This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record
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
»
- 17425 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
ditto... great stuff c.m.
thanks for taking the time to post... mucho apreciar :)
You can't tax these facts and international high finance cannot make no money from it and the united globalist daemocrats cannot bring World Government forward, therefore this is not true.
The Ministry of Truth
cue up the moonbats in 3...2...1....
Looks like they checked in at 4.
No need, you're already here.
You aren't wishing hard enough, trav. Close your eyes now and wish really really hard.
And when someone says "Global Warming", stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Lalalalal I can't hear you!"
"And when someone says "Global Warming", stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Lalalalal I can't hear you!"
..must be very hot in la-la land
and speaking of moonbats, the reactors at Fuku scrammed, right trav? Those 3 meltdowns are all in our imaginations...
Your credibility on calling anyone a moonbat is crap.
yes, all of them scrammed
that did not stop a meltdown. Everything I told you about what was going on proved true, including the real danger NOT being the reactors, but being the SFPs. I was the FIRST to say anything of the sort; even Arnie Gunderson didn't make that realization until days later.
I know, trav, it's the black and brown people doing this, right?
no, dumfuk, they are responsible for high crime rates and low school performance averages.
Good one, Trav +1
Well, they are cutting down the South American, African and Asian rainforests.
forgive double post
It is, the creatures scurrying around on the surface however will have to evolve to the changes or die. Supply chains are useless if they have nothing to supply.
Some articles from the last couple of days.
Protests against shortages
http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=10509
"Australia has been hit by a scarcity of its biggest selling infant food, Karicare Aptamil Gold, which Chinese customers are buying in bulk to ship home, due to rising fears fears over the safety of infant foods."
http://www.domain-b.com/industry/Foods/20130103_food_shortage.html
Energy producers ignoring people's stomaches, expect the oil fields in South America to cease production soon.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/07/1410561/how-us-biofuel-policy-is-destroying-guatemalas-food-supply/?mobile=nc
Kansas is finished. All the kings horses and all the kings men will never put that breadbasket together again.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/08/179305/kansas-drought-isnt-easing-up.html#storylink=rss
Syria is going to lose about a million people to starvation. Expect Human, the other white meat, on the platter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20945837
Why Big investors are interested in farmland...which will fail if they are an absentee landlord. Believe me on that. Lots of Indian and Chinese guys bought in the Valley. I can hold in an empty sack what was grown on their lots. Some weird delusion that the crops just grow without diesel, equipment, people and planning. So stupid.
http://oilprice.com/Finance/investing-and-trading-reports/Why-Investors-such-as-Jim-Rogers-and-George-Soros-are-Interested-in-Farmland.html
Snow in the Ottawa Valley is good, even then it's all melting right now, just like last year. White Christmas, Brown Feb. In the breadbasket of the world of our cousins to the south, not so much.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/04/usa-drought-crops-idUSL1E9C47EX20130104?feedType=RSS&feedName=utilitiesSector
Thank you. People seem to care too much whether it's caused by humans or not. That shit don't matter. What matters is expecting the weather to get more erratic and to prepare accordingly.
Of course it matters if humans caused it. Because then we could stop it.
Even if we knew for sure humans were causing the problem we would not be able to stop it now. Not only have we already passed the tipping point into rapid climate change (will take some time to be fully realized in the climate system), but human nature is (understandably) to be short-sighted about the long-term effects of their actions.
"rapid climate change (will take some time to be fully realized in the climate system)"
Without further explanation, this is contradictory.
I think a more appropriate term would be "runaway." For example, a country with a birth rate of 1.999 kids per female would eventually watch its population go to zero, but it would take some time to get there. The theory I think the OP is talking about, is that there is a critical point at which a certain amount of global warming begets more warming (namely, more CO2 and water evaporates form the oceans, etc. etc.), with the doomer theory being that we are about to pass or have passed the "tipping point" at which any reduction in emissions in our part would be overwhelmed by emissions from natural sources.
If it is true, then the economic impact of mitigating the problem (i.e. super massive sequestration efforts) would be huge. Which is why anyone not convinced of the theory doesn't want to do it.
Rapid in a geological sense, not human timescales.
>>>(will take some time to be fully realized in the climate system)" Without further explanation, this is contradictory.<<<
That's only if you assume the rate of CO2 production is the same as CO2 disapation in the atmosphere.
It is not. The rates are different.
It takes much longer to dissapate. If we were to stop producing CO2 today, it is my understanding it could take up to 50 years to "work off" the excess carbon produced by humans.
I think what the poster was trying to say is that it's impossible to prove causation with sufficient certainty to generate a clear policy direction, so just adapt.
