Follow this blog:
RSS

Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039

By | July 14, 2010, 7:15 AM PDT

Heat waves and extremely high temperatures could become commonplace in the United States in the 30 years, according to a new study.

Stanford University climate scientists say that experiments using two dozen different climate models suggest that America’s going to get hotter more frequently, threatening both the agriculture industry and our very existence.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, professor Noah Diffenbaugh concluded that the heat waves could stress vital crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton and wine grapes, leaving reduced yields.

A recent NASA report hinted at the same thing, concluding that the last 10 years, from January 2000 to December 2009, was the warmest on record.

In the study, researchers projected what could happen in the U.S. if increased carbon dioxide emissions raised the Earth’s temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (or approx. 1 degree Celsius) between 2010 and 2039.

A few points about such a scenario:

  • The mean global temperature in 30 years would be 3.6°F (or 2°C) hotter than observed in the preindustrial era of the mid-1800s.
  • It’s well within reason, according to the International Panel on Climate Change. Climate scientists and policymakers have targeted a temperature increase of double that as the maximum threshold before significant environmental damage occurs.

But the researchers’ conclusions indicate that a 2°C threshold may be too high to avoid adverse conditions.

Analyzing temperature data for the continental United States from 1951 to 1999, the researchers recorded the longest heat waves and hottest seasons on record in the second half of the 20th century, then fed them into their many climate forecasting models, including one high-resolution model called the RegCM3.

The results of their projections:

  • An intense heat wave is likely to occur as many as five times between 2020 and 2029 in the U.S., specifically in the western and central part of the country.
  • The 2030s were projected to be even hotter.
  • A dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures were forecast during the current decade. In other words, record highs and lows were forecast to recur more regularly.
  • From 2030 to 2039, most areas of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico could endure at least seven seasons as intense as the hottest season on record between 1951 to 1999.
  • In the 2030s, the hottest daily temperatures of the year between 1980 to 1999 are likely to occur at least twice as often across most of the United States.

But pure temperature isn’t the problem — it’s humidity, too. By the 2030s, the researchers say most of the U.S. will endure “persistent, drier conditions” as a result of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

As residents of the southwestern U.S. can attest, that means more droughts and wildfires.

“It’s up to the policymakers to decide the most appropriate action,” Diffenbaugh said in a statement. “But our results suggest that limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius does not guarantee that there won’t be damaging impacts from climate change.”

The study is the product of two years of research and is co-authored by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researcher Moetasim Ashfaq. It was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Photo: Detail of “Resistance.” iDip/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
47
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
And studies showed...
... that we should be in the middle of a mini ice-age right now too, and that we needed to warm to globe to avoid starvation.
Posted by GuntherGump
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Thats awesome! The hottest decade on record is 1930 to 1939, so if its not going to get that hot it wont be a problem. I am glad to see that the global warming mafia is finally admitting that their science was completely wrong, and the whole theory of global warming at the very least needs to be reexamined.
Posted by abear4562
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@GuntherGump
That's a new one, Gunther.
I've variously heard the "we don't need to change our ways" brigade claim:
a) That global warming isn't happening.
b) That global warming is happening, but not substantial.
c) That global warming is substantial, but not man-made. The people proudly declaring this are apparently oblivious to the fact that this scenario would necessitate an EVEN greater change on our part and it would not be good news to anyone.
d) That global warming is substantial and man-made but no threat to us.
e) That global warming is a bad thing but "the human race shall survive" / "the Earth shall recover like it always does". This one is always proclaimed as if that makes the prospect of widespread poverty and death among humankind no reason to get out of our SUVs.
f) That global warming is indeed our doing and A Bad Thing but we can't do anything about it anyway so we may as well keep on playing our bugle as we march off the cliff. I actually quite like that one and might adopt it myself when I'm a cranky old man (and I'm not planning to live to a very old age, so it's a good job I'm already started on the cranky).

