Personal Experience and Environmental Change
As we see during most heat waves, the number of people who believe climate change is happening peaking. During cold spells in the winter, the number dives. This reminds me of one of the biggest problem in creating long-term environmental reform–everybody believes their personal experience in the norm. There’s a Facebook cartoon I’ve seen a couple of people put up recently that tells everyone to shut up because it’s the summer and it’s supposed to be hot. Well, no. Or at least not like this. 2012 is almost certainly going to go down as the hottest year in the history of the United States. Most of the other leading years are also in the very recent past. There has basically never been a heat wave in the history of this country like the current one plaguing the eastern half of the country for the last month.
Never.
But we very quickly internalize this as normal.
This isn’t just climate. I was talking to a environmental scientist friend of mine recently who recalled a conversation with the owner I think of a timber operation. The guy didn’t understand why he needed to comply with stormwater drainage regulations. He said the rivers turn brown anyway. And my friend was like, that’s not natural! It’s the result of logging and erosion and other issues. But if you see it for more than a short time, you can easily internalize it and assume that you are not responsible.
That’s hardly a recent phenomenon. Whites moved onto the western Great Plains in large numbers in the late 19th century. Places like western Nebraska and eastern New Mexico became exciting spots to start a farm. It seemed like a great idea at the time because there was enough rain. Everyone assumed there would always be enough rain. But the 1880s and 1890s were unusually wet decades and when the land dried up, it became impossible to live out there. That’s why you see so many abandoned buildings in these places–they are the homesteads of people from 50, 70, 100 years ago who finally gave up on the land. Plus the farming out there had major environmental impacts, particularly the plowing of the sod to plant grains. When the drought came, nothing grew and the soil blew away, leading to the Dust Bowl.
I’m not sure what you do about this. But it’s really really hard to create policies to fight climate change when we assume our own experiences are normal. Combine this with the right-wing propaganda machine telling everyone climate change is a liberal myth and you have a recipe for doing nothing.
Is it normal that it is been hailing like mad in Manhattan today?
No, but it will be.
The initial framing of climate change as ‘global warming’ probably has a fair bit to do with this kind of reaction. It has done a lot of harm to our ability to convince the general public of the problem.
Is this really an inaccurate name? Isn’t the basic idea, ultimately, that climate change is caused by the world getting, on average, warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere?
No, its not inaccurate. But it does help lead the misinformed to believe that the only consequences will be more golf and less snow shoveling in February.
We seem to operate on sound bites, and that’s as good as any. The important missing part is that perturbations of a complex system (e.g. slight warming) can have disastrous non-perturbative consequences, like higher frequency and more severe weather events, and global shifts in weather/current patterns. And crop failures!
@nick
that is one of the most honest statements from someone with an opposing view point I have ever read.
I aim to please?
Science is what we to to keep from lying to ourselves.
-Richard Feynman
but it dissolves verbs
Oh it does…. Oops LOL
Climate change doesn’t just produce hotter summers; catastrophic storms will be getting more frequent. I suspect people who have had their towns destroyed by an unusual rash of tornadoes may not have the same kind of seasonal disbelief pattern you’re talking about.
You’d think so, but (in Arkansas at least) people I’ve talked to haven’t seemed at all phased or willing to lend credence to the idea, unless a tornado has passed within a couple of hundred feet of their houses.
Just plain narcissism, is what it is.
The inability to deal with the future seems to be a disease of democracies. This may be particularly true of democratic cultures, like ours, that are dominated by a narrative of nostalgia. Almost no one talks about the future; they all want to get back to some imagined past.
I thought it was a disease of our species. Have non-democracies fared better?
They’ve been much worse, as anyone attempting to breath in Beijing could tell you.
Its a really tough problem.
Democracies, with all of their checks, are sluggish and very difficult to radically change.
But removing the checks creates incentives to myopically and selfishly make things much worse.
And you just made our argument for government regulation of the economy.
When you have a democractically formed and administered regulatory scheme, give me a call.
Eight years of GWB was more than enough to prove that there are simply no significant checks upon the discretion of our elected officials and the bureaucrats they nominate.
Every argument you have made in both of these posts applies equally to the environmental regulations you favor and the economic regulations you oppose. Indeed they tend to correlate quite closely.
Not at all. Non-democracies, right or left, haven’t cared one iota about the environment. The only thing that matter was the prestiege of the dictator or oligarchs reflected in shiny projects and the riches to be derived from them through corruption. All the communist states had horrible enviromental practices.
