Climate Change in the State of the Union:

Posted byScience on Google+ 40 Comments on Climate Change in the State of the Union:

Climate Change in the State of the Union:

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.

Originally shared by Jason Davison

State of the Union 2015: Obama

No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change

This year President Obama identified climate change as the greatest threat to future generations, and I agree with him. While the President is not a scientist, he identified the brilliant scientists that we have in NASA, NOAA and our university system. 

Obama also used a fantastic statistic, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century. Climate change is happening today, we do not need any more proof.

Climate speech:

And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.

2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

#ClimateChange  

#Science  

#stateoftheunion  

#STOTU  

http://youtu.be/Z8LqG_Ld0Dw?t=1h4m30s//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js

Join the Conversation

40 Comments

  1. The great thing about the world is that there are more than one parts of it. 

    Just because your (Andrew Helyer) part the world is colder than average doesn’t mean the rest of the world is colder than average. 

    Like

    Reply
  2. Reply

  3. Andrew Helyer better still, learn how warming the planet causes greater extremes of both heat and cold – the climate is less stable.

    Also we in the rest of the world don’t give a f*** how much snow you have right now. Its very hot here. Just possibly this isnt about you. Enjoy.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Reply

  5. Glad to see this and about time too. As for weather comments, last decent winter with plenty of snow, as we were used to and liked it  here, was over 20 years ago. It feels as if every winter loses more teeth and ski-lift operators. We even get winters with almost no  traffic disruption, due to the snow, despite our road cleaning service being ready to be surprised, as always. Our kids don’t know how to ski anymore, it’s slowly getting our of our way of living.

    I could go on for a while, but then i’d had to check on some real evidence, not only anecdotal and i don’t feel as if repeating one more time things which has been said too many times already, will make any difference.

    But this speech might, though i don’t have too high hopes, based on history and experience ..

    Like

    Reply
  6. Reply

  7. Andrew Helyer global means you have at average all of the local temperatures.  For your below average week, some other region was having an above average week.  

    Robert Fox that is an area of active research.  Balance it against the Arctic though, the Antarctic gains in sea ice are only about 33% of the Arctic losses in sea ice.  This means that although the Antarctic is breaking records, global sea ice coverage is still decreasing.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Reply
  9. Reply
  10. Reply

  11. Robert Fox for these applications, “climatology” is typically a recent 30-year average.  On the graph I linked the climatology is the average 15% sea ice extent for 1981-2010 (the bold dark line displayed by default) and 1 standard deviation is the shaded region around that climatological mean.  No predictions involved, just an average of empirical data from our recent past.

    Like

    Reply

  12. So add in 2011-2014 at the ice has recovered to be with in the +/- 2 % that includes 15% or more sea ice. So by the empirical data on the cart the oceans are not rising. So that original statement made last night about the oceans keep rising is wrong. 

    Like

    Reply

  13. Robert Fox  Yes, look at the 2011-2014 ice and note that it is at the bottom of the shaded curve which represents -2 sigma (standard deviations).  To be two standard deviations below the mean means that those years are in the bottom 3% of the population. The years still in the shaded region but close to the bottom are slightly more common but still significantly lower than the mean.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Reply

  15. Robert Fox what’s your scientific background and area of research that you feels entitles you to dispute the scientific consensus?

    Your arguments so far aren’t impressive

    I too was a climate change skeptic – I can point you to blog posts to prove it – but I’m also a believer in science as a method of thinking and of advancing humanity.

    If the scientific consensus says one thing, you better be a formidable expert with some compelling new evidence if you think you can dispute it without looking like an arrogant twat.

    Like

    Reply

  16. Andrew Helyer It’s not well known but one of the most comprehensive datasets in the world proving observed climate change is the U.S. Navy’s global ocean temperature and sonar data.

    The Navy was very keen on recording ocean temperature data because of it’s importance to anti-submarine warfare. Now retired naval admirals are some of the strongest advocates for rapid action on climate change. 

    Like

    Reply

  17. Robert Fox why are you looking at sea ice to determine sea level rise?  Sea ice is somewhat negligible to sea level as sea ice isn’t very thick.  While glaciers can be 1000’s of meters thick, sea ice is only 1 – 2 meters thick.  It comes and goes with the seasons and its transient nature along with its small thickness doesn’t impact sea level rise.  If you want to explore sea level rise, look at the empirical data that measures sea level and see how that has changed year to year over.  

