2012 shatters heat records for continental U.S.
“Last year was the hottest on record for the continental United States, shattering the previous mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday.
The average temperature was 55.3 degrees, 1 degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees more than the 20th-century average. Temperatures were above normal in every month between June 2011 and September 2012, a 16-month stretch that hasn’t occurred since the government began keeping such records in 1895.
Federal scientists said that the data were compelling evidence that climate change is affecting weather in the United States and suggest that the nation’s weather is likely to be hotter, drier and potentially more extreme than it would have been without the warmer temperatures.
Last year’s record temperature is “clearly symptomatic of a changing climate,” said Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Americans can now see the sustained warmth over the course of their own lifetimes, something we haven’t seen before.”
Of course, if you’ve got your head buried in the sand — or your eyes and ears fixed to Fox News — you probably STILL haven’t noticed what has become so glaringly apparent.
– 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
669 comments Add your comment
hahahaha
January 8th, 2013
11:35 pm
Group hug guys…
All this crying, whining and name calling about the other one crying, whining and name calling has all of you tensed up and in need of checking your blood pressure
Bless your hearts
Adam
January 8th, 2013
11:38 pm
Anyway apologies all around for the over-the-top stuff, crossing the line, and other offensive comments.
Bottom line is global warming is real and at a bare minimum you have to be ignorant of evidence to think it’s not at this point.
If that last line was offensive I’m definitely not sorry. There is no reason to take it as such.
Thulsa Doom
January 8th, 2013
11:44 pm
“I’ve just had enough of this crap. There’s no good excuse for believing global warming isn’t happening anymore, except for ignorance of the evidence perhaps”
Adam,
With all due respect as td points out you shouldn’t get so upset just because your views are challenged. Your beliefs on global warming are your opinion and the opinions of some scientists.
There are scientists who believe that this whole global warming thing is a hoax or is greatly exaggerated. Are they ignorant when they in fact are also scientists who’ve studied the same stuff for years???
There are also plenty of scientists who believe that while the Earth is in a slight warming trend that we don’t know how much of it is due to man’s activities. These scientists from what I’ve read seem to have the majority view. They believe the Earth is in a slight warming trend, they believe that man’s activities may have something to do with it, but they don’t know and can’t prove empirically exactly how much of the warming is directly attributable to man’s activities.
Can you show me one article that conclusively proves that man made activities are warming the planet and empirically show exactly how much and to what degree these activities are causing the warming trend? Because until you can do that global warming is a theory and not a proven fact as you assert.
And then last there is the alarmist view of scientists who believe that the earth is warming and man’s activities are the main culprit. You seem to be reading a lot of these people’s views and not reading anything that doesn’t fit your narrative. And that would make you close minded.
Adam
January 8th, 2013
11:52 pm
Your beliefs on global warming are your opinion and the opinions of some scientists.
You are confused over what belief and opinion is.
You almost got me with the rest of that. But I am through arguing about it. You’re just plain wrong and you won’t accept it. Thankfully you are not in any position of power over the issue. I worry most about those who ARE in power and believe as you do.
But make no mistake, what YOU are saying is belief. What *I* am saying is based in evidence. There is no actual evidence that global warming isn’t real, which is what you would need to disprove a scientific theory. All that has been examined so far that supposedly disproves it has not actually done so.
Adam
January 8th, 2013
11:53 pm
Also satisfying YOU, personally, is not the measure by which something becomes “proven.”
Thulsa Doom
January 8th, 2013
11:54 pm
Allright good night all.
And Fred a special thanks to you. Your insults crack me up even if the name calling is directed at me. I hope Jay doesn’t ban you for the 4 millionth time.
Thulsa Doom
January 8th, 2013
11:57 pm
Adam,
We’ll take it up again soon. But from what I and others have seen no one has empirically proven global warming and that its primarily driven by mankind. If they had they would be able to empirically show exactly how and how much of the warming trend is directly attributable to man. To date they cannot do this. And your statement at 11:53 is a 2 way street. Anyway I’m out for real now.
Adam
January 8th, 2013
11:58 pm
Oh, forgot about Fred for a minute.
Fred, I didn’t lie. Every word of what I said was true. I AM registered as a Republican, I believe in reasonable and responsible gun ownership (the reasonable and responsible parts are likely where you think I’m “far left” even though any gun ownership advocacy at all pushes me right out of the “far left” immediately), I do work for an oil company and I do own a small business.
