While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.
The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.
Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.
Source: Washington Post
Bering Sea Was Ice-Free and Full of Life During Last Warm Period
New study finds that the Bering Sea region was ice-free all year and biological productivity was high during the last major warm period in Earth’s climate history
Posted: December 14, 2010
“Evidence from the Pliocene Warm Period is relevant to studies of current climate change because it was the last time in our Earth’s history when global temperatures were higher than today,” Ravelo said.
Carbon dioxide levels during the Pliocene Warm Period were also comparable to levels today, and average temperatures were a few degrees higher, she said. Climate scientists are interested in what this period may tell us about the effects of global warming, particularly in the polar regions. Current observations show more rapid warming in the Arctic compared to other places on Earth and compared to what was expected based on global climate models.
Ravelo’s team found evidence of similar amplified warming at the poles during the Pliocene Warm Period. Analysis of the sediment samples indicated that average sea surface temperatures in the Bering Sea were at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today, while average global temperatures were only 3 degrees warmer than today.
Today, the Bering Sea is ice-free only during the summer, but the sediment samples indicate it was ice-free year-round during the Pliocene Warm Period. According to Ravelo, the samples showed no evidence of the pebbles and other debris that ice floes carry from the land out to sea and deposit on the seafloor as they melt. In addition, the researchers didn’t find any of the microorganisms typically associated with sea ice, she said.
“The information we found tells us quite a bit about what things were like during the last period of global warming. It should benefit the scientists today who are sorting out how ocean circulation and conditions at the poles change as the Earth warms,” Ravelo said.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/12/14/bering-sea-was-ice-free-and-full-of-life-during-last-warm-period.html
BIL, Thank you and I’m sorry to hear that the flu is still with you. Old cliche I know but 1/3 whisky, 1/3 honey and 1/3 lemon juice (no water, that’s some kind of perversion of the recipe) and sip whenever your throat hurts, or whenever. It just makes you tipsy and sleepy if you do it right. The better the booze, the better it works and with honey its all just warm and sweet going down. Be well soon.
LK,
BTW, thanks for the rebuttal about reductio ad absurdum on the Ron Paul thread. I should have thanked you earlier, but I’m still just loaded on flu meds – please pardon my lapse of properly acknowledging your kindness in a timely manner. The meds are no excuse. I thought I was well on my way to kicking this creeping crud, but it has turned out to be persistent.
However, as a technical point, you never lower the level of discourse.
And that’s a fact.
Lottakatz,
Thanks. I still want Bdaman to tell us whether he’s a slut or a whore for the coal and oil industries – one way or another he’s clearly in bed with them…
Slartibartfast,
Your arguments were well written and, with Bdman, fighting the good fight with scant effect. I figure that with some climate change or global warming is simply a matter of belief, not science. As the tobacco companies funded studies to ‘prove’ cigarettes were not harmful, energy companies and industry groups funded studies to ‘prove’ global warming and humanity were disassociated.
I expect no other argument from Bdaman because it goes hand in glove with his Libertarian view of the way the economy and business works (or should work). I figured I’d ‘lower’ the level of discourse with my analogy in an appeal to common sense.
Your arguments were excellent and always welcome reads to me.
Slarti/pete,
And it always seems to slip his mind that hot or cold are not the issue but rather instability is the actual issue proper – no matter how many times or ways it is explained. But to be fair, “global warming” is a crappy name for the process and in itself creates a misconception with those who don’t understand the nature of heat according to physics in general and thermodynamics in particular. “Climate destabilization” is a far more accurate term for the phenomena.
pete,
Yeah, I’ve noticed that it always seems to slip Bdaman’s mind to report record highs…
climate is what you expect,weather is what you get.
every time it snows in winter up north somebody starts in about algore. (when talking about climate Al Gore’s name becomes algore).
yet when it hits 95 in the twin cities in may algore is never mentioned
http://www.startribune.com/local/94767559.html
p.s. the medievel warming period was local to europe. it wasn’t a world wide event.
Lottakatz,
Thanks for making my point much more eloquently than I did. 😉
Let me get this right Bdaman, You concede that humanity can and does alter the environment. You also don’t seem to argue that temperatures are higher for at least the past 150 years. You do appear to advocate that this is not actually correlated with humanities actions nor that a warming pattern in and of itself is necessarily a bad thing.
So here’s how I see it by way of an analogy: If I live in a high air pollution city and smoke cigarettes and have the early stages of emphysema and my doctor tells me that the majority of evidence suggests that giving up my cigs and moving to a less polluted area would cause my disease to progress less quickly, is it not prudent to follow that advice even though the evidence is not absolute? Is it not simply prudent? If the evidence is wrong I won’t die any sooner and if it’s correct I will likely live longer? How is that not a win for me.
Euthynus
Euthynus: “Nevertheless it was gratifying to see civility rear it’s ugly head if only for a short while. Based on the many posts I have read in the last few days, this is apparently a den of thieves and beggars. But then it is a law blog.”