The main issue is determining what grows in which zone. It's almost as if the earth has shifted on it's axis about 15 degrees south over the past. It would explain why poles are melting faster because of their respective positions to the equator. And why a place like NYC got slammed by a massive storm, mainly because it's now in the storm zone. The earth shifts around, and north south are really just ideas human use to plot directions. Earth has other plans I believe.
Otherwise.
Apple trees around here are all dead, same with Quebec. Dry as sticks over the summer, now we have 5 dollar bag apples...from the year before's supply (irradiation and liquid deep freeze cooling FTW!). The one thing nobody will see next year is an apple. It'll take another ten years to reinvest time and energy to grow the orchards here. Corn...lol...corn isn't coming back. It's too expensive to grow and most of the people that attempted last year are now flat broke because of the attempt. Only reason it wasn't harvested was to avoid the top soil blowing away. Not sure what those guys are going to do.
If looking at a plant that is hardy, Quinoa grows well and yields excellent results in dry and hot. Onions are good. Potatoes in a barrel are good, in the earth not so good, dry weather with quick wet patches promotes fungus and smaller yields.
If measuring a small plot and planning a cistern, a one acre plot requires around 12,000 liters of managed water over a season (A working farm will use around 10 million liters over a year). If the water goes still or brackish, it's turned to poison. You cannot drink it or feed it to plants unless it is boiled to force oxygen back into it. So a coupleof water barrels won't cut the mustard unless you are expecting to feel good about being 'green'.
Being 'green' and getting fed are two different things, don't confuse them. The land needs resources to grow food and those resources have to be given the proper expectations and commitment. Failure to do so spells out 'big fucking waste of time and energy'.
Apples are still dirt cheap here. Come on down.
You're nuts--the earth changing its tilt would be a very simple change to observe and prove.
Yep... it would be known as one of the Milankovitch cycles in climate science.... And what exactly is your point?
"It's almost as if the earth has shifted on it's axis " - CPL
See:
a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee]
noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology . an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics .
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
No - the poles haven't actually shifted, but the Earth's weather patterns sure have.
take a look at the movement of the magnetic north pole over the last several decades.
Yup, I read in one of my trade magazines (sorry no link can't remember which) that Civil Aviation Authorities are now forced to consider the re-numbering of runways to re-align in compensation for the magnetic pole change.
Every single one of those outlets has been shown to push propaganda for special interests in the past. Come up with something that corroborates the information and maybe, just maybe people will start taking some of that stuff seriously.
They all have an agenda....lol. Jesus you're thick. Everyone is trying to sell you something. At what point did that stop happening?
I'm telling you to plant a garden if you require food. If you are too lazy to want to do it that's fine. The outcome is predictable and measurable, it has happened in history more times than pages in a dictionary and you doubt the idea and existence of starvation. To me that's weird.
So what are you trying to sell?
Spin and propaganda don't affect the underlying issue - it just clouds one's ability to get at the truth (the enemy of TPTB).
The phrase "Protests against shortages" always makes me smile, as either the reporters, the protestors, or both are utterly clueless about why shortages happen, as is plainly shown when they inevitably call for "someone to do something" and "more help from the government".
"Some weird delusion that the crops just grow without diesel, equipment, people and planning. So stupid."
No more stupid than the near-universal belief in Keynesian economics, i.e. that prosperity and growth will just happen without CapEx, investment, sound money, sane bankruptcy practices, fiscal responsbility, entrepreunership, affordable energy etc.
Yet you believe all other government numbers as the gospel truth?
That's a bit suburban picking and choosing from the salad bar like that...weird infact. If you know someone is a liar, you assume the truth is given. Interesting.
Ever play poker...actually first thing first, you got any money play?
Personally I don't think you do because you've given it all to people that lie to you.
Oh noez! 1 degree temp increase since 1930! Quick, get out the flame proximity suits!
This heat is nothing...you shoulda been around on planet earth about 50 million years ago!
It's a good thing global climate patterns aren't cyclical and the earth won't ever have another intense warming or ice age. You know, since history never repeats itself.
funny thing, those pesky ice cores. It never changed this rapidly and in curious coordination with the burning of fossil fuels. Take the most condensed form of energy ever formed on earth over millions of years and burn about half of it into an enclosed atmosphere in a hundred. Just a coincidence I'm sure. ANd remember, there is no evidence that man can effect his environment. And the earth is not an environment.
Depends on where the ice cores are coming from. What did you guys think no one would notice that they always go to the same places for their core samples??? Why is that, I wonder...
In order to get more accurate global data, they should probably get ice core samples from all over the world. I hear Jamaica produces lovely ice core samples this time of year.... too bad Africa and the Middle East are just too unsafe for science teams. Most of Asia and South America shouldn't be a problem though.
cute
could they get ice core samples out of the methane clathrate beds from under the seabed?
