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.
Source: Southeast Regional Climate Center
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
801 comments Add your comment
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:16 pm
Thulsa Doom: 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”.
While I could point out how “belief” has nothing to do with it, you are also incorrect:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-warming-caused-mostly-by-humans/1#.T4M1V_tYsSE
Well now maybe you can address the simple question I have pondered that not one liberal on here can answer.
I’m going to now post this multiple times so you can see it this time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
“arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”
godless heathen©
April 9th, 2012
3:16 pm
AG,
Hilarious, you are. So when the next appropriations bill comes up, we got Aquagirl down for give the military everything they ask for because they are not power-hungry liars. Got it.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:17 pm
Joe Mama,
I can’t remember which of the 2 it is either. Ituitively you would think its the higher one at 13,000 feet but I actually think it may have been the one that’s only 5,000 feet above sea level. Though it doesn’t make sense that that one would be several thousand feet deeper in the same area of the ocean. So its probably the higher elevation one after all. I just know its one of the 2.
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:17 pm
Thulsa Doom:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
“arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:17 pm
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.
Lyman–Excellent contribution. While the Libs have their CO2 blinders on, some of the rest of us are open to wider, more comprehensive theories about our climate. As far as I know, no one really understands why our magnetic poles shift periodically.
Don't Forget
April 9th, 2012
3:18 pm
Oh, and another variable that can explain cooler temps during high CO2 levels is volcanic activity which increases CO2 but blocks infrared radiation by putting large amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere. Mt. Pinatubo (sp) was an excellent example of that.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:18 pm
to manipulate the data to skew the numbers
More bad news timbo, there is NO data manipulation.
But there is volumes and volumes and volumes of studies done by independent researchers from every civilized country around the globe.
All in basic agreement.
This isn’t some Republican talking point, this is peer-reviewed science by the world’s best scientists from the world’s most credential organizations.
The list of which is staggering and beyond impressive.
getalife
April 9th, 2012
3:19 pm
cons should think about the planet they leave their children like they do on our deficit..
TaxPayer
April 9th, 2012
3:19 pm
Parameterizations
The problem with dividing the atmosphere into lots of little cubes is that there are many processes that are smaller than the cubes. So, for example, individual clouds may well be smaller than a grid box. They do still play an important role in the climate system, especially collectively, so somehow the processes that form them and the consequences of them existing must be represented. So, for example, based on knowledge of the temperature and humidity in a box, we must estimate how much cloud and how much rain there is in the box. We also need to know how much dust (i.e. ‘aerosol’) is in the box, as raindrops require a very small solid particle in the air to form on. This process is called parameterizing.
Well darn. Just darn. Why would they go and include something like clouds in a climate model.
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:20 pm
Bruno: 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.
How do you know it’s an important factor? Just because it’s missing? How important of a factor is a variable that, when not included, produces a model that gets pretty close to accurate results? When Newtonian physics described the movement of the planets, was that model completely useless because we did not yet understand space-time? Was space-time an important enough factor?
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:20 pm
Thulsa Doom:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
“arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”
Thomas
April 9th, 2012
3:20 pm
As far as I know, no one really understands why our magnetic poles shift periodically
Bruno- I thought this is measured around earthquakes- I thought there was a measurable tilt after the Japanese tsunami, no?
Atlanta1
April 9th, 2012
3:23 pm
While Europe had record cold tempatures. Used to be called Global Warming – now called Climate Change.
Polar caps on Earth are shrinking – also on Mars. No SUV’S on Mars – no coal fire electrical plants – no rain forest being eroded. Might be because the sun heats and cools in cycles and we’re going through one of the warmer cycles.
Or maybe, just maybe it is a combination of the two. And while we humans have contributed to Global Warming – that maybe it would be warming up anyway. And cows, let’s not forget the cows.
Here’s the thing, we should do all we can to make our planet sustainable. But it should be done in a smart and equitable way, that does not penalize the U.S. from an economic stand point, while other nations are given a free pass.
