This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record

Tyler Durden's picture





 

2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms. But, as NOAA reported yesterday, 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year. Rainfall was dismal also at 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. NOAA also adds that the U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation, nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. 2012 saw 11 disasters that reached the $1 billion threshold in losses. Climate Central also confirms that fully two-thirds of the lower 48 states recorded their first-, second- or third-hottest years, and 43 states had one of their top 10 warmest years ever recorded. Globally, 2012 appears to be the eight warmest on record.

 

Hottest Year on Record

 

And one of the driest (least precipitation) on record...

 

With very significant events everywhere...

 

but it's not just the US, the world saw extreme weather everywhere...

 

Source: NOAA and Climate Central

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:26 | Link to Comment Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

I'm sure everything is just fine on planet Earth.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:33 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

cue up the moonbats in 3...2...1....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:41 | Link to Comment Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

From MIT on Pluto

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”

Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories.

From Space.com on Jupiter:

“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

From MIT on Triton:

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

On the origin of the runaway global warming theory of CO2 Feedback and Venus (PDF):

“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change:

“The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That leveling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulfuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.”

Open Letter of Resignation to the IPCC from Chris Landsea:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

– MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:46 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

too much truthiness. if it weren't for all the smut in the air earth would be even hotter and they know it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:58 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

I'm fairly certain that the globe contains more than the continental US.  What does the temperature for the rest of the world show?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:04 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:10 | Link to Comment Vagabond
Vagabond's picture

There is a clear correlation between debt levels and temperature.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:15 | Link to Comment yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

They may have a common cause.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:38 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

One large volcanic eruption and people will be begging for global warming while they starve to death due to global crop failures.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:42 | Link to Comment yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

In that scenario, I would expect the relationiship between debt levels and temperature to break down.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:12 | Link to Comment Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

The Earth's climate is too complicated for us to establish clear causation for temperature increases using current technology, but our industry will eventually kill everyone, whether through stripping arable land until there's no food, or through poisoning fresh water and rainfall, or some other unforeseen consequence of our technological society.

I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:20 | Link to Comment laozi
laozi's picture

Of course you can. Remember: only a terrorist would measure temperature and gather data.

Also: scientists look like geeks with their glasses on. More chicks for me. BO-YAH

/sarc

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:37 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hottest year on record?

C'mon, they say that every year.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:43 | Link to Comment Thomas
Thomas's picture

That was very clever. BTW-This may be the scariest heatmap, not the other one.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:21 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

"I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it."

You can't... but rest assured they haven't pondered too deeply about it. That is, what's actually causing the problem and what solutions (if any) and sacrifices would be necessary to correct the problem.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:48 | Link to Comment SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

yrbmegr

 

No trees, same result.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:46 | Link to Comment SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

yrbmegr,

 

Trees = paper.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, there is a relationship and there is a very good reason why...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“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, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:55 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Concerning your last three quotes, are any of these individuals climate scientists involved with the assessment of scientific journals and their related articles?  Do you perceive that opinions are science especially opinions of non-scientists?  A great book called Idiot America expounds on the war on expertise, by none other than well......idiots.  If everybody thinks their an expert than virtually no-one is.  Flakmeister is asking people to think and analyze for themselves, scoffing and mocking and ludricous assertions did not bring us cars, planes, computers or polymers.  Science did, and people's ability to use and apply science by educating themselves in the facts, might there be a lesson or two for you in there.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:10 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Global warming is a NWO scam for global control and redistribution of resources.  The U.N. is using the false threat of global warming to assert its power over sovereign nations.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:17 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Big government and big corporations lie about everything and every subject. Your argument means nothing. Stick to the evidence and the science. Are you saying the UN is the only vested interest here? Big energy can only move presidents and wars.  

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:02 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Big energy can only move presidents and wars. 

You imply energy companies and presidents are not on the same team. You are still watching the puppets and not the strings.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:18 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"only" was sarcastic. Let's see peak oil, the wars that result, the effects of burning it and reasons for skewing the evidence and motivations are in the interest of both players. Like debt and the crazy criminal financial system, both players need each other more than ever to keep moving forward. If you think the puppet show does not work in both directions, you're no Jim Henson 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:19 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suppose you believe that because you are too ignorant to understand the science? Because otherwise you could point to credible evidence to suggest that GW is wrong...  And since you cannot perform the latter we are left with the the conclusion that you are a simplistic fool that that is incapable of grasping the concept and have no credibility on the matter...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:45 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I've recently given up on thinking these people are simple fools. I'm moving toward the dark side and thinking now they are here specifically to spread propaganda. The level of denial and hysteria is too comical to be anything but a deliberate theatre of the strange.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about that. But I think it's creepy, mostly.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:08 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Freud posited two basic drives, eros and thanatos.  So much for lovers . . . as the unhappily married women who are the bread and butter of psychotherapy practices so monotomously complain, they are not the guys who make the money and run the show. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ahh, if only those "unhappily married women" would unpack the baggage of their adopted labels, they might find themselves free to choose otherwise. . .

but like the scientists who can only get attention publishing what funding pays for, unhappy + marriage + gender role-playing (works for "men" too) is a booming business to unravel, whether on the psych couch or the lawyer's courts.

so unnecessary, but a feature of the system, mmHmm. . .

