A major federal report finds that the speed of Arctic warming is unprecedented in 2,000 years

By Tom Yulsman | December 13, 2017 11:58 am

The peer-reviewed report involving 85 scientists finds that the Arctic environmental system has reached a “new normal”

Arctic warming

An iceberg off the west coast of Greenland. A new report finds that Arctic warming continues to drive declines in sea ice and ice sheets. (Photo courtesy of Greenland Travel)

It’s a common refrain doubters of human-caused global warming: Temperatures now are no higher than they were during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1400 AD.

Never mind that a major paper put this idea to rest in 2013. I still have this flawed argument thrown at me when I write about climate issues. And I would not be surprised if that happens again with this post covering a major federal report about the Arctic released yesterday.

The report finds that the current rate of Arctic warming is unprecedented in at least the past 2,000 years. And the pace of Arctic sea ice loss experienced in the past few decades has not been seen in at least the past 1,450 years.

What’s happening in the far north cannot be explained simply by invoking natural variability, the report concludes. Thanks to our influence on the climate through our emissions of greenhouse gases, we’re well beyond the range of natural changes to the Arctic climate system over a timescale of millennia.

From this year’s Arctic Report Card, an assessment published every year by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Despite relatively cool summer temperatures, observations in 2017 continue to indicate that the Arctic environmental system has reached a ‘new normal’, characterized by long-term losses in the extent and thickness of the sea ice cover, the extent and duration of the winter snow cover and the mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic glaciers, and warming sea surface and permafrost temperatures.

“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history, and we need better observations to understand and predict how these changes will affect everyone, not just the people of the north,” said Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic Research Program. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans yesterday, he was quoted by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post.

In other words, changes occurring in the Arctic aren’t of concern just to people living in the high north. As Walter Meier of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has put it, “The climate system’s interconnected. So what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.”

That’s true for a number of reasons, including this: Research suggests that Arctic warming is affecting day-to-day weather much farther south — not always pleasantly. There are also implications for fisheries, ships and naval submarines having to dodge ice floes — and geopolitics as well. Melting sea ice has already turned the region into a new frontier, with nations eyeing its sea routes, strategic position between Eurasia and North America, and potentially huge reserves of oil and gas.

Arctic warming

Paleoclimate reconstructions of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, Arctic sea ice extent, air temperature, and sea surface temperature. (Source: Arctic Report Card)

The 85 scientists who published the peer-reviewed Arctic Report Card synthesized research from multiple sources. The section devoted to comparing today’s observed climate shifts to changes that occurred in the past is based in part on paleoclimate research using what scientists call “proxy records.”

These include tree-ring records, and chemical fingerprints locked within cores drilled from ice sheets, lake sediments, and the seafloor. These proxy records are needed because accurate monitoring of climatic factors extends no farther back than the late 1800s.

The graph above reveals what these proxy records along with modern monitoring reveal about the history of Arctic climate change over the past 1,500 years. As the report states, the graph illustrates that “the significant post-industrial sea ice decline occurs in concert with significant atmospheric and ocean warming driven by an exponential increase in atmospheric CO2.”

Translation: It’s us, not nature. And it’s not subtle.

Arctic warming

This map shows how global temperatures in 2016 differed from those of the early 20th century, before post-industrial-revolution emissions of carbon dioxide began significantly influencing Earth’s climate system. As the map shows, the Arctic is warming more intensely than any other region on Earth. (Source: NASA GISTEMP)

The Arctic Report Card covers a lot of ground, not just the paleo perspective. Here are the highlights, quoted from the beginning of the report itself:

  • The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2017 is the 2nd warmest since 1900; however, cooler spring and summer temperatures contributed to a rebound in snow cover in the Eurasian Arctic, slower summer sea ice loss, and below-average melt extent for the Greenland ice sheet.
  • The sea ice cover continues to be relatively young and thin with older, thicker ice comprising only 21% of the ice cover in 2017 compared to 45% in 1985.
  • In August 2017, sea surface temperatures in the Barents and Chukchi seas were up to 4° C warmer than average, contributing to a delay in the autumn freeze-up in these regions.
  • Pronounced increases in ocean primary productivity, at the base of the marine food web, were observed in the Barents and Eurasian Arctic seas from 2003 to 2017.
  • Arctic tundra is experiencing increased greenness and record permafrost warming.
  • Pervasive changes in the environment are influencing resource management protocols, including those established for fisheries and wildfires.
  • The unprecedented rate and global reach of Arctic change disproportionally affect the people of northern communities, further pressing the need to prepare for and adapt to the new Arctic.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Erik Bosma

    Hmmm… seems like no one wants to touch this one.