Every single word of that is true. Whether or not you believe it.
Thulsa Doom
January 8th, 2013
11:58 pm
Oh. And don’t forget to
R E S P E C T S A B A N !
Adam
January 8th, 2013
11:58 pm
We’ll take it up again soon.
While I can’t promise anything, I can promise you I will be making efforts that you and I will NOT be taking this up again. Discussion over.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
12:00 am
While I can’t promise anything ELSE*
Missing word.
Thulsa Doom
January 9th, 2013
12:01 am
That’s cool. Your input won’t be missed Adam.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
12:06 am
Of course not. It’s not like you were listening the first time.
marko
January 9th, 2013
5:56 am
Many conservatives are claiming to be skeptics. Skeptic is the politically correct word for contrarian. There’s a difference between having reasonable doubts, and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge overwhelming evidence. There’s no established link between human activities and global climate change, and O. J. was clearly framed by racist cops.
stands for decibels
January 9th, 2013
6:04 am
mornin’.
This is happening. And it’s NOT too late to do something about it. But if you keep pretending the problem doesn’t exist long enough, there won’t be any time left to fix it.
I’ll take some minor issue with this. There is ALWAYS time to fix a problem. It’s just that a problem like this becomes exponentially more expensive to fix the longer we neglect it.
Oh well.
[beltway a-holes]
Hey, look! Imaginary American debt crisis! ooh, shiny. Better make the olds and the poors feel some pain. It’s the only way to fix this.
[/beltway a-holes]
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
6:30 am
Assuming that manmade CO2 REALLY is causing global warming (I am not conviced yet, and I am a scientist, a geologist, and I am not a “con”), then I have a GREAT idea how to stop global warming:
Let’s put a carbon tax on JUST AMERICANS. We won’t address the slash and burn farmers in Brazil that add CO2 with their fires and kill CO2 consuming trees. We will continue to allow China and India to pump out as much CO2 as they wish (how could we stop them? go to war with them?) All our products could then be made in China since it would be cheaper because they would not have the carbon tax. We would kill our economy and the CO2 going into the atmosphere would still increase, BECAUSE IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM!
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
6:31 am
I forgot to add the best reason for the carbon tax – we would feel good about ourselves, while we are homeless and out of work. We have “saved the planet” from those disasters that are lurking 10 years in the future.
weetamoe
January 9th, 2013
6:36 am
It is astounding that a *newspaper writer* even one who makes a living blogging, would insult readers with an irrelevant crack about Fox. Desperation much?
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
6:36 am
So, Jay, the title of your article is warming in continental United States. But we are using this as evidence of GLOBAL warming? What did the oceans do? How about other continents? What was the AVERAGE temperature rise of the entire Earth, discounting any stations that are now near “heat islands”? Climatologists have been predicting a rising ocean due to global warming. And there is a trend – NOAA says the average historical ocean rise will result in about 8 inches of ocean rise by 2100. Anything above that is postulated on various “computer models” that are probably as accurate as weather maps for April.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
6:42 am
I see our cons continue to post their ignorance regarding yet another topic–global warming. The least they could do is include some unskewed data to support their words.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
6:45 am
Don’t worry cons. If you remain out of work and homeless you probably will not have to pay a carbon tax or even buy health insurance.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
6:53 am
Based on what our con posters have seen, they need to open their eyes and take a gander at more than just the inside of their eyelids. Of course that is after they pull their heads out of the… Sand. Yep. The sand.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
6:57 am
stands: I’ll take some minor issue with this. There is ALWAYS time to fix a problem. It’s just that a problem like this becomes exponentially more expensive to fix the longer we neglect it.
I think there is a point at which our resources are not enough to combat a particular problem, even if we finally get the courage to actually do it. I do think there is a point of no return, but we’re not there yet and it may be quite a ways off or it could be closer than we think. The point is it’s not to late right NOW. Unless we develop some way to shield ourselves from all of the negative consequences of NOT having done something so that we might continue to actually live long enough to reverse the effects….
Adam
January 9th, 2013
7:00 am
TaxPayer: The least they could do is include some unskewed data to support their words
Oh they do. A couple of people have said they have some articles on scientists who have been interviewed and now believe it’s a hoax or that humans have no responsibility. And what do you say to that? Huh? HUH?
It is useless arguing with them. They’ve made up their minds and are reaching to confirmation bias, all the while projecting their failings and close mindedness outward in order to make themselves feel more right.
