Let’s call it: 30 years of above average temperatures means the climate has changed

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:15 AM GMT on February 27, 2015

Let’s call it: 30 years of above average temperatures means the climate has changed

If you’re younger than 30, you’ve never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average.

Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth’s average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth’s surface. Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000. For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century. Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month’s temperature and you’ve got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with “I want to know what love is.”

These temperature observations make it clear the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the stability of the last 100 years. The traditional definition of climate is the 30-year average of weather. The fact that – once the official records are in for February 2015 – it will have been 30 years since a month was below average is an important measure that the climate has changed.



Temperature history for all Februaries from 1880-2014
NCDC



How the Earth warms

As you can see in the graphic above, ocean temperature doesn’t vary as much as land temperature. This fact is intuitive to many people because they understand that coastal regions don’t experience as extreme highs and lows as the interiors of continents. Since oceans cover the majority of the Earth’s surface, the combined land and ocean graph strongly resembles the graph just for the ocean. Looking at only the ocean plots, you have to go all the way back to February 1976 to find a month below average. (That would be under President Gerald Ford’s watch.)

You can interpret variability over land as the driver of the ups and downs seen in the global graph. There are four years from 1976 onwards when the land was below average; the last time the land temperature was cool enough for the globe to be at or below average was February 1985. The flirtation with below-average temps was tiny – primarily worth noting in the spirit of accurate record keeping. Looking at any of these graphs, it’s obvious that earlier times were cooler and more recent times are warmer. None of the fluctuations over land since 1976 provide evidence contrary to the observation that the Earth is warming.

Some of the most convincing evidence that the Earth is warming is actually found in measures of the heat stored in the oceans and the melting of ice. However, we often focus on the surface air temperature. One reason for that is that we feel the surface air temperature; therefore, we have intuition about the importance of hot and cold surface temperatures. Another reason is historical; we have often thought of climate as the average of weather. We’ve been taking temperature observations for weather for a long time; it is a robust and essential observation.



Temperature history for every year from 1880-2014.
NOAA National Climatic Data Center



Despite variability, a stable signal

Choosing one month, February in this instance, perhaps overemphasizes that time in 1985 when we had a below average month. We can get a single yearly average for all the months in an entire year, January-December. If we look at these annual averages, then the ups and downs are reduced. In this case, 1976 emerges as the last year in which the global-average temperature was below the 20th century average of 57.0F (13.9C) – that’s 38 years ago, the year that Nadia Comaneci scored her seven perfect 10s at the Montreal Olympics.

I am not a fan of tracking month-by-month or even year-by-year averages and arguing over the statistical minutia of possible records. We live at a time when the Earth is definitively warming. And we know why: predominately, the increase of greenhouse gas warming due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Under current conditions, we should expect the planet to be warming. What would be more important news would be if we had a year, even a month, that was below average.

The variability we observe in surface temperature comes primarily from understood patterns of weather. Many have heard of El Niño, when the eastern Pacific Ocean is warmer than average. The eastern Pacific is so large that when it is warmer than average, the entire planet is likely to be warmer than average. As we look at averages, 30 years, 10 years, or even one year, these patterns, some years warmer, some cooler, become less prominent. The trend of warming is large enough to mask the variability. The fact that there have been 30 years with no month below the 20th century average is a definitive statement that climate has changed.

The 30-year horizon

There are other reasons that this 30-year span of time is important. Thirty years is a length of time in which people plan. This includes personal choices – where to live, what job to take, how to plan for retirement. There are institutional choices – building bridges, building factories and power plants, urban flood management. There are resource management questions – assuring water supply for people, ecosystems, energy production and agriculture. There are many questions concerning how to build the fortifications and plan the migrations that sea-level rise will demand. Thirty years is long enough to be convincing that the climate is changing, and short enough that we can conceive, both individually and collectively, what the future might hold.

Finally, 30 years is long enough to educate us. We have 30 years during which we can see what challenges a changing climate brings us. Thirty years that are informing us about the next 30 years, which will be warmer still. This is a temperature record that makes it clear that the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the ups and downs of the last 100 years.