    • OWilson

      Only you, so far, Erik!

      Lol!

  • OWilson

    Meanwhile World Agricultural Production continues to set records, year after year!

    • JWrenn

      Wait let me check…nope not 2035 yet

      • OWilson

        You can always hope, I guess! :)

        • JWrenn

          What a silly comment. You are saying something didn’t happen that is nearly 20 years away and if someone says it is still going to happen you act like they want it to? You have issues man.

          • OWilson

            You missed the sarcasm (the smiley. But that’s your problem, not mine!)

            Peace!

            I ‘ll check back with you in 18 years!

          • JWrenn

            You just really suck at it.

          • OWilson

            Thank you! :)

          • JWrenn

            No…he’s dead. Again you are not funny and should stop.

          • OWilson

            So’s your Momma?

            See how infantile insults are in a science blog?

          • JWrenn

            Oh come on man. I made fun of your responses because you are on here all the time spewing conspiracy theories. I didn’t make fun of your family. Your response was to claim that your comment was sarcasm, so I made fun of that because it was silly when you look at all the rest of your posts.

            Grow up and stop believing every little corner of the internet. Your rhetoric lowers the standards of this blog and the science it reports.

          • OWilson

            Your “spewing conspiracies” language is so much more civilized, right! :)

            Your mind is so low in the Swamp you really believe I was insulting your family? :)

            Feel free to post something on topic about the subject of this blog! :)

          • JWrenn

            Yes making fun of your responses is better than throwing out comments about someone parents. We are debating ideas here. If the ideas are bad they get made fun of or told they are bad. It depends on the level of how bad and or silly they are.

          • Mike Richardson

            I hope you weren’t expecting an apology, or any meaningful discussion of the actual topic, from Ol’Wilson. Sorry for your loss, and keep fighting the good fight.

          • JWrenn

            Nope. Some people just can’t see anything but what they believe. Thanks for the kind words. I will keep fighting even if I am just running into a brick wall over and over again.

            I really should stop arguing with volleyballs though.

          • OWilson

            Just keep talking to each other, and you won’t have to worry about whats going on in the rest of the world! :)

          • JWrenn

            I worry a lot more than you do apparently Wilson. I actually find out what scientists and real studies believe rather than crackpots on the web.

          • Mike Richardson

            Didn’t you already say bye? What was the point of coming back if you weren’t going to apologize or try to go back on topic? Speaking of which, you still haven’t provided much in the way of proof to dispute the report mentioned in this article — those findings do indeed concern “the rest of the world.”

  • Gallilao

    The temperature anomaly map shows quite clearly that the Arctic is warming the Antarctic is cooling and the rest of the world is about normal.

    There is NO, “Global”, anything! All we see is regional weather changes. Weather is NOT climate! And weather is supposed to change, that is what weather does!

    • dang3rtown

      Nope.

      • Gallilao

        Yep.

    • JWrenn

      Uhm…you realize grey is not a temperature on that map right? It is not showing any information for those zones on that picture….grey means nothing. Only the white zones are staying the same…and there are no blue zones so…….yeah…everything is either warming or staying the same. Or there is no info according to that map.

      • Gallilao

        Did You Know?…
        Everywhere on land on this planet, there is an underground temperature gradient that increases in temperature the deeper you go; as any underground miner knows. Nearer the surface, the temperature gradient changes over the seasons but below a specific gradient, the temperature never changes, day in and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out. That is the equilibrium point and that point, that specific temperature and that specific depth, are peculiar and particular to that geographic location and changes from place to place, in both temperature and depth underground, it gets shallower and warmer near the Equator and deeper and colder toward The Poles and yet that temperature can be easily calculated anywhere on the planet by knowing the annual high and low atmospheric surface temperature. The surface temperature is determine by the underground equilibrium gradient and that gradient is determined by our planet’s internal furnace and has nothing to do with the atmosphere or the Sun and if the atmosphere were stripped from the planet, the underground gradient would hardly, noticeably, change.

        • JWrenn

          No the surface temperature is not determined by the “underground equilibrium gradient”. It is determined by weather patterns and the energy from our sun.
          Where the hell did you get this idea?

          • Gallilao

            This is not an idea it is a scientific fact that can be proven anywhere. IT is fundamental to the design and installation of geothermal heat pumps.
            Get an education!

