Hottest on Record

[tecoyah]

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.







An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan.


How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.


If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.
That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.
“The heat was remarkable,” said Jake Crouch, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which released the official climate compilation on Tuesday. “It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0




So my question:
Is it still possible to pretend Climate Change does not exist?

 

[Cerise]

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.







An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan.


How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.


If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.
That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.
“The heat was remarkable,” said Jake Crouch, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which released the official climate compilation on Tuesday. “It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0




So my question:
Is it still possible to pretend Climate Change does not exist?

Who pretends it doesn't? MAN-MADE Climate Change is debatable.

Its also interesting to note statements such as " Since records began" or " In living memory" which are often used to persuade people that things are getting worse because how can you say what happened BEFORE records began?

 

[tecoyah]

Okay....perhaps you could present reasoning for this change more compelling and studied, with better evidence or likelihood than the dramatic CO2 increases we are witnessing?

 

[Cerise]

Okay....perhaps you could present reasoning for this change more compelling and studied, with better evidence or likelihood than the dramatic CO2 increases we are witnessing?

Thankyou but I decline your offer of debate reasons being that a) it's been done before and the result was a certain amount of ridicule and b)closed ears by those who choose to take all scientists as tantamount to all knowing Gods and who refuse to acknowledge a different point of view without scorn.

 

[tecoyah]

Thankyou but I decline your offer of debate reasons being that a) it's been done before and the result was a certain amount of ridicule and b)closed ears by those who choose to take all scientists as tantamount to all knowing Gods and who refuse to acknowledge a different point of view without scorn.

Very Well, but I must point out that when discussing science....scientists are usually the go to folks.

Even Climate Science.

 

[Cerise]

Very Well, but I must point out that when discussing science....scientists are usually the go to folks.

Even Climate Science.

If only they all spoke with the same voice and didnt change their forecasts I might agree with you

 

[tecoyah]

If only they all spoke with the same voice and didnt change their forecasts I might agree with you

Humans have never, and will never speak with the same voice...it is the nature of us beasts. We seldom manage to reach consensus on anything. Occasionally however, there comes along something so incredibly obvious that a vast majority can agree enough to allow for something bordering on agreement as fact.
The sciences inherently adjust details based on new Data, theoretical possibility, and experimental results...this is also within the nature of the beast, and is the very reason we use science as a means to improve ourselves and our understanding.
This issue is one of those rare instances where a consensus has led to the establishment of vast agreement as the Data has become indisputable within the scientific community, and to a large extent the general public.

We humans have added massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to the system.

Greenhouse gasses warm the planet.

The Planet is warming very quickly by historical standards.

2+2=4

 

[myp]

If only they all spoke with the same voice and didnt change their forecasts I might agree with you

Why would you want someone who is out to seek the truth to NOT change their forecasts? This always annoyed me with politicians and the whole flip-flop thing. No one knows everything so given that, we SHOULD change our minds when we learn new things we did not before that might change the smart decision.

 

[myp]

Who pretends it doesn't? MAN-MADE Climate Change is debatable.

Do you agree that releasing CO2 into the environment i.e. by burning things, changes the atmospheric balance?

Do you agree that that humans release CO2?

Put the two together and we change the climate. Now how, where, and how big the change is is another issue, but to deny man-made effects on the climate is just wrong.

 

[Cerise]

BBC News - US north-east braces for 'historic' snowstorm

Note the word 'historic'....you mean its never happened before?

 

[myp]

BBC News - US north-east braces for 'historic' snowstorm

Note the word 'historic'....you mean its never happened before?

That's not what historic means. And even if it has happened before, so what? It doesn't take away from what is happening now.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing your answers to my questions above if you don't mind.

 

[tecoyah]

Geological record does not reveal the speed at which these changes transpire at a level we can use to compare.

We do know dramatic changes in climate took place within a thousand year time frame.

we can speculate based on theory and experimental science down to a century time frame.

We are literally living with the reality if this taking place over decades.

Something is happening that may very well be extremely bad for our species...and the data indicates we need to act.

