Gee, has anybody spotted a trend in this climate thing yet?

July2015

In a stable climate, the map above would be a rough balance between pale blues and pale reds. It doesn’t look like that way, does it. Instead, we see very few patches of blue in a map that is overwhelmingly red verging on crimson.

This is what July 2015 looked like — the warmest July on record and also the warmest month on record, period.

The map of the previous month, June 2015 — the warmest June on record — looked much the same, as did the map of May 2015 — the warmest May on record. In fact, the seven months of 2015 are the warmest seven months on record, and 2015 is well on its way to becoming the warmest calendar year on record, surpassing the previous record holder, 2014.

Here’s what 2015 looks like so far:

janjuly

Tell me: Has anybody spotted a trend yet?

Now, to hear some tell it, none of this is or should or even could be happening. We are supposedly in a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, or by some accounts even in a period of cooling, that proves the vast majority of climate experts have been wrong. I suspect that we’ll hear fewer such claims in the future, just I also suspect that those who made such claims will try to pretend they never made them.

We’ll also hear that this is just “natural variation,” although it’s not “variation” when that variation is all in one direction. That is change, change that just by happenstance is occurring in the direction that climate scientists have been predicting since at least 1980. And the pace of this change exceeds the natural pace of change found in a climatological record reaching back millions of years.

The reality is that if this global, planet-altering phenomenon was being driven by, say, higher taxes, those who continue to try to deny the science would instead be rushing to embrace it. Their “skepticism” is founded not on true doubt about the data — most of them lack the training or expertise to even understand the data — but by fear of its possible implications.

Given a choice between making pretty minor changes in their own lives or the high risk of a profoundly altered planet for their grandchildren and every succeeding generation of human beings thereafter, they prefer the profoundly altered planet.

Given a choice between violating an absurd tenet of tribal political loyalty and a profoundly altered planet, they again choose the profoundly altered planet.

And meanwhile, month after month, the map turns redder.

 

Reader Comments 0

583 comments
US_Patriot
US_Patriot

And, once again, JB gives us a weather update.  Summer, hmmmm, yep, it's hot......j/k!


So, JB, et al, what are we supposed to start/stop/continue doing to "change" climate change?



Wonder_Mike
Wonder_Mike

yup, summer was hot. and spring, and last winter, and last fall.

Penses
Penses

@gotalife

"The world hates me because I testify that what it does is evil."  - Jesus 

honested
honested

@Penses @gotalife 

More accurately "the world hates me because I call actions evil where there is none".

Glad to fix it for you, call me any time.

Penses
Penses

@honested

No evil in the world? Boy, you are dumber than you look.

Penses
Penses

@JayBook 

"Their “skepticism” is founded not on true doubt about the data — most of them lack the training or expertise to even understand the data — but by fear of its possible implications."


Here is what one of the co-founders of Greenpeace (not quite in Jay's imagined captitalistic conservative mold) believes:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Here is but one example of the kinds of fraudulant "scientific" claims that are made and then promulgated by unthinking "parrots":


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Here is what those with the "training or expertise to understand the data" seem to actually think:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I must say, it is amusing to see irreligious secular "progressives" cling to their unsubstantiated "doctrines" of faith as tenaciously as the religious folks they ridicule for doing just the same thing.  

Nickdaname
Nickdaname

Penses, I just thought I'd check at least one of your links and selected the last one, which is a 2013 Forbes article by James Taylor.  If the other two are as dishonest as this one, I suggest you stop fooling yourself and try doing some real research.

The Forbes article refers to a 2013 study by Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer.  Mr. Taylor claims it "proves" only 36% of qualified scientists support the theory of anthropocentric global warming.  Not only does this study NOT prove this claim, but the authors themselves immediately responded to Mr. Taylor and refuted this claim.

As the authors pointed out, their study consisted of a survey of members of The Association of Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (Canada).  This association consists mostly of Canadian petroleum engineers.  As the authors pointed out in their response, there is absolutely no way this study could possibly represent the views of actual climate scientists even in Canada - much less internationally.  In addition, they also pointed out that Mr. Taylor's Forbes article even distorts the results of their study as well.

gotalife
gotalife

One con wrote trump is the wild one you dated in high school.


jeb is the one you bring home to the family to marry.

gotalife
gotalife

Might as well face it you are addicted to Hillary.

LeninTime
LeninTime

And if they were in this country saying that...why it would just be freedom of speech

**
The difference is that our leaders make those remarks every day, about Iran. And no one bats an eye.

THEFEEBLELIBERAL
THEFEEBLELIBERAL

 And if they were in this country saying that...why it would just be freedom of speech


and if they were in this country funding terrorist organizations, trying to obtain nuclear weapons and actually saying death to israel


they would be in JAIL

lol


terrorist threats 

and

terroristic actions


ok in iran


not ok in usa


lol



consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@THEFEEBLELIBERAL You protest too much feebleminded one. The US funds terrorists organizations. Heck, what it left behind in Iraq is now ISIS'. Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. No saber rattlin' over them. And we hear about turning Iran into glass all the time from Americans. 

gotalife
gotalife

Our worshipping celebrity Kardashian culture has really helped trump beat the gop 


The war with jeb on immigration is a pretty good fight.

td1234
td1234

"By Jonathan Allen

Related Stories
  1. Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest Reuters
  2. Hillary Clinton to give private email server to Justice Department Reuters
  3. State Department refers 305 Clinton emails for review: court filing Reuters
  4. Dozens of Clinton emails deemed classified: State Dept AFP
  5. What's next in the Hillary Clinton email controversy? CBS News

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Although a few dozen of Hillary Clinton's publicly released work emails from her time as secretary of state are now stamped "Classified", the U.S. State Department, and Clinton herself, have maintained these classifications are new.

