These are the best of times and the worst of times for the climate change cartoonist field. On the plus side, there is no problem coming up with new ideas -- there are new, horrifying climate findings being reported every day. On the down side, there are new, horrifying climate findings being reported every day. The research below has been reported to the media in just the last few weeks.
- "China's carbon emissions could be nearly 20 percent higher than previously thought, a new analysis of official Chinese data showed on Sunday, suggesting the pace of global climate change could be even faster than currently predicted." Read More.
- A recent study published in Nature shows that ocean warming over the past 50 years can only be explained when human influence is included in the models. "The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities." Read More.
- According to a paper by Stanford biology Professors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily, and the Nature Conservancy's Peter Kareiva, "...humanity has never been moving faster nor further from sustainability than it is now." Read More.
- "Four major [U.S.] heat records fell in a stunning new climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Thursday. The lower 48 states set temperature records for the warmest spring, largest seasonal departure from average, warmest year-to-date, and warmest 12-month period, all new marks since records began in 1895..." Read More.
- There's now a massive algae bloom under Arctic sea ice -- something scientists had thought impossible, but the melting ice is letting sun get through to the water now. This development "will require a complete rethinking of Arctic ecosystems." Read More.
- "Since 1970, warming began accelerating everywhere [in the U.S.]. The speed of warming across the lower 48 more than tripled, from 0.127°F per decade over the 100-year period, to 0.435°F per decade since 1970, while the gap between the fast and slowly warming states narrowed significantly..." Read More.
- "...sea ice has been disappearing so fast that 2012 is leading all other years on practically all sea ice extent and area graphs.... Sea ice area has never been so low for this date in the satellite record... 2012 has over half a million of square kilometres less ice than record minimum years 2007 and 2011." Read More.
- "What if we are approaching a critical threshold -- one that, once crossed, would lead to accelerated, widespread and largely unpredictable environmental degradations? This is the frightening conclusion of a paper ... The consensus statement by 22 respected scientists uses past examples to suggest that Earth's current systems will experience a major disruption -- perhaps within a few generations. 'The environment will enter a new state,' said Hadly. 'And we don't know exactly what that state will look like.' " Read More.
- "A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation." Read More.
- "As Andrew Revkin of Dot Earth puts it, warming has led to 'pop-up forests' in regions of the planet that usually see little more than summer shrubs. That's a sign of just how fast the Arctic in particular can respond to global environmental change. And as the Arctic greens, it could speed warming even more as the darker foliage absorbs sunlight that would have been reflected back into space by the white tundra... The advance of forest into the Arctic could increase Arctic warming by as much as 1° to 2°C by the end of the 21st century." Read More.
In the 1989 film, The Fabulous Baker Boys, the Baker brothers' work lands them a week-long stay at a resort hotel. During an argument, Jeff Bridge's character threatens brother Beau with a pineapple from the complimentary fruit basket. When the citrus missile is released and finds its target, a stunned Beau gasps, "You HIT me!"
"I TOLD you I was going to hit you," replies Jeff.
That, folks, is where we stand with climate change. Our dismissal of its warnings that it would hit us has led to our current condition -- stunned and pelted with pineapples.
That analogy sounded better in my head.
Like "What on Earth?" on Facebook.
Become a Fan here at The Huffington Post.
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
This is the full paragraph: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm
If the science deniers have any case, why do they resort to deliberate untruths and slander?
Because there is 20 Trillion $ to be made by denying climate destabilization while keeping the hydrocarbon economy running.
A LOT of people would do anything for that kind of money.
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions.
This is the bait and switch that global warming activists have been successfully engaging in for years — arguing that the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is “settled” because most scientists agree that the world has warmed and that man’s CO2 is causing some or even a lot of this warming.
But I, as a skeptic, would have answered yes to both as well. Remember, as discussed above, even according to the IPCC, 2/3 or more of future predicted warming in the climate models is not due to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas but due to positive feedback multiplying this warming three or more times. It is this positive feedback theory, a wholly separate theory from greenhouse gas theory, that causes the catastrophe and with which skeptics have the most issues. In other words, 97% (or 98% or whatever) of scientists agree with propositions that are totally beside the point. Warren Meyer
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/06/18/a-response-to-popular-ad-hominem-err-science-magazine-on-global-warming-skeptics/
Notice that they're not dealing with biased questions.