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:06 am
Paint your roof white. Turn off your air conditioner. Buy a hybrid powered vehicle.
Use a clothes line instead of a dryer. Trade the powerboat for a sailboat. Baby steps.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:13 am
“Paint your roof white. Turn off your air conditioner. Buy a hybrid powered vehicle.
Use a clothes line instead of a dryer. Trade the powerboat for a sailboat. Baby steps.”
Yep, that will more than make up for all those slash and burn farmers in Brazil.
For your information, I own and drive a hybrid. We use a clothes line in summer. I have a heat pump water heater. We keep our temp set at 64 degrees in the winter. Not because we think the world will end if we don’t, but it SAVES MONEY. I am the world’s biggest fan of energy efficiency, because of the ECONOMICS, not because I am worried (yet) about manmade CO2.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
7:16 am
We will most likely buy a Prius for our next vehicle. Our house already meets the power company energy star criteria with the added insulation, double paned windows, etc. The shingles are one of the lighter colors as well. Our neighbor has even installed solar cells but I am holding off on that one in anticipation of a price drop in the future.
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:17 am
middle of the road
Yep, that will more than make up for all those slash and burn farmers in Brazil.
…………………………………………………………..
Not a problem, the US is good at invasion.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:17 am
So I have a challenge for the climatologists: If you are so sure that dire consequences are going to follow, give us your predictions for 25 years in the future. If you are wrong, we burn you at the stake. Still confident of your predictions. (By the way, your predictions have to be specific, none of this “It will be hotter and colder, we will have droughts and floods, we will have more and stonger hurricanes each year, but sometimes we will have less hurricanes and weaker hurricanes.” )
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:19 am
Taxpayer
We will most likely buy a Prius for our next vehicle. Our house already meets the power company energy star criteria with the added insulation, double paned windows, etc. The shingles are one of the lighter colors as well. Our neighbor has even installed solar cells but I am holding off on that one in anticipation of a price drop in the future.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Great! More money for taxes.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:19 am
“Yep, that will more than make up for all those slash and burn farmers in Brazil.
…………………………………………………………..
Not a problem, the US is good at invasion.”
Hey, I guess that could be a way out of the current recession. Invade China and India (and Brazil). That should ramp up the defense budget. Of course, all those tanks and guns and F-22s will have to be produced in Green factories.
Aquagirl
January 9th, 2013
7:21 am
A graphic on how loony denialists are:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
7:21 am
It is best that cons simply remain ignorant so long as they do the right thing and conserve. We do not need another Mayan type panic from them.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:22 am
“We will most likely buy a Prius for our next vehicle.”
How are you going to pay for that Prius when your job gets off-shored to China, where they can put out as much CO2 as they want.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
7:24 am
Taxes is what makes the world go round. It is because taxes was used to fund all those windmills that are oriented in a east-west direction.
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:24 am
middle of the road
Hey, I guess that could be a way out of the current recession. Invade China and India (and Brazil). That should ramp up the defense budget. Of course, all those tanks and guns and F-22s will have to be produced in Green factories.
…………………………………………………………………
Invading south on this continent would cut down on transportation costs.
also the resulting infrastructure could help our economy too.
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
7:25 am
Job! Ewww. You mean like doing manual labor. I have people for that.
Aquagirl
January 9th, 2013
7:30 am
Invading south on this continent would cut down on transportation costs.
Economics, infrastructure, blah, blah blah….We’d get ownership of some nice new beaches. That’s worth busting out a few F-22’s.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:30 am
Aquagirl – Show me the HISTORICAL evidence that proves global warming is going to create an imminent catastophe. How much has the mean sea level increased in the past 50 years? How much has the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature increased (corrected for stations that are near heat islands)? Do you REALLY believe that global warming STEERED Katrina into New Orleans and Hurricane Sandy into New York? None of the “computer projections”; just turn on any weather station to see how far out “computer projections” are good for.
Do I know for a fact that manmade global warming is not true? No. But I have not seen evidence that it is and that the results will be catastrophic in the short run. Which is cheaper – dike our cities against sea level rise (8 inches in 100 years) or melt down our economy with a carbon tax that doesn’t stop the rest of the world from putting out CO2. Give me HARD DATA on how much CO2 reduction will result WORLDWIDE from a U. S. carbon tax? (Answer: none, because the rest of the world will keep on putting out more and more.)