Those who are under 30 years old have not experienced the climate I grew up with. In thirty more years, those born today will also be living in a climate that, by fundamental measures, will be different than the climate of their birth. Future success will rely on understanding that the climate in which we are all now living is changing and will continue to change with accumulating consequences.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 526 - 476

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

526. tbux9828
7:19 PM GMT on April 20, 2015
I am not debating that the climate is changing, but to say that a 30 year spike in weather means it is changing is pretty stupid. I mean, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It would be somewhat analogous to, during an otherwise sunny day the sun is obscured by a lone cloud and then declaring that today was "overcast".
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
525. JohnLonergan
7:14 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Climate Change Denier Fantasy Tournament Starts Today



Vote early and often
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
524. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
7:00 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
RickyRood has created a new entry.
523. LowerCal
6:51 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 519. Xyrus2000:



Well, I have to hand it to you. I said you needed to up your game, and you did. That site makes even our current long time trolls and deniers look like paragons of reason and intellect.

*slow clap* Well done.

Mexico city sits at an elevation of approximately 7,300 feet. In the winter, the average nightly temperatures are in the upper 30's to low 40's. That's already cold enough for snow to reach the ground if the upper air temperatures are cold enough.

However, the snow didn't occur in Mexico city. It occurred on the freeway east of the city which goes over the mountains. The elevation where the freeway cuts through those mountains is between 10,000 and 11,000 feet. The average lapse rate in the atmosphere is approximately 3.5F/1000 feet. So if it is an average winter night in Mexico city (upper 30's to low 40's), then it's going to be around freezing or below in the mountain pass. If a cold front is passing through then those temperatures are going to be colder.

Freezing temperatures in the pass, and even in Mexico city itself aren't rare. What was rare about this event was the AMOUNT of precipitation. Winters in the region are very dry, with only a few millimeters of precipitation occurring through the winter months on average. The two inches of snow that fell is the equivalent of a few months worth of average winter precipitation for that region. It is an extreme precipitation event, not an extreme temperature event.

But why let facts get in the way?

Excellent! My apologies for not reading ahead, Xyrus.

"It is an extreme precipitation event, not an extreme temperature event."

One again denialist cherry picking in a desperate effort to discredit AGW actually reveals supporting evidence for AGW. I think the appropriate expression is, "Shooting yourself in the foot," AtmosphericAvenger.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
522. LowerCal
6:32 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Re.
497. AtmosphericAvenger:
AGW is causing snow in Mexico City in mid-March:
Link
The pass on the highway mentioned is about 10,000 ft. in elevation.

The "hill" mentioned is about 13,000 ft. in elevation and according to Wikipedia, "The area is one of the few around Mexico City where it may snow in the winter."

So pathetic. Did the avatar at least have a spiffy superhero costume?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
521. LowerCal
5:42 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 491. ColoradoBob1:


489. indianrivguy

I never thought of this either, I never asked asked just how many people died. This study is an eye opener.

And I knew all of it was under way. But in chunks . I never dreamed 50 million people died in just a few decades, and 65 million hectares when back to forest is just the blink of an eye.

It changes my understanding of everything I know about the past in the new world.


History books traditionally depict the pre-Columbus Americas as a pristine wilderness where small native villages lived in harmony with nature. But scientific evidence tells a very different story: When Columbus stepped ashore in 1492, millions of people were already living there. America wasn't exactly a New World, but a very old one whose inhabitants had built a vast infrastructure of cities, orchards, canals and causeways.
The English brought honeybees to the Americas for honey, but the bees pollinated orchards along the East Coast. Thanks to the feral honeybees, many of the plants the Europeans brought, like apples and peaches, proliferated. Some 12,000 years ago, North American mammoths, ancient horses, and other large mammals vanished. The first horses in America since the Pleistocene era arrived with Columbus in 1493.
Settlers in the Americas told of rivers that had more fish than water. The South American potato helped spark a population explosion in Europe. In 1491, the Americas had few domesticated animals, and used the llama as their beast of burden.
In 1491, more people lived in the Americas than in Europe. The first conquistadors were sailors and adventurers. In 1492, the Americas were not a pristine wilderness but a crowded and managed landscape. The now barren Chaco Canyon was once covered with vegetation. Along with crops like wheat, weeds like dandelion were brought to America by Europeans.
It's believed that the domestication of the turkey began in pre-Columbian Mexico, and did not exist in Europe in 1491. By 1500, European settlers and their plants and animals had altered much of the Americas' landscape. While beans, potatoes, and maize from the Americas became major crops in continental Europe.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
520. LowerCal
4:42 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Inhofe’s misleading statements on carbon emissions rule - The Washington Post


Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
519. Xyrus2000
3:00 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 497


Well, I have to hand it to you. I said you needed to up your game, and you did. That site makes even our current long time trolls and deniers look like paragons of reason and intellect.