Try looking at it from both sides point of view and somewhere in the middle is the solution. But then again, the left believes what they want to believe and the right believes what they want to believe. Don’t let the facts get in the way kids…
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:24 pm
Bruno: Hmm I thought polar magnetic shifting was mentioned in the NASA site. Must have read it elsewhere. That too is not an explanation for 100 years of data.
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:24 pm
Thulsa Doom:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
“arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
Our God is a spooky God.
.
Ifn he was worried about global warming, he would open a can of smote on Washington DC.
.
Alas, we still have them.
Mighty Righty
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
Allatoona Lake is down less than a foot. Lanier is down about 5 feet. Most other lakes are full or down just a little. Why? The reason I checked lake levels is that according to Jays chart which I am not disputing Atlanta has had no rain. Up here where I live we have had plenty of rain. Now we haven’t had much the last week although night before last we had a pretty good storrm. Prior to that it rained every day for the better part of two weeks.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
So lemme see if I have the opposition’s science down correctly.
Temperatures around the world are suddenly spiking to a combination of sunspots, wobbles in the earth’s orbit, volcanoes, cow flatulence, shifting magnetic poles, stem cell research, the Oklahoma Beachfront Association and intelligent design!
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Adam,
And yet other scientists from NASA disagree. This is from the guy who did the measuring for Nasa’s satellite program.
getalife
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
Instagram just got paid a billion from Facebook.
The billion dollar app.
Sweet.
Reminds of the Clinton economy
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:25 pm
Nice link here to Geomagnetic reversal and its possible effect on living things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Matti's limit on listening to your darned ego wankage
April 9th, 2012
3:28 pm
**Yaaaaawwwwwnnnn!**
Yet another day of pompous people trying to “prove” their minds are superior to each other. Geebus, Willy and Martha, what the HECK do I care of science is not mathy enough to please your egos?
The REAL issues revolve around the fact that our climate IS changing, and the ongoing results of this, both short and long term, are going to affect our quality of life, access to resources, and effing property values, already!
And what do Y’ALL self-purported brainiacs want to do about THAT, huh? “Blah blah blah, I’m all mathy and smarter-er than you! Nyah nyah nyah! Science is for dummies! Dinosaurs lived well! Neener neener boo boo!”
With apologies to special needs children: RETARDO-RAMA!
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
3:29 pm
Bruno -
.
The trained-seals laugh, but there is indisputable evidence of polar shifting, although I do not believe that we will suddenly be flung into space when it happens.
.
Polar Shifting is as plausible as studying 5 billion years of climate via a COMPUTER program.
.
Progressives HAVE to have something to be miserable about.
Oh well………..Just send 10 percent of your wealth to Washington to be distributed to the oligarchs.
I’m sure everything will be alright.
godless heathen©
April 9th, 2012
3:29 pm
“Temperatures around the world are suddenly spiking to a combination of sunspots, wobbles in the earth’s orbit, volcanoes, cow flatulence, shifting magnetic poles, stem cell research, the Oklahoma Beachfront Association and intelligent design!”
And a slight increase in CO2 levels.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:30 pm
Used to be called Global Warming – now called Climate Change.
You are about ten years behind the times… I constantly post an article from National geogrtaphic in 2005 that explains that.
As for Mars…
There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:
Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars’ orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.
Adam
April 9th, 2012
3:31 pm
Thulsa: I’m not seeing disagreement on that one point you so desperately wanted someone to answer.
But it will take me some time to read it all.
Joe Hussein Mama
April 9th, 2012
3:32 pm
Doom — “I can’t remember which of the 2 it is either. Ituitively you would think its the higher one at 13,000 feet but I actually think it may have been the one that’s only 5,000 feet above sea level.”
I can’t recall the specifics, but IIRC, the peaks of both Mauna Loa (Long Mountain) and Mauna Kea (White Mountain) are over 13,000 feet above sea level. As I recall, there are five volcanoes that make up the Big Island (also Hualalai, Kilauea and one more I can’t remember the name of), plus there’s Loihi, which is burbling several thousand feet below sea level, off to the southeast.
