Home | About | Donate

Surprise: Climate Change is Likeliest Cause for Extreme Arctic Heat


#1

Surprise: Climate Change is Likeliest Cause for Extreme Arctic Heat

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

This year's remarkably warm Arctic winter would have been "extremely unlikely" without climate change, according to a new analysis from a consortium of scientists dedicated to understanding the impacts of global warming.


#2

Wait a minute.
We all know that Climate Change is a Hoax.
(Just ask DT.)
Therefore, this must be one of those Fake News stories they have been talking about.
Shouldn't the Government be demanding that this article be censored and taken down?
Where is our Government when we really need it?

Remember this simple rule of thumb: If you did not hear it on Fox News, then it must be Fake News.


#3

What is it that about climate change that Trump voters did not understand? Temperature readings are going up. Greenhouse gas levels are going up. Climate scientists are predicting disaster without rapid action to reduce emissions.


#4

Not to worry, the Drumpster will make everything great again. We need to convince the Drumpster that he will be a huge and great president if he saves the Earth from climate disaster. In other words, we need to employ some reverse psychology on him.


#5

The rich are going to have to sacrifice the most in order to save the planet. This probably includes anyone making over 30k US dollars in "first world nations" (i.e. Europe, Japan, US, parts of Asia, etc.). Humanity will need to make many many sacrifices in the very near future to avert total climate disaster. This will include rationing of just about everything in order to reduce consumption to sustainable levels. Not saying I like this scenario myself but the reality is that humanity is utterly destroying this earth very rapidly and if we are to leave a livable planet for future generations of lifeforms (not just humans), we need to ship up or shape out pronto.


#6

Trump voters just don't want to hear about real science, that's all. They know in their hearts that climate change is a hoax brought about by leftists hippies from San Francisco and such (I'm not kidding-I heard that myself not long ago). These type of people absolutely refuse to listen to anyone except those they want to believe in, as in D.T. And besides, D.T. is bringing back thousands of jobs by getting some phone company (I forgot who) to bring back 1-2,000 jobs to the USA. Just heard that. We will see what that amounts to.
Trump is now bigger than God to many of these folk.


#7

I've been thinking about this question too and my tentative conclusion is that the problem has multiple bases, depending on which of two types of deniers, the haves and the have-nots, you are talking about. Here are the ones I have personally come across along with my interpretations of the underlying issues.

1) The Haves (Developed world):
A. Corporate/fossil fuel agenda supporters - Will cost them money, lost profits/jobs and a change in lifestyle which means failure in every way they believe is important. Therefore not true.

B. Religious -
a) Revealed truth didn't reveal this, i.e., not in the Bible/Quran, etc. Therefore this can't be true.
b) God loves us and wouldn't allow this, therefore not true.

2) The Have-nots (Developing World). A. You mean after you in the West have lived this good life, you're telling me/us that we can't have it too? Sounds like just another way for the West/White man to keep the rest of the world down. Its not fair therefore we don't believe you.

Note, even the terminology for describing these two groups, haves/developed and have-nots/developing is based on the idea of continued economic 'development' and consumption. We need new language to confront today's reality.


#8

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX! My new President told me so!

The headline reminds me of Gomer Pyle: "SURPRISE! SURPRISE!" Mr. president, Climate change is real.


#9

Real tired, and frustrated, by these 'probability' calculations !

Whether the Arctic is really warm this past couple of months, or cold next month, or normal some other month - in each and every case it is 100% the result of the current state of the global climate - unless someone is suggesting that the laws of physics have somehow been 'suspended'.

This is the real world - not some model.

Oak Ridge has their CO2 calculations back to 1750 - you can just watch year by year as the emissions build.

NASA and other world agencies have good records of global land and sea average temperatures back to ~ 1880 - you can watch, year by year, as the climate so measured inexorably rises - on average.

The best thermostat on Earth is the average level of the sea - as the oceans warm, and they absorb the overwhelming (~ 94 %) amount of the Earth's energy imbalance due to added greenhouse gases and other add on effects, the water both expands, i.e., sea level rises, and the cryosphere melts, i.e, sea level rises.

Isn't anyone else angry at these 'possible attributions' to climate change ?

Simplify - can we not think clearly ?

Actually - probably not - that's why we're in this mess.

Look - climate change due to human activities is the way I look at it. The fluctuations that will result as a result are not linear or straightforward. Events such as the 8200 year cooling, or even the Younger Dryas mini-ice age return are all part and parcel of climate change - i.e., ups and downs and big surprises - black swans.

The big difference now is us - we are the driving force - what we are doing - sum total - not the few pathetic inputs you can put in a model.

And look what we are doing - outside a few temperature gauges and CO2 monitors etc...

We are destroying our world's habitability and livability - with our so called 'economic' methods - our perverted consumer culture - a sure death wish - our faux democracies - smoke and mirrors.