          • JWrenn

            Would love to see this text book. Please show me the way.

          • Gallilao

            Google, “International ground source heat pump association”

          • JWrenn

            Yes…geothermal is a thing. No geothermal does not control the global temperature of the atmosphere. Two completely separate systems that occasionally interact. What you told me to search does not say anywhere that the core of our earth controls the temperature of the air.

          • Gallilao

            How would you know? You are an uneducated American, your ignorance of science is a globally established fact!

          • JWrenn

            On average sure, American’s suck at science. Peaks and valleys my friend, peaks and valleys.

            Coming from someone who thinks the entire atmosphere is heated by geothermal….well let’s just say I am not too worried about it.

          • Gallilao

            Good to hear! There is after all, nothing to worry about!
            Glad you got the message.

  • Daryl Larsen

    Two points. One, on a geological timescale, 2000 years is an eye blink. Two, as long as this continues, there is nothing that’s going to stop it:

    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

  • Gentlemanandscholar

    Did I miss all the suggestions as to what we could possibly do to change the situation? The doomsayers never seem to come up with that… And of course, the United States is one of the most environmentally friendly countries in the world.

    • OWilson

      You are not paying attention. :)

      The U.N., who officially gave you “Global Warming”, co-incidently is demanding $trillions in “Climate Reparations” from the developed countries to the third world.

      $1,500,000,000.00 per year to genocidal dictator Robert Mugabe of Zimbwabe, alone! :)

      That’s what all those Paris “Accords” are all about.

      But it’s just classic Marxism!

      • Mike Richardson

        Article cites numerous studies, peer-reviewed research, and voluminous data points to support a position that should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem, and once again you respond with: “B-b-but Roy Mugabe! The U.N.! Marxists and libruls!” But of course, no actual science -based rebuttal. Outstanding. Keep up the good work! 😂

        • wholekraft

          Unprecedented warming in last 2000 years, insinuates that warming could have been greater in times more than 2000 years ago. If we have been here 200,000 years or more, we must have survived those earlier periods of warming, you know, the ones that were not caused by man but by natural shifts in global temperatures. Global warming is not the end of the world. We either move to higher ground and buy more sun screen, or we tell the Dutch we want them to build dikes on every coastline. Chicken Little’s scream – but the sky hasn’t fallen. I am more worried about the world wide population explosion than global warming.

          • OWilson

            You read this guy perfectly!

            Mike Richardson is a chicken little screamer.

            He lives on the low coastal plain in Louisiana, and gets flooded out, so he tells us, then he rebuilds on the same spot and waits for the next deluge!

            He blames global warming for his sad circumstance! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            But Ol’ Wilson’s never been the victim of weather, such as blizzards and blackouts, right? Still manages to make every post into a hysterical right-wing political screed, though, rather than acknowledge the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s thermostat. You’re pretty easy to figure out, too, buddy, and always good for a laugh. 😄

          • OWilson

            Bye Mikey!

          • wholekraft

            Blizzards have been a fact for millions of years, so have floods (read the bible and other historical texts). The Sun has tinkered with our planet’s thermostat since the earth was created. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than today, a fact proven by Antarctic Ice core studies. The sky isn’t falling, it’s changing and we adapt. All the screaming does is make Al Gore, James Cameron, Warren Buffett, and other Global Warming screamers richer.

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow, you’re doing an awesome impression of Ol’ Wilson, which of course he appreciates. I guess I have to yield, since you invoked the Bible and Al Gore in your response. There’s no way facts and logic can compete with that kind of “reasoning.”

          • Mike Richardson

            You this I those two problems aren’t related? The more people you have, the more impact they produce on the environment — and the harder it is to “move to higher ground.”

        • OWilson

          “Peer reviewed” studies find that Kim Il Un is a Prince on Earth, sent down from Heaven by his Father the God of Love for His People! :)

          “Peer reviewed” studies reveal he’s a decent golfer, too! Shot 6 Holes in One, his first time out! :)

          “Peer reviewed” studies also showed that Obama and Al Gore deserved their Nobel prizes, and the NYT commie “economist” Krugman, who said it wasn’t possible that Trump could hit 3% GDP, deserved his Nobel Prize too!

          “Peer review” also allows Hollywood to routinely give out Oscars to noted rapists and pedophiles! and “Peer review” gives the highest journalism Awards to Dan Rather, Matt Laur, Walter Durante, Judith Miller, Brian Williams.

          I wouldn’t trust your peers, anymore than you would trust mine!