BTW: Forbes is an outlet for Heartland propaganda, which you are catapulting here.
Does this look like cooling to you?
http://bit.ly/Lr1HlQ
I picked a random start date, since you didn't mention one, but it really doesn't matter. Unless you pick a time frame that's way too short, you don't get cooling.
[alarmist studies are in trouble]
Uh-huh. Here are 293,000 mostly scholarly writings on climate.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22climate+change%22+or+%22global+warming%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=
Characterizing one or two reconsidered studies as "the alarmist studies" is really pretty funny.
The big news is the IPCC Forest study which now turns out to be a big mistake (the authors can't find the raw study data and their results can't be replicated). So all the studies relying on Forest need to be withdrawn. Too bad.
Gergis won't ever be back -- out and out fraud in that one, just like the Hockey Stick.
Then there's the UN RIO conference. Yawnfest, except for the bossa nova nights!
So we cancelled the climate alarm to be on the safe side.
By the way, a pineapple is a bromeliad, not a citrus.
Solyndra and the like "lobby" government officials to buy influence and collude for committing fraud.
A while back I remember seeing a blog post that actually has merit regarding technologies required for the jobs we face. This blog post (with capital and government cutting the local red tape) I believe is fully meritorious, and what is needed.
Please check: www.blogs.fanbox.com/howtostopclimatechange
I think there is some things there worth pursuing with some haste.
So hopefully that's what you meant.
Hey, that's not fair to the ones who just KNOW that it was some shadowy conspiracy, not the fuel-laden planes that we all saw crashing into buildings.
There are ancient sunken cities throughout the globe just as there are ancient ports now quite far from water. Similarly there are ancient cities throughout the world that seemed to have been abandoned for no reason beyond a sudden, drastic and natural change in climate.
To assume any constant regarding climate on either a local or planetary basis seems to be the worst sort of mathematical convenience!
Here is Earth's atmospheric temperature for the last half-billion years. You can see that it has been, more or less, the same temperature for the last 10,000 years. There is no 'assumption' of a constant climate. Its there, in the temperature record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
It would be, if anyone said that. But no one does, so...
On the first link, figure 5 shows the Minoan, Roman, and Mediaeval warm period. With data taken from Greenland’s Ice Cores.
http://drtimball.com/2011/they-are-still-trying-to-rewrite-climate-to-show-current-conditions-are-abnormal/
This is cooperated by the second link Taken from cores out of an Alaskan lake bed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/29/new-paleo-reconstruction-shows-warmer-periods-in-alaska-over-the-past-3000-years/
Atlantic Ocean temperatures showing definate heating and cooling cycles over the last 3,000 years:
http://www.jazclass.aust.com/blog/photos53/blog478ap.htm
Ms. Novas graph seems consistent with other graphs. I think Mr. Vahrenholt may have been more comfortable discussing this openly, since the” hock-stick graph” was discredited in November 2011, and Mr. Mann’s aggressive suppression is over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/12/07/climategates-michael-mann-channels-his-inner-palpatine/
As for the deniers: Most of their claims are ridiculous, having been refuted time and time again over the past several decades. If you make ridiculous claims, expect to be ridiculed.
It's another variant of the "I don't like Al Gore! Therefore, the scientists are wrong!" non-argument.
Alarm reinstated.
Funny thing about 2010. It was a LaNina year (makes things cooler) 98 was an extreme El Nino (warm year). 2010 was a solar minimun (cooler) 98 was a solar maximun (warmer) and yet 2010 STILL tied 1998. (kind of scary) And 2012 is on tract globally to be the warmest year ever by a landslide. But their talking points will live on longer then we do I´m afraid.
Huggs Becky
Think wet, flip floppy mittens.
See Stop Three Ticking Time Bombs at www.aesopinstitute.org
Human survival is threatened near-term and that fact is little realized.
Continuing to live on earth opens a path to a massive program to decentralize energy.
And it will help to slow climate change much faster than the current political deadlock.
Since everyone wants to survive...