Another "inconvenient truth:" 2006 was the warmest year on record

By: Terry85
Published On: 1/10/2007 12:17:36 PM


I wrote a brief entry on the weather the other night, and now, I offer more proof that global warming is indeed REAL.  In 2006, the federal government reports that temperatures in the United States were the warmest ever recorded:

Last year was the warmest on record in the continental United States, the federal government reported Tuesday, attributing the temperatures to the natural El Nino cycle as well as to long-term warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In a statement released by the National Climatic Data Center, BOTH 1998 and 2006 were about 2.2 degrees above the 20th century mean average of 55 degrees Fahrenheit.  They also said in the statement that the last nine years have been:

"Among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record. After a cold start to December, the persistence of spring-like temperatures in the eastern two-thirds of the country during the final two to three weeks of 2006 made this the fourth warmest December on record in the U.S., and helped bring the annual average to record high levels."

Among the most above average cities in the United States were Boston which averaged eight degrees above normal, Minneapolis-St Paul averaged 17 degrees above average the last three weeks of 2006, and EVEN DENVER saw temperatures average 1.4 degrees warmer than the 1971-2000 average, despite it's third snowiest December on record (meaning I don't want to get any comments from anyone saying "there's no such thing, look how much snow Denver is getting")

Five states GÇö Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire GÇö had their warmest December on record and no state was colder than average in December, the center added.

According to the MSNBC article online:

The center said that a moderate El Nino, a periodic Pacific Ocean pattern that affects weather worldwide, had limited Arctic blasts across the continental United States.

"A contributing factor ... also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases," it added.

But here's the kicker:

A key greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which cars and industry emit by burning fossil fuel. The gases add to a natural greenhouse effect around Earth that traps in heat. Many scientists fear that humans are adding too much on top of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased by 30 percent since the start of the industrial revolution, and that has paralleled a warming trend.

Of course, as we are all well aware, the Bush administration simply refuses to require emissions restrictions, for fear it will hurt the economy Bush's friends in big business, most notably BIG OIL.

Worldwide, 2006 was the fourth warmest on record.  On top of that, Britain's National Weather Service has predicted that 2007 will be the warmest on record GLOBALLY.

I'll close the same way I did in my post on Saturday: I seriously weep for our planet today.

Cross posted at both Daily Kos, and The Liberal Progressive!


Comments



I saw a piece on Olberrmann (phriendlyjaime - 1/10/2007 12:41:54 PM)
about sea lions (otters, maybe) in VA Beach who were so warm, tons and tons of ice needed to be added to their pools.  Very sad.


It is (Terry85 - 1/10/2007 12:56:29 PM)
indeed.  The thing that REALLY gets to me is when it's 80 degrees day after day after day, then all of a sudden we have a day where it's a little chilly and Republicans holler "GLOBAL WARMIN' IS FAKE!"

UGH!!!!  Ignorance is so sad.



It's not really "ignorance" (Lowell - 1/10/2007 1:04:14 PM)
This is an orchestrated effort, led by oil companies such as ExxonMobil, to fund global warming "skeptics" in order to put off action and keep their enormous profits rolling in.  That's right, companies like ExxonMobil, and the politicians (overwhelmingly Republican) value profits over polar bears, their personal financial portfolios over the planet's future.  I believe there's a word for people like that, and I believe it starts with the letters E...V...I...


I was referring... (Terry85 - 1/10/2007 1:17:50 PM)
more to regular citizens who believe the lies.  Everybody KNOWS ExxonMobile are some of the most vile people on the planet.


The strange Dichotomy (Caesonia - 1/10/2007 1:59:16 PM)
We should be wary about always instantly guessing what we think the oil companies want. To presume they hate emissions controls ignores the fact that many emissions systems lower fuel mileage. Hard to believe, but true. Over the years we have seen many cars that were far more fuel efficient than people would guess- a 122 Volvo that could give you 30 MPG on the highway. And of course the famous Toyota Corolla with its ungodly wonderful fuel mileage all those years ago.

Oil companies also know that when prices stay high for a certain period of time, the market will adjust, and their prices will be foreced down for the long term, as consumption as a whole drops due to technology investments. It will take a generation for that technology to be used up,as they learned in the 80's.

The auto companies are the ones to resist change when it comes to emissions more than oil companies.

Ultimately,I cannot entirely blame the big companies for this. Americans wanted to buy SUVs and inefficient cars because they fell for the hype that they couldn't handle an inch of snow without it, and they wanted big whales to drive. They wanted to drive everywhere, and thought public transportation was just a bunch of 'socialism'. Gas prices had been in a very steady decline becuase China had been kept at bay, and we had been driving very fuel efficient cars.

It isn't enough to blame the companies, who will adapt or die, as hard as they are fighting- and I AM angry at them for their greed since what profits they are making are going to about 1% of this nation- we must also blame ourselves as a society for being all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME. And I am sorry, I see a lot of that even here on RK.

When we as a society start demanding more efficient items, no matter what Bush says, industry will be forced to bend. And frankly, as they outsource jobs, and leave with those jobs, the talent left behind can be just the people to capitalize on that very change.