          Time to grow up and think for yourself, Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            There’s a good reason nobody should trust you or your peers, as you’ve demonstrated in your ranting politicized posts that continually demonstrate a complete lack of objectivity or balance. You believe that virtually all the scientists studying climate change are wrong, but your opinion supported by the barest cherry picked data points is more valid because you “think for yourself?” I think for myself, too, and I’m thinking you’re nuts.

          • OWilson

            Enjoy your thoughts!

            Bye!

          • Mike Richardson

            I also enjoy having you support those thoughts with your own words, then turn tail in a lame attempt to have the last word. Later, gator. 😀

          • OWilson

            We are boring the science fans.

            Time to go, Mikey.

            Say something nice, like bye!

            Or do you always have to be led to the door when the party is actually over?

    • JohnnyXride

      Gentlemanandscholar, there are an overwhelming number of documents outlining steps to be taken to address the issue. May I suggest Googling the subject – you will spend hours upon hours reading.There are only two question: whether it is too late to reverse it the path we are on, or merely slow down the transformation; and, second, can we as a global society step up and take a the new path. Can the greater good win out, within the needed time frame, over corporate greed, short-sighted political perspectives, and social indifference?

      • Gentlemanandscholar

        Is it going to snow on Christmas Day in Charleston West Virginia?

      • wholekraft

        Nope!

  • http://www.NoNutritionFear.com Suzanne Dixon MPH MS RD

    We will be a short-lived species. It’s good to come to terms with this. As a species, we’ve been on the planet (as modern humans) for around 200,000 years. Dinosaurs walked the earth for about 170 million years. That’s MILLION years. In just the last few hundred years, humans have managed to deplete natural resources, pave over vast areas, overpopulate to the point of outstripping the carrying capacity of the planet, trigger the sixth mass extinction, war constantly, and make up stories (religion) to justify our domination. Can anyone honestly picture us lasting 170 million years? Not likely.
    We are headed for the filter:
    https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

    • wholekraft

      Well, isn’t that interesting? We are all shaking in our boots – wading boots!

      • http://www.NoNutritionFear.com Suzanne Dixon MPH MS RD

        No, I’m not shaking in my boots. I think it’s kind of comforting. We are just some dust speck in the entirety of the universe. Humans always like to think they are the center of the universe, but alas, we are not.

  • OWilson

    Does anybody besides me find it hilarious that the snowflakes insist the whole world can actually come together to defeat “global warming”?

    But I guess there’s no Marxist wealth re-distribution and trillions to be soaked up from the dupes, by first using that magic wand on Wars, Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation, and third world Government Corruption.

    Remember the UNited Nations?

    Even they realized that was a fool’s errand years ago!

    Now they keep themselves in diplomatic luxury by forecasting really, really bad weather, a hundred years from now.

    Seems there’s no shortage of tax money for that scam! :)

    Even from countries that are stealing $20,000,000,000,000.00 in National Debts from generations yet unborn!

    • Mike Richardson

      “Marxism!” ” U.N. ” Terrorism! “. I think we’re only missing mention of a Clinton, and someone should win this round of Wilson bingo. 😂

      • OWilson

        As a self admitted Government Swamp worker, shouldn’t you recuse yourself from any discussion on how taxpayer money is spent? Lol !

        • Mike Richardson

          As a taxpayer myself, no I shouldn’t. In fact, I’d like to see more tax money devoted to mental health care here (and in other countries), particularly for the elderly. That’s a rather worthwhile use of tax money, wouldn’t you agree? Or do you need to decide yourself from discussion, given the topic? 😉

          • OWilson

            A great little scam you have going there! :)

            And just where do you get your money from to pay “taxes”? Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            That “scam” is called having a full-time job, even today. A more impressive con is your convincing at least a handful of poorly informed and ideologically blinded folks on the internet that you’re a better source of factual information than scientists who made a career of studying, and the professional journalists who’ve investigated this topic for years. What’s that quote from P.T. Barnum you like so much? 😉

          • OWilson

            You flatter me if you think I am convincing anybody of anything.

            I don’t want other people to do what I want, I don’t tell them how to live, how to eat, what to drive, or jail them for their beliefs.

            That’s YOUR side! Lol

            Bye!

          • Mike Richardson

            “I don’t want other people to do what I want, I don’t tell them how to live, how to eat, what to drive, or even want to jail them for their beliefs.”

