NOAA: 2012 was warmest year ever for US, second most 'extreme'

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.2 degrees above normal and a full degree higher than the previous warmest year recorded -- 1998 -- NOAA said in its report Tuesday. All 48 states in the contiguous U.S. had above-average annual temperatures last year, including 19 that broke annual records, from Connecticut through Utah.

My link

[NorthernVike 2,080]

I luv me some global warming

[drobeski 3,061]

Bring it on, i love year round golf.

I recycle nothing, drive a gas guzzling f150, smoke butts and spray aerosol cans into the atmosphere for the fockity fock of it.

Fellow golfers up here in the northeast, are you doing your part ?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Cool.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Bring it on, i love year round golf.

I recycle nothing, drive a gas guzzling f150, smoke butts and spray aerosol cans into the atmosphere for the fockity fock of it.

Fellow golfers up here in the northeast, are you doing your part ?

We're doing our part up here in Northern Minny.

 

 

 

Too bad man's contribution is overblown or we could actually help mother nature along. The more 80 degree days the better.

[KSB2424 3,083]

It's supposed to be 72 degrees and sunny this Saturday. I've got a 9:50am tee time already lined up. May try to get 27 holes in.

 

On a serious note, Climate Change and man made global warming are two different things. Until we can determine that man is actually causing the change (at least at a statistically significant number) then I don't really think our government should get involved all that much. Now don't get me wrong. We all like clean air and don't like trash on the side of the road. It's great to push for recycling, energy independence and using less. However there is no need to for cap and trade or tax breaks for using solar panels etc.

[Mungwater 588]

I have a marathon to run Sunday, but it's in Houston it's always warm here..

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You don't read well do you...

[FeelingMN 273]

Hmmmmm......RP deletes better than he reads. Whouda thunk it?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How's the weather in Australia?

[gocolts 300]

a full degree higher than the previous warmest year recorded

Really??? I thought they kept telling us that a full degree higher over 100 years would be catastrophic. We went a full degree higher in a single year and the only thing that happened was my cooling bill went up.

[drobeski 3,061]

This thread is hot

[FeelingMN 273]

Really??? I thought they kept telling us that a full degree higher over 100 years would be catastrophic. We went a full degree higher in a single year and the only thing that happened was my cooling bill went up.

 

Apparently the normal average is 52.1. If, after 100 years the new normal is 53.1, we could be toast. 2012 by itself won't have that much effect on the overall average, but the recent trend shows that the average could increase.

 

Basically, any one yearly average.....ratsass. But the average over all the years is a big deal. If that starts to shoot up, there could be bigger problems than cooling bills going up.

 

[cbfalcon 824]

It's supposed to be 72 degrees and sunny this Saturday. I've got a 9:50am tee time already lined up. May try to get 27 holes in.

 

On a serious note, Climate Change and man made global warming are two different things. Until we can determine that man is actually causing the change (at least at a statistically significant number) then I don't really think our government should get involved all that much. Now don't get me wrong. We all like clean air and don't like trash on the side of the road. It's great to push for recycling, energy independence and using less. However there is no need to for cap and trade or tax breaks for using solar panels etc.

 

My feelings have always been: I have no idea if man is causing climate change. But what's the harm in erring on the side of caution? I'm ok with green legislation.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Apparently the normal average is 52.1. If, after 100 years the new normal is 53.1, we could be toast. 2012 by itself won't have that much effect on the overall average, but the recent trend shows that the average could increase.

 

Basically, any one yearly average.....ratsass. But the average over all the years is a big deal. If that starts to shoot up, there could be bigger problems than cooling bills going up.

 

 

I think you'll find it would be easier to explain this to a cat than GoColts...but hey, knock yourself out.

[Voltaire 4,563]

How's the weather in Australia?

Deep Purple isn't just an awesome '70s band.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/08/australia-is-so-hot-they-had-to-add-new-colors-to-the-weather-map/

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

I think you'll find it would be easier to explain this to a cat than GoColts...but hey, knock yourself out.

 

 

Why does everybody pick on Sux?

[pimptastic69 0]

My feelings have always been: I have no idea if man is causing climate change. But what's the harm in erring on the side of caution? I'm ok with green legislation.

 

"Green Legislation" aka "Show me the money!!!!"

[RLLD 3,455]

Here is all you need to know, on one side you have coal and oil fighting any notion of alternative energy, you have investors with their back doing just about anything they can to ensure the cash cow stays intact. If they could make a few pennies more on alternative energy, you would see a swarm of propoganda about how better it was than carbon-based energy; in short, they dont give a rats ass about your quality of life, or that of our kids and beyond, they want to fatten their bank accounts so that money can sit there and make them feel important.

