Climate change is worsening, fast. The National Climate Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just announced that for the entire planet, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. And the period 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on record for the globe. The actual data are here.
This graph and this information should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Every Congressional representative should see it.
And the hottest 10 years on record in order?
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2009
2006
2007
2004
2001
How often do you have to get hit on the head before you say "ouch." Or before you even say "stop hitting me on the head"? For climate deniers, probably forever. We can expect them to talk about how cold the winter is, here or there.But for the rest of us, enough should be enough. The planet has a fever and it's getting worse.
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
been warming in recent years
• 53% of Americans think climate scientists do not agree that human activities
are a major cause of that warming
• 2008 poll of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active
in climate research believe in modern global warming, and 97.4% believe that
human activity is a significant factor in this warming. -Doran and Zimmerman (2009)
from : http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
So about one half of Americans are wrong in their understanding of what climate scientists believe! This result is independent of whether or not AGW is a fact. Who is to blame?
This slogan used Al Gore in his books and 98% of scientists also from his book-"Earth in the balance".
In science one person usually found something new-Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc., etc.
If perhaps we have 30,000 scientists, 2% - 600 persons, which disagree.
Who could guarantee, that between 600 person wil not be one Copernicus...?
WE MUST REEVALUATE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND FREE IT FROM POLITIC!
We lose hundreds millions dollars for this direction.
Today vision of climate change is science, which created under his influence.
It creates solar cells, windmills, cap & trade and many others directions, where we are losing money for real jobs in vane.
We need to reevaluate science of climate change only because of Al Gore.
We no need to wait additional 30 years, when Al Gore will admit that slogan "Debate is over", was wrong the same as his vision to fight climate change by "green" ethanol.
The Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Gore said he knows from experience: "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President."
Mr. Gore's mea culpa underscores the degree to which ethanol has become a purely political machine: It serves no purpose other than re-electing incumbents and transferring wealth to farm states and ethanol producers. Nothing proves this better than the coincident trajectories of ethanol and Mr. Gore's career.”
It is time to The Huffngton Post to follow main media.
Gore supported ethanol production while in office, but it grew substantially under little bush. It has by-partisan support. The benefits of ethanol are mixed. It benefits farmers, but corporate agribusiness more-so. Ethanol produces less CO2, but is hard on farmland.
Gore's career is just fine. You need to stay away from the denier websites.
If you patient enough scroll all my posts after this article.
Maybe, after reading it will be clear for you, what i am talking about.
Good luck!
Even if the NOAA Annual Global land/ocean anomaly dataset is gospel, they only post the adjusted values - after thorough massaging through area-weighting, time-of-day adjustments, UHI adjustments, etc. It would be nice to see the underlying raw data.
Even so, NOAA's dataset still shows a 2010 anomaly of 0.6171, where 2005 shows a slightly higher 0.6183.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
So I'm still not sure how you came to the "hottest year on record" conclusion.
What would you do with it?
"So I'm still not sure how you came to the "hottest year on record" conclusion."
Because 0.62 = 0.62.
But it would be interesting to see how much data massaging is done. If the temperature data tuning is significant, that undermines my confidence in the resulting trend. How much noise has to be smoothed away to yield the supposed signal?
And I would argue that 0.6171 < 0.6183. Especially when the entire cause for global warming alarm is based on a change in atmospheric compostion of 0.0001 (the additional 100 parts per million or so of CO2).
0.6183 could be 0.6183+/-1, but never o.62.
It is tolerance in mathematics, DocSkull
Let's have you go after this check list one at a time. I need a bit of a chuckle today.
Are all singers create 98% of scientists?
Raffi.Canadian singer.
"The science on global warming is clear and compelling."
Recently Al Gore admit that ethanol production, created under his influence was mistakes.
We lose hundreds millions dollars for this direction.
Today vision of climate change is science, which created under his influence.
It creates solar cells, windmills, cap & trade and many others directions, where we are losing money for real jobs in vane.
We need to reevaluate science of climate change only because of Al Gore.
We no need to wait additional 30 years, when Al Gore will admit that slogan "Debate is over", was wrong the same as his vision to fight climate change by "green" ethanol.
And who need believe you?
Only the same nobrainers, as you!
But really, one does not have to get all sciencey about this issue to make a case for the reduction in the use of fossil fuels. National security and economic arguments alone should be enough to convince any rational person that the incredibly wasteful lifestyle of the American culture is unsustainable.
