to blame. Dems and Repubs have BOTH expanded the Fed debt and BOTH are to blame. This Congress and this President are all about smoke and mirrors. There are no real solutions here. When are we going to get voters willing to face reality and vote out these no solution politicians and vote in someone with the guts to come up with real, common sense solutions? We don’t need any more Samuel L. Jackson’s that voted for Oblama because Jackson said Oblama is black. (Ebony Magazine interview with SA.L. Jackson). Oblama isn’t getting it done. Being black, white, Asian, Latino. etc. is not a job requirement to be President. Time to terminate his employment. If Romney doesn’t get it done – do the same with him. These long time incumbents in Congress (there over 12 years) need to be terminated. Get a back bone. Vote for America to succeed. We don’t need any more Reality Show President’s.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
3:05 pm

Yet the article goes on to discount the effect of changes in the earths’ orbit and tilt in today’s world, leaving them only with CO2 as a possible culprit.

Bruno,

The articles I have presented discount nothing of relevance. Of course, if you think yourself capable, be specific in your attack and identify what you believe they have discounted along with your proof.

Adam

April 9th, 2012
3:06 pm

TaxPayer: I always find it curious when someone presents data and links (or takes someone else’s) and then comes to the exact wrong conclusion. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that Climate Change is real, humans are the major cause, and all the variables that drive it are also real, with major change being driven by human activity. And all of the data presented here today – ALL of it – says the same thing. The ice core data, the supposed smoking gun of 12 times more CO2, the temp, CO2 levels, sea levels, etc.

Even my dad, once a skeptic, avid Fox News watcher, and without me even talking to him about it, came to this conclusion when presented with data.

stands for decibels

April 9th, 2012
3:07 pm

I was going to write in response to this story, “Looks like the cattle ranchers are in on the vast grant conspiracy.”

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/latest/How-climate-change-affects-plant-growth-146656455.html

Then I noticed something odd in the comments…

“REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed the crisis wasn’t real.
Deny that.”

hmm. where’d I read *that* before?

Joe Hussein Mama

April 9th, 2012
3:07 pm

G. Heathen — “I love how before 2008 you libbies wouldn’t trust a DoD statement as far as you could throw an Abrams tank, but now that the Obama is in charge, every DoD utterance is gospel truth.”

Maybe you should ask General Eric Shinseki about who believed what he had to say about Iraq back then, and who believed him and who dissed him.

timbo

April 9th, 2012
3:08 pm

Jamvet

OK……then the argument is over because Abraham Lincoln set up the National Academy of Sciences? And 97-98% of those guys said it exists? Well then, hell’s bell’s, who am I too question it. Now if only a couple out of those 97-98% could explain to us why those really smart scientists decided to manipulate the data to skew the numbers to support their agenda, that would be awesome.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 9th, 2012
3:08 pm

I think Time magazine got it right when it wrote its cover story in May 1975

Yeah, cause science hasn’t advanced a lick since the mid 70’s. We didn’t map the genome in the ensuing period….or get really good at stem cell research….and teh Intrawebs didn’t really take off until after 1975.

1975, the end all, be all, year of science as knowed it.

mwuahahahahahahahahaha

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
3:09 pm

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
3:10 pm

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that Climate Change is real,

“humans are the major cause”

Um. No. There is not scientific evidence or proof that “humans are the major cause”. Only a minority of the scientific community believes that we are “the major cause”.

“and all the variables that drive it are also real,” with major change being driven by human activity”

major change being driven by human activity? Prove it. You can’t. Its merely your opinion and that of a small minority of alarmists. You can’t prove it any more than I can prove that pigs can fly.

Joe Hussein Mama

April 9th, 2012
3:10 pm

Doom — “Got a neat trivia question for you since you mentioned Mauna Launa. Do you know what’s the tallest mountain in the world from base to the top?”

It’s either Mauna Loa or Mauna Kea, I forget which. The base of both mountains is the mid-Pacific sea floor, so both are technically well over 40,000 feet from base to peak.