The problem is that correlation is not causation and it's an easy trap to fall into.
Is that like stepping on an ant with your shoe, but denying the ants death was caused by you stepping on it. Must have been some other natural cause and not crushing weight of a 80 kg human. You're right the ant died of natural causes.
you remind me of a universal jury instruction on "circumstantial evidence." It ultimately tells them that it is evidence and just the same legally. You see, just about everything is proven "circumstantially. Causation is determined ultimately by analyzing correlation and comparing it with other evidence. Now please show us all that evidence that contradicts the ice core correlation cause well, that's pretty interesting evidence covering a very long period of time with respected scientific procedure. There's another jury instruction on witness credibility and bias. You see, the ice doesn not work for the UN or BP. It has never invaded a middle east country, driven a GreenPeace boat up to a rig, tortured a guantanamo prisoner, done a naked protest for whales or caused strange delays in NORAD. In fact, it's pretty cold to those ideas
Titan and Pluto are interesting, tho...
We should be thankful we have burned all these hydrocarbons, otherwise we'd probably be in the midst of an ice age
If anyone cares, the conspiracy community to which most of you belong has nailed at least 12 Rockefellers and Greenbergs from their own family albums as having acted out the staged events of Sandy Hook//Newton.
The proof is below for those who question that such a thing could be possible (after 9/11 that would seem silly but...)
Ironically, Maurice Greenberg who I believe was CEO of AIG at the time of 9/11 would certainly have known about that day's events as would the others featured in this expose(eh!) is featured in some of the photos with his acting family as is David Rockefeller Jr. (What do you think those two are worth combined?)
All you should need is one match to convince yourselves, your friends and your family.
Spread em like wildfire if you have any balls......I mean, if it 'feels right to you'.
Quick....get em here. Re post when they're down
[link to www.youtube.com]
(I disagree with the author of these videos when it comes to 'Kaitlin Roig the teacher' which I believe I've corrected below)
What's most important to realize is that all these connections with the only exception (I think?) being Dave England all come from the same two family photo albums -- this one of the Rockefellers/Sextons/Greenbergs [link to dallasgoldbug.com] and the 'Greenberg album' [link to picasaweb.google.com (secure)]
THAT'S HOW YOU CAN GET SO MANY PEOPLE IN ON IT.
Some of you realize who David Rockefeller Jr. and Maurice Greenberg are and the combined (possibly 100s of) BILLIONS they are worth. If anyone can pull something like this off....
But again, all you should need is just one match.
Also, please keep in mind the albums are from 2009.
The kids would look older today and as the author of the video points out they could choose not to use some the family members as actors today but rather pictures of when they were younger ie. they don't all have to age the same.
Descriptions and Links to Pics below
(THIS WAS ALL YOU GUYS!!)
'Nick Phelps and Laura Phelps, parents of children at Sandy Hook'
[link to www.youtube.com]
Tony Greenberg and sister Jennifer Greenberg Sexton, from their library
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
More Laura Phelps vs. Jennifer Greenberg Sexton
[link to i45.tinypic.com]
Great grandchildren of David Rockefeller Jr.
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
and them posing as 'siblings of Victoria Soto, hero teacher'
[link to www.septclues.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
a side by side of Leon Greenberg vs. 'the brother'
[link to i612.photobucket.com]
Pic of the great grandchildren of David Rockefeller Jr.
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
Compare the old man sitting to...David Rockefeller Jr.
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
'Noah Pozner', right
[link to i612.photobucket.com]
Looks a lot like a 2009 picture of this kidthe
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
Identified here (close to halfway down) as the great grand child of David Rockefellar Jr.
[link to dallasgoldbug.com]
Old guy behind 'Victoria Soto'
[link to www.facebook.com (secure)]
Appears to be this man in a photo with Maurice Greenberg (former AIG CEO)
[link to picasaweb.google.com (secure)]
'Victora Soto' looks a lot like a great grandchild of David Rockefeller Jr.
[link to i1339.photobucket.com]
'Kaitlin Roig, teacher' vs. Riley Harmon (real)
[link to i612.photobucket.com]
and more Riley Harmon acting
[link to 4.bp.blogspot.com]
'Robbie Parker'
[link to www.youtube.com]
vs.
Dave England of Jackass
[link to www.icelebz.com]
Sounds crazy unless you know other Jackass actors have been busted as doing multiple staged events. Eyes are different colors but ignore that...look at the faces.
Mary Sherlach (Newton teacher) and husband vs. unknown couple from Greenberg library
(dressed to look several years older but focus on the facial features)
[link to www.facebook.com (secure)]
[link to i1339.photobucket.com]
And the young girl from the above picture, 'Julia Haskins, Newton student'
[link to www.youtube.com]
As George Carlin said, the planet doesn't give a shit. The reason we have $1B+ diasters is because stupid humans keep building shit in areas below sea level and in hurricane prone areas. I've got no sympathy for these idiots. What angers me is that our so called representative government keeps bailing them out, so they keep doing it.