*slow clap* Well done.

Mexico city sits at an elevation of approximately 7,300 feet. In the winter, the average nightly temperatures are in the upper 30's to low 40's. That's already cold enough for snow to reach the ground if the upper air temperatures are cold enough.

However, the snow didn't occur in Mexico city. It occurred on the freeway east of the city which goes over the mountains. The elevation where the freeway cuts through those mountains is between 10,000 and 11,000 feet. The average lapse rate in the atmosphere is approximately 3.5F/1000 feet. So if it is an average winter night in Mexico city (upper 30's to low 40's), then it's going to be around freezing or below in the mountain pass. If a cold front is passing through then those temperatures are going to be colder.

Freezing temperatures in the pass, and even in Mexico city itself aren't rare. What was rare about this event was the AMOUNT of precipitation. Winters in the region are very dry, with only a few millimeters of precipitation occurring through the winter months on average. The two inches of snow that fell is the equivalent of a few months worth of average winter precipitation for that region. It is an extreme precipitation event, not an extreme temperature event.

But why let facts get in the way?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
518. LAbonbon
2:13 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 517. yoboi:

For some time, those of us studying the problem of misinformation in U.S. politics — and especially scientific misinformation — have wondered whether Google could come along and solve the problem in one fell swoop.

Link

Gore is the founder and current chair of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the co-founder and chair of Generation Investment Management, the co-founder and chair of the now-defunct Current TV network, a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Inc., and a senior adviser to Google.

Link

A little research goes a long way..........

For someone who proclaims to have studied 'the problem of misinformation in U.S. politics — and especially scientific misinformation', you sure do spend an awful lot of time disseminating disinformation on this site.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
516. JohnLonergan
12:00 PM GMT on March 13, 2015
CLIMATE SHOCK

Uncertainties attend the predictions of climate science, as the scientists themselves are careful to acknowledge. Reluctant policy makers use this uncertainty to support a “wait and see” response to climate change. Prominent American economists Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman in their recent book Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet are scathing in their condemnation of such a response. They translate “wait and see” as “give up and fold” and call it wilful blindness.

Their own response to the uncertainty surrounding climate predictions is to ask what the worst case scenario looks like.

Here’s what you get: about a 10 percent chance of eventual temperatures exceeding 6 ° C, unless the world acts much more decisively than it has.

This isn’t a figure they’ve made up for themselves. It’s based on IPCC prediction ranges and on the International Energy Agency’s interpretation of current government commitments.

It’s clearly a catastrophic scenario, but with a 10 percent chance of happening it must play a prominent part in our thinking and planning. We take out fire insurance on our homes with a much lower than 10 percent chance of their burning down. It’s called prudence, and most of us don’t think twice about the precaution of insurance.

Read more ...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
515. LAbonbon
11:31 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 514. tlawson48:



Congratulations. You have succeeded in forcing me to change my pants as the website you linked to, caused me to laugh so hard I peed myself. Seriously, that is some straight up CAT 5 loony tunes nuttiness going on at that website.

You need to 'hover' over the link first...I saw 'iceagenow' and didn't even click.

When I was a kid (pre-internet days), we knew certain printed sources were garbage. Seems like lots of folks who use the internet can't make the same distinctions with websites.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
514. tlawson48
9:50 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 497. AtmosphericAvenger:

AGW is causing snow in Mexico City in mid-March:

Link


Congratulations. You have succeeded in forcing me to change my pants as the website you linked to, caused me to laugh so hard I peed myself. Seriously, that is some straight up CAT 5 loony tunes nuttiness going on at that website.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
513. ColoradoBob1
8:01 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 489. indianrivguy:



Thanks Bob, I found this one really interesting. Sorta like two or three "aha" moments at once. (In my mind I jokingly call those "Mentat" moments) I was sorta disappointed I didn't have a few days to digest this before I read the time frame connections with the little ice age. I wondered how long before it would have occurred to ME. Thanks again!