 

On the other side you have eco-green weenies who want to save our environment and have no care at all about the costs, it is true that carbon-based fuels are the only legitimate answer right now, mainly because those in power suffocate any potential alternative. These people understand that not only are we fighting to avoid catastrophe within 100 years, we are also fighting to setup the next stage of human success when carbon-based fuels are gone.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Here is all you need to know, on one side you have coal and oil fighting any notion of alternative energy, you have investors with their back doing just about anything they can to ensure the cash cow stays intact. If they could make a few pennies more on alternative energy, you would see a swarm of propoganda about how better it was than carbon-based energy; in short, they dont give a rats ass about your quality of life, or that of our kids and beyond, they want to fatten their bank accounts so that money can sit there and make them feel important.

 

On the other side you have eco-green weenies who want to save our environment and have no care at all about the costs, it is true that carbon-based fuels are the only legitimate answer right now, mainly because those in power suffocate any potential alternative. These people understand that not only are we fighting to avoid catastrophe within 100 years, we are also fighting to setup the next stage of human success when carbon-based fuels are gone.

No, that's not all I need to know. Sorry.

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

Here is all you need to know, on one side you have coal and oil fighting any notion of alternative energy, you have investors with their back doing just about anything they can to ensure the cash cow stays intact. If they could make a few pennies more on alternative energy, you would see a swarm of propoganda about how better it was than carbon-based energy; in short, they dont give a rats ass about your quality of life, or that of our kids and beyond, they want to fatten their bank accounts so that money can sit there and make them feel important.

 

On the other side you have eco-green weenies who want to save our environment and have no care at all about the costs, it is true that carbon-based fuels are the only legitimate answer right now, mainly because those in power suffocate any potential alternative. These people understand that not only are we fighting to avoid catastrophe within 100 years, we are also fighting to setup the next stage of human success when carbon-based fuels are gone.

 

 

The problem is that the environmentalists push solar and wind instead of the most viable form of carbon free energy, nuclear power. If the environmentalists supported nuclear power they would be met with less resistance from the right and would get more accomplished in reducing america's carbon footprint.

[jerryskids 5,207]

Well, it isn't because of our carbon footprint, because we've reduced that more than anyone thanks to cheap natural gas through fracking.

 

 

 

Weather conditions around the world this summer have provided ample fodder for the global warming debate. Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.

 

But, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.

 

 

The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45 percent less carbon per energy unit. The U.S. used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20 percent from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.

 

America’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.

 

For starters, fracking has caused gas prices to drop dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, natural gas has not been this cheap for the past 35 years, with the price this year three to five times lower than it was in the mid-2000s. And, while a flagging economy may explain a small portion of the drop in U.S. carbon emissions, the EIA emphasizes that the major explanation is natural gas.

 

 

The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the U.S. population over the past two decades. Indeed, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped about 20 percent per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.

 

David Victor, an energy expert at UC-San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced U.S. emissions by 400 to 500 megatons CO₂ per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

 

 

It is tempting to believe that renewable energy sources are responsible for emissions reductions, but the numbers clearly say otherwise. Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO₂ per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-10^th the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only 10 megatons, and solar panels by a paltry three megatons.

 

This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions—through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax—is the only way to combat climate change.

 

But, based on Europe’s experience, such policies are precisely the wrong way to address global warming. Since 1990, the EU has heavily subsidized solar and wind energy at a cost of more than $20 billion annually. Yet its per capita CO₂ emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the U.S.—even in percentage terms, the U.S. is now doing better.

 

Because of broad European skepticism about fracking, there is no gas miracle in the EU, while the abundance of heavily subsidized renewables has caused overachievement of the CO₂ target. Along with the closure of German nuclear power stations, this has led, ironically, to a resurgence of coal.

 

 

Well-meaning U.S. politicians have likewise shown how not to tackle global warming with subsidies and tax breaks. The relatively small reduction in emissions achieved through wind power costs more than $3.3 billion annually, and far smaller reductions from ethanol (biofuels) and solar panels cost at least $8.5 and $3 billion annually.

 

Estimates suggest that using carbon taxes to achieve a further 330-megaton CO₂ reduction in the EU would cost $250 billion per year. Meanwhile, the fracking bonanza in the U.S. not only delivers a much greater reduction for free, but also creates long-term social benefits through lower energy costs.

 

 

The amazing truth is that fracking has succeeded where Kyoto and carbon taxes have failed. As shown in a study by the Breakthrough Institute, fracking was built on substantial government investment in technological innovation for three decades.

 

Climate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests.

 

 

Fracking is not a panacea, but it really is by far this decade’s best green-energy option.

 

 

My link

[Reality 2,710]

EVER

 

 

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

EVER

 

 

 

 

Well, at least in the last 118 years.

 

Honcho must be a member of one of those cults that thinks the world was created 118 years ago.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+age+north+america+pic&qpvt=ice+age+north+america+pic&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=5BF7525B6B40B2D01D2306F0894C66FCD85A26F5&selectedIndex=25