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:15 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

How's that make you feel?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:19 | Link to Comment SDShack
SDShack's picture

"Hide the decline."

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

AGW is an emotional issue, not a scientific one. Both sides have their confirmation biases turned up.

How well does AGW, pro and con, correlate with political beliefs?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:46 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Climate study is a science.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

At least 31,487 American scientists disagree with the man made Global warming theory and have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:08 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And how many of them are climate scientists?

You are easily fooled or a hapless unwitting shill...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:19 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Maybe you took your social science classes too seriously.  I know you're probably a young smart guy who did well in school.  Those are the hardest to convince because they learned the misinformation too well.  It's hard to admit to themselves that maybe what they learned is wrong.  You'll get over it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:26 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry, never took a social science class in my life, I preferred heavy lifting...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:03 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

How much can your ego bench?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:01 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry if you were'nt up to it when you were younger....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:22 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

are those the same PhDs we read about in that article the other day?

There's quite a few folks with fancy letters after their name. We deal with that in court every day. It really depends on what they do, who pays them and whether they've done anything with the evidence 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

But not climate predictions.

That is a belief.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:24 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Climate predictions are statistical mathematics based on climate science. Mathematics is not a science, but it is a useful tool.

Predictions are possibilites. like the possibility that you will end up with lung cancer if you smoke a lot of cigarettes. Maybe you will and maybe you won't. Maybe you'll give up smoking in the off-chance it will save you from dying early and painfully of lung cancer. Lots of people gave up smoking on the probability alone because the likely outcome of cancer was far more horrific than the minimal pleasure of smoking.

Maybe you wouldn't and didn't. Maybe you never smoked.

Nobody cares what you think about it either way. Or what you do. Everyone knows the risks and does what they think is correct for themselves.

That is why climate prediction is important.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:36 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:14 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

It's based on models that have already failed to predict the last fourteen years.

And you want to extend that out to 100 years?

That's incredibly stupid.

 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 05:27 | Link to Comment ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

The same can be said for economics.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:26 | Link to Comment SDShack
SDShack's picture

AGW is a money, influence, political power issue. Just read the Climategate Emails that exposed all the fraud in the AGW fanaticsm and you will see the believers are nothing more than religious zealots clinging to their "scientific" religion that cannot be proven with any repeatable Scientific Method. What's even more ridiculous is that these same so called "scientists" that believe in AGW also believe in evolution, yet cannot seem to understand how that same evolution that only results in higher level life, is somehow threatened by the very higher order life (humans) that evolution created. Their circular logic is even a greater affront to any scientific method that they choose to either ignore or falsify.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:01 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That is some pretty tortured reasoning...

PS As for Climategate, that dog don't hunt anymore.... (not that it ever did)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:05 | Link to Comment silverserfer
silverserfer's picture

the excess heat given off by the overworked printing presses is clearly the cause

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:28 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Thanks.

From the first link, I took in the maximum amount of data available from GISTEMP, from what I assume is 1880 to what I assume is 2012 (not marked very well on the chart).  What I see is an increase of ~0.9 degrees C from 1880 to present.

Looking from 1990 to present, though it shows an upward sloping trend, the start and end temperature is only different by about 0.1 degrees, though the number from 1990 is at the top of a peak, while 2012 (?) is at the bottom of a trough.

Very interesting is the trend since 1970.  There seems to be a clear change that happens right there.  Of course, the time period right around 1970 sets off alarms for anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of gold as money.  Something strange seems to be going on there.

Do you have any similar data sets on CO2 emissions?  Did those also spike around that time?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:50 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

In ~1970, we started cut back on emitting S02 a powerful aerosol....

Don't be a lazy prick, you can google atmospheric c02 concentrations yourself... You do claim to  understand the most rudimentary basics of research, don't you?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:51 | Link to Comment squib
squib's picture

He will go do some DD (he does it for a living)...and then he'll want to compare with what you found. Settle down now flakky-poo.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:09 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah... just like the time he swore up and down that Roundup was not a Endocrine disruptor...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

uh, no he won't.

oh wait that strawberry blonde with the big t!ts and tan lines ad is back

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:36 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

I certainly am not basing my views on majority opinion among posters - most of whom could not define "isobar".  I am convinced that evidence reveals the climate is changing rapidly and this is the key.  It is not the change but the rapidity of change that is troubling. (Yes, the sun is warming but this is a multi-billion year process - not 100 years.) 

