2011 Was the 9th Hottest Year On Record 877
The Bad Astronomer writes "Last year was the 9th hottest year out of the past 130, according to NASA and the NOAA. That's no coincidence: nine out of the ten hottest years on record have been since the year 2000. It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy."
mediocrity (Score:-1, Informative)
"On record" (Score:5, Informative)
... for very short values of record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you under the impression that global warming won't increase the amount of arable land?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html [nationalgeographic.com]
Re:The open question... (Score:3, Informative)
3000 AD?
Best estimates are a mini ice age within 10 years. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Even through the smoke you can see something (Score:4, Informative)
There were also giant forests and jungles and ocean ecosystems supported by that carbon. That meant a lot of it was in the midst of the metabolisms of plants and algae and stuff, not floating free in the atmosphere. It was a generally thicker atmosphere, making more OXYGEN available, that let the world grow ____ing great lizards (also, they weren't lizards).
We, on the other hand, have increasingly small jungles and forests, and increasingly puny ocean ecosystems, which means that carbon doesn't spend much time trapped in living things. It stays in the atmosphere, which leads to something beyond "warm and cozy."
Re:Denial. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
It takes a long while to turn sand into soil.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The open question... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Informative)
The best thing you can do to reduce carbon emissions is to not procreate.
Seriously, think it through. If you have children, each of them and their descendants will be CO2-producers. They will consume energy, they will buy manufactured goods, they will eat, they will travel. All of these activities create CO2.
Save the earth. Chop your dick off.
Now, about places in the world where population growth is occurring...
Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (Score:2, Informative)
Shills? Stop being an ass.
There is no other explanation for what is happening.
http://ncse.com/climate [ncse.com]
http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101 [ncse.com]
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/why-is-it-called-denial [ncse.com]
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/pillars [ncse.com]
Re:Denial. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't recall us closing any ozone holes... By contrast, according to the wikis, the ozone layer is thinning in the Arctic now as well. I'm not disagreeing with the majority of what you're stating, simply stating that I don't believe there have been any effective policies put in place to mitigate it.
From the "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2006, Executive Summary [noaa.gov]"
The previous Assessment presented evidence that the tropospheric abundances of most ozone-depleting substances, as well as of stratospheric chlorine, were stable or decreasing due to actions taken under the Montreal Protocol (see schematic Figure 1a, b), with the stratospheric abundances showing a time lag due to the time for surface emissions to reach the stratosphere. Based on these facts, it was stated that "The Montreal Protocol is working, and the ozone-layer depletion from the Protocol's controlled substances is expected to begin to ameliorate within the next decade or so ."
(My emphasis)
Patience, grasshopper.
Green Sahara (Score:4, Informative)
It would indeed be wonderful if the ancient Saharan monsoons returned [wikipedia.org]. But from the last page of your link:
Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modelers.
Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen added.
"Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend."
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
No it doesn't. Many plants grow in sand just fine. After a while you plow those under and they leave the trapped carbon in the soil. Then the soil is suitable for conventional cereal crops. I visited a farm in Africa where they were doing this. It takes a couple years at the most.
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
So how come it is humans warming up the planet when the planet not only has been warmer in the past without humans, but has done so in the last 10,000 years before humans even had domesticated animals.
I can believe our burning CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. the smog is a great example of that. However that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a normal warming and cool trend the planet goes through. In fact not a single person who supports Global warming will even look at such data.
Of course the planet has been hotter / colder than now, but that's not really relevant. The climate scientists have been able to link / model the changes this time and a significant factor is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, from my personal point of view, the rate of change is very significant. "Natural" climate change tends to be very slow, what we are experiencing now isn't.
So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive.
Yes the majority will survive the (direct) effects of climate change. But that's not the point. It will cost us a "shed load" of money to adapt, move our cities / agricultural locations etc. from where they are now to wherever they need to go. That is the main point
There will also be conflicts over land / resources. You used to be sitting on a great bit of agricultural land, now it's a desert, or under water. Or your major city no longer has a water supply. That's the problem we face.
Re:Hyperbole much... (Score:5, Informative)
"There's a bunch of charts and data to indicate that this might be the earth's natural cycling
no, there is not. we passed that 15 year ago.
I like when people invoke solar activity with out actually thinking.
There are sever types of deniers:
http://ncse.com/climate/denial/climate-change-is-good-science [ncse.com]
who deny that significant climate change is occurring
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, but deny that human activity is significantly responsible
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring and that human activity is significantly responsible, but deny the scientific evidence about its significant effects on the world and our society
who acknowledge that significant climate change is occurring, that human activity is significantly responsible, and that it will have a significant effect on the world and our society, but who deny that humans can take significant actions to reduce or mitigate its impact
also:
http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101/how-much-human-responsibility-for-climate-change [ncse.com]
Re:Have you also solved the "dark matter" problem? (Score:5, Informative)
All climate scientists of any repute from the last 50yrs will tell you CO2 has been the dominant regulator of the Earth's climate since multi-cellular life first appeared 500M years ago, the last time CO2 was at similar levels as today [skepticalscience.com] was 3M years ago, long before humans walked the Earth.