Your post is the first time I've heard anyone claim that global warming is a good and necessary improvement in the Earth's condition. I'll add it to the list, possibly as an addendum to (d).
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
take out the greenhouse gases and the temps should have been going down, which is why we know that we're the culprit.

But just because greenhouse gases are holding up the temps doesn't mean that there's not a high price to pay for that, too: namely ocean acidification, which will lead to massive coral reef die-off among other things; release of methane in permafrost/continental shelves which may very well lead to runaway heating of the planet; ocean levels rising, massive droughts, starvation, massive population migration, political and economic instability....

Unfortunately, due to our economic commitment to greenhouse-emitting activities, we're pretty much doomed to pay these consequences, since human activities are triggering the global ecological releases that will make things much worse before they get better.
Posted by klassman6
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
I note with some amusement the windowing of the data to support this latest dire prediction. Until the global climate models which predict disaster can also reproduce the stadial and interstadial conditions such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, evident in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, and the Older and Younger Dryas as well as the Little Ice Age, they do not have sufficient creditability to mandate public policy for the planet.
Posted by Normal_z
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
@abear4562: Um, the '30s were the time of the Dust Bowl, one of great drought and reduced agricultural output. If we go back to those conditions, it won't be a good thing.

However, I love it when scientists run their models with different inputs, and call it an "experiment". At least scientists will admit they can't run actual experiments on the climate which would be the gold standard in climate science. However, they act as though running numbers taken from incomplete and insufficient data sets on a computer model is just as good. About the only experiment we're running now is how good are the models -- not the same thing as figuring out how the climate really reacts to changes.
Posted by zackers
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Did no-one read the part...
"what could happen in the U.S. if increased carbon dioxide
emissions raised the Earth?s temperature by 1.8 degrees
Fahrenheit (or approx. 1 degree Celsius) between 2010 and
2039." ?

The key word here is "IF".

This study is all based on "IF".

IF the temperature goes up by 1.8 degrees then it will get hotter .

DUH !
Posted by nickbk
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Did I read this wrong?

> Analyzing temperature data for the continental United States
> from 1951 to 1999

Are they really ignoring everything that has happened since 1999???

This is the kind of stuff that gives the "science" of global warming a bad name.
Posted by zdnet@...
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
What always amuses me is...
...how scientists with millions of actually observed and recorded data points cannot produce a computer model that will accurately tell me what my weather is going to be like 30 hours from now, but supposedly can, with mostly proxy and synthesized data, tell us with absolute certainty what the weather is going to be like 30 years from now.

Amazing.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
I am supposed to tell my wife, "we have to live like Amish" based on some cloistered acedemic's computer model? Why should I have faith in science's "priests"? Do we know the basis of his model, and understand why it predicts the doom of our civilization, but little else in past climatological changes, including the past few decades?

Who constructed this model, wrote the underlying code. etc.? A bunch of grad students? How was it validated? I'm supposed to move to a hippie commune with a windmill based on their work?

There are models to predict the stock market - anyone getting rich off those? Speaking of markets - how fast is the price for beach front property on Lake Baikal appreciating? Show me who's betting on it, and it may help us migrate from the camp of "doubters" to "believers".
Posted by jrezabek@...
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Mind you, we're also in a period of abnormally low sunspot activity. In the past, such periods have been associated with far cooler than normal temperatures.
Look up "Maunder Minimum" and "Dalton Minimum".

The bottom line is, the biggest input to Global Warming is that big yellow Fusion Reactor approximately 93 million miles away. And it's output is DOWN. . .
Posted by salgak@...
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
I have heard rumors that the earth has experienced more than one ice age and more than one period of global warming (the ice melted) over the past hundred million years or so.

I have been looking for the correlation between that and all the damage mankind has done in the last 6 or 8 thousand years.