The author of "Physics for the Future Presidents" agrees with you - temps have risen 1 degree C since 1900 and there is a 90% chance that at least half of this is man-made.   This seems reasonable since the Earth is a close system and heat released through fossil fuels has nowhere to go. In the end, technology will save us through efficiency and new energies. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

"This seems reasonable since the Earth is a close system and heat released through fossil fuels has nowhere to go."

Heat is lost to space, if it is not trapped. That is the entire argument for AGW.

"In the end, technology will save us through efficiency and new energies. "

Since human nature will never change, the only thing that has over history is technology, so hopefully we can develop some kind of solution. I doubt efficiency will be the solution, what with Jevons Paradox and all.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:56 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use declines if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax or other conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher).[3] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the paradox.

Sounds like we need the collective to save us with common sense.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:26 | Link to Comment ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

NOAA is in the tank with the alarmists.  Try this on for size: 

 http://www.sepp.org/  

Subscribe and you will receive a weekly newsletter every Sunday night.  The truth is out there.  Just not where Flakmeister, the resident ZH "expert" says it is. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:49 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

NOAA has a job to do. If in the course of doing their job they become alarmed then maybe someone ought to pay attention to that?

Just say'n.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:04 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

The SEC has a job to do too.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, easy to buy off the SEC clods with an offer of a cushy IB job...

So just who is buying off the guys at NOAA or for that matter the university based researchers?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:51 | Link to Comment TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

.

So just who is buying off the guys at NOAA or for that matter the university based researchers?

Well, obviously people with *money*and*motives* are buying off the researchers.

 

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

 

     

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

 

Big Money Behind AGW Propganda

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:26 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you forgot the $10,000 offer from the oil companies for the "other side."

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:46 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Don't worry those that don't believe in climate change and the outcome of crop failure just won't be fed.  Problem solved.  

 

Besides what were they going to do about it anyways?  Nothing.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:18 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The problem is that you want people to BELIEVE in something rather than actually proving something to be truthful.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:36 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Doesn't matter.  340 acres around me that grew no corn, wheat or oats proves to me otherwise as does the falling yeild of 30% over ten years has final snapped.  I grew nothing last year, all dead by July.   I don't have to BELIEVE in that.  I just have to look at a dead field and an empty wallet.  So you can politely go fuck yourself on that FACT.

The POT growers...the fine purveyor of a WEED grew nothing.  A weed not growing...what does that tell you?  In turn in our area that meant the guy the cops rent the plane from to find the crops didn't fly as often, so his plane is up forsale because energy prices are too high and he didn't have enough business.  In turn that laid off two cops (good people) that would usually be needed to help with the varible fines and processing that is levied from capturing these guys.

 

Growing a plant, any plant requires a lot of water and energy.  Since water was scarce and energy is expensive.  Here's my prediction.  You are going to miss a couple of meals, that's if anyone cares enough to ship some your direction and it's available and moving to an area with food will be a challenge for most of you because energy is expensive.

 

I don't understand why people don't believe the government when it talks an economy, but when it comes to food you guys will choke yourselves on any cock offered.  Seriously think these people have your best interests at heart in any matter anymore.  We live in a world of paper silve, gold and wheat.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

Because your bad year at farming, or maybe your bad skillset, is clearly a 100% indicator of man-made global warming.

 

Fvking retard.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:40 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

And it wasn't one bad year.  It's been eight.  But you've never worked on a farm so your opinion is worth piss in a bucket.  Enjoy starvation.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:08 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Read about the Dust Bowl... Longterm cyclical droughts are actually the norm, especially in the central US. The last (relatively wet) 50 years are not. There are a lot of factors which led to this bubble, many of them not so obvious.

Farming is difficult. The physical demands are nothing compared to the mental mind-fuck. That's why people left farming for easy jobs. Sorry about your luck though.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"That's why people left farming for easy jobs"

Mechanization had something to do with it, I believe.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:35 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

It did while there were easy jobs available in the cities. Otherwise, they would have had no choice but to farm.

The tractor made economic since later... when you had 400 acres to farm instead of 40.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:36 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Sort of.  The valley flys in Jamacians and Mexicans to help as farm hands during the summer.  I like to think of it as the time the food and music improves during the year.  (local beer, jamacian jerk chicken bbq and proper mexican refried beans with churros = heaven)

If you can afford the equipment.  For around a 200k you can get a good combine used (baring fixing and replacement).  New for about half a million for a decent mid range one.  The loan rates for them are good this year though @ 12% from John Deer versus the Japanese, European, Russian and Chinese crap.  