            — except you do a whole lot of preaching about what you think is “wrong,” and how people should think and act. And regarding incarceration , you have on many occasions suggested that folks reporting on climate change should be “locked up” for metaphorically shouting fire in a crowded theater. You, like many conservatives, also show no hesitation to suggest legislating your own narrowly defined view of “morality,” ( i.e. Roy Moore, Rick Santorum — and I’m sure you’ve got similar folks in smaller numbers operating in Canada, too).

            In short, you’re a liar.

          • OWilson

            The secret word is “metaphorically”, Mikey

            You dont understand satire, Mikey. Leftist and Fascists never did have a sense of humor! :)

            Your preferred candidate Bernie Sanders wanted to bring all “climate deniers” to justice, and thanks to Leftists like you, he could easily have been given the political power to do just that!

            Your 22 Left Wing State Attornies General were chomping at the bit to jail any deniers of the government dogma “settled science”.

            Thank god Trump won :)

            Your soap won’t sell, you socialist fool! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            “You socialist fool!”

            Well, somebody’s getting a little irate. I get it, you don’t like having your dishonesty and hypocrisy acknowledged. My advice — suck it up, buttercup. If you insist on using this as a forum to post misinformation and partisan praise of predators, you can expect to be called on it. Now head off to your safe space, again. 😉

          • OWilson

            Bye Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Oh, Wilson, I don’t “let” you make your points. As bad as they reflect on you, I heartily encourage you to make them! Whether it’s your blatant and obvious distortions of science or troubling views on predators, you can’t help but make yourself look worse with each post. And I mightily appreciate the irony of you accusing others of “trolling,” and ” stalking, ” in light of your own behavior. You are posting in a public forum open to responses, after all. This must be more of that “satire” you’ve mentioned, I take it. So long for now, and please have the last word. I insist. 😉

          • OWilson

            Ok

            You are an idiot, and a complete waste of time!

  • OWilson

    Here’s the Real News for Fake News Media followers:

    FACT

    According to the Complete NOAA Satellite Record of the Global Lower Trophosphere (that’s where you and I live!) the global warming anomaly as of November 30, 2017 (38 years) is 0.36 degrees.

    Do the math! Even without the huge margin of error, or another pause, that’s 0.78 degrees by the year 2100.

    Scientifically statistically insignificant!

    The Left and their Fake News enablers, would rather have you arguing about “Solutions”, than seeing that there IS no problem.

    The Global Warming Emperor is actually naked!

    The Hollywood, Washington, and Fake News Media Swamps have
    just taken a huge hit.

    When this self flaggelating orgy comes to climatology there will be folks coming forward faster than starlets in Weinstein’s stable!

    Lol!

    • Mike Richardson

      FACT

      Wilson is full of baloney, as the same NOAA cited in his response produced the data and analysis described in the article above, pointing out quite the opposite of “insignificant” warming and it’s effects. And NOAA’s satellite data is perhaps the weakest argument to use, as it’s somewhat suspect with regards to accuracy — I’ve provided that link to a helpful research paper describing why:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

      But NOAA fortunately has accurate data collected from the planet’s surface (that’s where most of us actually live), which supports the findings described in Tom’s article. Of course, if you’re accusing him of posting “Fake News,” you might want to provide a more substantive case.

      Finally, to address your tangential jab at “self-flaggelating”– it’s called holding suspected predators accountable, something those awful leftists actually practice. Funny you didn’t mention Roy Moore or Donald Trump in your tirade, as a good way for the right to ever acquire any moral credibility would be to attempt the same thing. But we better not hold our breath waiting for that any time soon, eh? About as likely as far right partisans developing credibility with regards to scientific issues or sane fiscal policy. 😀

      • OWilson

        Ancient tidal guages, ancient tree rings, ice cores and steampship intake valve records are no longer required to guess at temperatures from 1850 :)

        We have 38 years of benchmark satellite testing. 30 years of records is defined as climate!

        As for you naming Roy Moore, and Donald Trump, they are innocent until proven guilty!

        Unlike the guy you leftists were so anxious to get back in the White House, who dropped his pants in front of State Empoyee Paula Jones and ordered her to, “Kiss it!|

        • Mike Richardson

          “Bill Clinton,” – – I call bingo! Funny, you’re fine with the impeachment of Clinton, yet any suggestion that (after a proper investigation) Trump might face the same for possible obstruction of justice and betraying the interest of this country to Russia is a terrible affront to a “duly elected” leader. As for the “innuendo,” I don’t think it’s far-fetched to accept the credible and consistent statements of numerous women versus the denials of a proven pathological liar (who bragged he could “grab ’em by the_____ “) and a guy banned from the local mall for creeping on teenage girls. But you only seem bothered by sexual predators on the left — do you give an automatic pass to any one who happens to be conservative? Would you be cool with an accused creep dating your daughter if he was conservative, or would that get a pass from you, another proudly self-identified conservative? The partisan hypocrisy you display is truly astounding.