Re:The open question... (Score:3, Informative)
That the Earth is getting warmer can be measured easily. The problem is determining whether it is getting warmer because of too much CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere or because of other reasons (not caused by humans). After all, Greenland was "green" at some point in time, which means that the Earth was warmer in not so distant past. So maybe Greenland being green is the default and this time period was when the Earth was too cold and now it is warming back up again.
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
You link to an article that explains that in one particular region of the Sahara the localised effects of climate change may have caused more rain, and hence desert greening. This does not mean that the same thing will occur everywhere in the world. In fact, desertification is increasing [aph.gov.au]. Consider some other recent evidence:
climate change is making desertification "the greatest environmental challenge of our times" [bbc.co.uk]
Australia suffers worst drought in 1,000 years [guardian.co.uk]
THE GREAT DROUGHT OF 2011 Is America's Worst Since The Dust Bowl [businessinsider.com]
Africa drought pushes Kenya and Somalia into pre-famine conditions [guardian.co.uk]
Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production [newscientist.com]
Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (Score:4, Informative)
Man has a nasty habbit of thinking the things he does result in unrelated outcomes. Native Americans (Indians) used to do a special dance because the last time they did that dance, it rained. They believed that it rained because they did a little dance. Surely, we've advanced beyond such superstitions, right? Pay attention to football fans. How many do stupid things like never washing a lucky jersey or sitting in a lucky chair during the game. I have friends, really smart friends, who do things like refuse to watch their favorite team play live because the last time they watched a game, their team lost and the last time they didn't watch, they won. Against all logic, they honestly believe that the team's performance changes depending on if he is watching the game on TV.
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it. Just like this recent warm winter is more likely associated with La Nina rather than a Jeep Laredo, man will immediately consider his own actions as the cause before looking at more mundane causes like a repeating weather cycle.
By the way, last year's warm weather average was caused by an unusually warm summer mixed with a La Nina event that delayed winter in this year. Any year without a winter is going to be warmer on average than any year with a winter, just as a class's grade average is better when the stupid kid is absent.
I'm not saying that global warming is or is not happening. I am saying that it has been warmer and it has been much colder, all before the first ape stood upright and starting carving porn out of a stump. Maybe we should consider more natural reasons for the extremely recent rise in temperature and stop wondering which dance moves caused the rain.
(if their are misspelled words in this, it's because I suck at spelling and Firefox's spell check is not working all of a sudden.)
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly haven't thought this through.
Let's say the new arable land is in the Sahara. Do you think all the midwestern American farmers will be happy to abandon their lives to go move to a foreign country? Or are we going to basically have a massive spike in unemployment while simultaneously waiting for natives of the area to learn the trade?
How much will it cost to move all of the machinery to the new farms? And what about top soil? That doesn't grow overnight. Even if the climate in the Sahara makes it arable, that doesn't mean we'll be able to grow anything there for at least a few years.
And how about distribution? How long will it take to replicate the American interstate highway system in a patchwork of third world countries?
And how about the new cost of food, which has to be shipped to the US from overseas after centuries of us being able to feed ourselves?
How about the plant species themselves, which have been selectively bred to thrive in certain environments which might not match the environments around the new farms?
Even a few years of this would bring our country to its knees. Please try to actually think a position through before taking it. (And that goes double for you mods!)
Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (Score:5, Informative)
But if the information they posess is based on BS, should they not be called out. Last year was the coldest in the last 30, which is recorded by the local news, and the local wweather stations.
Are you talking about your town? Who cares!
2011 was the 11th warmest *globally* since records were kept in 1880, and is the 35th year on a row where temps are above the 100 year average. And that's with La Nina helping to cool things. Your information is just plain incorrect.
Re:The open question... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, I should've linked to the actual paper of course.
High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983 [plosone.org]
The paper doesn't say what you think it says. It shows that there are wide variations in ocean acidity in the short term. The issue of the effect of long term changes in average acidity is not addressed. After all, we have daily and yearly temperature cycles -- but the polar caps are melting and the glaciers are retreating as a result of longer term average changes.
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually read the article, the article made no such claim that "we have nothing to worry about". The fact that specific organisms may well at brief times be already experiencing pH levels not predicted for the ocean as whole until 2100 is not a particularly worry free finding, since it may indicate that such organisms are already near their tolerance levels for certain periods of time. The study also indicates that total dissolved CO2 may be far more important than pH and this is precisely what those who study fish behaviors are finding. High carbon dioxide concentrations severely impacts orientation behavior and response to sounds in juvenile fishes causing them to be much less able to locate suitable bottom types and avoid predation. Consequently, the article is consistent with the findings of others that 1) increasing carbon dioxide levels in the ocean have the potential to seriously disrupt ecosystems, even though pH may not be the prime driver and that 2) the consequences of increased carbon dioxide pollution must be further studied and an increasingly fine scale of measurement.