If the dooms dayers could build a model with data points going back say 10 million years or so To include at least one ice age. then demonstrate how green house gasses caused either the cooling or the warming and how man effected the scenario, then maybe I would pay some attention.
Posted by bwexler
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Scientists can't agree on the subject, there is proof in ice core samples that the Earth naturally warms and cools on it's own, and (yet another) new study shows that the Sun is burning hotter than anytime in the last 1000 years.

The only thing that IS certain is that many scientists who disagree with global warming theories fear for their lives, and corporations are making billions off this new "business" including Al Gore, who coincidentally owns a lot of stock in some of these companies.

Based on the Earth's history of cooling and warming, our hotter-than-ever sun, and the fact that at this point it's all theory, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon! This is looking more and more like the Y2K scam that sent new computer sales through the roof and made programmers a very pretty penny.

Everyone knows that data can be manipulated to produce any desired result, and if there wasn't so much money exchanging hands and threats being made to scientists who dare to disagree, I might actually take it seriously. OK all you warming fans, go ahead and attack my views, based on what you read on the internet, which is the same source from which I received my counter-points!
Posted by ddferrari
14th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know which one's worse....
The doom-mongers with their dire prophecies.
Or the deniers with their dire science.
I reckon there's plenty of incentive for us to change our
behaviour, but it won't hurt too much and we'll be fine (as long as
we do something).
When's commercial nuclear fusion power generation due to
arrive?
2070, perhaps? We just have to pig out on the oil a bit less
between now and then.
Chill, people, chill.......
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
15th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Considering fish, pollinators and everything is temperature sensitive, these are very serious issues for the entire planet.

In considering the information I will put here, understand that education is literally blind to the temperature we are discussing. Do you know what all of the UN Members working on climate change have in common? Their science is blind to temperature and that means blind policy.

Although building development is designed and insulated for regional temperature extremes, building performance isn't verified. The outside of buildings are supposed to reflect solar radiation or they will be "radiated" and generate extreme heat they aren't insulated for. Urban Heat Island effect cost Los Angeles alone over 100 million dollars a year in energy costs.

We completed several years of advanced temperature work to find the cause of urban heat islands and how billions in energy is used responding to them. The results of the research produced alarming science that was missed in our professional education in the calculator.

Due to absorbent exteriors, buildings and development were being radiated by UV or other solar radiation. Individual buildings were generating extreme heat depending on shade effect, paint color or material used on the exterior. The buildings aren't insulated for the extreme heat generated and the massive energy response to the symptoms indoors is a waste. Los Angeles is wasting 100 million a year and generating more emissions without addressing the source of their buildings being radiated or "burned" by the same UV that burns our skin. Builders are responsible for new buildings and should not employ absorbent materials on the exterior or the building will be illegal. Paint your buildings, shade them or we scorch the surface of the planet with development.

Last week on an 86 degree F day, parts of the building were 195 degree F when they should be fluctuating with atmospheric temperature. I have documented buildings 201 degree F on a 95 degree day with air conditioning used indoors because of unbearable heat. Air conditioning is really refrigeration requiring a big electrical demand for each residence reacting to the symptoms of their home being radiated.

Massive emissions are created responding to symptoms but the source of heat isn't addressed. Remember that we don't want to heat the atmosphere or it changes weather. Look at the link, can you see a source of heat? You can't blame atmospheric gases for trapping heat and ignore building development close to boiling temperature. We are responding to the symptoms with more heat trapping gases(excessive emissions)

Here is a link to infrared images including infrared time-lapsed videos of buildings being radiated. http://www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html Paint, shade and stop the energy waste, emissions as well as heat island within existing laws.