But the dates for declassification marked by the department on those emails raise questions about the assertion that none of the information should have been handled as classified when it first traversed Clinton's private, home email server.

The declassify dates suggest either that the department did not follow standard government classification regulations, or that it might believe that the information in at least 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters was in fact classified on the original day Clinton sent or received it."


http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-emails-newly-classified-declassify-dates-raise-questions-050607986.html

gotalife
gotalife

@td1234 Did you have the shakes before posting that? Hillary is one powerful drug, you need Hillaryhab.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@td1234 

Here comes the Clinton Spam wave...
And there goes Brosephus.  Have a great weekend everyone.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@td1234 But, but,  but Colin Powell...JEB....Karl Rove....THEY did it too!

Brosephus
Brosephus

@DownInAlbany 

They were all wrong for doing it, but it's only NOW becoming a problem.  That's my issue with this sudden focus on Clinton.  If there had been the same outrage over everyone else, then I'd be more sympathetic to the cause. And this is coming from someone who knows a thing or two about record keeping on the federal level.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@Penses
And the GOP was trying to nail Clinton with Benghazi before Petraeus' affair became news.  Benghazi was September 2012 and Petraeus was November 2012.  Close, but no cigar...

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

Of course a feeble mind will choose Hannity over Chomsky.

THEFEEBLELIBERAL
THEFEEBLELIBERAL

the feeble little liberal mind


one can read Chomsky


and one can agree with 69% of what he believes


and disagree with 31% 


only in liberal lalalalalala land


does anyone agree 100% with anyone


lol

gotalife
gotalife

Death to Israel is their bomb Iran. Political bluster to act tough..

LeninTime
LeninTime

@THEFEEBLELIBERAL 

'Death to Israel' chanted at al-Quds day in IranCNN

**
You claim to be a follower of
Noam Chomsky, yet you post here clips of Sean Hannity lying about Iran being the 'world's number one sponsor of terrorism', a title that as any reader of Chomsky knows actually is more widely believed in the world to fit the United States, not Iran. 

If you are a reader of Noam Chomsky, you must not be a real careful reader.

gotalife
gotalife

At least feeble stopped using all caps.

bu2
bu2

Also, random is NOT randomly uniform.  Its clumpy, like outer space.  So just because this year there are more highs doesn't indicate any sort of pattern.  But most people don't understand statistics. 

honested
honested

@bu2 

Yes, I'm sure the vast majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS don't understand statistics.

Do you have anything to say you didn't get from am radio?

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

@Nick_Danger @bu2 Damn!  You mean one month or one year maketh not a climate trend.  That just blows the Republican argument away.  Now they'll have to do something more compelling than step out in their back yard in winter and pick up a handful of snow...

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

@honested @bu2 Or better yet, does he have anything from a study he cares to cite to back up his "expert" opinion.  Nah.  He's a Republican.  All lip, no service.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@bu2 

"So just because this year there are more highs doesn't indicate any sort of pattern."

True.  But it is indicative, especially as the number of highs is so pronounced.  Two years in a row is more so.  Five years, even more so.  And so on.

I think it's fair to say that, when you look at all the data (not just one year), it's very difficult to deny that the planet is heating up.

bu2
bu2

@Nick_Danger @bu2 


There's a difference between saying the planet is on a warming trend and saying it is caused by human activity.

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

Perhaps the feeble minded one would enlighten us as to how those 55,000, give or take, mines in the mid-west came to be filled with toxic water to begin with.

gotalife
gotalife

cons need to post Hillary smears and lies or go into withdrawals.


We need Hillary rehab.

bu2
bu2

Warmest based on what time period?  130 years?  30 years?  How reliable are those numbers?  Reliable for 30 years maybe?


And what makes you so sure its not a natural cycle that we can do nothing about?  Global climate cycles last tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.  We haven't been around long enough to really understand them.  What we know about past weather is based on a handful of cores drilled in Greenland or Antarctica or a few bogs in Germany.


What they are proposing are not minor changes in lifestyle, but major disruptions of the economy and sharply increased energy costs, costing jobs.


And there is NOTHING we can do that will have an impact in the next 50 years if you believe the true believers.  So the most important thing is keeping the economy strong to deal with the dislocations.  And we need those Democrats to quit voting to subsidize development along the coasts.

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@bu2 "What they are proposing are not minor changes in lifestyle, but major disruptions of the economy and sharply increased energy costs, costing jobs."


Welcome to the next step in the conversation.  What are some other solutions to pollute less that won't have major disruptions to the economy? 

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

@bu2 Go ahead and present your studies.  Make your case with something of value rather than what your flailing phalanges are flinging.

dreema
dreema

@bu2 "deal with dislocations" Yup, that works. While the GOP races to see who can be the most xenophobic. Emissions reductions are required. 

fedup52
fedup52

@bu2  And what makes you so sure its not a natural cycle that we can do nothing about?

If you had any back ground in science you would known that the CO2 level has nearly doubled in 50 years.  We are also putting more and more methane in the atmosphere.  These two chemicals and others contribute to trapping sun's heat in the atmosphere.  Hope that answers your doubts.

bu2
bu2

@fedup52 @bu2 


I can conclusively demonstrate that when an original NFL team won the Super Bowl, the stock market did better than when an original AFL team won the Super Bowl for the first 25 years the game was held.  That doesn't mean the Packers, Steelers or Bears winning caused the market to go up.


There was a cooling trend in the 50s and 60s and climate scientists were telling us all this CO2 was going to cause the next ice age.  Made the front covers of major magazines.