In farm equipment, only one country knows how to make it well.  The USA.  Everything else won't last five years.  So if considering equipment, pay the premium for US made equipment.  Couple of reasons.

  • The warranties are rock solid.  
  • The after market parts are quality and reasonably priced (barings and struts mainly).
  • The ROI is measured in decades if you treat your equipment well.
  • Lots of engineering guys in basements work on products to make them better because they are built to be repaired in a field versus forklifted to a dealer. 

Used good equipment can cost nearly as much as new imports, there's a reason for that.  You will get your money out of it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:23 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

I'm not in the dust bowl.  I'm in Ontario.  Provider of a lion's share of world apple, corn, cheap grapes, peaches, spring plum and winter wheat production.  

We are the back up to the dust bowl and the prairies because that sort of thing hasn't ever happened since 1830.  It is something that just does not happen.  Ever.  Because of our seasons the land management is handled differently to avoid what the Feds in the USA did during 1930's.  

Nothing to be done about it now but find new things to grow.  Nearly a decade of attempting to get corn and wheat to grow to scale of the land and declining yields.  Just means people will have to learn new recipes if they want to eat something and be capable of identifying food when presented.  A for Apple will be replaced by A for Albatross.

 

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:01 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Even if the Earth is warming and humans are the main culprit, what the hell are we gonna do about? No practical solutions exist, which DO NOT include massive depopulation. So unless you can sell that politically, all you're gonna due is give more of your money to government to enact ridiculous "solutions" which achieve nothing but more hardship. The best thing we can do is adapt and hope new technologies save us later down the road. Or we can all pray for a volcanic eruption which is gonna happen sooner or later anyhow.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:11 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

yes, I feel the same way about bankers, torture, the second amendment and the first. Just keep looking the other way.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:22 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

What are we saving exactly?

  • EBT participants?  
  • Suburbanite nail and hair stylists?
  • Soccer moms?
  • Goat herder 6000 miles away?
  • Lawyer on capitol hill?
  • hobo's riding the rails?
  • etc...

Why save them?  

I like to think of it as mother nature saying enough is enough, she'll groom the human herd back a bit until we smarten up.  This is part of survival of the fittest.  

I haven't cried as the loss of habitats for animals.  I doubt most people will concern themselves with the human race going to more 'equitable' levels by the natural process of culling an oversized herd of humans.  In fact I bet a beer people won't even notice until the process starts to happen in their area of the world.  If it happens, it happens and there is nothing to be done about it except what you bring yourself.  Technology only goes so far when applied against a massive amount of mouths to feed and declining energy quality.

Think of it this way.  If we lost 90% of the human race tomorrow what would happen?

  • First thing is gas would get cheap again.
  • Most of all the renewable infrastructure could actually provide the remaining 10% with their FULL energy needs with extra.
  • Farming could be brought back to a proper scale along with the resource requirements.
  • Food in storage would last longer, not indefinitely, but it's breathing room to allow for proper prioritization of resource distribution.
  • Finished products like lumber, nails, bolts, copper wire, thick heavy guage steel would be available in un-needed factories and infrastructure.

These don't seem like bad things.  It's just getting the human race under the 500 million mark and keeping it that way.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:45 | Link to Comment Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Human sourced global warming debates are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is yield.  You can't bullshit yield.  Yield was fucked for a lot of crops last year.  It's probably going to be fucked again this summer.  Blame it on whatever the fuck you want, but that's the reality.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:24 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and don't forget those water tables. Yikes

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

We will likely starve to death from climate-driven crop failures before global warming gets around to drowning us in melt water.

For some reason I take little comfort from this.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:29 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I second that vote

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:07 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Wrong!  Believing or not believing is irrelevant and is nothing but a  fallacy.  ACCEPTANCE of EVIDENCE and comprehension of evidence is what brings us closer to a truth.  Once again to spout off about what you think or what you believe devoid of examining the evidence for yourself, and also comprehending the evidence leaves you as another American idiot.  Opinions are not science, assessment and measuring of actual phenomenon is science.  Not having any relevant background to investigate the science is a great impediment to discovering any functioning phenomenon especially of the natural world.  That is why education is important especially in the sciences since we cannot have lawyers, politicians, and frigging philosophers making decisions or voicing their opinions on matters they have no comprehension of.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:30 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:20 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I have to disagree.

It is not just 'assessment' or 'measuring', it is objectivity, transparency, veracity and peer review.