And since 2000 the UK has had four of the five wettest years on record :(
Hasn't the UK also had the driest, wettest, coldest and warmest periods on record since 2000?
Yes, by definition, but since 2000 the UK might not have had the driest, coldest, and warmest periods on record.
The statement clearly flew over your head or you choose to be deliberately disingenous....
No, I understood perfectly. By moving "since 2000" to the end of the sentence, you sought to demonstrate that the poster has made a flawed syllogism. By moving "since 2000" back to the beginning of the sentence, I have tried to demonstrate the difference in meaning between your post and the original, above.
I was merely pointing out that in addition to rain monthly (or seasonal) records have been set in all categories since 2000...
E.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/18/summer-drought-floodin...
X-TREME!!!
comparing the last 5 years to the last 12 years is hardly much of a record to go by.
On a short enough timeline everything is a record.
It has certainly been a record decade all over the Western world for weather that central planners and their fellow travelers don’t like.
+1 LOL!
Here's an Oldie but goodie:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians Monday 20 March 2000
----------------------------------------------
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-...
Get real climate info at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
And since 2000 the UK has had four of the five wettest years on record :(
Won't matter to the true believers. Won't stop them from sucking up to their statist masters.
My understanding is that the gulf stream is "moving" (through the Arctic) causing much milder temperatures in North America and much cooler temperatures in Europe and the Middle East. Russia might have that warm water port it has always dreamed of soon.
Murmansk is open year-round already, with rails connecting China and Europe. Churchill, Manitoba is a matching port with rails that go to both coasts and rails down through Mexico. Russia has 6 nuclear powered icebreaker ships to keep things clear already.
rivers and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes...
Oh, and now that the polar vortex has split, expect some pretty good cold weather in N.A. and Europe.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Is he still fitting random polynomials to the data to "illustrate" the trend?
Tell that to China.
Or India
You're being totally selective ... just like this post article. Apparently it's the end of the world here, though I haven't noticed it yet. If you want to have a good laugh though I recommend you obtain and read the very first IPCC Report, and its predictions for 30 and 100 years future, and then compare them directly to the latest claims and predictions for 30 and 100 years.
You'll chuckle yourself into a fit.
Blue Horseshoe loves GE
http://www.specsserver.com/CACHE/FRNRLOIOPCBJ.JPG?width=-1&height=-1
NOAA is keeping two sets of data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-...
Yes, I always rely on former 3rd tier TV weather forecasters that dropped out of university for cutting edge climate science...
Ideology will always find facts to fit its agenda.
I believe you meant skew when you said find...
Ideology will always find excuses to ignore facts that don't fit its agenda
Here, I corrected it for you.
Reading the threads in this article is like looking at a room full of 5-year-olds going "La, la, la - can't hear you!"
dude...just give up.
Peak Oil and AGW mean that status quo is untenable and that shit has to change...people are just barely smart enough to be able to roughly gauge the implications "if" either of these are true.
So they would really rather persist in denial. AGW will work itself out in the long run.
Yeah, but it is a slow morning and I took the past few weeks off...
both mammoths but one issue's bigger than the other...and longer lasting
Worse: the problem is a PDE in both variables.
On the upside, if AGW is indeed true, at least the rabid anti-AGW crowd that are prepers are the most likellt to be there to see its effects (it's mostly going to hit cities, low-lying areas and food production).
Mind you, they'll probably carry on blaming the Sun, or the geological climate cycle (even if we're at totally the wrong time for it) or the Tooth Fairy or something - anything but themselves ...
I just blame Al Gore.
Yes, that stupid shit blew the 2000 election and we got a Supreme Court appointed travesty that went by the moniker W....
Sad fact is, imo, that it makes no real difference if we admit we're destroying the planet's capacity to support life (on the assumption it is true) . . . externalities are a core component of the business model of the corporations that now control the institutions and natural resources of the planet. Saving the 99% is not in their plans . . . though making money on the die-off certainly will be.
We built it, by God, and we'll run it until the wheels come off, fuck you very much.
Actually, it won't be a problem for life at all, look at the temperature and species diversity and biomass distribution on earth, and you'll find that the hot humid equatorial zones have the highest speciation, and also the highest biomass on earth, and the average highest growth rates of plants and animals.
Turns out abundant high-biomass and high-diversity LOVES TROPICAL HEAT.
But the opposite is found at the poles, very low diversity, very low biomass, because LIFE HATES POLAR COLD.
Well duh!