Paul
January 9th, 2013
7:33 am
if anyone is climate-changed out, here’s a column from ken Herman over at the Austin American Statesman. It’s based on a reader letter that pretty much agrees with Wayne Lapierre and the NRA and makes the point that guns don’t kill, really, people don’t kill, it’s men that kill. Knowing that it’s a specific subgroup of people causing all this murder and mayhem, some good suggestions for controlling men and guns come to mind.
Estrogen, anyone?
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/herman-men-and-guns-and-mass-murder/nTmJT/
Paul
January 9th, 2013
7:35 am
middle of the road
You sound like a Democrat talking about entitlements: ‘I got mine, nothing’s going to happen short-term, screw the kids and grandkids and the rest of ‘em.”
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 9th, 2013
7:39 am
Good morning to all y’all…
PAUL,
Did you see luckovich this morning?
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:39 am
Aquagirl
Economics, infrastructure, blah, blah blah….We’d get ownership of some nice new beaches. That’s worth busting out a few F-22’s.
…………………………………………………………
absolutely!
LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB
January 9th, 2013
7:40 am
It’s all my fault. Get your AK47 and fill me up. Don’t forget to invite Fred Phelps and Wayne LaPierre to my service.
Paul
January 9th, 2013
7:42 am
Corbin Sharpe
No, I hadn’t! That’s great.
middle of road
Clarification: it comes across as the same argument people who didn’t care about pcbs in drinking water or other pollutants used: ‘what’s the big deal? It’ll take years for the effects to show up. No sense in us worrying about it – we’ll all be dead by then anyhow.”
Rightwing troll
January 9th, 2013
7:43 am
Like with this past election when there was no “consensus” in the polls over who would win because dick Morris and Karl rove didn’t agree with the data? Just because two wing nuts don’t agree with the prevailing view, this doesn’t mean it’s not true…
stands for decibels
January 9th, 2013
7:43 am
After all is said and argued in blogs like this?
The evidence is sufficient. We should move toward the most effective steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere, and do it urgently.
Aquagirl
January 9th, 2013
7:45 am
Do I know for a fact that manmade global warming is not true? No. But I have not seen evidence that it is
If you’re too lazy to read any of those 13,926 peer reviewed articles then that’s not my problem.
JamVet
January 9th, 2013
7:45 am
There’s a difference between having reasonable doubts, and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge overwhelming evidence.
OUTSTANDING post, marko!
But I have not seen evidence that it is and that the results will be catastrophic in the short run.
Which was the exact same argument that the cigarette makers and their lobby used for YEARS.
Your politically motivated shortsightedness is irrelevant.
The scientific experts in a wide array of studies, countries, institutions and organizations are in virtually unanimous consent. These men have vast amounts of experience and are smarter than you Republicans. Who are barely even conversant on these highly complex systems.
So, listen to the men who are MUCH smarter than you,
Or don’t.
But either way, with your automatic and irrational gainsaying, you are not going to have much, if any impact, on these matters going forward…
TaxPayer
January 9th, 2013
7:46 am
I see one of NE Georgia’s finest was done in by one of his own.
Paul
January 9th, 2013
7:47 am
“There’s a difference between having reasonable doubts, and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge overwhelming evidence.”
That describes our climate change deniers.
AND the jury that found OJ ‘not guilty.’
Mick
January 9th, 2013
7:48 am
Let’s talk about hot and heat; it was 75 degrees this morining in miami and we are expected to hit 85 by this afternoon, that would be a record for january.
Well, two weeks ago, I was in tahoe, it was snowing and 17 degrees. So, what’s the moral of the story???
barking frog
January 9th, 2013
7:48 am
Nuclear power and electric cars would cure most of the carbon problem
but how to dispose of the nuclear waste is still a problem.
stands for decibels
January 9th, 2013
7:53 am
I do think there is a point of no return
Adam, I completely get this, and I don’t think it is the least bit alarmist to state such things forthrightly.
.
.
