June 2012 was the warmest month on record in North America. July is on pace to exceed June. Here in the Northeast, we have been spared the searing triple digit heat waves that everyone from Denver to Washington DC has experienced. But we have had wave after wave of intense “precipitation events” like last night’s storm.
Is this wacky weather normal? Or is this caused in part by all the stuff we put in the atmosphere?
Two years ago I wrote a book that summarized what scientists knew then with a high degree of certainty about the growing human impact on climate. The news was grim. Since then, the climate disruption news has only grown worse, as the scientific findings have grown even stronger.
What did we expect? In 2009, when 167 countries met in Copenhagen, the two nations responsible for 40% of global carbon emissions, the United States and China, committed no one to anything to curb emissions.
As Bill McKibben writes in the current issue of Rolling Stone,
“If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States.”
For the history of the U.S Drought Monitor, which began in 1999, this summer we have the largest spatial extent of drought on record: almost 64% of the contiguous US experienced drought conditions last week.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture to declared more than 1,000 counties in 26 states natural disaster areas effective July 12, 2012, establishing the largest natural-disaster area in U.S. history.
Earlier this month, the National Climatic Data Center released the 2011 State of the Climate, a peer-reviewed report complied by 378 scientists from 48 countries around the world. This annual summary of global climate events is full of stuff that data hounds like me adore. For example,
“In 2011, oceans were saltier in already drier areas and fresher in already rainy areas, indicating an increase in the global water cycle.”
In plain English, more water is moving through the atmosphere so dry areas (like the American Southwest) are becoming drier and wet areas (like New England or Florida) are becoming wetter.
The mounting evidence suggests that nothing else explains the disruption of climate patterns except the human activity of burning fossil fuel, paving our world, wiping out forest and jungles, and polluting vast volumes of water.
Not sun spots, not rotational wiggles of the Earth, not El Niño or La Niña–just plain old modern fossil fuel based civilization, as we know it, is the chief culprit.
McKibben goes on to explain that our Earth is one big connected system:
“A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.” Read more.
A report published in Science this week shows how the intense summer thunderstorms–like the one we had last night–pump water higher into the upper atmosphere than was known before.
Why does that matter? Put on your sun block!
Strong thunder storms send moisture so high that this water content is mixing with aerosols we dumped there for decades (such CFCs and refrigerant gases, now banned on the ground, but still lingering above). This moisture arrives in the ozone layer of our atmosphere–normally drier than a desert–where its sets up new chemical reactions, weakening the ozone layer that protects us from ultraviolet light rays. So now a link appears to be emerging between thunder storms, skin cancer rates and ozone warnings. Who knew?!
Bottom line, I highly recommend McKibben's very readable article!
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95 This is the site from my earlier post.
This isn't a liberal issue, nor is it a conservative issue. It's a national security issue, and we should all be looking for a solution rather than blaming it on the people we don't like.
It's all really quite simple and only gets mucked up when organizations that want us to continue burning fossil fuels try to convince us that all is well. Folks, all is not well. We are destroying our planet and it's the only one we've got.
For a webpage that keeps track of polls about climate change: http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/hot-topics/climate-polling/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
Keep making fuel for vehicles out of corn.That certainly was a bright idea , wasn't it? Another hair brained idea from the "government". Why would anyone want to take away from our food supply in order to run vehicles with it?
When at its the nearest, it is approximately 206,669,000 km / 128.4 million miles or 1.381497 AU* from the Sun. Earth: When the Earth is at its closest point to the Sun, which astronomers call perihelion, it’s only 147 million km. And when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, astronomers call this aphelion. At this point, Earth is 152 million km from the Sun.
How about presenting real science rather than utter nonsense.
Mary, please tell me you are not that gullible?
how are we going to reduce the number by 10-15%? Answer: By doing a really good job with vaccines of course... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s Don't you wonder why Bill Gates is even one of the leaders of this discussion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz38L6K7Ekk&feature=related
And please another weatherman?
If the proponents of climate change can have a computer programmer discussing the catastrophes of climate change, we can use weather people (just want to be PC)...who better to discuss the changes in our climate? Looking forward to your response on Bill Gates' video.
People like Gates and Gore are the talking-heads,what matters is the actual science conducted by real scientists (like our own at Lamont Doherty) not weatherman paid by big oil. And until you understand that you and other close minded deniers will remain ignorant. It is the SCIENCE that matters. Bill Gates is referring to the fact that populations with better health care have lower birth rates and lower infant mortality. Through vaccines and better health care we can reduce the world's population by negating the need for large families in third world countries.
I need further explanation of your last paragraph: According to you...Better health care = lower birth rates = lower infant mortality = reduction in population (which is the goal as stated by Bill Gates 10-15%)...that just doesn't compute... Lower infant mortality would be an increase in population...not decrease. You also state that...."Through vaccines and better health we can reduce the world's population by negating the need for large families in third world countries" Why not just say that they are pushing contraception and abortions in third world countries for population control? http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/30/13411076.html Weathermen paid by big oil?...need some backup on that one...
Who are the climate scientists? Why aren't they the spokespeople (PC) for climate change instead of Al Gore, Michael Moore and Bill Gates?
Countries with better health care have lower birth rates and thus lower population growth.
Remember the objection to global warming is not based on science, but politics so it is not surprising to see the Gore's and Gate's coming out in support of action. I would urge you to ignore the talk-heads on both sides of the subject and actually research the science supporting climate change... here is a start. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/ocean-acidification-rate-may-be-unprecedented-study-says
I have answered your questions, how about one of mine? Why would you believe unqualified weatherman and politicians over real scientists who do actually do the research and publish peer review papers?
So do the math for however many people there are in the world, then compare to how Brazil, etc. are cutting down trees for "civilization". This may be why we have elevated levels of CO2 (if that really is the case). No one seems to criticize "emerging nations" for cutting trees and destroying the oxygen supply. Yet the UN and others want US to pay carbon credits to fund the destruction. Sounds like corruption to me.