All of which appears to be sadly lacking in the AGW-Global Warming-Climate Change crowd.

What is occurring now is a repeat of this unfortunate incident:

"Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller's intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uoma-urp092011.php

When you get right down to it, it is a conlict of belief systems: conservative-libertarian based vs liberal based.

A conflict in which liberals have a greater emotional investment in protecting what provided their ancestors' livelihood - nature, while conservatives/libertarians support what brought about the modern world - technology.

 

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What the fuck are you babbling about re: lack of objectivity?

Can you provide any concrete examples of it in Climate Science and their peer review process? If not, STFU...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:14 | Link to Comment ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

What peer review process?  You folks are full of shit and you're probably all lined up with Al Gore's Climate Exchange in Chicago.  GFY's

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

When the AGWers make threats to the non-believers, you can see that their beliefs are tantamount to a religion. They tried removing past warm periods and fabricated Mann's Hockey Stick. They rely mostly on scare tactics instead proof, of which they have none, but still promote their beliefs as the gospel truth.

They are thinking emotionally, not objectively, just as if someone's religious beliefs were being attacked. If they were thinking objectively, they would have noticed the decline in temperature after 1998 and been more open to other opinions. But no.

Why didn't you question the lying and secrecy, they go along nicely with their intolerance - all emotionalism.

All this is a coup against technology fomented by liberal minds.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:43 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I see you are still long on innuendo and bullshit and light on facts...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:32 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Mother earth is not a liberal, a socialist, a libertarian, or a conservative. She's just pissed off at her dumbshit kids.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:51 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

She's a chaotic mother, not a linear mother.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:11 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

No, the first problem is that crops can fail for an infinite number of reasons, and he is too much of a shill to realize how stupid he sounds by implying otherwise. The second problem is that in typical alarmist fashion, his proposed solution is barbaric and does not even pretend to be just, equitable, or fair, let alone ethical.

Perhaps he used to write for Pravda.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:16 | Link to Comment TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

Globally it wasn't at all the warmest.   Not worried about getting fed.  I will feed myself, thank you.  Only socialists think someone else should feed them.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:43 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Good, that's the attitude most people should be taking.

 

Food doesn't care about politics.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:25 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Farmers as a productive group are pretty much as screwed as any group.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:55 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Exactly.  My equipment doesn't run without fuel.  The guys that come in from Mexico and Jamacia to help with the season fly here, need planes and fuel.  And I've noticed a lack of oil rigs pumping crude anywhere.

 

All that food comes from one source, cheap energy.  No cheap energy = no cheap food.  no cheap food = no cheap people.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:58 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I live in Michigan. A lot of crops got screwed early last year, but made a bit of a recovery. Tree fruit didn't.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:21 | Link to Comment LM
LM's picture

Wait, what? Who doesn't believe in climate change?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:51 | Link to Comment SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

CPL,

 

Your comments are feared by most. Proof of which, seen in comments further on, and our future. Have the large OG garden here, a couple acres of blueberries, and some edible animals. 

What an enjoyable difference it does make. 

Best to you and your harvest.

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:03 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

And to you and yours.  Fear is a bad place to be when things are messy, planning on moving to other options is a better strategy.  Worst place to be is ignorance.  It's happening now everywhere.  Some deluded belief that the universe is here to provide with no effort.    

Now people are like frogs being slowly boiled.  People dismiss size reduction on food packaging as part of the 'green' movement when the obvious answer is there just isn't so much of it available at greater cost for too many.

I know it's a tired yarn, but if people aren't willing to hedge their own lives with a bit of wiggle room for the bad times.  No amount of discussion that I would have with them would ever change their minds.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

There is a difference between wanting to provide for yourself and wanting everyone else to be destitute. People think the prepared are nutty because of imbeciles like CPL who wear their personal beliefs on their sleeves and revel in the smugness of being self-righteous, aloud, for all to hear. For example, by calling for everyone who doesn't agree with him to starve to death. Can you spell h-o-l-o-d-o-m-o-r? Stalin would be proud.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:58 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

I'm not here to give it.  Nor are you here to get it.

 

If we have something in common like goods or an agreed upon currency, then we have business.  Otherwise who are you to me?  Nobody.  To my family and community, they are people that have direct influence on my daily life.  My responsibility is to that.  To the needs and welfare of those in the immediate area because if something is going to change anywhere it starts around your own house.

Example:

Problem:  Highway and surrounding environment is a pigsty because half of NYC drive over the border to look at leaves.  

Rural answer: Put up signs, increase the amount of garbage cans, organise pick up scheduels and organise voluenteers to pick up crap from the side of the road.