[I was going to post a long, rambling essay on the political realities, how people always think there's a "Plan B" that won't be SO bad if the "whackos" are right, and how we're ruled by horrible people and such, but I think I'll just leave at ^^that.]
stands for decibels
January 9th, 2013
7:55 am
You sound like aN IMAGINARY Democrat talking about entitlements
Had to fix Paul’s typo.
stands for decibels
January 9th, 2013
7:55 am
dumb GA Gooper SHEETZ.
clem
January 9th, 2013
7:57 am
earth could get back to normal now that boortz is retiring; unfortunately, another hot air person is replacing him.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
7:58 am
“You sound like a Democrat talking about entitlements: ‘I got mine, nothing’s going to happen short-term, screw the kids and grandkids and the rest of ‘em”
If I thought there was any danger to my kids or grandkids, I would be working towards a solution. I am much more worried about the deficit and the national debt than I am about global warming. I am MUCH more worried about crime and guns and school shootings than about global warming. If I had built my house 1 foot above sea level in Florida, I might be more worried, but if I did that I would be an idiot anyway (sort of like the people in New Orleans that live six feet below sea level – and then complain about being flooded).
I campaigned in the sixties and seventies against REAL pollution – you know , the type that makes it unsafe to swim in the great lakes or causes rivers to catch on fire. We addressed those issues (still trying to get Atlanta to separate their sewer system so they don’t put raw sewage into the Chattahoochee). CO2 has NOT been proven to be a pollutant. You, I and all the cows put it out daily. It is not directly hazardous to your health in ANY concentration we would ever be talking about in the atmosphere. We only THEORIZE that an increase in CO2 will have disastrous effects. Climatologists can’t even give a straightforward answer on what the effects will be! They basically say that any weather pattern can result from global warming! The proof lies in making a prediction and see if it comes about. We predict that mean sea level measured at Miami beach will rise 5 inches in the next ten years. Now wait ten years and see what your measurements tell you.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
8:00 am
middle: If you are so sure that dire consequences are going to follow, give us your predictions for 25 years in the future. If you are wrong, we burn you at the stake.
How about if they just say “Global warming is real, humans are most the cause, here’s how we are causing it” and don’t go into prediction mode? Can we at least get THAT far in the conversation? People assume too much about what the dire consequences will be and when they will happen that they have decided it’s best just to pretend the problem doesn’t even exist!
Adam
January 9th, 2013
8:02 am
There’s a difference between having reasonable doubts, and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge overwhelming evidence
On one hand, I wish I had been so clearly succinct and reasonable in my speech last night in exactly this fashion, because this is 100% correct.
On the other hand, there’s still no point in pointing this out. They believe what they believe and NOTHING you say will stop them. They need to simply be ignored, while adults handle the conversation and consequences of all this.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
8:05 am
“Clarification: it comes across as the same argument people who didn’t care about pcbs in drinking water or other pollutants used: ‘what’s the big deal? It’ll take years for the effects to show up. No sense in us worrying about it – we’ll all be dead by then anyhow.”
You are wrong, Paul – when thare was clear evidence that PCBs were carcinogens, they were outlawed in new construction, and disposal was carefully regulated. Same with asbestos. We had HISTORICAL data showing the effects of these products. We do not have HISTORICAL data yet showing a danger of global warming (my perusal of the NOAA website shows a historical trend that predicts an 8 inch rise in sea levels by 2100 – is that worth trillions of dollars of economic effect from a carbon tax that won’t even do anything about CO2 levels?)
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
8:11 am
“How about if they just say “Global warming is real, humans are most the cause, here’s how we are causing it” and don’t go into prediction mode? Can we at least get THAT far in the conversation? People assume too much about what the dire consequences will be and when they will happen that they have decided it’s best just to pretend the problem doesn’t even exist!”
If this was just arguing over a controversial theory, that would be no problem. But there are people out there saying we have to vote THIS YEAR a carbon tax in the U.S. – based on these “predictions” – that will most likely be ruinous to our economy and will most likely not reduce CO2 emissions GLOBALLY one gram!
I will be happy to campaign for increased energy efficieny – I am a great believer in it – for ECONOMICAL reasons. But a carbon tax is just downright STUPID!
Adam
January 9th, 2013
8:12 am
(sort of like the people in New Orleans that live six feet below sea level – and then complain about being flooded).
OBJECTION!
The problem isn’t that they live six feet underwater. The city was built on or above sea level and then it SANK. The problem really was that the levees were not up to code and the people knew that for years, but local politicians never actually did anything about it. Everyone really knew (if they paid attention) that those levees would break and a lot of people fought to have them upgraded. Only after Katrina did people get serious about it, and even then they STILL haven’t finished the upgrades.
It’s local politics that says “infrastructure isn’t important.” Sound familiar? FFS they only paved the roads over the past year because the Superbowl in in NOLA this year.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
8:15 am
If this was just arguing over a controversial theory, that would be no problem.