Now combine those fundamental observations of life on earth with the observed fact that increasing the CO2 content in respired air, for plants, acts like a supercharging fertilizer for enhanced growth rates. And add in that the forests are full of trees enjoying that CO2, and oceans are also full of phytoplankton that also respire CO2, and that more CO2 leads to enhanced growth of the very basis of the ocean's food-chain growth and total biomass expansion.
But radical greenie-morons and AGW doomers, (ie. Al Gore etal.) would all have us irrationally and illogically meremly believing their BS story that increasing CO2 and temperatures will be a NET-bad thing for life on earth, or even for humanity, and for the environments of life. Or for habitat niche specialization, and would paradoxically rapidly lead to inescapable mass-annihilation of life on Earth as we know it.
GREAT SCOTT!!!
Oh, who to believe???? ... the fundamental observations ... or the theorists ... gee, ... that's a tough one ...
Great Post. Exactly right.
Life on Earth will love global warming.
Human civilization on the other hand might be quite fucked up when the seas rise and cover low-lying areas (which are typically the most fertile) and costal cities (most major cities are costal) and by the increase in Meteorological Natural Disasters (warm oceans make storms more powerfull)
As for your plant growth theory, you should notice that there are many limits on vegetal mater growth (sunlight, water, soil minerals), and more CO2 doesn't mean a significant higher rate of growth for wild plants (otherwise, you would see Deserts being colonized by plants, when the reverse is actually what's happening)
That said, the really scary scenarios involve, when ocean temperatures rise, the stopping of the Gulf Stream or, even worse, the release of the layers of frozen Methane (an even worse greenhouse gas than CO2) currently at the bottom of our oceans.
See my post down the thread there mate, we actually know it has already occurred once within the history of human civilization.
Did you notice I said 'tropical' hot equatorial zones? i.e. humid, as in amazonian, congo, indonesia, papua new guinea.
What else you said is baseless supposition positing the untestable, as an argument.
You don't know, nor do I, nor does Al Gore, nor does the IPCC - that's the point.
But observations suggest it is unlikely to be a major problem, if it is indeed a problem at all, rather than a figment of theoretical flights-of-fancy.
now if "warming" was the only thing our various systems spewed into the living environment, we'd have something.
Does your plant growth theory rests on an expectation that "tropical hot equatorial zones" (i.e. humid) would increase their vegetable mass with CO2 increases? If so, are you aware that the lush forests of said areas are actually not all that fertile? Where would the extra soil minerals come from?
And how exactly would plant life in there be able to increase if there's no more sunlight to be had (tropical forests are pretty much filled to capacity, that's why we say they're lush and also why pretty much no sunlight gets to ground level)?
Or do you expect that humid tropical forests will grow in size with global warming? How? More heat does not equate to more humidity, quite the contrary, so much so that most of the deserts in the world are in the "hot equatorial zones" and are growing in size ...
More in general, I'm still waiting for you to address my point about there being limitations such as availability of sunlight, soil mineral content and water (to mention just a couple) that severelly restrict further plant growth in natural environments even if there's more CO2 in the air. Vague mentioning of current "lush" tropical areas doesn't anwer the question.
Your answer to my critique was accusinging me of "baseless supposition positing the untestable" and a vague mentioning of existing lush tropical areas without actually address my points of other plant mater growth limitation factors. The use of fancy words to try and impress the weak-minded, and ad-hominem attacks on the messenger doesn't actually address the challenges to the validity of your theory, now does it?
You made the theoretical claims, you have the burden of proof (or at least a modicum of evidencence towards it).
ah those pesky details
Um, er, uber-fuckhead,
This is what I said, around which you rushed to erect strawmen to attempt to deny the fundamental validity and factualness of it. This is not theory, this is fundamental observation, confirmed empirically.
You can deny all you want, those are relevant facts that you can't obfuscate by running around them in circles. They permit and allow rapid recovery and regeneration from impairment due to things like disturbances and dieback and changes in ocean conditions.
As you well know.
Yes yes of course life enjoys a warmer climate. Basic biology. And the Earth was once warm enough to be ice-free and there are crocodile fossils found in Antartica.
Here's the problem: Human's evolved in a temperate world. And our civilizations (mostly coastal or riparian) came into being during a period of relative cold with lots of land-based ice. Now if that ice were to melt even a little bit we expect a sea level rise of 40-50 feet, enough to submerge every major coastal city on Earth, which account for almost every major city period. If we become ice-free again (not likely, but you brought it up) then we'll see 300 feet of sea level rise, enough to destroy human civilization outright.
Nobody has signed up for that, and yet it's on the table. I don't think anyone will be pleased that algae and ferns are having a great time as we vanish from our own history.
The rich plan to live on. Humanity's last, best hope and all. They'll bring little communities of useful idiots along with them.