Having recently gotten into stormwater management consulting to pay the bills, I’ve run into this mentality, though I will also say that there are clients who do get it.
For some reason, a river in Egypt comes to mind.
I’m 57 years old, which means that I’ve been around long enough that the trend is real obvious. It didn’t used to be this way–no hundred degree days in friggin’ Grand Rapids, Michigan, Little Traverse Bay always freezing over in winter, no tornado warnings in January.
And another thing.
Based on what I’ve read, the science for the non-scientist stuff, by the time the changes are significant enough for the average person to notice, it is far too late to do anything about it. Sort of like cancer, if that is not too strained an analogy.
So what we are asking the general public to do is accept the word of “scientists” whom they do not know and science that they don’t understand. That’s a pretty tall order.
If the environmental effects brought on by human activity didn’t seem so damned self-evident, I would agree with this.
Furthermore, if people weren’t so inclined to take a fervent stand in either direction, I would agree with this.
The environmental effects themselves are self-evident. It’s tough not to notice a forest fire, a massive dust storm, or a row of buildings falling into the ocean.
The cause of these effects, on the other hand, is not self-evident.
I don’t think one can honestly believe that humans aren’t substantially changing the make up of the atmosphere at this point.
I also don’t think one can honestly not make the connection between changes to the composition of the atmosphere and changing weather patterns.
Actually, I will put it this way: One would have to put more faith in science and scientists to believe that we aren’t changing the Earth’s climate than to believe the Earth is able to accommodate our modern pollution.
I will agree that the degree to which we are contributing and what can be done about that are controversial.
My point is that all of that knowledge relies upon understanding and believing in science.
It is not self-evident, like watching a house fall into the ocean because the cliff below it eroded.
Fair enough.
I’m just saying that the water may not turn yellow, but if you see 20 people pissin a pool you aren’t going to jump in even if you can’t really detail the health risks of doing so.
There are cases of this working in the past. The ozone layer was basically saved this way. And while there was much bitching and moaning, the necessary changes were implemented and enforced.
What I don’t understand is why we get denialism from farmers, and little old lady gardeners, who have seen the growing season extended by more than a week on each end.
Friend of mine has a lake home in North Central Minnesota. A week ago he experienced a storm with winds from 70-90 miles an hour for just under an hour.There has never been a storm like that in the land of 10,000 lakes since they began keeping records. He lost 27 trees on his lot, people’s boats were blown all to hell and gone, shingles ripped off roofs, etc. This wasn’t a tornado it was a sustained wind storm, never happened before in that part of the world.
A client of mine was in DC when they had the big storm, he said it was like an inland hurricane. Scary shit.
Our “Derecho” was quite impressive. What struck me most was the constant lightning. The sky was lit constantly. For 20 minutes, the night sky never darkened. I’d never seen anything like it – not even close.
@Njorl
but not nearly as impressive as the lightning storm in July of 1887
“At Palo Alto, Mississippi in the United States, a violent lightning storm struck on the afternoon of July
10th. The electrical display was remarkable. Three miles southwest of Palo Alto, over a small area of two
acres (0.8 hectares), about one hundred large trees were struck by lightning.”
It WAS like an inland hurricane–same wind speed, just in a straight line rather than a circle. Truly impressive and more than a little bit scary.
yes it was.
i live roughly equidistant between dc and richmond, va, right off of 95. within the past month, the dc-richmond corridor has experienced several of these not-tornado wind/rain storms, that seem to come from out of the blue. we’ve been lucky so far, no trees in our back yard have decided to have sex with the roof of our house, but it’s just a matter of time.
one sidelight to this is that climate change comes in a series of trends, and there is a good statistical chance that we will be seeing some cooling trends– say five or ten years when east coast summers are cooler than normal. Pegging so much argument to a hottest summer ever, that is confusing weather with climate, could therefore turn out to be counterproductive. If we do run into cooling trends in blog-sensitive areas, the fact that we have invested so much in June 2012 could slow down public appreciation of more carefully developed scientific projections.
I worry about this too. Some people have noticed that the poll numbers move when it’s hot and have decided “oh screw it, it works for THEM to argue that a snowstorm means global warming is a hoax, so let’s hit back.” Trouble is that if you get a temporary cooldown, you have blown your credibility.
What to do?
1) Locate a naturally water rich area (near great lakes, Indiana?)