Kilauea is the one that’s still erupting, and has been since 1983. You can actually drive into the caldera inside Volcanoes National Park, because most of the action is taking place downslope, southeast of that area. If you make your way to where the lava is entering the sea (which the park rangers EMPHATICALLY recommend that you do not do), you can see rocky chunks of a’a lava break off, fall into the water, and then FLOAT for a few seconds, hissing and spitting as they cool and vent off the gases trapped inside.
The gases are only part of the danger in the area; you could also step onto a thin crust over an active lava tube, called a ’skylight;’ you’d then plunge to your death into an underground stream of lava. Or you could be standing in the wrong place when a shelf of cooled but unstable lava collapses into the sea; I imagine you’d be parboiled in short order.
But regardless of the danger, seeing that lava going into the ocean is a hell of a sight.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:34 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.
Again, DF, there’s no reason not to work toward a less polluted environment, whichever side of the AGW fence one may be. I don’t think that’s in question right now. But, at the same time, there are practical economic considerations which must be taken into account. My gambler’s hunch is that we will develop economically viable alternative fuel sources long before we face any major environmental catastrophes due to global warming. At some time in the future we may have to burn fossil fuels on purpose if things start getting too cold.
Plenty of parrots on your side too.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:35 pm
heathen, you laugh, but I’m gonna charge you out the nose for that Tulsa condominium on the ocean…
Hopefully the Creation Museum in Kentucky survives.
Speaking of reality-averse loons…
“There is no such thing as global warming” ~Rick Santorum
The Republicans clerics have gone from having sound science to hide behind their anti-environmentalism to having bullet-proof science.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:39 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts
You would be wrong yet again Adam. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Even recently.
Also Adam there isn’t just one period where CO2 levels were substantially higher than today but temps were the same or roughly the same. There are various stages throughout our global history where CO2 levels were substantially higher than today but the earth did not burn up.
And while we’re at it Adam its pretty obvious just looking at the data that there were various periods throughout Earth’s history where CO2 levels were substantially higher than today. Yet there was no fossil fuel burning by man. But yet today you and others are willing to make an incorrect cause and effect calculation that its man that is chiefly responsible in a mere 100 years of fossil fuel burning for increased CO2 levels. And as I mentioned numerous times temps went up a mere 8 tenths of 1 percent in the past century. Those are the FACTS sir.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/what_will_happen_when_co2_levels_are_20_times_higher/
Aquagirl
April 9th, 2012
3:40 pm
So when the next appropriations bill comes up, we got Aquagirl down for give the military everything they ask for because they are not power-hungry liars.
Are you really that ignorant, godless heathen? Appropriation bills don’t give the military what they ask for; they give various Representatives and Senators what they’re asking for, and if the military doesn’t want it…well, that’s not a factor.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/05/us-pentagon-weapons-analysis-idUSTRE5744IN20090805
But way to show you don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you’re talking about, way to rep those denialists. Lots of butt-talking, absolutely no knowledge.
Slither off before you embarrass yourself any more, you can digest that big chunk of crow you just got fed. Mmmmmmm. Enjoy that. As a bonus, we won’t have to listen to you degrade the military.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:42 pm
“Progressives HAVE to have something to be miserable about”
Damn that was funny. Pretty much sums it up though.
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
3:42 pm
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
timbo
April 9th, 2012
3:43 pm
Jamvet,
Lets just put this thing to rest. I don’t think you, me, or anyone else here on this blog can definitively say that man is the cause of climate change. Of course, Adam would probably beg to differ as he seems to have a wide range of knowledge of everything discussed here on this blog, and is probably the smartest person in the world, just ask him.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:43 pm
The entire, non-worldwide ACC denial camp is comprised of one group only.
Four years ago, GOP nominee John McCain said without reservation that people are warming the planet and it’s time to act. This year the GOP debates have sounded like a panel discussion at a convention of the American Petroleum Institute. With one exception, all the candidates have embraced positions that run counter to facts the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on.