They'll give the dead--the 99.999999999%--a major holiday so they can honor their roots--their own humanity--and keep alive their flame of human compassion in twisted crazy drag.
I'm thinking some guillotines are in order between here and there. People like that would be the wrong thing to leave behind.
Moral hazard and all.
I don't see anything at all unlikely about the scenarios you outline. Either the "rich inherit the earth" nor the proposed response. They could both come into play in a very gruesome spectacle of mutual annihilation.
Problem I have with it cougar, is every bit of that is theoretical worst-case blah-blah, it's not even reasonable in light of wha I have studied and seen in the field in rock formation outcrop. There is no clear case that anything is occurring to T, that is outside of normal variability, or in any case, exceptional, in terms of shorter-term trends.
What is scientifically out of bounds is the failure for some so-called experts on climate to understand or acknowledge that, nor to listen attentively to what the skin of the earth itself is telling us about how the earth really behaves, and will behave, through time.
After all, the word 'geo' means 'earth', and 'ology' means 'study of' - so it's just possible that geologists might understand a thing or two about the details of the earth, and its processes, that others don’t have almost any clue about or experience of. Let me tell you, you can not ignore sea level and radical climate change when you see it every day in rock outcrops.
The extraordinary thing is though that;
PALAEOCLIMATE IS A SUB-DISCIPLINE OF GEOLOGY
And yet it's been hi-jacked by the AGW crowd to pretend it's their little theoretical plaything, when it was dericed from hard-rock geology. Sorry, its is an integral part of the study of earth. That's why it is known about today. And there are very few real geologists that you will find who will give AGW any credibility or veracity at all.
It isn’t some conspiracy for big oil or big coal or big uranium, we simply understand the earth's normal regimes much better, see the evidence of it almost every day in outcrops, and realize that AGW is desperately immature in understanding and ignores and refuses the reality of fundamental geological observations. The AGW climatologists simply ignore the normal extreme climatic variability over geological time, and that T is normally much higher than now, and the fossil evidence that life has thrived in such times.
Now I know you're a guy with an informed view, fine, but what I just said applies to you as well mate, and it is entirely valid to be resoundingly skeptical against any such theoretical and more-or-less unfounded untestable speculative bollocks, that is being piled on thicker every year.
I will never buy into the anthropogenic side of it as there is zero need, and zero scientific justification for me to do so. There is an extraordinary ambiguity and there is significant suggestive evidence of systematic data rigging and fitting occurring though. There a no fundamental observational facts that are present that are inconsistent with what I know of geology, in fact geology indicates that climate swings wildly, often, to an extent few realize, and life does not fall to bits.
The fossil record is very clear about that, life's trend since the beginning of the Phanerozoic is toward increasing diversity and speciation, and the earth has been hotter for almost all of that. Higher temps clearly do not lead to mass extinction - just the reverse! I think we can all fundamentally agree on that. What the record also shows is that intermediate mass-extinctions occur about every 30 million years, and numerous smaller ones between. I am not worried or disturbed by this in the least by this, given the time scales involved, and the blink that humans have experienced any of earth innate variability.
I am also familiar with sedimentology, which is basically the study of the rise and fall of the oceans and mountain chains through time. Most people don’t realize the ocean level is so fundamental to understanding rock strata sequences, and the resulting effects on erosion and sedimentary deposition, again and again, and what it shows is there could not possibly be anything more normal than sea level fluctuating wildly with amazing regularity over time.
The broad global sea level trends within the past 0.6 billion years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_stratigraphy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
Let's be very clear, humanity knows about paleoclimate change due to geology and physical rock strata change, not due to climatology ice core studies, which came very much later.
And of course the Quaternary we know of in far greater detail again, in which were see sea level, and T, and CO2, were all fluctuating very wildly, very often with CO2 changes LAGGING BEHIND sea level changes. Meaning CO2 was NOT driving the sea level change.
That's reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Stratigraphy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
I am also familiar with paleo-temperature profiles, and the role of continental location, seaway geography and continuity variability through time, and and crucial role of orogenic processes in climate. These have all injected major effects on paleo global climate and the climate modes that earth has sustained as a result, and how these changed the patterns of rapid-fire sea-level rise and fall through time. And let me tell you, there have been virtually uncountable numbers of 100m range sea level changes since life has been waling around on the continents.
Rapid-fire Quaternary sea level changes (past 4 million years alone):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Shackleton
What a sad thing it must be for the AGW theorist, to find this awful observational geology stuff continually polluting and interloping on their version of 'reality'. Just awful!
So for some mere AGW theorists to make the observation that any of this is changing, could not be any more unsurprising to me. Nor the potential speeds or scales of changes that are possible. Sorry, I'm not afraid of my shadow. What is different though is the remarkable immature and incognizant suggestion that humans are surely the causation of it, or of a THEORETICAL pending global calamity, of UNPRECEDENTED proportions. That is clearly not so.