Warming the atmosphere contributes to climate change and as you can see around the world with weather severity, we have a problem we just couldn't see before.
Posted by Thermoguy
15th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@Thermoguy
This has occurred to me and it contributes no doubt - air con not only pumps heat directly out to the atmosphere but also uses energy, which (almost always) causes CO2. Plus the heat from all the fossil fuels we're burning eventually leaks to the atmosphere, plus all of the vehicles ever in motion eventually lose their energy to friction (including air drag), which finally turns to heat. But given the huge amount of energy the sun is pounding into the atmosphere every single second, adjusting the percentage of that energy which we can lose again - even minutely - by changing the composition of the atmosphere is a much bigger contributor. Or, at least, every scientist I've ever heard whose job it is to talk on the subject talks as if it is, so I blinkin' well hope so or they've got their sums wrong.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
John McGrew,

As you have probably been told before there is a difference between weather and climate. Climate is the statistical aggregation of weather and defines the bounds of weather variability. If you flip a coin you can't predict whether the next flip will come up heads or tails but you can predict that after a 1000 flips you will be within +/- 10 of a 50-50 split 95% of the time*. You can't predict the weather more than a few days out but you can say what the average weather will be at some point in the future with some confidence.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
salgak,

You are right, the Sun has been in a period of abnormally low activity for the past several years. Yet despite that 2010 is so far the hottest year on record. What does that mean for us when the Sun finally does come out of the low it's experiencing?
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
ddferrari,

You betray your ignorance and lack of critical thinking by calling Y2K a scam. Yes, there were some people scamming others over it trying to make a buck but without the massive effort put into correcting commercial software that had been written using 2 digit years it would have been a disaster.

The scientists fearing for their lives are the ones like Michael Mann and Phil Jones who have become the targets of the deniers of climate change. I've seen copies of some of the emails they've received and they're pretty ugly.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Yes @riverat1, I do know the difference between "weather" and "climate"
And you understand about as much about statistical modeling as anything else you've posted here about. Considering the wild state of "climate" that has existed on this planet to date, the current state of predictive modeling demonstrates predicting it more than 15-minutes into the future is little better than your coin toss.

Remember, back in the '70s, the "experts" had us all dead by now.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
John,

Remember, back in the '70s, the "experts" had us all dead by now.

What experts were those. I don't recall that (and I was in my 20's and paying attention during that decade).

Climate models don't predict weather, rather they make a projection of what the total energy balance of the earth system will be in the future based on certain assumptions about the level of greenhouse gases, insolation and other factors.

What is interesting about comparing the predictions that reports such as the IPCC AR4 make to reality is generally the predictions are on the conservative side and the effects of global warming are occurring somewhat faster than the report predicts. So maybe they're wrong but they more often understate rather than overstate the problem.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
abear,

Maybe you can say that the 1930's were the hottest decade on record in the Continental US but that was not true globally. The CONUS is less than 2% of the surface area of the Earth.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@riverrat1, you're not paying attention now...
...so why should anyone expect that you were 30 years ago?

The IPCC AR4 has been totally been torn apart, and more "scientists" who've been connected to it are backing away from it every day.

30 years go, it was "global cooling" what was going to get us, and we were told by "experts" not to vote for Reagan, because he was going to push the button and we were all going to starve in the upcoming "nuclear winter". Neither happened.

There were countless "experts", but the one that comes to mind for me was Paul Ehrlich. who was the Al Gore of the late 60's-early '70s. He had us screwed by the '80s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb)

Again, when scientists can get predictive models that can be tested and work in the real world, (like for weather) perhaps we'll start taking the speculative ones more seriously.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
John,

I IPCC AR4 report has not been torn apart in any meaningful way. Perhaps 3 or 4 inconsequential errors have been found in a report that is several thousand pages long and was worked on by 100's of scientists. To say those errors discredit the entire report is absurd. It's like getting a F on a final exam because you missed the answer on 4 out of 200 questions. Ridiculous!

The "global cooling" meme was played up in some articles in Newsweek and Time in the 1970s but an examination of the scientific literature of the time found something like 40 papers on global warming and 3 or 4 on global cooling.

I'll admit that Paul Ehrlich is a bit of a doomsayer but he hasn't been totally wrong either, more like he's off on his timing.