2) Get a house with a very large basement
3) Wait 50 years
4) Tell the few people left alive “I told you so”
5) Enjoy the Dark Ages
“Locate a naturally water rich area (near great lakes, Indiana?)”
Indiana’s in drought.
Move to Michigan – it’s protected by the Lakes.
However, I’d guess that the tornado and severe thunderstorm rates will go up.
(2) get a house on a large hill with a large basement – dont forget about the flooding issues.
I’ve got that (including being up on a hill, and pretty far inland, so no flood risk). It’s not gonna help me when everything goes to hell. Even if I acquire an arsenal and learn to use it. Even if I become a much better vegetable gardner than I already am. No, I’ll still be screwed. Perhaps slightly less screwed than others, though, so I got that goin’ for me.
Which is nice.
There is a difference between a complete social collapse and simply massive property value loss and economic contraction. The latter is what you’re really trying to protect yourself from by choosing a home in the right area.
@Erik Loomis
“2012 is almost certainly going to go down as the hottest year in the history of the United States. Most of the other leading years are also in the very recent past. There has basically never been a heat wave in the history of this country like the current one plaguing the eastern half of the country for the last month.
Never.”
not sure how you measure heatwaves but in terms of drought, the heatwave is not a record at all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/it-was-the-best-of-droughts-it-was-the-worst-of-droughts/
according to wikipedia, the heatwave of 1936 was far worse than this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
Shorter Jennie: Recreating the Dust Bowl will be a good thing. Also, I site someone who thinks googling “megadrought” counts as research. I am not a kook.
@malaclypse
where did I say recreating the dust bowl would be good?
I think you’re just mad because I made the author look like a fool.
I’m not mad, Jennie dear.
okay then why did you lie?
Simple question.
It took longer than expected for the stupid to arrive. And then it did. Like a derecho.
haha. I’m not the one claimed 2012 was a record heatwave year in the U.S., then proceeded to do no research.
it didn’t take longer than expected for the stupid to arrive, the stupid has been here if you ask me.
Trust me, he did research.
Were you born this stupid, or did you have to work at it?
okay see here’s the problem. You guys think that Joe Romm is a great, unbiased source and you make fun of Dr. Happer. Happer knows a hell of a lot more about global warming than Joe Romm.
Additionally, Joe the graph is labeled wrong. The graph starts at 1999, not 1895 as the title indicates. You also fail to consider that the record is incomplete.
@jenbob
okay let’s assume you’re not lying and he did research. How could he possibly miss that the heatwave as recently as 1936 was worse?
I don’t get why you defend such an obviously erroneous claim. The answer is probably that you are a super partisan and were indoctrinated from a young age.
Additionally, Joe the graph is labeled wrong. The graph starts at 1999, not 1895 as the title indicates.
Or the graph is saying that the twelve warmest 12-contiguous-month periods since 1895 have all happened since 1998. Just, you know, throwing that out there.
The years aren’t even in chronological order!!! What kind of scientician is this guy?!?!
okay let’s assume you’re not lying and he did research.
I said you did research. Why would I lie about that? I helped you, like I always do.
You change “the problem” every time your last “problem” turns out not to be a problem.
This is not how someone making an honest effort to understand the subject behaves.
You change “the problem” every time your last “problem” turns out not to be a problem.
This, plus mountains of anecdotal rubbish, is SOP for deniers and creationists.
From “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events” by James Marusek
“The following maximum temperatures were observed during the summer from June-September 1877 in
the United States: 112
96° F, (35.6° C) at Boerne, Texas; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Keokuk, Iowa; La Crosse, Wisconsin; Lynchburg,
Virginia; Memphis, Tennessee; Nashville, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
Yankton, South Dakota; Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort Hayes, Kansas; Hennepin, Illinois; and Castroville, Texas.
97° F, (36.1° C) at Salinas City, California; Galveston, Texas; Saint Louis, Missouri; and Wilmington, North
Carolina.
98° F, (36.7° C) at Salt Lake City, Utah; Fort Gibson, Indian Territory; Smithville; and Washington D.C.
99° F, (37.2° C) at Fort Richardson, Texas; Camp Sheridan, Nebraska; Vicksburg, Mississippi; Shreveport,
Louisiana; Fort Sill, Indian Territory; Norfolk, Virginia; Omaha, Nebraska; St. Marks, Florida; Tybee Island,
Georgia; and Denver, Colorado.