As far as I can see - there has never been a democracy on this planet - there surely isn't now.

Thought- let's specialise in reality - and get good at it.


#10

As a deplorable, I totally get it: a Clinton presidenty would have addressed global warming vis-a-vis nuclear winter in a much more urgent and expedient manor.

As lrx and others proclaim on this site, it may be better that billions die now so that millions can be saved later, and the sooner the better, but I can't press the button on that one, as much as I appreciate their logic.

We are all well aware of Clinton's and Obama's stances against Russia, and understand that there are ulterior motives, but I'd rather live in a lie and buy a few years with the world that they gave us (the Clinton's and Obama's) than to live "The Road" or die from radiation poisoning or starvation now.n


#11

There is third group that I would add, 1C. The hush dont tell or investors will find out. This is the State of Florida. They should have the dummy award for refusing to let global warming and rising sea levels be mentioned in any public reporting in that state.
For these types of folks, scientific data is far too esoteric. Florida is the tourism, not the education state. I grew up there.
People need to understand how this will affect them, simply, forget greenhouse gases, too scientific for the faithful.. Show detailed maps, of where tidal flooding is hitting the US now, that didnt happen ten years ago. Show what areas this will extend to with every single foot of sea level rise, and where the ocean level was ten and twenty years ago. This cannnot be a subject of debate, just simple cartography.

If all of the real estate in coastal Florida, New Orleans and coastal New York feels imminent danger, that should be quite a lobby.


#12

Oh, and of course, beaches will be the first to go.


#13

UUmmm, if there are only millions left.... who will babysit the nuke plants?.... and actually, way before we are only millions left.... those plants will have not babysitters... at like,.... I don't know, maybe.... 4billion.... or so.... then, everybody will go bye bye...


#14

So, yes, "reduce consumption to sustainable levels".....Ssooo, the question is.... consumption of WHAT?.... I have been saying all along... that ONE WAY.... to reduce emissions quickly and drastically, is to CUT OUT FRIVOLOUS STUFF.... like professional sports... make up .... all kinds of plastic crap.... so that also, cuts down on all different types of companies... so, a hell of a lot less flying for business..... and then ... restrict the rich and their flying.... Help those with family members living far away, be able to move closer again if they decide to do so.... redistribute much of the wealth in this country..... because most of it came from betting on fossil fuels.... the superrich and really rich... do not deserve all the money they have... or all the "stuff'... the redistribution will help some, with ... health care... which should be one thing that is kept and modeled into a form so that everyone can get what they need..... education... get rid of Agribusiness and re organize to millions of small organic farms .... with people getting pieces of land they can have to live on and a free or drastically reduced mortgage.... so, also, the banking system would be completely gutted and re arranged... mainly locally.... just like our food system...
AND... WE BEGIN THE PROCESS OF SHUTTING DOWN ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE US... AND WORK WITH OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO TE SAME.... BECAUSE IT TAKES 40 YEARS, OR SO... TO SHUT ONE DOWN...
wait... wait... I forgot.... we do not live in a sane world... so nothing like this will be done.... WHY.... Because there is not ability to think differently, think in terms of anything other than the current paradigm.... mostly because, those in power are too secure, too safe, to happy and too greedy, in their current situation....


#15

Well said...


#16

Here is my "cut off my nose to spite my face" comment: I hope all those redneck republicans in the coastal red states have fun in their denial of climate change. I would love to see the faces of all those yocals living near the coasts when they have to load up their pickup trucks with the Confederate license plates and flee to the interior high ground. Then those of us living in the interior can build a wall to keep them out.

Now I know this scenario would be a humanitarian disaster for me as well, but my personality is such that I would have to grasp for something, anything, to laugh at when disaster happens.

And since there will be ample reasons to cry in the coming years, I will use laughing as my psycological defense mechanism.

Had I been on the Titanic, I guess I would have rolled over on the deck laughing once I saw the first lifeboats rowing away only half-filled with people.


#17

I remember a visit to a nuclear facility here in Canada a long time ago.

I was listening to the usual monologue on how safe and secure everything was - and how it was safe far into the future, what with modern understanding and engineering etc...

I said: "Do you know what your problem really is ? It's MONEY.

Who is going to do all this 'looking after' if they aren't getting paid ?

Countries go broke - things happen - and the time scale is such that this becomes a certainty over the lifespan of these nuclear wastes."

No reply ~ of course.


#18

A foolish comparison based on fear mongering and ignorance of science.


#19

Everyone seems to think flooding will be the first disaster of climate change. Far from it. Long before sea levels rise high enough to be a real inconvenience the chaos of a collapsing industrial civilization will have taken its toll.


#20

Maybe Trump is the biblical "Great Deceiver" after all. I do believe these are the End Times. We're just bringing on our own demise with AGW.