Life's a funny ole' dog.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
512. ColoradoBob1
7:41 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Alaska , and Canada will join Siberia this year to create a year the world has never seen.
Their people will miss the entire year , they are all trying to a make living. I want to hear from them.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
511. ColoradoBob1
7:12 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
More bad news from Siberia . Next we watch it burn again, but on scale we have never seen.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
510. ColoradoBob1
6:33 AM GMT on March 13, 2015


the deputy director of the Oil and Gas Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vasily Bogoyavlensky,


Says there is a hole over one half mile in diameter in a new place in Siberia.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
509. ColoradoBob1
6:20 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Come on , lets keeo up.

There is no pingo 0.6 km in diameter.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
508. ColoradoBob1
4:59 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Not one of you noticed this, a hole in Siberia over a half a mile wide ?

Come on , lets keeo up.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
507. ColoradoBob1
4:42 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
I can't believe none you missed this -

“We have just learnt that in Yakutia, new information has emerged about a giant crater 1km [0.6 miles] in diameter,” the deputy director of the Oil and Gas Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vasily Bogoyavlensky, told AFP.

He said this brought to seven the number of reported pits.

Link

This is not Al Gore, or Green Peace , this is the deputy director of the Oil and Gas Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vasily Bogoyavlensky saying they found a crater over one half a mile wide.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
506. BaltimoreBrian
4:20 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
And Nathan doesn't even drink! But will he go for wine or liquor first? ;)

There's been an outbreak in my blog. Respond as you see fit.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
505. Astrometeor
4:18 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 373. RevElvis:

Florida Isn't the Only State to 'Ban' Climate Change

Florida, one of the states most susceptible to the effects of climate change and sea-level rise, verbally banned state environmental officials from using the term "climate change," an investigation revealed. But the Sunshine State isn't the only U.S. state that has attempted to "outlaw" climate science.

North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed laws that attempt to cast doubt on established climate science in boardrooms and classrooms.

The reality of climate change due to human activity has been widely accepted by climate scientists, and some experts worry that attempts to deny the science could prevent states from preparing for sea level rise, extreme weather and other effects of a warming planet.

LiveScience.com


Haven't been on for a while (woot spring break!), but saw this, saw that TN passed its law in 2012....How did I not hear about this? Usually when they do something stupid, I hear about it...but the past two years or so the city has been bickering with the state over bus routes, light rail, and education...(Nashville lost several million in funding after illegally denying a charter school permission).

But I have never heard of this law. Dang it, kinda wonder if I could have done what those students did in California, and sue the state for passing unconstitutional laws, on the basis of undermining my educational rights.

P.S. Either this year or the next is when we can finally have wine and liquor in the grocery stores...took 10 years of lobbying to get that through. I'm not 21 yet though. ;)

Edited for clarification and a pair of errors.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
504. ColoradoBob1
3:50 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 496. AtmosphericAvenger:
Get a new avatar .

Siberia has claimed that title, and it's much larger than you.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
503. Xyrus2000
3:33 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 496. AtmosphericAvenger:



I know why it is adjusted, but it's not for the reasons you espouse.


No, you don't know why it's adjusted because you most likely flunked out of the statistics portion of your math curriculum. You also apparently don't read well either, since the detailed explanations of the adjustments are posted right along with the data.

You also have provided no evidence to back up your claim. A claim which would implicate just about every scientist in every field worldwide for the last 200 years in massive conspiracy and fraud. As a counter to your claim, I admit as evidence every modern convenience we have today.

Your tinfoil-hat/nutter conspiracy skills are no where near the level of our regular trolls and deniers. You'll need to really up your game if expect to compete with them.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
502. Xyrus2000
3:03 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 462. spbloom:

Changes in direct solar forcing are slight, Milankovitch forcings less so but very slow (and so also slight on short timescales), and anthropogenic forcings are in a whole different league. The analogy works better IMO if the cars are replaced by a fast unicycle and a slow tandem.


It's a bit more complicated than that. As noted, solar variations and Milankovitch cycles result in small changes in overall insolation. The natural feedbacks in the climate system are what amplify those small changes and turn them into larger ones. Like a car stuck in rut, small pushes at the right moments eventually give it enough energy to break out of the rut.