100° F, (37.8° C) at Mobile, Alabama; Charleston, South Carolina; Florence, California; Indianola, Iowa;
Jacksboro; Concho, Texas; Independence, Iowa; Augusta, Georgia; Jacksonville, Florida; Mason, Georgia; and
Savannah, Georgia.
101° F, (38.3° C) at Dodge City, Kansas; and Atlanta, Georgia.
102° F, (38.9° C) at Campo, California; Tucson, Arizona; Denison, Texas; Montgomery, Alabama; Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Chepachet; Gilmer, Texas; Clarksville, Texas; Melissa, Texas; Eagle Pass, Texas; Fort Griffin, Texas;
Fort Clark, Texas and Fort Rice, North Dakota.
103° F, (39.4° C) at Sacramento, California; Corsicana, Texas; Fort McKavett, Texas; and Visalia, California.
Impact (www.breadandbutterscience.com) 2010
459
104° F, (40.0° C) at Camp Verde, Arizona; Laredo, Texas; Winnemucca, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; Uvalde,
Texas; Mesquite, Texas; and New Ulm, Texas.
105° F, (40.6° C) at Fort Lyon, Colorado.
106° F, (41.1° C) at Red Bluff, California; Brackettville, Texas; and Boise City, Idaho.
107° F, (41.7° C) at North Platte, Nebraska.
108° F, (42.2° C) at Fresno, California; Wickenburg, Arizona; San Antonio, Texas; and Fort McPherson, Nebraska.
109° F, (42.8° C) at Fort Sully, South Dakota: and Rio Grande, Texas.
111° to 122° F, (43.9° to 50.0° C) at Spring Valley, California.
112° F, (44.4° C) at Los Angeles, California; Maricopa Wells, Arizona; Fort Yuma, California; and Cajon Rancho,
California.
114° F, (45.6° C) at Yuma, Arizona
116° F, (46.7° C) at Stanwix Station, Arizona.
During the middle of June 1877, floods on the banks of the River”
Observed by whom? Using what instruments? Recorded where?
Are you doubting the veracity of this guy?
Gentlemen, our course is clear. We must invade the sun and respot it.
Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out.
Eternal darkness. Well that’s just great.
Additionally, I am betting that most people here do not know that when activists like Mr. Loomis claim the earth has warmed, they are starting at either 1800 or 1850. They also claim that co2 is at its highest level in hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, the earth is billions of years old and averaged out over the course of history, we are currently well below average levels of atmospheric co2.
Mr. Loomis is essentially arguing that something the earth has already done naturally before, is now being done through man. But he has no basis of comparison.
Is that including the billions of years where the Earth was completely inhospitable to life?
Yes, Jennie thinks it is relevant to use that average. He really is that stupid and/or dishonest.
He may be fine with turning the Earth into Venus, but at least he seems to acknowledge that the climate is changing in ways that could be disastrous.
@bradp
hey hey, I don’t think we can pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere forever and I certainly don’t want the planet to turn into Venus.
Our difference is really in the statistics. You would probably argue that we have too much atmospheric co2, I think the earth can tolerate a lot more. I think the optimum level of atmospheric co2 would be around 1500ppm.
Jennie, the relevant question is not what the earth can tolerate, but what human agricultural civilization can tolerate.
Thank you. This debate is rarely properly framed with these clowns. The earth will be just fine. The question is how will mankind manage in a climate vastly different from the climate in which mankind has flourished.
the earth can tolerate a lot more.
Yes, but the question isn’t whether the earth can tolerate it. It was here before we were a species, and it will be here when we’re gone.
How do you come up with that?
I gave him that number.
Dr. William Happer Princeton University, he studies atomic physics. His expertise is not in climatology but he has studied the physical properties of carbon dioxide intensely.
Don’t worry – the libtards will never find this.
@jenbob
yes in 2002 william happer testified before congress about global warming.
and your point?
Atomic physicist believes that CO2 is not a problem. I knew a geologist who thought the Special Theory of Relativity was nonsense.
Yes, as someone who was also an ozone-depletion contrarian, Happer clearly has a record of being correct on atmospheric science.
You would probably argue that we have too much atmospheric co2
No, sane people would argue that the increasing amount of greenhouse gases is causing changes which will result in millions of deaths. Luckily, we can console ourselves with billion-year averages, and the resilience of the planet, if not our species.
yes it is very dishonest to use the entire temperature record, got me again malaclypse!
@bradp
during the time of the dinosaurs, atmospheric co2 concentrations were over 7,000ppm and temperatures were much higher. Plants were extremely large and so were the dinosaurs. It is very likely that the dinosaurs and plants grew so large due to the oxygen rich environment.