Outcome:  Cleaner roads, less crap blowing into farm equipment breaking it, looks tidier.

Unexpected outcome:  Dump is undersized because the population in cars dumping garbage is twice as fast as the local community that lives there.

Problem:  Dump is undersized and surrounded by good farmland.  Building a new dump isn't possible with funds in a small rural Canadian community plus everyone is broke because nothing grew.

Rural Answer:  Traffic cops.  

Outcome:  Country coffers are filled partially, and most of the ticket go to the courts to process and return half of the recipt value.

Unexpected outcome:  Cannot use the current roster anymore than possible because they still have community work they need to do.  When it's the first nice week in spring, you can find lots of voluenteers to sit with a radar gun.  But it's winter and weather is shit out, everyone is broke and more household problems are being reported yet ignored on a provincial level.

Problem:  Not enough man power for local police station...

I would go on, but I hope you understand that everything around you doesn't happen by accident.  In a rural community of people working together, when things that happen by accident are usually not good things.  So, no, I don't give a shit if you starve.  I just don't have anything invested with you.  The fact you've got ten fingers and ten toes isn't enough for me to fight your battle.  For family and friends, sure I'll tear it up.  For you, I'll sell tickets and start a youtube channel.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:47 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

The Vikings were raising sheep in Greenland in 1000AD, before internal combustion, IIRC

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:37 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

With a total population of around how many people?  4500?  500?  10000?  Life was pretty hard.  It's why the vikings were raiders and piliaged most of their resources.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:43 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I see you have four compadres who cannot read a map.  Who would they raid living in Greenland, they were farming fishing outposts not raiding centers that was Northern Europe, from Greenland that is a 2800+ mile trip to raid.. That is a lot of rowing.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

The Vikings were exlporers as well.  I don't think Greenland was much colder than their prior homeland. They clearly didn't only intend to raid when they went on exploration voyages.

 

The Polynesians "sailed" much smaller vessels, without sails, to Hawaii and Easter Island FFS!!!  Go take a look at a map of Easter Island and you'll have better appreciation for Polynesians and see that the Vikings visit to Greenland wasn't such a great sailing accomplishment.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Also, they probably leapfrogged. Along the coast to France, across to England, from Scotland to the Faroe Islands to Iceland to Greenland. No massive 3 months in a boat with no sight of land.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:45 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

History is a 30 year hobby of mine, so let's see.  

Ireland.  Scotland.  France, Minsk, entire coastline of the Fjords....red/blonde hair doesn't just magically appear.  Oh yeah...Canada.  You can visit the 1000 year old viking village in Newfoundland (L'Anse aux Meadows).

The Viking secret weapon for long ocean travels is pickled cabbage (sauerkraut) so they didn't die of scurvy on route to where ever.  Mainland Europeans didn't figure it out until around the 1200's weirdly.

So you were saying about the limited ability of Vikings to travel the world and have stories written about them by ancient Greeks?  

Demetrius of Pharos was a Greek sea pirate that used to tangle with them all the time (200 AD, 2200 years ago) and was eventually co-opted by them.  Eventually that piece of history turned into Latvia (another story altogether).  Black hair and red beards.  Genetic markers show where the vikings have been.  I'm sure if some grad student combed the west coast of Africa there would be a couple of viking villages just like Canada.

 

 

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:59 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

1800 years ago. 2200 would be 200 BC.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:49 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

 lol.  Got it on the wrong side of the line of time in my head again.  BC/AD. 

Anycase the Greek pirate king was an interesting guy.  There are other points in reference to Platonic timeframes to giants that raided and plundered Roman outposts on shore which are slightly older.

Vikings in a swift long boat full of big guys with Maces and Axes that are built to row thousands of miles of ocean in all weather.  They could dance around European ships that needed that forward ram to skuttle a boat.  Vikings would drop the sail to cut speed, pull oars and pull up behind.  For shoreline targets, night raids, at least that's the assumption.  

It was the equivalent (in that time frame) to a battle cruiser rolling up to shore.  They were pretty bad ass for the time frame sailors sailed the seas.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:57 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Galatia.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:07 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

That's the one.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

The Fate of Greenland's Vikings

"Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder"

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:10 | Link to Comment formadesika3
formadesika3's picture

Based on what I've read, the Viking settlers who migrated to Greenland encountered the Inuit migrating from the west at the same time their crops began to fail.

The Vikings refused to adapt. The Inuit were willing to show the European Norsemen how they survived in that harsh environment. The Norse, although surrounded by some of the richest fishing waters in the world, wouldn't learn to fish. They insisted on trying to grow their traditional crops and raising livestock.