Sorry, earth and space are almost certainly 100% responsible for that.
As I say below, a little more informally, we actually have real problems to concern ourselves with. So we are going to disagree if you're going to insist the anthropogenic assertion is significant or causative in any of that. ;-)
Respect
I'll tip my cap... very nicely written but sorry, it is devoid of real scientific content vis a vis paleoclimatology...
Understand Milankovitch cycles first to appreciate the absolute delicate balance the earth's climate is...
If the variation in the solar flux is the primary forcing, then C02 will lag, but not when C02 is the primary forcing... And all the data and underlying physics says that C02 has been the main net forcing of this car quite a while... Or you are saying thermodynamics, experimental spectroscopy and quantum mechanics is wrong..
Hey flak, bro, dumbshit,
The last link given above was to;
Nicholas Shackleton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Shackleton
QUOTE:
--
Milankovitch cycles are standard fare in introductory geological paleohistory studies dumb-dumbs.
And one of the most ardent critics of AGW was geologist Bob Carter, who actually is a bit of a hard-core expert on Milankovitch cycles, as well as a formidible stratigrapher and paleo sea-level change guru - par-excellence!
doh!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?
Bob Carter's "Ten Little Facts" about global warmingBut let's just ignore sordid little observational realities, with that I'll just leave you ignorant dumb-fucks to delude yourselves into academic theoretical virtual-reality oblivions ad-infinitum.
Have fun retards. ROFL! :D
If there are indeed standards, then why do you fail to utterly grasp the level of feedbacks associated with them (tiny) and their outcome (oscillations in and out of Ice Ages)... The C02 that has been dumped in the atmosphere corresponds to a sledgehammer by comparison to the slow effect of the cycles...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html
http://pages-142.unibe.ch/products/books/qsr2000-papers/beer.pdf
Wow, "almost certainly 100 %"
Is that like sort of pregnant?
Very scientific
You keep suggesting that higher temps are the only after effect of man's energy and "development" systems. As if the earth was exposed to all these effects before. Once again, very incomplete data.
and you, ha! phft!
you simply have nothing to say
a piss-weak AGW fanboy
:D
"you can deny all you want but those are the relevant facts"
Ah, but they're not all the relevant facts
and the living systems can just keep absorbing this stuff at a rate that is dramatically "unnatural" right? I mean this stuff was compressed down over millions of years and it's being redelivered to the mother earth in how many? and in what form? distributed where?
Don't forget soil depletion. In the Midwest a "sustainable" rate of soil loss is 4 mm/year, which doesn't sound like much, but add it up over a century of modern farming and realize that most farmers are not "sustainable." I'm skeptical that corn following corn can go on forever.
The beauty of modern Ag. As if it's designed to starve us
Don't you have a New Age psuedo science fest to attend...
Based on the tripe you post about anything scientific you have zero credibility...
Well, except you have no valid counters for those fundamental scientific real-world observations there smart-arse. ;-D
Perhaps there is nothing worth the trouble of countering?
"Don't you have a New Age psuedo science fest to attend...
Based on the tripe you post about anything scientific you have zero credibility..."
Well just look who's talking!
You're as adept at hypocrisy as you are with propaganda.
Hey, at least I have published papers in peer reviewed scientific journals..., How about you?
Maybe you and Element can talk about cosmology by simply making shit up and discussing it...
"Maybe you and Element can talk about cosmology by simply making shit up and discussing it..."
I can only speak for myself but I'll leave things like "making shit up and discussing it" to the politicians and "scientists" in the IPCC and the rest of the AGW cult. A new religion has been born of climate modeling, incessant manipulation and programming. Praise the lord...
Yawn...
"A new religion has been born"
I think that actual religions would take exception to that statement. Science is about as far from (and antithetical to) religion as any human activity has ever managed to come.
You can "not believe" climate science all you want, if that's your thing. But you are "not believing" observation and evidence rather than some abstract theology pulled out of someone's hat one day. And I don't know about you, but as an intelligent person I place a lot of faith (heh) in observation and evidence. Religion, not so much.
A new religion has been born of climate change denial. You assholes are worse than creationists.
Actually in my experience these are often the same people. So they cannot be worse, they have only become even more estranged from centuries of human growth and development.
The stuff on ocean acidification and methane makes for inspiring reading. But, as I said, there's just not enough money for the right people in trying to do anything constructive about it.
Something like that would be collectivism. "Nuff said. Give me liberty and give me death. Hoorah.
We're all going down together. So that's collectivism too. But nobody worries much about it.
We are not the smartest bunch of monkeys.