Despite your over eagerness to misinterpret the findings to suit your ideology, your pointing the study out is appreciated.
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
"What about all those areas that are going to become better farming land due to a warmer climate?"
Yes, they sure do, and entire communities are now starving and moving out of Northern Mexico, but anyone who has spent anytime in West Texas and Oklahoma this past summer knows that the increasing heat and dryness also affected a lot of farmers north of the border.
Keep in mind that we are presently coming out of a solar minimum and have had a prolonged La Nina event tied to the SO, yet even so we had the 9th highest year on record. Coming out of this natural cyclic cooling cycle will mean substantially warmer temperatures. All those folks in Texas and Oklahoma better be ready for some real heat and dryness, not the relatively cool spell they had this past summer. Hansen et all predict it will come in 2013 or 2014, given the past record of periodicity coupled with the constantly increasing warming trend.
Watch for meat prices to climb.
Re:The open question... (Score:5, Informative)
Fertile land doesn't just suddenly spring up under rainfall.
Farmland is the result of thousands of years of river flows, lake beds, animal and plant decay and sediment.
A location that is currently a pure desert like the Sahara will NOT be possible to farm. Certainly a few semi-arid or seasonally arid regions may be slightly less arid, but there are almost no global climate models that support an increase in farmland.
Many of the places that will thaw (Siberia, Northern Canada) have soils that are very alkali and not suitable for farming. Many of the other places are at high altitude and wouldn't be suitable anyway.
The places that are most likely to become farmland in a scenario of temperature increase are river deltas which may dry up to some extent, and those regions that are semi-arid or seasonally arid, but an equal (or greater) number of those will dry up. Places like Texas and Oklahoma are most likely predicted to become much drier, but much more subject to violent storms. Places like Iowa and Kansas will likely dry up to resemble central Texas or Oklahoma, where soil requires extensive irrigation to grow anything of value. Places like Wyoming and Montana may benefit from increased rainfall due to the low pressure that results from changing currents, but those places have very poor soil and probably won't suddenly be a replacement for Iowa. Maybe southern Alberta would have a huge increase in the output of farmland, but northern Alberta has terrible soil (tar sand?) and Saskatchewan is spotted with rocky places with poor soil (badlands) just like the Dakotas.
The point is.... I have never heard an actual climate scientist claim that every single spot on earth will become less hospitable. This is a political/simplistic polemic. In fact, the South Ocean stands to benefit hugely with really nice weather in the models I've seen, but there's no farmland there.
Re:The open question... (Score:2, Informative)
To be fair: environmental alarmists have batting zero since forever.
I would not call that fair. This entire debate started when someone speculated about the possible impact of our increased CO2 emissions. It was speculated that if this increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere that there could be a warming effect. It turned out that there was an increased level of CO2 and it was getting warming. That is a win right from the start.
I'm 52 years old, since I was a kid I've been hearing predictions of the earth's oil running out...
Guess what? Oil is running out as predicted. Estimates say that demand will exceed supply by 2020. Most of the estimates had it happening at some time in this decade, but the GFC actually helped here.
...massive widespread starvation due to over population...
According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the biggest threat to public health, and that 6 million children die of hunger every year
...unbreathabe air due to pollution...
There has been lots of work done to fix this, with new laws to reduce emissions by industry and cars. For example, the Great Smog of London in 1952 killed 12,000 people over four days. It directly led to the Clean Air Act of 1956.
...predication of the earth getting much colder...
Global cooling never had much support in the scientific community. These days, the idea of global cooling has been championed by the denialists as a benefit of global warming (to prevents an ice age)
...and much more. None of it has happened. At least not anywhere near the scale it was predicted to happen.
Does "and much more" include the hole in the ozone layer being caused by CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere? Because we used legislation to force industry to find alternatives to CFCs and the ozone layer is now getting smaller. Certainly doesn't sound like they are "batting zero".
Re:The open question... (Score:4, Informative)
Not really. Biologists know a great deal about how plants and animals responded in the past to climatic perturbation over millions of years of time. The big problem we have with AWG is that the rate at which the warming is occurring is between 100 and 1000 times faster than it has ever been recorded, except perhaps at ground zero for a few bolide impacts and volcanic eruptions. Consequently, extinctions are going to be massive.
A recent simulation taking into account expected shifts in ecosystems, suggested that within 300 years 85 percent of all ecosystems would see more than 75% species change, with the largest changes taking place through the loss of temperate forests worldwide. This is not out the realm of possibility and probably a very conservative estimate, when one considers that during 2011 the state of Texas alone lost 10% of its trees (about 500,000,000 trees) during a single year's drought. Temperatures in Texas within 100 years are expected to exceed 100 F for more than 200 days out of the year. When one considers that Texas is the second larger producer of agricultural products after California, producing $16,498,398,000 per year or 6.84% of all US agriculture that is going to be one very big hit, not even considering that similar effects would also be felt across most of the Southern United States.