The mean temperature of the Earth could get just a fraction closer to the temperatures of that era, and the results would be catastrophic.
I mean, we’d have to retrofit possibly trillions of door jambs.
Humans just gotta evolve gills quicker than the coastline recedes.
Problem solved.
I got this covered.
I don’t care about dinosaurs; I care about human civilization.
Go spout your statistics at the Bangladeshis as they float by.
@joe from lowell
I know you don’t care, and that’s the problem. If you don’t care about the historical record, then certainly don’t expect me to care about a .8 kelvin increase from 1850-present.
You’re not the fucking stupidest troll on the internet. I’ll believe in you, as long as you keep believing in me.
I care a great deal about the historical record, which proves you absolutely wrong.
What I don’t care about are fucking dinosaurs.
What I don’t care about are fucking dinosaurs.
I always told me that libtards didn’t really care about endangered species.
Well, we all knew that a lot of Republicans were dinosaurs–now their position on climate change begins to make sense!
The problem is, in my opinion, that most people don’t know the difference between weather (What’s happening right now outside your window) and climate (the accummulation of weather events over and extended period)–and that includes most of the talking heads who appear on those Sunday morning show, and in particular that bow-tied douche George Effing Will.
@Greg
I disagree, I think the problem is that the supporters of the CAGW theory have no basis of comparison. Case in point, Mr. Loomis claimed in this article that this is the worst heatwave in the history of the country, so clearly he didn’t do any research about heatwaves.
The NOAA, which does, agrees with him, however. Someday you might even figure out what is meant by “authoritative sources.”
@dr dick
again, linking to a 14yr temperature study that starts in 1998 is a massive cherry pick.
Secondly, you’re way off topic here. I’m talking to Greg about past temperature comparison studies, not the fact that from 1998-2012, 2012 is the hottest year. That tells us nothing.
Linking to an authoritative statement by the agency of record responsible for keeping track of these things does indeed trump all the random trivia you pulled out of your capacious ass.
I got more, never fear.
Did you know that once you average temperatures that existed in the microseconds following the Big Bang, everybody will need to put on a sweater once they realize how cold it is right now?
okay, I see it now, I see that they do have earlier years in the study.
However, when we attempt to access these years via the link to the full report
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/6
we can only go back to 1998. So I’m not going to trust NOAA’s word for it without providing the data. Sorry.
So I’m not going to trust NOAA’s word for it without providing the data.
That’s right. Just trust me. I’ll never let us down.
The NOAA started preparing these reports in 1998. That doesn’t mean they don’t have information for earlier years; they obviously do, just not in this specific format.
DON’T LOOK AT THE DATA, JENBOB – JUST KEEP TRUSTING ME.
NOAA has detailed records for national level climate data going back to the 19th century.
I note that they refuse to report mean global temperature for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#Atmosphere_and_oceans. Just like a libtard to refuse to look at all the data.
What the hell are you talking about? The linked top-10 Jan-Jun list includes years such as 1921, which I seem to recall was before 1998. The underlying report relies on data going back to 1895.
And deciding that
GalileoHapper is the lone expert who’s correct on CO2 is not a cherry pick. Got it.@the other Davis
I guess I don’t know, can you please quote in the article where the year 1921 is mentioned?
I don’t even understand why you think this study refutes my point about comparing past temperature studies.
We’re both talking about dr. dick’s link correct?
Yes you are. And at that link, which lists the ten hottest years since 1895, 1921 is tied for seventh. Did you look at the entire list, or just the first and last entries?
@Hogan
I see they did list years prior now, my mistake. However, they aren’t showing any data. Click the link to the full report and you can only go back until 1998.
I can pretty much guarantee you that the following records were not broken this year.