——-
Your name is pretty new, just drop in to insult people? We get a lot of 1-offs/trolls/astro turfers (see Jill’s posting above) whenever a ‘hot-button’ issue is posted about. You were actually being insulted by a drop-in. We also have a couple of home-grown, long-time posters that are fanatics on a couple of subjects. People argue with them or ignore them as a matter of personal choice.
Just hanging around for 2 days and taking the opportunity to (in ignorance) insult the blawg or a class is irresponsible and gratuitous. You are wrong about this blawg and lawyers.
Bill Price said:
“PS: And, what caused the warming between 1000 and 1100??”
Faulty logic – just because warming (or cooling) can occur due to natural causes doesn’t mean that it cannot occur due to man-made causes.
Bdaman said:
The only viable explanation of this passage is that you are full of crap. If all of the ice at both poles melted it wouldn’t come anywhere near submerging mountains. On the other hand, it is know that tectonic pressures can eventually turn a piece of the seafloor into a mountaintop. Now what were you saying about the viability of explanations?
Mike A, Jill, and Jay:
Well said.
Nal,
I liked the climate change comic.
Bdaman,
In all of your denialist blather you have never responded to my assertion that even if everything you say about climate change is true, the implementation of international public policy to reduce pollution is necessary (and extremely desirable compared to the alternative…). In other words, even if you’re right you are providing cover to people who are acting against the best interests of humanity (the corporations who stand to lose the enormous subsidy they get from being allowed to pollute our planet for free).
Buddha made the comment:
As a scientist (by the way, I have no problem calling Bill Nye a scientist – introducing kids to science is a vital scientific activity) who studies complex systems, I can tell you that he’s correct here – if we push the climate past a bifurcation point, it will be impossible to go back to the old equilibrium and we will probably end up with a much larger economic cost and a much less desirable climate. We need to start controlling our pollution now so that when we understand more about the effect of man on the environment we have the tools to avoid these potential catastrophes.
In light of the article Jill posted about people being paid to prevent intelligent debate on websites, my question to you is this – given all of the water you’ve carried for the monied interests conducting anti-climate change astroturfing campaigns – are you a whore or just a slut?
Bdaman:
All those creatures were living in their natural habitats when they died. The habitats have changed over millions of years. I did study geology in college back in the olden days. In fact, continental drift was just gaining acceptance in the scientific community when I was a student. My point is that it is silly to take the position that human activity does not affect environmental systems when we know it does. The only issue is how much.
With regard to the rest of your comments, there is no need to postulate a world-wide flood to explain fossils on Mt. Ararat. The planet has always been dynamic.
AGW denier:
I live in Florida. I have been a scuba diver for 30 years. Although I am not a scientist, I have observed first hand the effects of human activity over time in the sea and in inland waterways. Indeed, I suspect that during one or more of my numerous dives off the southeast Florida coast over the years, I have probably encountered some of Rush Limbaugh’s consumption residue. I have to think that even the most obtuse climate change deniers would agree that the ocean is not some sort of bottomless pit that can indefinitely absorb whatever we toss into it without consequence. Why, then, should we assume that spewing our crap into the atmosphere for hundreds of years can’t possibly produce deleterious effects?
The truth is simpler than the science. We are slobs. And many of us are selfish slobs. We want to live the way we live without interference, and if that means gobbling up the lion’s share of the earth’s resources and leaving the waste products wherever we choose to dump them, so be it. The resistance to admitting this is merely self-serving propaganda.
Mike
Sea creatures have been found on EVERY mountain tops of the world. The question is, how did all these creatures get scattered abroad while being fossilized, thousands upon thousands of miles away from their natural environment? The only viable explanation is a worldwide flood or the planet was completely covered in water and the mountain tops were pushed above sea level to the heights they are today. What’s more, geologist have found a field of pillow lava as high as 15,000 feet on Mount Ararat!
Let me know what the museum says.
Mike Appleton:
“Trilobite fossils from the Cambrian period litter large sections of Utah, meaning that there was once a shallow sea in the desert.”
How did the sea form in Utah those many million years ago? Maybe humans went extinct before the dinosaurs and re-evolved? Maybe some human DNA sat dormant and was somehow ingested by a Lemur?
That must be it to explain why there was a sea in Utah, humans were alive and caused global warming and we were killed off but somehow a brilliant scientist was able to place our DNA in an amphibian and here we are again.
I think I am going to publish that hypothesis in the Journal Nature. It actually makes more sense than humans being responsible for global warming.
Bdaman:
Trilobite fossils from the Cambrian period litter large sections of Utah, meaning that there was once a shallow sea in the desert. Whether Noah was able to grab two of them for the Ark I don’t know. I’ll have to check with scientists at the Creation Museum and get back to you.
– NASA says it’s data is mostly based on NOAA surface data.
– NOAA data is from Temperature Gages they admit are located close to artificial Warming sources.( H/AC Units, Water Treatment plants, Brick Walls, Parking Lots.)
– NOAA uses a Computer program to correct the Temp Record for the artificial Warming sources.
– It appears the NOAA Computer Program actually makes comparison of the Temp Record hotter..
Junk in > Junk out.
Bill Price
PS: And, what caused the warming between 1000 and 1100??
Gone back to anonymous trolling again after being outed as Tautology, have you?