You Republicans have politicized and perverted science and everybody but you knows it.
carlosgvv
April 9th, 2012
3:44 pm
Many of you conservatives here think climatologists are deliberately distorting their findings and that, in fact, there is no evidence there is global warming or that it is caused by us humans. Just out of curiosity, why would so many climatologists do this?
timbo
April 9th, 2012
3:45 pm
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
3:42 pm
That is some good stuff right there. Kudos for the ‘Post of the Day” My favorite;
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
That statement is Genesis 1:1 in the liberals bible.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:46 pm
**Yaaaaawwwwwnnnn!**
A little on-topic tuneage for the bored posters among us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJmVDoY904
timbo
April 9th, 2012
3:47 pm
carlosgvv
April 9th, 2012
3:44 pm
Many of you conservatives here think climatologists are deliberately distorting their findings and that, in fact, there is no evidence there is global warming or that it is caused by us humans. Just out of curiosity, why would so many climatologists do this?
Follow the money.
independent thinker
April 9th, 2012
3:47 pm
How dare Jay mention that there are 7 billion mouths to feed . God forbid someone should dare mention population control as a means to limit global warming and further destruction of the natural ecology on our planet. and heave forbid someone mention birth control as a solution.
timbo
April 9th, 2012
3:49 pm
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
3:42 pm
If you don’t mind, can I use this?
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:50 pm
timbo, no disagreement there, brother.
But when 98% of the experts agree on something, it is damn hard to look away from that.
Again, I simply ask that you Republicans look very closely at this inescapable fact – you have no allies at all on your side.
ZERO.
Time for you to find a scientific champion who is a game changer.
B, good call. As always…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWuc5kar3Y
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:50 pm
Also Adam there isn’t just one period where CO2 levels were substantially higher than today but temps were the same or roughly the same. There are various stages throughout our global history where CO2 levels were substantially higher than today but the earth did not burn up.
Careful with that common sense, TD. It’s not a language the Libs understand.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:52 pm
Just out of curiosity, why would so many climatologists do this?
Not much research money out there for disproving AGW. All of the money is on the other side of the ideological fence.
Hey Jay
April 9th, 2012
3:52 pm
Hey Jay, every time you fart do you also send a check to algore and his carbon credit scam?
godless heathen©
April 9th, 2012
3:52 pm
Aquagirl,
If you were in fact in the military, there is no way I could degrade it any further, but thank you for your service anyway.
oblama
April 9th, 2012
3:52 pm
Just received my tax refund in the mail. Typical Fed government waste. It cost them 49 cents to send me a check for two cents. At least I finally got my two cents worth from the Oblama administration.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:53 pm
“Yet another day of pompous people trying to “prove” their minds are superior to each other.’
Nope. Its really just a difference of opinion between the liberals who are rather insistent that we do know everything, that we can prove that which we really can’t, etc. and the cons who are smart enough to realize that there is a lot that we don’t know and that other factors are most likely at play instead of just CO2 levels alone. Hard to explain that to the know it all crowd though who thinks we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is warming, that its due mainly to man, and that it will result in catastrophic results.
oblama
April 9th, 2012
3:55 pm
Has the climate not changed from hot to cold and back again several times since time began – most of which human’s did not exist? Maybe the coming warning of another ice age is God’s way of telling us to get our act in order and vote these clowns out of office before He has to take care business Himself.
harvey
April 9th, 2012
3:56 pm
Why aren’t you opining on the brutal murder of an old couple, the Straits, in Oklahoma by a black kid? Everyone is all over the Martin case, but the media is ignoring an outrageous crime commited against a very old white couple by a black kid. Racist much?
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
3:56 pm
Bruno,
I just find it astonishing this blind acceptance that we know all these things with 100% certainty and with limited data. The arrogance of man never ceases to amaze me. As you will likely concur we don’t know what we don’t know.
timbo
April 9th, 2012
3:57 pm
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism….I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect….Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” – Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy
Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple. – Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis
“Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” – Martin Keeley, geology scientist
“Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story.” – James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist
This is just a few, I can find a whole bunch more.