For July 1889
“Delano, California (112° F, 44.4° C)
Elmira, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Farmington, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Fort Gaston, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Impact (www.breadandbutterscience.com) 2010
511
Fresno, California (115° F, 46.1° C)
Fruto, California (113° F, 45.0° C)
Goshen, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Indio, California (114° F, 45.6° C)
Jolon, California (114° F, 45.6° C)
Kingsburg, California (112° F, 44.4° C)
La Grange, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Lemoore, California (111° F, 43.9° C)
Lewis Creek, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Livingston, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Los Banos, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Mammoth Tank (Amos), California (120° F, 48.9° C)
Mojave, California (111° F, 43.9° C)
Needles, California (119° F, 48.3° C)
Newhall, California (112° F, 44.4° C)
Newman, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Orland, California (112° F, 44.4° C)
Red Bluff, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Redding, California (115° F, 46.1° C)
Rocklin, California (113° F, 45.0° C)
Rumsey, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Sanger Junction, California (116° F, 46.7° C)
San Fernando, California (113° F, 45.0° C)
Seven Palms, California (120° F, 48.9° C)
Susanville, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Tehama, California (115° F, 46.1° C)
Traver, California (111° F, 43.9° C)
Tulare, California (113° F, 45.0° C)
Volcano Springs, California (126° F, 52.2° C)
Williams, California (115° F, 46.1° C)
Willow, California (112° F, 44.4° C)
Winters, California (110° F, 43.3° C)
Fort Lyon, Colorado (109° F, 42.8° C)
Powder River, Montana (106° F, 41.1° C)
El Dorado, Nevada (119° F, 48.3° C)
Helleck, Nevada (110° F, 43.3° C)
Hot Springs, Nevada (115° F, 46.1° C)
Mill City, Nevada (116° F, 46.7° C)
Palisade, Nevada (110° F, 43.3° C)
Carlin, Nevada (108° F, 42.2° C)
Blue Creek, Utah (109° F, 42.8° C)
Kelton, Utah (110° F, 43.3° C)
Saint George, Utah (115° F, 46.1° C)”
Additionally, the NOAA study is only a 118yr record, so if we simply extend the study by 4-5 years, none of the temperatures of the current years are records.
Click the link to the full report and you can only go back until 1998.
Does this help?
They’ll never think to CTRL-F the link for “1921″. Good work! Stupid libtards!
CO2 levels had been relatively stable and at levels far below those measured for the last few decades for 30 times longer than humans have been on the earth.
The entirety of human evolution and civilization has taken place while CO2 levels were below 300ppm. Over recent history it has risen to ~390ppm at a rate that has never been documented in history (except for major extinction events brought on by volcanoes and asteroids).
@bradp
that’s not true, there haven’t been comparative studies to prove that the current rate of change is faster or slower than past climate changes.
Read
Don’t listen to the libtard. I’m much more reliable.
Unfortunately, they only looked at the last 50 million years, and you also are assuming there will be a 5C temperature change, which we haven’t seen close to. So you cannot claim an unprecedented rate of change. READ!
“If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.”
Unfortunately, they only looked at the last 50 million years,
This is not an obviously stupid argument. You should keep making it. It will annoy the liberals.
oh no of course its stupid. Just like comparing temperature data from the late 1800s to the present is stupid.
No you don’t want, that doesn’t fit your worldview.
1850 is the cutoff right JenBob?
@jenbob
you should continue to snipe my comments by way of character assasination, and continue to back it up with the assertion that I’m stupid because you said so.
I thought we agreed you really are smart? I love you, not like everybody else. Are you going to stop trusting me?
It’s somewhat relevant as it would point to the existence of a non=anthropogenic cause for rapid climate change.
You may be right, we are about due for another extinction event.
And we will all go together when we go
What a comforting thought that is to know.
Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement
Yes, we will all go together when we go
Children, point and laugh at the silly man; it’s ok.
Hey, anonymous dumbfuck, it only takes a simple Google search. But then, I know the difference between climate and isolated weather incidents, something you, despite your “phd,” fail to grasp
@anonymous
can you please point to where I’ve referenced the 14yr data set that you and dr. dick keep referencing?
I’m not even disagreeing with you! Yes, from 1998-2012, 2012 was the warmest year. However, most people would tell you that a 14yr data set is worthless.
Don’t worry – the libtards will never read sentences like “During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record.”, you you can keep pretending that this is all only a 14-year period. Don’t listen when they laugh at us!
ok. But if the record starts at 1889, then you’re wrong. So once again, carbonazis like jenbob have to pick a year to start at because the historical record shatters their worldview. Anyway, please continue to burn coal to tell me I’m an idiot, it shows you’re really worried about global warming.
“But the 1880s and 1890s were unusually wet decades and when the land dried up, it became impossible to live out there.”
please explain how unusually wet decades led to land drying up. Also please provide a source for your claim that farming techniques of plowing sod caused major environmental impacts.
Reading comprehension, you doesn’t has it.
Wow. Reading comprehension 101. The dry period followed the wet period.
so if there were no wet period, there would not have been a dry period?
is this your assertion?