Current climate models are better than they were in the past and not as good as they will be in the future. Nothing has happened in the real climate that invalidates most climate models so far. Climate modeling is complex and if you think they can come up with some sort of mechanistic process that gives correct answers all the time you're dreaming.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Nearly every week, we're treated to another example to the
sloppy science (if you can call it that) and methodology that goes
into these "reports".

New Errors Found in UN Climate Change Report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/06/world/main6649993.s
html

Climate modeling is complex and if you think they can come up
with some sort of mechanistic process that gives correct answers
all the time you're dreaming.

Absolutely!

Yes, climate modeling is complex. So complex, in fact, that it's
impossible to test or verify. Therefore, the argument for CO2 and
AGW is based almost entirely on "appeal to authority". In order to
be taken seriously at all, any "appeal to authority" must be made
without the slightest bit of sloppiness or corruption. That is a test
that the IPCC and the AGW minions have failed miserably at.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
So basically you're saying if climate scientists can't get everything 100% right then they are 100% wrong and we should ignore them. If they can't simplify their science enough so you can understand it then it must be wrong. That's not a very realistic attitude in my opinion.

I've seen the report you linked to. If you read the story it says none of the errors they found were enough to in any way change the fundamental conclusions of the IPCC AR4 report. Again, it's like you're giving them an F for missing 4 or 5 questions on a 200 question final exam.

If your side wants to discredit the current consensus on climate science then they need to quit sniping on a few errors that are found and come up with some actual scientific results that counter the existing science. I don't see that happening.
Posted by riverat1
17th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
John,

Here's an opinion piece from a conservative columnist that I think pretty realistically assesses the situation:

Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
Posted by riverat1
17th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
No @riverrat1...
...what I am saying is that:

A) Contrary to what Al Gore and the progressive narrative repeats, the "science" is anything buy "settled". "Consensus" is a myth.

B) If the pro-AGW scientific community wishes the world to accept little more than an "appeal to authority" argument, they'll need to act more like scientists than politicians.

But we're not likely to get that. Instead, it seems that we're going to get more secrecy: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/climate-panel-struggles-with-media-plan/?emc=eta1

Seems the media can't be trusted anymore. Well, much of it anyway. But last month, there was a conference in Europe for media elites to get the propaganda straight. No kidding!

http://blog.floriankaefer.com/2010/06/11/media-climate-change-conference/

It's so all the media can get their stories straight. And a Google search in the weeks afterwards shows that the attendees are getting their stories straight!

But since we're speaking about a world of statistical probability, let me as you this: If all the errors in the IPCC reports are but "clerical" in nature, why are they always errors in the direction of grossly exaggerating the problem? Statistically, that is quite unlikely.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Al Gore doesn't matter. He's merely repeating what climate scientists have told him.

I guess it's all a big conspiracy to you. The problem is it's absurd to believe that climate scientists would try to falsify evidence on the scale necessary to perpetrate the fraud you're accusing them of. All it takes is one person with the truth to totally destroy their scientific careers and reputations. To believe that the thousands of scientists who would have to be in on such a conspiracy could hold it together for any length of time with the amount of attention the subject receives is ridiculous.
Posted by riverat1
17th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
And yet...
...that's what they've been caught doing.

And many people with truth have basically destroyed their reputations. The only problem is that they get to keep their careers because the political establishment continues to feed money to them.

Mann, who has been completely disgraced continues to receive millions in "stimulus" money. It's sad that he gets to keep his job while the honest, hard working people I know continue to be unemployed.

The fact of the matter is that these computer models that we're supposed to accept as roadmaps to the future cannot even predict the past. That's why the IPCC had to virtually erase the MWP, which appeared in their 1990 report, but magically disappeared in their 2001 report. When run on past history, their carbon models could not explain the existence of the MWP. So what to do? Instead of considering that the theories behind their models might be flawed, they'll just assume that recorded history is and they'll just erase it! Amazing!