Refusing to adapt to their changing environment was why the Norse died out in Greenland.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 10:57 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I wasn't aware that they had records about pluto and jupiter from the 19th century...perhaps Jules Verne was of assistance?

Extrapolating forward from 10 years of data is cute, but not science in the least; the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, reflectometry changes which concretely demonstrate the increased green-house effect, monotonically warming oceans etc aren't really explained all that well by solar changes alone.

I hope the Koch Bros paid you well; kudos on coming up with some bullshit that I at least hadn't heard before.

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

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:18 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

This was work put out by the NOAA. The same group that said 2012 was one of the hottest years on record.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:33 | Link to Comment mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

I wasn't aware that they had records about pluto and jupiter from the 19th century

 

Don't sell yourself short...there's a lot of other records you aren't aware of.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:00 | Link to Comment TruthHunter
TruthHunter's picture

On the other hand, there are more and more roofs and pavement near the weather reporting stations.

Even the small town of Immokalee, Fl is several degrees warmer than the farm fields out of town.

There is probably more risk to our future from acidified oceans than global warming.

 

No science reporter is doing his job if he doesn't also report who's paying for the studies.

Good science is always that which agrees with your permament hidden predjudices

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:05 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You should not believe every thing Mr. Watts claims...

The UHI has been known of since 1959 and has been accounted for...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:05 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

When did "there's nothing that can be done" become the standard response of the right-wing to every problem?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:20 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

What are you going to do, build an air-conditioning unit to cool off the whole planet?

 

Since when is actually asking for the science behind the claims make a person subjectively political in any way shape or form?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:51 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It's total politically driven pseudo science.  Want to see the face of the NWO, look at the people behind the global warming scam.  Not the useful idiots who believe it religiously, but the puppet masters behind it.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:12 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Can you back it up!!  Any evidence to bring to the table Mr. Prosecutor, or are you just flaming bullshit around hoping to clear the room before anybody calls you on your shit.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:19 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Read this article, "From Global warming to the NWO"

http://www.infowars.com/from-global-warming-to-the-new-world-order/

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

You have to be kidding right?!!  Yep those people there are just chock full of scientists who have literally focused on climate science and practiced due diligence in scientific assessment.  Please stop being an idiot.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Read my ealier post.  Many scientist disagree, don't be a schmuck read things outside of your religious beliefs.

About 32k of them in the US alone even signed a petition against global warming.

 http://www.petitionproject.org/

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

I'm an athiest all scientifically, religiously and politically.  Belief is the abandonment of reason and thinking.  You have displayed that as your foundation with unlimited grandeur.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I guessed you were an atheist "all scientifically, religiously and politically" before you even told me.  That's why your "belief" in global warming has a religious zealotry that transcend all reason and critical thinking.  But you don't see that.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:34 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So 0.3% of science degree recipients since 1970 signed (the criteria was science degree, not scientist)... whereas 97% of real scientists that study the climate appear to think otherwise...

Here is the breakdown  of the signatories

http://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

I suppose that you routinely get medical advice from your car mechanic as well... Moron...

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"97% of real scientists that study the climate appear to think otherwise"

key word is appear.  Your flat earther logic tells you that anyone who didn't have the balls to sign the petion (many for fear of losing grant money or losing their job in a leftist college) must therefore believe in global warming? 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:34 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Just like you appear to be an idiot for all intents and purposes...

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:59 | Link to Comment SelfGov
SelfGov's picture

The climate denying shills are out in full force today.

Burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with global warming. Also, my shit doesn't stink.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, the trolls of late have been rather lame...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:07 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You're too emotional.  You haven't made a good argument yet.  When your ego is challenged you lose your cool and start bitch ranting. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:08 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Chew on this asswipe:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

BTW, science is about arguing about the data and none of the deniers here are even remotely qualified to do that...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:22 | Link to Comment ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

Flakmeister is an idiot troll.  He sits in his mother's basement just waiting for a climate topic to appear, then he pounces. 

He's an expert with a college degree, don't you know.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:02 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is that the best you can do? I was hoping for more than tired old ad homs...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:58 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Did you know it's possible to be a shill for anything? ... Take the hint.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:30 | Link to Comment Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

"...but the puppet masters behind it..."

UN, Aganda 21

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:20 | Link to Comment TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

Ever since the left wing refused to accept any reasonable action.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

This isn't about left and right, this is about control over narrative. The main issue with the battle for control is that real sceptical scientific inquiry is destroyed to feed agenda drivin news bites.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:47 | Link to Comment NumberNone
NumberNone's picture

I recommend that we implement a carbon tax to cut down carbon emmissions in the US but cover the cost with a trillion dollar platinum coin.  That should fix the problem.  