          Back to the topic of the article, it is duly noted that you continue to cherry pick satellite data with questionable accuracy, while attempting (rather poorly) to downplay the vast amount of other empirical evidence contradicting your position. You really do have a problem with trying to defend the indefensible, don’t you?

          • OWilson

            I wouldn’t want Slick Willie back in the White House, so we don’t have anything in common, obviously.

            Bragging is NOT a criminal offense!

            Meanwhile yet another Leftist Icon, Matthews, goes down today!

            You are preaching to the wrong choir, Mikey :)

            Thank Trump for Draining the Hollywood, Washington and Fake NewsMedia Swamp!

            In such a short time, too!

            When the Clinton Criminal Enterprise were in power, nobody who valued their safety, or career would have dared come forward.

            (must give a shout out to Democrat Donna Brazille too, who finally drove a stake in the Clinton political aspirations, by exposing the Clinton dirty DNC tricks.)

          • Mike Richardson

            You’re the one who wanted to go off on this tangent, and prove to everyone just how limitless your hypocrisy is. I don’t recall ever defending Bill Clinton, but Sean Hannity couldn’t do a better job of cheerleading Trump than you.

            “Bragging is NOT a criminal offense!” — No, but the action about which he bragged, sexual assault, IS.

            That you apparently don’t care about that fact says a great deal about you as a person, unfortunately. And unlike you, I won’t defend any man who brags about that. Left, right, or center, politics is irrelevant when it comes to this subject, and all should be held equally accountable. Given your response, I think I have my answer regarding how you’d respond if were your daughter, sadly. I can only feel sorry for her and any other woman in your life, since you apparently believe old conservative men are above suspicion regardless of how credible the accusations are. Truly disturbing. You would have done better to stick to the topic here, I think.

          • OWilson

            Funny, I don’t recall you ever criticizing a Democrat for their “behavior” Lol!

            Where did you take Slick Willie to task, again? Hillary? Ted “pants down” Kennedy?

            You know you are obsessed only with Trump, despite your slithering attempt to jump on the latest bandwagon.

            But now Trump has made it ok to for folks to come forward safely, and tell the truth, you don’t want to be left behind holding the bag, yet again!

            That’s why I named you “Me Too Mikey”, years ago!

            Thanks for the laugh! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            I don’t expect you to criticize a Republican indecent behavior, but it would be nice if you didn’t excuse it or fawn over them as a gift from god.

            “But now Trump has made it ok for folks to come forward safely, and tell the truth…”. – – this must be that “satire” to which you’ve referred. A man with a chronic aversion to telling the truth should be credited with encouraging others to do so in reaction? That’s like crediting you with increasing climate change awareness as people easily counter the disinformation you post here. It isn’t a virtue to cause people to do the right thing in response to bad behavior, you know. 😁

          • OWilson

            Bye!

          • Mike Richardson

            Till next you emerge from your safe space to deny reality and basic human decency, goodbye. Or in other words, see you soon! 😁

          • OWilson

            Please try to find someone else to give you a little attention?

            I can only do so much for you!

  • Dennis Rojo

    So lets say it’s true that the planet is warming faster than the “normal” warm up of the inter-glacial period (15K years ago, a mere blink of an eye in geologic terms, Denver and Chicago were under a mile of ice). What do we do? Tell the whole world, that’s it, no more burning fossil fuels..next Tuesday! Talk about mass extinction. 2/3 of the world is dying (literally) to have indoor plumbing, a light bulb or two in their mud hut, and maybe some clean drinking water. Renewable sources now only product at best 10 to 20% of the power we want (I didn’t say need). Germany is covered in wind turbines now (they could use more wind). Rolling blackouts are coming, when they shut down their nuclear plants in a few years…watch. But I have faith in science and the free market, those two things have pulled us out of abject poverty and a very short life span in just a few centuries. L.E.D. lights use 5 % of the power of Edison’s creation, that’s just a start. Millions of older homes could use lots more insulation. Maybe we can’t stop the change completely, but we will survive. New York as a new Venice, that might be charming really. Move to higher ground, you’ve got a 100 or more years, and new sources of clean energy are out there, lets find them, and more ways to conserve.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+