That, my friend, is what is today considered the "gold standard" of climate science. Sorry, but if you with to reorganize the economy of the entire planet and redistribute all of our (my) wealth to other people in the name of this, you're going to have to do much better.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
The conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger. Not only are the climate scientists involved but all of the other scientists and others who investigate them are in on the conspiracy too. Five different official investigations of the "climategate" emails all came to the same conclusion, the fundamental conclusions of their science is sound. If even one of those investigations had found serious ethical lapses I'd be more inclined to listen to you but they haven't.

How big does the conspiracy get before it fall apart? The answer is since there is no conspiracy in the first place there is nothing to fall apart.

The GCM's* are never used to try and model the MWP because we don't have enough details of the conditions during that period to make a useful comparison with GCM output. Paleoclimate evidence appears to indicate that the MWP was still not a warm as the last couple of decades have been and that the phenomenon was primarily found around the North Atlantic, not so much globally.

*GCM is short for General Circulation Model but sometimes they are called Global Climate Models as well.

I think your last paragraph says it all. You're more worried about your money than you are about the future of the climate and biosphere. But all wealth on the planet is fundamentally tied to the health of the Earth's natural systems. I believe it will cost us far more in the long run to not respond to global warming.
Posted by riverat1
18th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
When 500,000 square foot office buildings in the state of MO are running A/C year round because of all the heat people and computer generate, how could anyone not accept the fact that it's us humans that are heating up this earth? Add to that our A/C units kicking out loads of hot air outside while we stay cool inside, and well - it sure looks like we're the ones creating this global warming to me. Of course I'm not an expert, so what could I possibly know?
Posted by forteinmo
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Investigations
Not a surprise. First off, only the headlines (no doubt written by
the attendees of the "how do we re-sell global warming"
conference) say that they were "cleared". Read into the stories
and you see they were quite critical.

But it's still okay, they say. Trust the experts.

And have you noticed that all of the investigations that
supposedly "cleared" are politically aligned and get their funding
from the same governments and organizations that fund the
CRU? It's kind of like letting Barney Frank and Chris Dodd do the
postmortem on the financial meltdown.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@forteinmo, you have a poor understanding of thermodynamics
If those people were outside playing hackeysack, would they be
creating any less heat? The only extra heat transferred is the factor
that represents the inefficiency of the A/C system in the building.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Money
It's not just my money I'm worried about. It's everybody's. The
reason is simple: Nobody cares less about "the environment" than
poor people. The rise of the environmental movement in the
latter half of the 20th century was due entirely to the growth in the
affluence of the middle class. Make them poor again, which the
current carbon crusade will inevitably do, and public support for
"the environment" will die. When people are living a subsistence
lifestyle struggling to feed themselves and their families, they
couldn't care less about their impact upon "the environment". But
don't believe me. Travel to a "poor" country and you can see it
everywhere.

So in the name of chasing the phantom CO2 menace, we'll
actually be increasing forms of pollution that we know are
destructive and have spend the last 60 years vanquishing. Ironic.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Money
John,

What if not doing something about the problem of anthropogenic global warming costs you more than addressing the problem? Most of the estimates I've seen say it will cost 1-2% of GDP to effectively respond. Think of it as insurance. You hope you're wasting your money when you buy insurance but if you need it you're glad you have it.

If we don't do something "the environment" is going to die* and it may well take our civilization down with it. What is the cost of that?

*The word die is a bit hyperbolic, the environment will change drastically over the whole world and human civilization may not be able to keep up.

You call CO2 (and by implication other human caused GHG's) a phantom menace. Please present me any scientific evidence you have that CO2 in the atmosphere somehow magically loses it's heat trapping qualities that can be easily demonstrated in the lab.
Posted by riverat1
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Oh, and forteinmo, John is right. The amount of heat produced by human industrial and other activities amounts to a rounding error compared to the energy we get from the Sun every day. It's not worth worrying about except perhaps in certain localized situations.
Posted by riverat1
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Why bother?
Anything I supply will be considered "cherry picked". Clearly,
cherry-picking is only tolerated within the AGW community, like
when they eliminate the MWP in favor of synthesized proxies, for
example.