No, my assertion is that you can’t seem to read English. More anecdotes and Cretaceous non sequiturs, please. You’re good at those.
Also please provide a source for your claim that farming techniques of plowing sod caused major environmental impacts.
Looking up the words “deforestation” and “fallow” would be a good start. We don’t leave land fallow any more.
Or any study of the impacts of the dust bowl and the role of then current agricultural practices in aggrevating it. Jeebus, I learned that in high school 45 years ago.
But plow-based farming in this re gion cultivated an unexpected yield: the loss of fertile topsoil that literally blew away in the winds, leaving the land vulnerable to drought and inhospitable for growing crops. In a brutal twist of fate, the rains stopped. By 1932, 14 dust storms, known as black blizzards were reported, and in just one year, the number increased to nearly 40.
not bad, but we need to see a damage ratio comparison because we have 2 natural factors (wind, drought) which I would argue had more to do with the crop yields than farming techniques.
As you’ve shown, you would argue all sorts of stupid things. I’m not going to let it bother me.
please explain how unusually wet decades led to land drying up.
No one said they did. They preceded the land drying up, as well they might.
“During the summer of 1889 there was a drought in the western United States. The drought conditions can
be observed by lack of rainfall, prevalence of forest fires, prevalence of sandstorms, and abnormally high
summer temperatures.120
The following are reports of drought conditions in July 1889 in the western United States: 120
* Winnemucca, Nevada, on 19 July: reliable statements show that, in consequence of the prolonged drought, wheat
sown last December yet remains in the ground plump and hard as when harrowed in. The ground was then dry, no
rain having fallen for months, and it never has been moist enough since to sprout the grain. There are hundreds of
acres sown to wheat and several acres sown to alfalfa, on the meadows, not one grain of which has sprouted, and the
seed is apparently as sound as when it was sown. On the 30th there are distressing accounts of loss of cattle from the
scarcity of water along the Humboldt River. From Humboldt House and this county, west, the water holes in the
Humboldt River bed are lined with the decomposed carcasses of dead animals. The water in the sloughs and holes is
impregnated with alkali, and when cattle, almost dying with thirst, reach there from the plains, they drink enough of
poisonous water to kill them. A similar condition prevails on the Little Humboldt.
* Fresno, California, on 31 July: the King’s River, from where all the canals for irrigation in this section lead, is
lower than it has been for seven years, and several of the large canals are closed. The water in this section is scarce.
* Salt Lake City, Utah, on 31 July: the drought, which has prevailed during the entire month, continues. All
vegetation in this section is withered, and the water is scarcely sufficient for household purposes.
* Helena, Montana, on 31 July: the drought, which was already felt on the 30th of June last, has continued
throughout this month, the amount of rainfall during the month being too small to be of any benefit. The crops in
this section are completely ruined, some of them cannot even be cut for fodder, and the grass on the ranges has dried
and blown away.” -A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events
If anyone is interested, I can also post the record high temperatures for this year. Furthermore, there were sandstorms and forest fires reported in the same year as well.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency would beg to differ.
@drdick
you do realize you just linked to a record that starts at 1998, and additionally has nothing to do with my above post?
The author said that the 1880s and 1890s were wet periods. What does a 14yr old temperature study starting at 1998 tell us about this?
you got me good here dr dick.
He really will say everything I tell him. And trust me, you all do not want to know what I’ve got up here.
@jenbob
so you’re basically the resident cheer leader here who defends the author no matter what, without providing any evidence or information to assert your claims?
We’ve never fought before. Why are imagining we disagree?
If you actually bother to read the link, you will see that a) NOAA states categorically that this is the hottest year on record and that the detailed records go back to 1895 (NOAA has less comrehensive records going back much further, even into the 18th century for some localities). As we keep pointing out, you are clearly incapable of reading English.
Wow, there were droughts. Thrilling.
yes, and the author claimed the 1880s and 1890s were wet periods.
In western Nebraska and eastern New Mexico, neither of which appear in your list. Or is this some other version of “averaging” relevant with irrelevant data?
@hogan
can you please clarify your statement? I’m just trying to make the point that there were drought like conditions in the late 1800s.
I am wondering why you are referencing eastern nebraska and new mexico?
You were apparently disputing Erik’s claim that the 1880s and 1890s were wet decades in western Nebraska and eastern New Mexico by pointing out drought conditions in California and Nevada. What you found doesn’t in any way disprove what Erik said.