    Like

    Reply

  18. Rob England Ah the climate inquisitor is here. If you were in the science field you would understand the first and most fundamental rule in science there is never a consensus on anything. Your question is more of a inquisitor call blasphemy than asking a question. Is it to be the thumb screws or the iron maiden. 

    Like

    Reply

  19. Robert Fox​ if you were in the scientific field you would know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that all science is consensus

    The weight of evidence is that warming is real and anthropogenic. If you are going to assert otherwise you need to do more than cherry pick a few localised phenomena like foxes.

    “scientific”? Laugh

    Like

    Reply
  20. Reply
  21. Reply
  22. Reply
  23. Reply

  24. Rob England i really do not care if the science shows that the climate are changing because of human involvement not. I care about the methodology used to come to that conclusion. what you call bias i call dispassionate scientific approach. the observation from myself and many others do not support the conclusions we are being told in the main stream media. To be a person of science you must not allow passions or emotions to cloud your observations. You show that you are passionate about your cause and that no matter what or who reference i give you it will not be enough that Sir is not science in any era. so you have a good day, END of conversation.    

    Like

    Reply

  25. Robert Fox if you care about the methodology used to reach conclusions, then read the research articles instead of any media outlet (mainstream or otherwise).  The methods are described as part of every paper.  

    You have shown yourself to very vocal of science but lacking in background.  It would be wise to conduct a thorough review of published peer-reviewed literature on the subject instead of consuming whatever the media and random bloggers are telling you to believe.  

    You’ll have a lot more traction in conversation and perhaps become a true skeptic if you could point to specific papers that you have read and understood and make valid criticisms of them.  

    Like

    Reply

  26. Robert Fox You are going to have to explain to us all how the radiative forcing of CO2 added to the atmosphere somehow vanishes. That’s the only way that fossil fuel burning doesn’t cause climate change. 

    It’s called climate change denial for a reason. 

    Like

    Reply

  27. Robert Fox​ Predictions given by PhD’s who have spent the best part of their lives attaining the positions they now hold by spending a butt load of money on education AND hopping on the latest bandwagon…

    …to save the world – or to do what every other human does, trying to become important…?

    That any group of intelligent people say they can predict what an immensely chaotic process our planet represents is a bit narsiccistic, especially since the same group of people cant help predict next weeks weather.

    Our limitless ego is or our greatest challenge….

    Like

    Reply

  28. David Hamm I completely agree. other post  was a rebut to someone else’s post. i lived in japan many years ago and met a old Japanese gentleman on the ome train line. We both missed the last train so had to wait for hours for the next morning. He told me something that has stuck with me to this day. The difference between an intelligent man and a wise man..”An intelligent man buys a book and learns about the world , a wise man go’s into the world then comes back and writes a book”.He also said “It is one of the hardest thing in life to see the world as it is, because most only see with emotion and passion blinds us from what is the real world. Sorry, paraphrasing from Japanese sometime it just does come across the same. I would must rather be a wise man seeing the world for what it is than a intelligent man only seeing what he wishing the world to be. 

    Like

    Reply

  29. You wouldn’t know science if it stood up in your cereal.

    You think climate science is all from books . You have no idea what they do to research or build models.

    You can’t tell the difference between weather (hard to predict for more than a few days) and climate (macro phenomena rubbing over years) so your ignorance is profound.

    And yet you are so staggeringly arrogant as to think you can out-think the millions of people who actually made it though college and study science fulltime. And you have the gall to call othr people narcissic.

    You should stop now, you are making yourselves look like dickheads 

    Like

    Reply
  30. Reply
  31. Reply
  32. Reply
  33. Reply

  34. Michael Neese Once again. When humans burn fossil fuels the resulting CO2 has to, no exceptions, heat the planet if it’s added to the atmosphere. It’s physics and your opinion on it does not matter one bit. It’s as much of a physical fact as gravity. 

    Like

    Reply

  35. John Poteet Except that CO2, while a greenhouse gas, has almost no effect on the environment, water vapor has hundreds of times the effect but no one wants to mention the facts. Seriously, you need to understand what science is before you feign to support it.

    Like

    Reply

  36. Michael Neese oh wow! How amazing that thousands of top scientists, working globally, and meeting regularly under the glare of the world’s leaders and media, could have missed the water vapour. Oh you are a genius! Nobel Prize for you. All bow down.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Reply
  38. Reply
  39. Reply
  40. Reply

Leave a comment

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started