But I am fascinated by Most of the estimates I've seen say it
will cost 1-2% of GDP to effectively respond.

Really! The long-term effects of Waxman-Markey alone is
estimated to cost roughly 5% once its effects ripple through the
economy. That's assuming the economy will be anywhere as
large as it is today, and before the fantasy taxes the UN wishes to
impose upon the "affluent" countries to transfer to the "poor"
countries to make up for our ecological sins.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
I guess I was a little off on my 1-2% statement. This Wikipedia article references some studies that estimate from a 1% gain to a 5.5% loss in GDP for mitigating climate change. I know Wikipedia isn't always the best reference but it's often a good place to start.

I haven't seen the MWP eliminated from the paleoclimate records. It's still there. It's just doesn't appear to be as big a deal as you'd like it to be.
Posted by riverat1
19th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If you compare the IPCC's 1990 graph to their 2001 report...
...with the infamous (and now totally discredited) "hockey stick"
graph, you will see that the MWP has been almost completely
erased. What a difference 11 years makes!

Again, how convenient is that? Their CO2-based models never
worked with their recorded data. They didn't even work with their
proxy data. So instead of accepting that there might be
something wrong with their models, they conclude that it must be
the data. So we now they try to sell the idea that the MWP was
little more than a Eurocentric aberration that didn't happen
anywhere else, even though there is little evidence to support it.

So once again, we're supposed to accept cherry-picked proxy
data for real data, and are told by the "experts" who's already
demonstrated their proclivity towards intellectual dishonesty to
"trust us".

Also, forgot to mention this: Much of the "recorded" data that is
so relied upon for the last 50 years is also suspect. Too many of
the "official" recording stations are located in or near parking lots,
jet exhaust at airports, and even directly beside air conditioning
compressors. Much of what these stations are recording isn't
CO2-based warming, but "heat island" effects of urbanization.

Just last weekend, I spotted another one as I was on a local lake;
a recording station a mere 30 feet from a paved parking lot.
There's no question that this station records at least 10 degrees
higher hours after sunset that it would if it were located at a less
paved location.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The conspiracy grows.
The "infamous hockey stick graph" is only discredited in the minds of those for whom it must be in order to maintain their world view. At least 10 other studies done in the 12 years since it came out using different proxies all confirm the basic correctness of the graph. Regarding the IPCC's 1990 vs. 2001 graphs, don't you think knowledge will increase in 11 years leading to more accurate results? I guess if your world view is dependent on the MWP being a significant counter to current anthropogenic global warming theory then it must be scientists falsifying the data for their own nefarious ends. The conspiracy keeps growing. It's like the Borg. Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated. That's the way it works when you're trying to deny reality.

Have you confirmed that the weather station you spotted is reading "at least 10 degrees higher hours after sunset" or did you just pull that number out of some body orifice where the sun doesn't shine? Have you even confirmed whether that station is a part of the National Climate network? A study that compared the readings from weather stations that surfacestations.org rated as well placed to stations it rated as poorly placed showed that urban heat island effects were properly compensated for in the data. The compensation for poorly placed stations actually introduced a slight cooling compared to the well placed stations. I think even Watts has given up on that avenue.
Posted by riverat1
20th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The "Hockey Stick" has been discredited since 2003...
...and the "climategate" e-mails put the final nails in the coffin. Or
have you already forgotten "hide the decline"?

;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-
0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

And that's how you make a hockey stick.

Have you even looked at the sham report, aka the
Independent Climate Change Email Review ? I had to love
the opening: "Given the nature of our remit, our concern is not
with science, whether data has been validated or whether the
hypotheses have survived testing, but with behaviour; whether
attempts have been made to misrepresent, or "cherry pick" data
with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis, or to
withhold data so that it cannot be independently validated, or to
suppress other hypotheses to prevent them being put to the
test.