Historically, the rut has been relatively deep and the "pushes" (solar, orbital, axial variations) have been small, so it took a long time before the climate would break out. With all the additional GHGs we've pumped into the atmosphere, we've been giving much stronger pushes and our current research indicates we're already well clear of the rut. And we're still pushing.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
501. ColoradoBob1
2:53 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Yobi-
The Russian oil and gas people found a giant hole in Siberia that is over a half a mile wide.
You'll want to rethink your thinking.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
500. Xyrus2000
2:28 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 452. Xandra:


Geoengineering Is Not a Solution to Climate Change

Using technofixes to tinker with global climate systems is an excuse to avoid unpopular but necessary measures to reduce carbon emissions

-----

20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea (pdf)


Geoengineering with our primitive level of technology is Pretty Damn Stupid(tm). It's like trying to use aspirin to treat a headache caused by a malignant brain tumor.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
499. Naga5000
2:25 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 496. AtmosphericAvenger:



I know why it is adjusted, but it's not for the reasons you espouse.


Oh yeah...I'm sure it has everything to do with you being a conspiracy driven nut job and possibly a raging moron to boot. Enjoy your short stay, troll.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
495. Naga5000
2:06 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 492. AtmosphericAvenger:

Maybe someone on this blog can explain why NOAA and other government entities insist on revising past temperature with no rational basis for it.

Link


Boring troll. I've seen better efforts. If you seriously have no clue why raw data is adjusted you need to go back to stats class and please stay awake this time. This blog is not a place where you post denialist nonsense and demand we debunk it.

By the way, your user name is a dead give away. Bye, troll.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
494. RevElvis
1:53 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
NASA chief schools Ted Cruz for trying to downplay global warming research


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during meeting of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space on March 12, 2015. [YouTube]

Two days after bombing in a speech before a firefighters’ union, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was rebuffed in a Senate subcommittee hearing while trying to criticize NASA’s increased emphasis on studying climate change, Mashable reported.

“We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it — and that’s understanding our environment,” NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told Cruz on Thursday. “It is absolutely critical that we understand Earth’s environment because this is the only place we have to live.”

The exchange came during a meeting of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, which Cruz now chairs. Cruz expressed skepticism toward President Barack Obama’s $18.6 billion budget request for the agency — specifically recent increases in funding for studying Earth phenomena compared to a slight decrease in money for space exploration efforts.

“I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space,” Cruz said. “That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country. It’s what sets NASA apart from any agency in the country.”

Holden explained that the decrease in funding for outer space-related projects was due in part to a desire to reduce the cost of those types of missions.

“The fact that earth science [funding] has increased, I’m proud to say, has enabled us to understand our planet far better than we ever did before,” Holden added. “It’s absolutely critical.”

For example, Holden said, NASA supports studies in Cruz’s home state of Texas that measured the effects of emptying out the state’s aquifers on local land elevations.

“That’s just looking at our environment, trying to make sure that we have a better place for all of us in which to live,” he told the senator. “I think that’s critical.”

The committee’s ranking member, Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) also knocked Cruz’s rationale, pointing out that the funding increase he criticized was actually a rebound from cuts levied under former President George W. Bush’s administration.

“The chairman has mentioned that he wants science to drive the process here,” Peters said. “Here we have leading experts in our country on science saying that the cuts that we saw in earth sciences were disastrous in the Bush era.”

Cruz’s appointment to lead the subcommittee led to concern in the scientific community over having an avowed climate change denier in charge of the group controlling NASA’s funding, with at least one scientist saying it was like “having the fox guard the chicken coop.”


RawStory.com
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
493. LAbonbon
1:41 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 492. AtmosphericAvenger:

Maybe someone on this blog can explain why NOAA and other government entities insist on revising past temperature with no rational basis for it.

Link

Here you go

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
491. ColoradoBob1
12:50 AM GMT on March 13, 2015

489. indianrivguy

I never thought of this either, I never asked asked just how many people died. This study is an eye opener.

And I knew all of it was under way. But in chunks . I never dreamed 50 million people died in just a few decades, and 65 million hectares when back to forest is just the blink of an eye.