It is just a matter of time before the oil companies decide that increasing the price of oil is more profitable than investing in capital intensive development of a dwindling resource, and then the poor and ex middle class will be in worse shape than they are now.
But I love the COMPLETE lack of science from their "side". Not one credible shred of evidence, but they persist. The Koch brothers have deep pockets, apparently.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics
LONDON — Centuries-old monks' diaries are helping scientists understand and predict climate change, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh found that historical written records on weather from the past 500 years broadly match modern computer simulations of European climate patterns.
The findings will help lead to more accurate European climate forecasts in the future, lead researcher Gabi Hegerl said.
"The climate models seem to be working quite well for the past, so we should expect that -- at least when it comes to temperature -- they will do well for the future," Hegerl said.
Hegerl said the researchers' findings suggest that greenhouse gases and current human behaviour will "definitely going to shape the climate in a significant and visible way."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20110117/monks-diaries-climate-change-research-110117/
***
The Pentagon: Global warming/climate change Is real and a destabilizing force.
From the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (Feb. 2010):
----------
“Climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.”
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
Here is a new bit of insight provided just today:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Quick-and-Dirty-GHCN-Analysis.html
I always give more weight to evidence provided by people who come across as curious and interested in getting the most accurate and complete understanding of what is going on.
Wow. Nice.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
(sorry).
"When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001)."
See: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
"While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends. Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201001-201012.gif
All moral judgments aside, has it ever occurred to you that learning the facts and telling the truth would simply be more convenient than all the lies you're telling?
People with political and economic agendas and no relevant science credentials have made a number of remarkably bizarre misrepresentations of the global climate record and many of them do not look like this graph.
Ridiculous claims of a scientific conspiracy are thrown about with no credible evidence to back them up. Let’s take a look at the Denia-list Checklist .. So the Denias can Deny a List.
Growing seasons, lengthening…… check
USDA planting zones moving towards the pole….. check
Neolithic human artifacts falling out of melting glaciers….. check
Global temperature trend for the past century, up ……. Check
Arctic ice extent and volume on significant downward trend….. check
Stratosphere cooling….. check
Troposphere warming… check
Carbon dioxide still obeying the laws of physics and absorbing infrared….. check
Humankind still putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year… check
Ocean levels rising…. Check
Tropical diseases moving closer to the poles......check
Coral reef die offs and temperature-sensitive species decline.....check
Changes in animal migratory routes and timing........check
Catastrophic erosion of arctic beaches.........check
Thawing permafrost and increasing methane emissions.....check
Insect pests surviving winters and moving closer to the poles.......check
Each succeeding decade of the last several contains a record for number of above average temperatures…. Check
Ecological niches moving higher up mountains…. check
The huge global fossil fuel industry liable for global warming's disastrous results still supporting global warming denialists…check
Have a nice day!
"The huge global fossil fuel industry liable for global warming's disastrous results still supporting global warming denialists…"
Stephen there is one, and only one scientific question at hand here:
Has a recent rise in CO2 levels presumed to be from humans caused a rise in the temperature of the earth?
The CO2 levels have been tested at Vostok and Mauna Loa, both remote locations, so as to provide uncorrupted data. Yes CO2 has gone up over the last 100 years.
When we apply the same standard to temperature data, looking for weather stations in remote rural locations so as to provide uncorrupted data we find that no, the temperature has not increased.
Yet you want to play the same game of using CO2 records from Antartica and temperature records from downtown Tokyo, and mixing it with your weird politics.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html
"Warming during this time has been strongest over the continental interiors of Asia and northern North America. However, as these are areas with large year-to-year variability, the most evident warming signal has occurred in parts of the middle and lower latitudes, particularly the tropical oceans."
So, if you throw out all the data from a circumference of 10 miles around every major city, the remaining data will still show global warming -- probably a STRONGER global warming signal, since we would have thrown out locations which show less warming, thereby more strongly weighting locations of more rapid warming. Is that what you really want?
To put it simply, you've fallen for a big fat crock.
The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=related
The "Urban Heat Island" Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201001-201012.gif
... from NCDC's 'State of the Climate' report for last year
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13
... and then tell me honestly whether you believe you can see even one "Urban Heat Island Effect" and if so, name the city and country.