TaxPayer
April 9th, 2012
3:57 pm
The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming.
Yet all the evidence supporting that conclusion is not good enough for a denier. I wonder why deniers fly in airplanes. Probably because they do not understand the uncertainty surrounding the fatigue behavior of aluminum alloys. Then there’s the steel in their cars and bridges and skyscrapers. If they only knew the uncertainty in determining the exact yield strength of a piece of carbon steel even at a constant temperature with surface flaws that cannot be detected under 100x magnification. It’s truly a wonder any of them make it home, much less make it through the night sleeping under that heavy roof with those white pines sticks holding it up. That’s some scary stuff there.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
3:58 pm
JamMan–Great comeback at 3:50.
As for Global Warming, I’m for it. I hate cold weather. If I were as rich as Mick, I’d move to South Beach like him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VZC5vFVJJY
getalife
April 9th, 2012
3:59 pm
Big oil bought scientists are credible?
Um, no.
At least they did not believe their corrupt pols and looked for experts.
Baby steps.
Aquagirl
April 9th, 2012
3:59 pm
Follow the money.
I guess it’s a con thing….if you would make $#!^ up and lie through your teeth for money, you naturally assume everyone else would. This is why they don’t blame financial traders and other Wall Street types for screwing up the economy. They would do the same if they were in charge, so they genuinely don’t get the general outrage.
Let’s face it, denialists either think
1) they and their google-fu are smarter than 98% of climatologists, or
2) the climatologists are all deliberately lying for their own financial gain, and maintaining that front among several thousand people.
Seriously. That’s our 640+ comments in a nutshell.
Matti's limit on listening to your darned ego wankage
April 9th, 2012
3:59 pm
Bruno,
Nice try with the tune, but my disgust is not mitigated. Start offering possible solutions to the very REAL worsening problems we have on this planet, and I might stop barfing at this discussion.
Thulsa @ 3:53,
Really? So…. all these cons who are arguing that there’s no way we can “know” that the planet’s rising temperatures are due to man’s behavior, and therefore we must dismiss the very suggestion of such as godless liberal propaganda, are often the same people who are SO CERTAIN that a zygote has a “soul” the moment the little swimmer punctures the lining of the egg. Happen to notice that, Sparky?
I’ll say it again: EGOCENTRIC WANKAGE that solves nothing. And not even intelligent egocentric wankage, just wankage!
Lyman Hall
April 9th, 2012
4:00 pm
timbo———-
use away sir.
.
And in closing……………one should read Harry Harrison’s
“Stainless Steel Rat” series.
.
It explains it all.
.
The earth “wobbles” and the climate changes…..and no amount of money sent to the UN or the USSA will change that fact.
.
That is all.
oblama
April 9th, 2012
4:00 pm
Definition of a left wing, socialist Liberal….. we are going to save the world with your money. To late – with a 15 trillion debt we don’t have any money left. Oblama has more in common with the Hollyweird rich left than the so called common man. The common man does not own 4 mansions in 4 different states but Oblama does. Besides all good Dems agree that Clinton was the 1st Black President?
Obama is over
April 9th, 2012
4:01 pm
Jamvet has been over the top today trying to assign blame for global warming on the GOP. I realize that Obama can’t run his re-election campaign on the economy, the stimulus, healthcare reform, green energy programs, entitlement reform, tax reform, freedom of religion, seperation of powers, constitutional law, having any kind of budget plan, etc., but to blame the GOP on global warming is yet another weapon of mass distraction from the immediate issues at hand. Is our Energy policy to reduce carbon emissions or is it to provide a stable source of power for the country? The U. S. has the opportunity (thanks to the private sector) to be the lowest cost producer of liquified natural gas (LNG) in the world. After the Japanese Tsunami, Japan, Germany, and most of Europe plan on shifting the fuel source of their power plants from nuclear to LNG. Of course in Obamaland, free markets are not allowed to function without government involvement.Ed Markey (D.-Mass) has proposed legislation to bar federal approval of any LNG export terminals until 2025. Apparantly those who fear global warming don’t want anyone anywhere to use fossil fuel. So next time you drop $100 in your gas tank, think about the American Institute for Economic Research’sEPI (Everyday Price index) which unlike the Government’s CPI includes the price of food, fuel, and prescription drugs. Theyare calling for 15% inflation this year. Obama’s solution to our energy woes- Augusta National needs to admit female members.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
4:01 pm
Poor meat, that guy loves me.