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 23:10 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"When did "there's nothing that can be done" become the standard response of the right-wing to every problem?"

When people started realizing that today's problems are the result of yesterday's solutions.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:20 | Link to Comment trentusa
trentusa's picture

here's something i was reading that might explain the weird weather. It's common knowledge the sun has been having an abnormal amount of solar flares lately altho if you think climate change comes from anything besides carbon emissions then you're a conspiracy theorist, but here's a possible explanation for why the sun is acting strangely lately, an interesting New Age theory about our planet & entire solar system is passing thru a Photon Belt that is energizing the sun & earth to become more seismically active:

The following scientific data revealed by Alexei Dmitriev further supports NASA's original 2012 solar storm warning issued back in March of 2006.

Astrophysicist Alexei Dmitriev says that both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 satellites reveal that our sun, as well as our entire solar system, is now moving into an interstellar energy cloud. Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University says this interstellar energy cloud is turbulent. Dmitriev explains that this cloud of energy is exciting the atmospheres of our planets and especially our sun. As this interstellar energy cloud continues to excite/charge the sun, it causes the sun to become more active, resulting in greater output from the sun. IE: Bigger and more frequent solar storms and CME's resulting in the Carrington effect. This interstellar cloud of electrical energy is also absorbed by the Earth, and scientist have found that it results in more earth quakes, all while dramatically effecting our weather here on earth.

On July 14, 2010 we learned that our sun is passing through an interstellar energy cloud which excites/energizes the sun. NASA, along with The National Academy of Science and other world renowned scientist are so concerned about this up and coming solar maximum in late 2012, that way back in March 10, 2006 NASA issued a solar storm warning (in writing) for 2012. What NASA omitted in their 2006 solar storm warning is what prompted NASA in the first place to issue a 2012 solar storm warning four years in advance? Then in 2010, NASA again warns the general population of a pending solar storm, telling the population to get ready for a once in a lifetime solar storm.
 
 

Kacper sent me this video... do you own research if necessary  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rxMymXI4KAg

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:22 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Voyager 1 and 2 are not satellites. Anyone that says so brings up doubts of his legitimacy as an astrophysicist.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:44 | Link to Comment trentusa
trentusa's picture

I do not claim to be an astrophyscist, so ok fine it's technically a space probe b/c its not orbiting anything, give me a break w/ the semantics- it not necessary to 'be an astrophysicist' in order to question the claim of why are we getting climate change, if we do not believe in carbon emissions as the culprit? 

 

The Voyager 2 spacecraft is a 722 kg (1,590 lb) space probe launched by NASA on August 20, 1977 to study the outer Solar System and eventually interstellar space. It was actually launched before Voyager 1, but Voyager 1 moved faster and eventually passed it. It has been operating for 35 years, 4 months and 19 days as of December 7, 2012, the spacecraft still receives and transmits data via the Deep Space Network.[2] At a distance of 100.675 AU (1.51×1010 km; 9.36×109 mi) as of November 2012,[3][4] it is one of the most distant manmade objects (along with Voyager 1, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_2

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

I am also interested in the news from the Voyagers and have been following it for some time. It is important to realize that the "cloud" is incredibly sparse. At a certain point, the pressure from the solar wind becomes weak enough that it is overcome by extrasolar forces such as this "cloud".

Interesting is that the heliosphere does not seem to be a clear "bubble" of solar wind such as the earth's magnetosphere. There may be intrusions of the matter at different locations farther into the solar system. How and to what extent this cloud affects the sun is an absolutely fascinating question, but I think incredibly difficult to answer. I have not studied the findings of the scientists you mentioned, but think they are probably extrapolating rather severely.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:39 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

Voyagers:  triumph of diversity.  oh wait

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:33 | Link to Comment flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

But of course global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Its so much harder to create a solar-flare exchange market to fleece the gullible...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:50 | Link to Comment Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

Al Gore would have some sun spots to sell you

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

"...Kacper sent me this video..."

 The role of cosmic rays is Henrik Svensmark's thesis as you prolly know

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

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:59 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

actually solar flares are way down for this cycle.   and the last solar minimum was extremely low as well.    as such, the earth's magnetosphere is not being charged as it should be.

also, the Carrington Event happened during a cycle of relatively low activity.

agreed that something strange is happening and that it's solar system wide.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:35 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

If those self-centered outer planet yuppies would just get rid of their SUV’s and start trading CO2 credits they could stabilize the temperatures of their planets and moons.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:28 | Link to Comment koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

Comay Mierda - Excellent, thanks for the useful links and cogent argument; a real help in the education of deaf and blind "eco-friends & family".

btw I've admired your "spanish" moniker ever since you came to ZH.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!