Flak, GTFO...W won the election. Every single count had him in front. SCOTUS just put an end to the "we'll count until I win" that CarbonMan wanted.
Interestingly, Gore has done "well" off of all of this.
Net worth in 2000 was only $1M, now he's richer than Mitt Romney on the CurrentTV sale (but gained only about a quarter of his increase on that.)
Lol, don't like the message, attack the messenger.
Thanks for the link...I love this stuff.
Terrist!!!
Looks like Benny's printers are overheating!
Wait, isnt this the forum for creationist climatology?
Can the Fed print cooling temps and rain?
They can print money, so why not?
The Fed 'prints' Federal Reserve Notes, not money.
This wouldn't have happened had we allowed the new york bankers to control carbon credits. [/sarc.]
Surely Australia with their new fangled Carbon Taxes are spared the heat wave, right, right???
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-endures-record-h...
The carbon credit thing is a joke, and was never intended to solve any looming climate problem. It was a shrewd play on the part of energy companies to create a system that allows business as usual.
Under carbon credits humanity would be assured of extracting every last drop of crude oil and every last lump of coal. No other outcome was ever expected.
Well said...
it is funny how on a site dedicated to exposing regulatory and government systems that are nothing more than frauds to extract money from already existing events both good and bad that many folks still think this additional fraud is overwhelming scientific evidence of any fact of consequence
All those Chinese coal plants are taking their toll.
By making it warm here and cold there?
I always enjoy examining the minds and opinions of people who have politiczied a scientific or economic issue to the point where they can no longer rationally address the issue. While reminding me of why I stand alone on my pinnacle of winning, it also humbles me. It is not that I am great. I am just not a mantra spouting, illogical, self destructive, ignorer of facts and data. So, indeed yes, in China where you can barely breath in most places because of the coal smog, they are wreaking havoc on the atmospheric temperature. If you thought last years drought was bad, wait until this year. I don't care about Al Gore or polar bear drowning stories. What is, simply is.
Climate warming, gold, ethanol, guns, all of these things issues are full of unthinking people that act like they have fed hits of scopolamine in order to get them to argue obviously wrong points of view. As for me, I have not even turned on my television in a week. Trying to pass "Swamp People" and "ancient Aliens" off as history channel material was my last straw.
For my rundown of above issues: Climate warming is happening. Gold is money. Ethanol is way for farmers to make extra money while they turn cattelfeed into cattlefeed and fuel. Guns are a defense against tyranny and crime.
While reminding me of why I stand alone on my pinnacle of winning, it also humbles me.
And on any timeline I'm sure you're the best you've ever had.
Well the rundown of my views on this issue can be boiled down to:
It's not that I don't believe in climate change, I never believed in climate stasis in the first place.
And I would prefer not to cede any more liberty to central planners over this or any other issue given their track record.
"Trying to pass "Swamp People" and "ancient Aliens" off as history channel material was my last straw. "
History Channel is going the same route as all other media; denial denial and screaming unhinged denial.
The most important events in human history are happening right now. But they won't get any air time now or later or ever.
Throw your TV out. Media has betrayed us.
c-LIE-matoloty!
Over the past year, it has not much fun being a farmer in Nebraska....
I didn't know farmers had fun.
Farmers always have fun, but not always when farming.
Farmers always have fun, but not always when farming.
I'll do better than that, and predict that farming in Nebraska will be extinct before the polar bears. Though only by a few years.
cone on guys none of this global warming crap here..it was hotter when christ walked the earth than it is now..
Beg pardon???
If he said it then it must be true!
he got it straight from the man.
We were fortunate when they found global climate data buried with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So lets see Earth been around 4.5 billion years and your sample size is 150 years..Your kidding right.
"On record" means what is supposed to mean.
But that 150 sample shows, irrefutably, that the temperature of earth's atmosphere is warming.
...and the "scientists" come out to explain to everyone why. "Climatology" ceases to be science - and reveals itself for the religion it is - as soon as it crosses into the realms of informing the masses what should be done to fight it. Of course, climatology never crosses into those realms because it starts there and never really leaves.
The "why" is still up for debate, but I don't think it's debatable that temperatures are rising.
Precisely. It's pretty much irrelevant that temperatures are changing. The zealots cling to the debate over the "why" as a means of pushing their ideology and promoting capital misallocation.
So, your position is "the climate is warming, it doesn't matter why, there is nothing to be done about it, let the chips fall where they may"? Somehow, that seems worse than denying climate change altogether.
Even if the climate is warming, I haven't concluded - nor seen anything credible - to suggest it's anomalous or problematic. So the premise of your attempt to put words into my mouth is inaccurate. My point is that the zealots will work incessantly to define "why", irrespective of whether a problem exists, and will leverage anything to push their agenda (which, by the way, has nothing to do with preserving the environment).