B, did you see the article I posted where the Heartland Institute was trying to buy its way into credibility?
One last time, framing this argument in a “conservative” versus “liberal” construct is ludicrous.
Unless you propose that the Japanese government is “liberal”.
Or the Israeli government.
Or all of those dozens and dozens of scientific institutions around the world.
Or the United States military.
Or the Russians, Chinese, Indians, South Africans, Chileans and on and on and on and on.
There is only one construct that applies – the American Republican Party versus the rest of the species.
timbo
April 9th, 2012
4:01 pm
Jamvet, you still here? This one is for you;
“The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth’s surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature….Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises – just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans – heated by the sun – are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.” – John Takeuchi, meteorologist
So, it looks like someone else went to the same school I did.
Jm
April 9th, 2012
4:01 pm
We should be arguing over the cheapest practical solution
Not whether it is happening
Joe Hussein Mama
April 9th, 2012
4:02 pm
Bruno — “Not much research money out there for disproving AGW. All of the money is on the other side of the ideological fence.
Are you suggesting that climatologists have a financial incentive of some sort? If so, can you substantiate that, please?
They BOTH suck
April 9th, 2012
4:04 pm
“We should be arguing over the cheapest practical solution
Not whether it is happening”
Agreed
Joe Hussein Mama
April 9th, 2012
4:04 pm
L. Hall — “And in closing……………one should read Harry Harrison’s “Stainless Steel Rat” series.”
What’s Slippery Jim DiGriz got to do with all this?
They BOTH suck
April 9th, 2012
4:06 pm
Bruno
Great tune
The Firm was tight… Of course it is hard to go wrong with Rodgers, Page and Slade
oblama
April 9th, 2012
4:06 pm
The Fed government doesn’t have a real solution and if they did it sure wouldn’t be cheap. By the way Huvckabee just reported on the radio that one of Oblama’s departments just threw an $800,000 party in D.C. and WE footed the bill. Hope that makes your day.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
4:07 pm
Awww hell. Let’s just get the truth out of the way right now concerning global warming/ climate change, whatever the hell they are calling it today.
Its WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW’s FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
getalife
April 9th, 2012
4:08 pm
There is no solution.
Other countries like China and India chose profits over the planet too.
.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:08 pm
Nice try with the tune, but my disgust is not mitigated. Start offering possible solutions to the very REAL worsening problems we have on this planet, and I might stop barfing at this discussion.
Most of the solutions are already in the works, e.g nuclear fusion (not fission). Solar-electric cells have improved dramatically in just the past few years. Not sure if wind power will ever make a huge dent or not. Tapping the heat sink know as the ocean may be a long, long term solution via thermo electric flow.
It all comes down to economic viability, Matti. As long as it’s cheaper to burn oil, that’s what we’re going to do. It’s that simple. But no reason to lose hope now.
oblama
April 9th, 2012
4:09 pm
The climate would change for the best if we booted these entrenched Congress people out and got in someone with a brain and common sense for a change.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
4:09 pm
UH OH. JamVet is back to the “meat” routine. Still damn funny. Some things never get old.
TaxPayer
April 9th, 2012
4:10 pm
The documents show that Heartland’s climate change denial machine is chiefly funded by one donor, who is just called “Anonymous.” Their identity is not disclosed in the confidential documents. But the accounts reveal that this one donor has donated $13 million to Heartland’s climate denial work over five years, with another $1 million planned this year.
