2010 The hottest year on record

[Chris]

NOAA: This year warmest on record so far

So far, this has been the hottest year in recorded history.

On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released new data showing that, from January to July, the average global temperature was 58.1 degrees. That was 1.22 degrees over the average from the 20th century, and the hottest since 1880, when reliable records begin.

And, while NOAA experts say global climate change isn't the only reason that 2010 has been so hot--an El Nino event earlier in the year pushed temperatures up--it's still the most important reason.

Post Carbon: NOAA: This year warmest on record so far - David A. Fahrenthold

 

[syrenn]

Its not the warmest year on record in CA.

 

[Oddball]

Nor in South America.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend.

There were places in the US that had a very cold winter, that are now having a record summer heat wave. We shall see what the average is for the continents at the end of the year. Right now, we have had a year that is in contention with 1998 for the warmest year on record.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Liberty]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

 

[editec]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

When you long range POV is 6 billion years old?

That will matter.

Until then? Your sense of perspective (and sensitivity to change) ought to be just a tad shorter than that.

 

[JWBooth]

2010 The hottest year on record

And my tomatoes, peppers, okra, peas, and cucumbers have never been more productive.

I like it, I love it, I want some more of it,

 

[Old Rocks]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

Shall we be a bit more accurate when we are throwing numbers around? 4.53 billion years. And in that time, there have been several extinction events caused by rapid natural increases in GHGs. The physics of such events care nothing at all as to whether the increase in GHGs is natural or man caused, the results will be the same.

The science and the scientists are completely clear on this subject. We are creating another great extinction, and while man as a species may survive, the world we know today will be gone forever. That is going to be your legacy, your gift to your descendents.

 

[editec]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

Shall we be a bit more accurate when we are throwing numbers around? 4.53 billion years. And in that time, there have been several extinction events caused by rapid natural increases in GHGs. The physics of such events care nothing at all as to whether the increase in GHGs is natural or man caused, the results will be the same.

The science and the scientists are completely clear on this subject. We are creating another great extinction, and while man as a species may survive, the world we know today will be gone forever. That is going to be your legacy, your gift to your descendents.

Assuming that we have any descendents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Like Lovelock, I am an optimist. The human race is rather resilent. Probably, even in the worse case scenerio, there will be a few hundred million survivors. But the world they will be living in will be a sadly depleted one, with most of the animals we are familiar with gone.

 

[Liberty]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

Shall we be a bit more accurate when we are throwing numbers around? 4.53 billion years. And in that time, there have been several extinction events caused by rapid natural increases in GHGs. The physics of such events care nothing at all as to whether the increase in GHGs is natural or man caused, the results will be the same.

The science and the scientists are completely clear on this subject. We are creating another great extinction, and while man as a species may survive, the world we know today will be gone forever. That is going to be your legacy, your gift to your descendents.

 

[edthecynic]

Nor in South America.

Again, as long as some small part of the entire globe is a little bit cold, the deniers will insist there is no warming anywhere.

 

[westwall]

Years the earth has been around: 6 billion.
Years human beings have been keeping records of temperature: 120
Liberals' tin hat warnings: priceless

Shall we be a bit more accurate when we are throwing numbers around? 4.53 billion years. And in that time, there have been several extinction events caused by rapid natural increases in GHGs. The physics of such events care nothing at all as to whether the increase in GHGs is natural or man caused, the results will be the same.

The science and the scientists are completely clear on this subject. We are creating another great extinction, and while man as a species may survive, the world we know today will be gone forever. That is going to be your legacy, your gift to your descendents.

There is not one single extinction event attributed to global warming. Even your PETM wiki entry admits that fact. I have highlighted the relevant sections for the willfully ignorant....that would be you od fraud, Chris, konrad et al.

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic); this means that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[10] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[23][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[24] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[25] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[26] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[26] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[27] and weakly calcified forams.[28]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[29] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[29]


Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Like Lovelock, I am an optimist. The human race is rather resilent. Probably, even in the worse case scenerio, there will be a few hundred million survivors. But the world they will be living in will be a sadly depleted one, with most of the animals we are familiar with gone.

So's the Earth. The Tahoe basin around the year 1900 was a moonscape. Every tree had been cut down and fed into the Comstock Lode mines. It looks pretty damned good now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like Lovelock, I am an optimist. The human race is rather resilent. Probably, even in the worse case scenerio, there will be a few hundred million survivors. But the world they will be living in will be a sadly depleted one, with most of the animals we are familiar with gone.

And species disappearing has nothing to do with the sheer numbers of human beings that are inexorably robbing habitat from said species and everything to do with the earth being a few degrees warmer?

 

[konradv]

Like Lovelock, I am an optimist. The human race is rather resilent. Probably, even in the worse case scenerio, there will be a few hundred million survivors. But the world they will be living in will be a sadly depleted one, with most of the animals we are familiar with gone.

And species disappearing has nothing to do with the sheer numbers of human beings that are inexorably robbing habitat from said species and everything to do with the earth being a few degrees warmer?

Is that any different than you saying it has nothing to do with warming? It's funny how the deniers will latch on to one aspect of the debate and claim that proves the other side completely wrong and accuse them of ignoring facts, when that's exactly what they do, themselves!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like Lovelock, I am an optimist. The human race is rather resilent. Probably, even in the worse case scenerio, there will be a few hundred million survivors. But the world they will be living in will be a sadly depleted one, with most of the animals we are familiar with gone.

And species disappearing has nothing to do with the sheer numbers of human beings that are inexorably robbing habitat from said species and everything to do with the earth being a few degrees warmer?

Is that any different than you saying it has nothing to do with warming? It's funny how the deniers will latch on to one aspect of the debate and claim that proves the other side completely wrong and accuse them of ignoring facts, when that's exactly what they do, themselves!

That a species is wiped out because the human population has encroached on its habitat certainly is not the same as a species disappearing because of climate.

And I haven't denied anything. The earth is very slightly warmer than it was a century ago. I just don't believe that a few degrees difference in temps is a catastrophe.

 

[Old Rocks]

The physics of the situation cares not at all what you believe.

A few degrees warmer means that feedbacks kick in that will make it more than just a few degrees warmer. And many species, already under stress from our population, will find their niche gone. So even as the human population undergoes a rapid diminishment, the other species will be doing the same, many to the point of extinction.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The physics of the situation cares not at all what you believe.

A few degrees warmer means that feedbacks kick in that will make it more than just a few degrees warmer. And many species, already under stress from our population, will find their niche gone. So even as the human population undergoes a rapid diminishment, the other species will be doing the same, many to the point of extinction.

you assume that the human population will rapidly diminish because the temp went up a few degrees?

That's a big assumption.