Aquagirl

April 9th, 2012
3:11 pm

So now I’m a conspiracy theorist? Good grief. I simply asked AmVet a question about the military overstating a threat.

Slither, slither, slither, godless heathen.

Being one of those “libs” who served in the military, if you’re going to trash them and call them power-hungry liars, I’m going to point that out. You are insinuating they’re deliberately misstating the facts so they can get more money. So spare me the “good grief” and the eyerolling, you’re calling our military leaders deliberate liars. Own it.

Or would you like to tap dance some more while calling them dirtbags under your breath?

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

April 9th, 2012
3:12 pm

Weren’t a lot of people still watching black and white tube tv’s back in 1975?
Nikon and Canon 35 mm film cameras were all the rage!

“Wow, look how far we’ve come!”

mwuahahahahahahaha

Adam

April 9th, 2012
3:13 pm

When it supports their AGW argument, they trump up its effect. When it’s the other way around, they claim the opposite. See TP’s earlier link in which they claimed it had minimal effect in today’s world.

In other words, they are entirely consistent when they say solar output being high warms the climate more, and being low warms the climate less. Or did you miss that whole aspect of this? I read much of that site and all of the solar data is consistent: When solar activity is EXTREMELY high, that variable causes a warming effect. When it is lower, it has less of a warming effect. And when the variable is slightly changed, it does not do much if other variables also slightly change.

The bottom line is that we don’t have a mathematical model which is complex enough to account for all the various factors which determine weather.

True. We do not. But we also have plenty of information to get really close. We have gotten so close, in fact, that when the models predicted things into the future, that actually has turned out to be close to accurate. While I would certainly love it if I was not off by a single micrometer in any direction when it comes to modelling, that is not our reality. If all you’re doing is asking questions, rather than trying to say something – anything – to support your already decided conclusion, then one wonders why you would skip over such obvious inconsistencies in your own logic. if, on the other hand, you’re just trying to support your own conclusion someway, somehow, then I guess it makes sense that you would twist yourself in knots over it.

The Skeptical Science site is not a “false” link. I have read it over, perhaps not the entire site (as there is a lot there) but neither have you. So don’t pretend you did anything more than skim, because only a skimmer would decide there is an inconsistency because today’s solar activity is shown to be different than yesteryear.

Thulsa Doom

April 9th, 2012
3:13 pm

Finn Uncool,

Well now maybe you can address the simple question I have pondered that not one liberal on here can answer. Scientists know that there have been several periods in Earth’s geologic history where CO2 concentrations were 12 times or more greater than today and yet temps were the same as today.

Since none of your liberal brethren even want to take a stab at answering this question perhaps you would like to answer this rather glaring inconcistency in the BS of the global warming alarmists. Have at it ma’am.

Bruno

April 9th, 2012
3:14 pm

However, what you have failed to do is see how it’s one variable among many that has ALREADY been taken into account by the climate scientists – and they have come to the opposite conclusion.

Adam–If the factors they listed were already “accounted for”, then why are they not part of the mathematical equations used to predict climate change?? Something can’t be “accounted for” unless it is actually “accounted for” mathematically within the model. By their own admission, numerous, important factors such as cloud cover aren’t part of the model because they escape our understanding.

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
3:14 pm

Adam,

Some things defy logic.

Don't Forget

April 9th, 2012
3:14 pm

Bruno, thanks. I can respect a skeptical viewpoint but there comes a point where that has to be abandoned and on this subject that point may be reached when it is too late. It’s a gamble either way. Plenty of parrots on your side too.

As to clouds I’d hypothesize that it’s a wash at best since daytime clouds block infrared radiation (light doesn’t really have anything to do with it) but at night they trap heat. I say it’s a wash at best because clouds seem to form more at night unless they are heat related storm clouds.

Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of global dimming. But here’s a link to a Nova special that’s fairly interesting. Admittedly they are trying to increase viewership and sell DVD’s but there are some interesting observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc-QX5qqz40