It changes my understanding of everything I know about the past in the new world.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
490. ColoradoBob1
12:22 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 487. cyclonebuster:

7 now hundreds more to come this summer the Clathrate Gun has started...


After the warmest winter in 124 years , what could go wrong ?

1 kilometer holes ?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
489. indianrivguy
12:15 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
Quoting 458. ColoradoBob1:


Thanks Bob, I found this one really interesting. Sorta like two or three "aha" moments at once. (In my mind I jokingly call those "Mentat" moments) I was sorta disappointed I didn't have a few days to digest this before I read the time frame connections with the little ice age. I wondered how long before it would have occurred to ME. Thanks again!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
488. ColoradoBob1
12:14 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
The Daily Caller

Was founded by Tucker Carlson .

Trust me , Tucker Carlson was on that SAE bus last week in Oklahoma.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
486. ColoradoBob1
12:05 AM GMT on March 13, 2015
And as bow tie twits go, he's really really "twitty".

These folks are not gay, they are right wing jackasses with bow ties , none ever worked a day in their lives. But they feel free to lecture all of us about work, and sweat.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
484. ColoradoBob1
11:51 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
The Daily Caller

Was founded by Tucker Carlson after Jon Stewart called him out for damaging our country on his own show on CNN. They fired him shorty after this. And as bow tie twits go, he's really really "twitty".
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
483. ColoradoBob1
11:34 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
A HOLE OVER ONE HALF MILE IN DIAMETER . In Siberia .

Let's all run that over our current thinking .
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
482. ScottLincoln
11:30 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
Quoting 431. Naga5000:



The Daily Caller is a bad source of information on science and should be avoided at all costs.

"While they acknowledged that greenhouse gases are the immediate dominating force changing Earth’s climate today, they noted that on a larger scale the way our planet revolves around the sun is the ultimate control knob over the climate."
Wow. Orbital changes affect climate over long, geologic time scales. Climate has changed before. Groundbreaking.

...and for the keeping-up-with-science-impaired, that was sarcasm.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
481. ColoradoBob1
11:22 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
“We have just learnt that in Yakutia, new information has emerged about a giant crater 1km [0.6 miles] in diameter,” the deputy director of the Oil and Gas Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vasily Bogoyavlensky, told AFP.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
480. ColoradoBob1
11:19 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
Russian scientists say climate change to blame for mysterious Siberia craters

The seven holes discovered are not the work of aliens or meteorites, but rather explosions of methane accumulated as underground ice melts

Russian scientists have now discovered seven giant craters in remote Siberia, a geologist told AFP on Thursday, adding that the mysterious phenomenon was believed to be linked to climate change.

Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
479. ColoradoBob1
11:06 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
Quoting 478. SeriouslySushi:


The joint is jumping.


I call it The Crash of Nature .

The really long term problem for all these people, even if the storm misses you . It drives sea water into your fresh water supplies . Because you still get the big surf, on sea level rise , on a high tide.

Oddly ............... they, and the people in Brazil, are losing their fresh water at the same time. For 2 completely different reasons.

Now what could explain that ?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
478. SeriouslySushi
10:42 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
Quoting 469. ColoradoBob1:

There are now FOUR major cyclones in one region of the southwest Pacific:

Link

The joint is jumping.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
477. ColoradoBob1
10:30 PM GMT on March 12, 2015
Quoting 475. nymore:

I only see one in the southwestern Pacific


Many thanks for splitting hairs , but each storm is Cat 3 or stronger , and they all reach that measure of Major Cyclone .

Is one in the Indian Ocean , yes. Is one above zero degrees yes .

Maybe you can get Yobi to sue me , for violating the internet Minutea rule .
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
476. ColoradoBob1
10:23 PM GMT on March 12, 2015

472. JohnLonergan

That heat over Russia is scarey , the Russians just booked the warmest winter since their POR began in 1891. And it's all over the one place that we once knew as a term for cold , Siberia. Right on the Arctic Ocean. One wonders about the snow pack in the Taiga. I dread the fire season in the far North from now on. This new pattern . is really grim when one considers last season was the worst on record in the Northwest Territories. And all that black carbon gets to land on Greenland.

It's like watching an old steam engine leave the station , one puff , two puffs, four puffs, eight puffs, pretty soon the train has left the station .
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 526 - 476

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.