For one person to have such a huge influence on a key climate skeptic think tank is both interesting and worrying. For years the climate skeptics have operated to clear double standards. On the one hand they have repeatedly argued that climate scientists must be transparent with their work and have inundated them with Freedom of Information requests, but at the same time they have refused to come clean over who funds them.
Surely it is now beholden on the Heartland to come clean and tell everyone who their “key Anonymous Donor” is?
In the interests of transparency and credibility, it is the least the Heartland Institute can do.
Like that’s gonna happen.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:11 pm
Special for all the Libs today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49bl6FrgZTs
carlosgvv
April 9th, 2012
4:11 pm
timbo – 3:47
Brune – 3:52
Your answers are rather vague. Just how are climatologists benefiting financially by deliberately distorting human effects on global warming?
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:14 pm
I’ll say it again: EGOCENTRIC WANKAGE that solves nothing. And not even intelligent egocentric wankage, just wankage!
I thought you LIKED wankage. My bad.
Get Real
April 9th, 2012
4:14 pm
Must be slow day Jay to write this article….
getalife
April 9th, 2012
4:15 pm
They could not even cut big oil welfare so they will do nothing on this issue.
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
4:15 pm
Doomy, even with my tired old shtick I still crack myself up.
Jamvet has been over the top today trying to assign blame for global warming on the GOP.
Reading is fundamental.
I blame greedy, short-sighted, narcissistic, willfully stupid Republicans no more or less than greedy, short-sighted, narcissistic, willfully stupid Democrats. Or Irishmen. Or Indonesians. Or Israelis.
I blame ignoramuses like you for denying it based, not on educating yourselves and making intelligent counter-arguments, but on nothing but the commands of your clerics like Santorum, Brownback, Hannity, Rick Perry and Limbaugh among innumerable others.
How can you explain that you Republicans, who make up about 1% of the world’s population, make up 99% of the world’s deniers?
Your vast scientific acumen that dwarfs the rest of humanity’s?
B, going solar are we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OQADEC-1Yk
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:16 pm
carlosgvv–I’m sure you’re familiar with the research grant process. If the only grants available are for studies which prove AGW, then what percentage of scientists who win these grants would you expect to believe in AGW??
getalife
April 9th, 2012
4:17 pm
Get Real,
Slow news days are good days.
Matti's limit on listening to your darned ego wankage
April 9th, 2012
4:18 pm
Bruno: “But no reason to lose hope how.”
Too late. What hope do we have when the discussion of very real environmental issues are warped into this kind of partisan wrestlemania spectacle? JamVet nailed it: “…framing this argument in a “conservative” versus “liberal” construct is ludicrous.
Yet, that’s all I see on the issue. Meanwhile, PEOPLE ARE DYING because they have little or no access to potable water. Heyyyy, not our problem right? ‘Scuse me while I barf again.
Aquagirl
April 9th, 2012
4:19 pm
Doomy, even with my tired old shtick I still crack myself up.
It’s important to laugh at your own jokes.
Jm
April 9th, 2012
4:19 pm
Prices:
Solar electricity (when it is running) $0.33 per kWh
Nuclear: $0.13 per kWh
Your current rate is $0.09 or $0.10 per kWh
Waddaya have?
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:20 pm
Well guys, this is one theory of climatology that we all can agree on. For all the beautiful ladies on board today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdIqbv7SPo
timbo
April 9th, 2012
4:20 pm
JamVet
April 9th, 2012
3:50 pm
Again, I simply ask that you Republicans look very closely at this inescapable fact – you have no allies at all on your side.
ZERO.
You may want to re-tract that statement.
“The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world….The eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.” – Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
I have a whole bunch more folks that are on my side. Shall I continue posting, or can we agree that there are just as many detractors as supporters?
timbo
April 9th, 2012
4:22 pm
carlosgvv
April 9th, 2012
4:11 pm
timbo – 3:47
Brune – 3:52
Your answers are rather vague. Just how are climatologists benefiting financially by deliberately distorting human effects on global warming?
Are you familiar with government grants?