Denial seems rather silly.

 

[Polydectes]

The "science" seems very narrow, all the variables that could contribute to such a phenomenon, it seems short sighted to think we know without doubt that it is this one variable without testing the many other variables that we know that cause climate to change.

The tone of the supporters for man made climate change is almost a panic. Over the last 10,000 years the ice cores show that temps are on the down slope, a very predictable one, that seems to happen pretty regularly over a several hundred thousand year interval.

I am not worried.

 

[Cerise]

That's not what historic means. And even if it has happened before, so what? It doesn't take away from what is happening now.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing your answers to my questions above if you don't mind.

We have discussed this before and its the reason I refused tecoyahs invitation to do so again ie it turns nasty because there is no point at which you will agree to disagree and accept that others have their own oponions which are as strong and valid as your own.

 

[Cerise]

The "science" seems very narrow, all the variables that could contribute to such a phenomenon, it seems short sighted to think we know without doubt that it is this one variable without testing the many other variables that we know that cause climate to change.

The tone of the supporters for man made climate change is almost a panic. Over the last 10,000 years the ice cores show that temps are on the down slope, a very predictable one, that seems to happen pretty regularly over a several hundred thousand year interval.

I am not worried.

Panic is the perfect word.

There's alot of money to be made by trying to fight nature and keep a planet cool. Ofcourse, that money is pocketed and not ploughed back into the effort to do so is it? mmmm?

 

[Cerise]

Geological record does not reveal the speed at which these changes transpire at a level we can use to compare.

We do know dramatic changes in climate took place within a thousand year time frame.

we can speculate based on theory and experimental science down to a century time frame.

We are literally living with the reality if this taking place over decades.

Something is happening that may very well be extremely bad for our species...and the data indicates we need to act.

Denial seems rather silly.

I -have-never-denied-climate-change.How can I say that more clearly?
Its is impossible to say how fast the planet warmed and cooled before. It did it all alone ie without mankinds input. It will do so again when mankind is no more.
Its rather arrogant to assume 'we' are more powerful than a natural cycle isn't it? After all, if we can do that then what else could we not do?

 

[Polydectes]

Panic is the perfect word.

There's alot of money to be made by trying to fight nature and keep a planet cool. Ofcourse, that money is pocketed and not ploughed back into the effort to do so is it? mmmm?

I always thought that the whole green movement was a making ploy. You could sell some industrial cleaners for a few dollars more if you could convince people that it's some environmentally friendly formula.

a lot like bottled water, here in the states tap water is generally cleaner than bottled water.

 

[myp]

We have discussed this before and its the reason I refused tecoyahs invitation to do so again ie it turns nasty because there is no point at which you will agree to disagree and accept that others have their own oponions which are as strong and valid as your own.

Fair enough, but I hope you realize that by rejecting the data and making claims like " MAN-MADE Climate Change is debatable." you are making a political, partially fabricated, and manipulative statement- pretty much exactly what you accuse those who abuse climate change theories of doing. There are political and financial interests on BOTH sides who try to stretch the truth- but that isn't limited to just climate change. Despite those skewed interests, there is still a body of work with scientific integrity and many people who study, discuss, and debate those matters logically and without great bias.

 

[Cerise]

Fair enough, but I hope you realize that by rejecting the data and making claims like " MAN-MADE Climate Change is debatable." you are making a political, partially fabricated, and manipulative statement- pretty much exactly what you accuse those who abuse climate change theories of doing. There are political and financial interests on BOTH sides who try to stretch the truth- but that isn't limited to just climate change. Despite those skewed interests, there is still a body of work with scientific integrity and many people who study, discuss, and debate those matters logically and without great bias.

So its ok for you to reject that the idea of man-made climate change could be debatable. Right.
This is the point that we should agree to disagree because we cannot see each others viewpoint....agreed?

 

[David]

So its ok for you to reject that the idea of man-made climate change could be debatable. Right.
This is the point that we should agree to disagree because we cannot see each others viewpoint....agreed?

Man-made change isn't debatable. The extent of the damage is another matter.