I am not trying to argue with you, just trying to bring a perspective that occasionally gets lost.



Take action right NOW!!! (Lowell - 1/10/2007 1:11:53 PM)
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network" is pushing hard for Virginia to adopt a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2007.  Currently, 22 states and the District of Columbia have RPS's, but not Virginia.  Well, that's got to change.  Call or write your state legislators right now!  The necessary information to do so is available here.  And while you're at it, tell them to pass some serious incentives (e.g., tax credits to homeowners and businesses) and standards (e.g., all government buildings must meet LEED standards) for energy efficiency improvements in Virginia.


And once again.. (Terry85 - 1/10/2007 1:29:09 PM)
Thanks for promoting this Lowell, I  can tell it's probably an issue you are as deeply concerned about as I.


Saturday was not Global Warning (code - 1/10/2007 5:58:39 PM)
Look, I'm an environmentalist, but there's been a lot of chatter on this blog and others about how warm it was Saturday and how that's indicative of global warming. It's not, really. And I'm getting bothered by people who purport to be anti-global-warming, but don't really understand what it is.

Global warming is not a warm day in January. In fact, Saturday wasn't the high for Jan. 6 (1950 was), and that warm day was a direct result of El Nino currents in the Pacific. I'll give you that wetaher is a complex phenonemon, and global warming may very well have to with with warmer than average temps this winter, but people need to stop balking at a warm winter's day. Global warming doesn't make 1 particular day 30 degrees warmer than average.

Global Warming is far more insidious. It's when that warm day in Jan is a degree or 2 warmer than the one 5 years before that nobody remembers. It's the average temps of the earth rising very slowly, on the order of fractions of a degree per year. That's what causes glaciers to melt. That's what endangers polar bears.

That's why articles like this are so important. 2006 being the warmest year on record isn't even in itself disturbing (1950 was a warm year). What is bad is that recent years have been the warmest collectively, and the overall trend is towards slightly warmer.

I know it's knit-picky, but if we want the Republicans to help us do something about it we have to be serious scientists and not say silly things like "If you don't believe in global warming, just look at Saturday!" There are always warm days in the winter, you just don't remember them from year-to-year. That's why scientific evidence will always win over anecdotal.



Good points. (Lowell - 1/10/2007 6:04:08 PM)
I'm an environmentalist too, and I studied some metereology in a special program during High School.  You are totally correct that one day, one week, one month, or even one year doesn't prove anything.  However, changes over decades are harder to ignore.  And, as you know, scientists now have overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources and methods that the earth's climate is warming, with already-troublesome and potentially catastrophic consequences.  The bottom line is that we are performing an enormous uncontrolled experiment on planet earth by pumping billions of tons of stored C02 into the atmosphere each year.  Seems to me that it's time to reverse this experiment, before we live to seriously regret it.


First (Terry85 - 1/10/2007 6:10:07 PM)
of all, not trying to be rude, but I don't buy you're an environmentalist for a second.  Second of all, Saturday WAS a record high day, tying the previous high.  Third, NO ONE SAID that just because Saturday was warm, it's GLOBAL WARMING.  My entry gave LOOOOOONG historical trends PROVING that global warming IS REAL.

STOP dancing around the facts, I, and everyone else, are getting tired of correcting you all.

"Anti global warming" indeed.



Wow (code - 1/10/2007 6:24:44 PM)
Didn't mean to illicit such a vehement reposnse. I am a serious environmentalist, and am saddened to be accused otherwise. Not dancing around the facts, either. But I'm also a scientist and a realist.

You're absolutely correct. And I wasn't knocking this post at all. I was actually responding to some of the comments and the article from earlier this week. I said "That's why this article is so important" (perhaps you missed that). I have been sick of all my friends this week, though, saying that Saturday was global warming.

Global warming is a scientific fact. Science above all! Policy with scientific backing! Let's not heatedly debate the issue. All we have to do is ask the 99% of scientists who agree, case closed. And really, there's not much debate in the scientific community about the human causes of global warming, either.

So, yeah. Global warming is real, it's bad, it must be stopped. No argument. Wasn't my point, though. We're all on the same side.



i feel the same way you do (Jambon - 1/10/2007 6:59:08 PM)
about the average person tying the recent warm weather to "global warming". you are correct to point out that it may or may not having anything to do with global warming technically speaking. 

Still, if 70 degree weather in January is freaking people out enough to go rent "An Inconvenient Truth", then it's a good thing in my eyes! 

 



Agreed. (Lowell - 1/10/2007 7:08:34 PM)
Anything to get peoples' attention and get them motivated to slash their energy consumption.  By the way, I've got compact fluorescent bulbs throughout my house, and they work great!


Terry, I don't think (Jambon - 1/10/2007 6:43:16 PM)
the poster was "dancing around the facts".  They were simply disagreeing about technical specifics of your analysis. 


I didn't.. (Terry85 - 1/11/2007 12:00:09 AM)
do the study, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID.  I am just simply AMAAAAZED that people are still trying to deny Global warming exist on SOME level.