Adam
April 9th, 2012
4:23 pm
Bruno: Not much research money out there for disproving AGW. All of the money is on the other side of the ideological fence.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870
So much for that theory.
And weith that, I’m out for the day. Have fun folks!
getalife
April 9th, 2012
4:24 pm
“Study Ties Conservative Beliefs To ‘Low-Effort Thinking’” AOL (patents for sale)
Ya think?
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
4:25 pm
“If the only grants available are for studies which prove AGW, then what percentage of scientists who win these grants would you expect to believe in AGW??”
Its all about the funding. And scientists have many of the same motivations as everyone else.
Adam
April 9th, 2012
4:25 pm
Thulsa: I agree there’s a lot we don’t know. But you seem to think there are things we don’t know that we do, in fact, know.
Ok, out for real now. Have fun folks. Stay warm! (oh ho ho ho)
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:27 pm
How about it?? Who will stand with me against this Liberal War on the Sun??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRdtKUWn_wI
TaxPayer
April 9th, 2012
4:27 pm
From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent US$8.9 million, while the Koch Industries controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organisations of the “climate denial machine”.
Charles and David Koch, brothers who own the corporation and control its political spending, are two of the top 10 richest people in the United States.
Kansas-based Koch Industries is a conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests with approximately $100 billion in annual sales and operations in nearly 60 countries
Money and power. Some people just cannot seem to get enough. To what end.
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
4:28 pm
“Doomy, even with my tired old shtick I still crack myself up.”
Well its not really tired or old if it still amuses me, aquagirl, and others.
“greedy, short-sighted, narcissistic, willfully stupid Republicans”
And I chuckle still.
Matti's limit on listening to your darned ego wankage
April 9th, 2012
4:29 pm
Money? Government grants? REALLY? So….. those would be wayyyyy more lucrative than, say, the grants provided to scientists by the RICHEST PEOPLE ON EARTH, otherwise known as those who profit from the mining, refining, distribution, and sale of FOSSIL FRIGGIN’ FUELS?
Oh, wait, no… the international mega conglomerates would NEVER pay people to write reports (with quotable little tidbits inside, emailed directly to Hannity and friends) disputing that their products are bad for the environment, right? Cuz they’re just TOO HONEST!
Seriously? D’OH!
Matti's limit on listening to your darned ego wankage
April 9th, 2012
4:30 pm
Bruno,
It’s not working.
Bruno
April 9th, 2012
4:30 pm
Don’t know about the rest of you Cons, but I can’t hang with these AGWers any more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7DGPYzAvg&feature=related
timbo
April 9th, 2012
4:31 pm
And there is more…..
“Around the world, as controversy over climate change continues to grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled. In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in order to prevent ‘catastrophic’ warming, the world continues to cool….That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to “save the planet” is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes.” – Muriel Newman, mathematician, a member of the Northland Conservation Board
“As the climate change debate moves from the scientific to the political, it is important to stay with the facts. The bottom line is that humans cannot prevent global warming. Therefore, we should not be forced into emissions trading schemes, or any other scheme that sacrifices Australia’s economic advantage and standard of living for the wrong reasons….Sure, let us try to lessen our environmental impact and develop a sustainable economy, but we should not be carried away by misconceptions about what is driving climate change. It’s with the Earth itself.” – W.J. “Bill” Collins, professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences-James Cook University
“There is no proof that carbon dioxide is causing or precedes global warming….All indications are that the minor warming cycle finished in 2001 and that Arctic ice melting is related to cyclical orbit-tilt-axis changes in earth’s angle to the sun.” – John Williams, agricultural scientist, researcher, author, and educator, University of Melbourne (oh snap…there is that orbital-tilt-axis theory again)
“I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is….I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.” – Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow
Of course, Jay and his followers are much smarter than any of the folks I have quoted here, right Adam?
Thulsa Doom
April 9th, 2012
4:32 pm
Bruno,
Personally I think the liberals should either fine the sun or at least make a law that the sun has to emit less solar radiation to compensate for the CO2 induced global warming. At the very least they should regulate the sun a little more effectively.