Well, we ARE still arguing about that, apparently, if you listen to conservatives at all.
I agree that a carbon tax will do nothing. That’s not the only thing we can do. We don’t have to go GWAR FIX NAO! but we shouldn’t settle just for “baby steps” either. The faster we fix it, the less the long term cost will be to fix it. Carbon tax has, as far as I can tell from reading up on it, no chance of actually fixing it whether we do it now or 100 years from now.
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
8:17 am
One of the main reasons I am so skeptical of climatologists claims is because of the evolution of these claims. At first, the climatologists were predicting dire consequences of sea level rise A FEW HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW. But when everyone just yawned, then their stories changed and we were talking about catastrophies within our lifetime. Also, the predictions went from global warming with sea level rise to global climate change, where foloods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, everything was a result of “global climate change”.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
8:26 am
middle: If you examine the evidence and find that their recent historical evidence is not showing that there is a link between the CO2 levels and subsequent climate shifts, then ok. But I think that we can pretty much say that what has happened has happened because of these climate shifts.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 9th, 2013
8:49 am
td — “John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.” It is, but it’s more than that, it’s criminal.”
Hmm. Well . . .
Critics of Coleman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Views_on_global_warming
If you’re clueless enough to think John Coleman’s a credible authority on climatology, then you’re clueless enough to let my dad do open-heart surgery on you. After all, he’s a ‘doctor.’
His doctorate is in microbiology, not medicine, but surely you won’t let a little thing like that stand in the way, will you?
middle of the road
January 9th, 2013
9:40 am
“If you examine the evidence and find that their recent historical evidence is not showing that there is a link between the CO2 levels and subsequent climate shifts, then ok. But I think that we can pretty much say that what has happened has happened because of these climate shifts.”
If the climatologists were saying that we have higher CO2 levels (fact) and that is causing the greenhouse effect to hold more heat and therefore we are going to see a higher AVERAGE global temperature, which will result in an increase in sea level of approximately 8 inches per year – than I would say I pretty much could accept that. It sounds reasonable and is supported by historical data. But when they say we will see a 6.6 foot sea level rise by 2100 based on “computer models” plus increased number and intensity of hurricanes, more tornadoes, more flooding, more droughts, plagues of frogs, of blood, and a general end of the world unless we pass a carbon tax on JUST the United States, then I begin to wonder about their sanity.
I was taught in my college courses that the earth has mitigating effects that keeps the CO2 levels in check. With increased CO2 you get more plant (including phytoplanton in the ocean) growth that consumes more CO2. As you increase the temp, you get more evaporation, which leads to more cloud formation, which increases reflectance of sunlight, meaning less heat absorption. I was also taught that these things happen over a span of time – thousands of years, not in 100 years.
I also balance the damage (theoretically) done by climate change against the cost of reversing climate change. Do we have to send ourselves back to the Dark Ages in order to stop global warming. Or maybe we wait and see and build houses better to withstand hurricanes and stop building on the coast where six feet will make a difference in flooding or not. People in Bangladesh have been living in a river delta since the dawn of human civilization and dying in floods, so an increase in sea level isn’t going to change that. They won’t move to higher ground no matter what their predicament.
Adam
January 9th, 2013
11:11 am
and that is causing the greenhouse effect to hold more heat and therefore we are going to see a higher AVERAGE global temperature, which will result in an increase in sea level of approximately 8 inches per year
You jumped forward too fast.
Try this:
and that is causing the greenhouse effect to hold more heat and therefore we are going to see a higher AVERAGE global temperature
Yes. We can agree on that. Will it cause a sea level rise? Will it cause a certain amount? What will the timing be?
On the first question, I think scientists have definitely pinned that down. The other two are in the realm of prediction with some solid data to back it up, but not enough to be definitive on either point.
It’s like if you ask me how long it will take me to finish a particular project. I can only give you an estimate.
I was taught in my college courses that the earth has mitigating effects that keeps the CO2 levels in check. With increased CO2 you get more plant (including phytoplanton in the ocean) growth that consumes more CO2. As you increase the temp, you get more evaporation, which leads to more cloud formation, which increases reflectance of sunlight, meaning less heat absorption. I was also taught that these things happen over a span of time – thousands of years, not in 100 years.
That is correct, but the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere is exceeding the ability of natural forces to mitigate it. On this, we have historical data.