So basically, we're not going to challenge the "consensus" that
the science is good because we already assume it to be. We're
just going to look at the behavior of the scientists. Of course,
then it proceeds to soft-sell the attempted deleting of mail,
evasion of FOI requests, manipulation of the peer review process,
etc.

It reads like what a postmortem of the Worldcom scandal might
have looked like if written by Bernie Ebbers.

But hey, it served its purpose. Revkin can now stand there like a
cop directing traffic past a horrific crash yelling "Move along -
there's nothing to see here" and the self-righteous warmongers
can pick up where they left off.

And this is what now passes as the "gold standard" of climate
science.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Are all of the other hockey stick graphs using the same math? There have been at least 10 other papers since the 1998 Mann original that fundamentally confirm it. I'm not qualified to judge the math you listed but I will say I've not seen anybody who I would consider credible on the subject dispute Mann's work, only people who appear to have prejudged the issue.

The "Independent Climate Change Email Review" was neither created nor qualified to judge the science. That is for others in the field to do. What they did investigate with whether the scientists in question deliberately misrepresented and tried to hide their work and they found they didn't.

Here is a quote from Kerry Emanuel, an MIT atmospheric scientist who's expertise is hurricanes:

"A sure way for an up-and-coming young scientist to make a name for himself or herself is to overturn some generally accepted piece of the scientific canon. This is what makes science a largely self-correcting enterprise: no incorrect result can stand long in the face of continuous scrutiny."

That's basically my attitude. It's been over 20 years now that climate science and the global warming hypothesis has been subject to intense scrutiny and all your side has got is nitpicking about errors here and there. If you want to overturn global warming then come up with an alternative that explains the observations better than the current consensus. Tell me why you're side is right, not why climate scientists are wrong.

I think you get the last word if you care to respond. This is thread is getting old. I imagine we'll clash again on a future post.

Cheers.
Posted by riverat1
21st Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
In case you haven't figured it out yet...
...I'm not trying to convince you. You're mind is made up, and no
amount of common sense or exposure of intellectual dishonesty is
going to change your mind.

But sooner or later, someone else will read this debate, and if read
objectively, they're going to agree with me. All it takes is time.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
21st Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
And finally...
...the global warming hypothesis, at least as far as CO2 is
concerned has been discredited for some time now. The
emperor has no clothes, and the masses are now awakened to
that fact.

Like I've said before, it's only inside Al Gore's social circle and
within the multi-billion dollar scientific industrial complex that has
been spawned over the last 20 years that this myth continues to
perpetuate.

Cheers.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
21st Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Back at you. happy
Posted by riverat1
21st Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Heat waves, record high temperatures could be norm in U.S. by 2039
Globally, atmospheric temperatures have dropped in the last few years.

- Arctic temperatures appear to be cooler than those in in the 1950's.
- San Francisco July temperatures coolest since 1971
- Germany, first 6 months of 2010 coldest in 14 years
- San Diego, coldest July since 1933
- Brazil, tropical fish freezing
- Bolivia, 6 million fish killed by colder temperatures. 'Unprecedented: Nothing like this has ever been seen in this magnitude in Bolivia'
- Peru declares emergency due to plunging temperatures
- Antarctic sea ice growing at fastest rate ever
- Southern Hemisphere, global cooling could be killing penguins.
- Fruits and vegetables fail to ripen as Southern California nears 'coolest summer on record'

According to the USDA, corn production is forecast at a record high 13.4 billion bushels, up two percent from the previous record set in 2009. U.S. soybean production is forecast at a record high 3.43 billion bushels, up two percent from last year. Winter wheat production is forecast at 1.52 billion bushels, up one percent from last month and up slightly from 2009.

Even though it was 102 in Austin yesterday, that was below our early-20th Century record high. We've actually had a very mild summer, and my lawn is still rich and green, even though I have not watered it yet this year. Usually by mid-August lawns are turning brown around here.
Posted by bb_apptix
16th Aug 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!