Unless, as with temperature and CO2 data, you think you can prove something about rainfall in the Great Plains by “averaging” it with rainfall in other places. But that would be stupid.
You are a big meanie! We’re not stupid, not stupid at all. Shut up!
How does a person end up being dumber than his own ass, is what I want to know.
How does a person end up being dumber than his own ass, is what I want to know.
I absorb everything that comes in contact with me.
@hogan
well I am not really trying to disprove what he said, but I would argue that a larger portion of the country was experiencing drought like conditions, versus Mr. Loomis’ claim that most of the time those years were characterized by being very wet.
Hogan, you are actually engaging me and asking good questions. The bottome line is I will have to do more research to see what defined the late 1800s.
The stupid is strong with this one.
that’s pretty original, you post that statement almost every other comment. That’s really hurtful too Rob. How would you feel if I said you were stupid?
In fact, its such a mean statement, next time Malacylpse posts something, I’m gonna call him a stupidhead!
I’m pretty sure at this point that a highschool teacher runs this blog and the audience is high school students.
Damn right. And we really don’t care for your Grade Three level “arguments”. When you hit Grade Nine, let us know. Actually, never mind that. Just study the meanings of a few words, like “pertinent” and “relevant”.
The Happer thing has me worried about you; just because someone tells you she is an expert in Relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics, do not let her rewire your house!
@leeds man
I’m well aware that Happer is extremely disliked by the CAGW crowd. I do actually agree with your statement also
“The Happer thing has me worried about you; just because someone tells you she is an expert in Relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics, do not let her rewire your house!”
But just because Dr. Happer does not have a degree in climatology, it does not mean he has not studied the radiative forcing properties of co2. I actually think the most qualified scientists to speak about global warming are atmoshperic physicists.
Now, if I may ask you a question. Global warming is an all encompassing, or it incorporates various fields of research. Would you consider an oceanographer to be qualified to speak about global warming? The oceanographer probably does not know as much about radiative forcing as Dr. Happer but they will surely know more about sea level rise.
It depends what specifically the oceanographer is studying, and whether she is being funded by Exxon-Mobil (or the Koch brothers, etc), as the George C. Marshall Institute is (Chairman one William Happer).
Most of Happer’s pronouncements seem to be vague opinions rather than rigorous arguments based on radiative forcing. His less vague statements are just wrong (“Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming”).
I actually think the most qualified scientists to speak about global warming are atmoshperic physicists.
But you still don’t believe the 90+ % of them who are not funded by Exxon-Mobil.
You say that, but the authorities you rely upon indicate that you actually think the most qualified scientists are the ones who agree with what you already believe.
You insult third graders (hell that would insult kindergartners).
Scanning through these comments made me happy that the blog comments I read most, Hoocoodanode?, has an “ignore” function.
It helps with improving the signal to noise ratio.
Best to all
So, to recap the discussion I’ve read.
“You can only go back 50 million years in your research, so you can’t prove it’s true.”
Someone find me a physicist to tell us how hot it was on Earth at the Big Bang. I’m guessing it was MUCH hotter than then it is now!
And we got through that just fine.
It’s “Adam and Eve,” not “Adam and a chunk of carbonized material.”
Suck on that, libs!
@Cody
Cody, I need to see comprehensive studies. I want to see the data they are using. Furthermore, if you read NOAA’s statement, they don’t count the interglacial periods because they claim it only affects the oceans, that’s an opinion, they’re willfully choosing not count certain events.
Shorter Lumpy Ass Brainless Troll: There can never be enough data to convince me of something I do not want to believe.
That is one of the most honest statements I have ever seen from a global warming denialist.
Yes, you do. You so very, desperately do.
according to noaa, most of the record high temperatures were set before 1950.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/getextreme.php?elem=TMAX&state=NAT
slap down jenbob.
Mmmm! Me not like! NOAA bad!
Mmmm! Me like! NOAA good!
Seriously, what happens in one day? That’s weather. Not climate.
And this has exactly fuck-all to do with average temperatures.
JenBob proves once again that (s)he has no fucking idea what (s)he is talking about.
We need 5 billion years’ worth of detailed climate data before we can know anything for sure, but these random temperature spikes must have enormous evidentiary value!
Is this dim bulb a paid shill for the energy companies, like Anthony Watts, or just another Rand-y fantasist?
[...] Guns and Money’s Erik Loomis is pessimistic about the prospects for political mobilization to deal with environmental change when human beings [...]