Republicans who expect people to be stupid

Like WILLIAM MCGURN:

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue. Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets. There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

Mcgurn is trying to be dense or misleading or both. Take your pick. (Mcgurn has been a speechwriter for Rupert Murdoch and was Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush). Obama was talking about semantics. Santorum wants to control people's sex lives. Santorum is against birth control, women's access to abortion (even in instances of rape), and gay rights. It is within the context of Santorum's sexview in general that people interpret Santorum's statements. And actually, a lot of people for gay rights thought Obama didn't need to be going into right field - though they knew he wasn't anywhere near as obnoxious as Santorum with his desire to deny people's right to privacy.

"In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003, and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

Santorum is dense enough to think that when the law allows consensual sex between adults that all sex - consensual or not is allowed. This is somehow logical to him. Logic and religion don't generally mix - but in Santorum's case his idea's are so far from logical it boggles the mind. Which is what makes Mcgurn trying to put a logical spin on them is so annoying. (Of course - one can only figure that the corporations want Santorum as their puppet - so Mcgurn, as their spokesperson, will say anything).

IMO, The Wall Street Journal should be boycotted. Not only does it advocate obnoxious right wing viewpoints such as Santorum's (framed by the likes of Mcgurn), the WSJ has also included pro-torture editorials and editorials which try to convince dense people that global warming is a hoax.

The problem is that some of what the WSJ does is very good. It can be considered a reliable source of news. But then they mix in their editorials and the part of the WSJ that is reliable gives credibility to their propaganda and right-wing nonsense. In that way - they can be more dangerous than FOX, which can be ridiculous all the way around (though FOX, too, probably gets people who go there for the news who leave being more ignorant than when they started out - what with FOX's opinion/'news').

"The Testimony Chairman Issa Doesn't Want You to Hear"

Sandra Fluke, a law school student attending Georgetown University

From the LATimes:

This week, there were no women appearing with the first panel before a House committee, which titled its hearings "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State" but that really was about the healthcare overhaul's requirement that employers' health insurance policies cover contraception.

The Democrats’ witness of choice -- a female Georgetown law student whose friend couldn't get access to contraceptive treatment there because of the university's religious affiliation, and who, evidently as a consequence, lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts -- was not permitted to testify. That, according to California Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was because she is not a member of the clergy, unlike the five men who did testify.

A letter to Democratic members from Issa's staff explained the decision not to let the student testify; it said the hearing "is not about reproductive rights but about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience."

Issa's colleague, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, begged to differ: "What I want to know is, where are the women? I look at this panel and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive healthcare services, including family planning.... Of course this hearing is about rights -- contraception and birth control. It's about the fact that women want to have access to basic health services [and] family planning through their insurance plan."

A second panel later in the day included two women chosen by Issa, both from Christian-oriented academic institutions but neither a clergy member. The two Democratic women on the committee, Maloney and the D.C. representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with a male colleague, Mike Quigley of Illinois, walked out of the hearing in protest.

______________________________________

I am upset that Republicans actually seem to believe that the fact that these authoritarian religious men are disturbed by other people's sex lives is a reason to change public policy. The religious beliefs of the women are apparently irrelevant - and yet the men/Republicans cry that this is a violation of religious liberty (for the men). It goes beyond absurd and into the world of disturbing.

Of course the Republicans are also in denial about global warming, overpopulation, over-consumption, etc. It would be nice if they realized that we can't keep having medical technologies prolong life without also have medical technologies that prevent everyone from having 10+ kids.

Some of these people (like the Pope and Santorum) actually believe that people should not be having sex unless they are creating a baby. But really - what does the Pope know about sex? Are any of the Bishops heterosexual? If they have any more hearings, perhaps somebody should ask them why they are so concerned about how much sex other people have (procreationsl or recreational) - when they have decided sex is irrelevant to their lives. And what does their obsession about controlling other's sex lives have to do with spirituality.

"131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds"

From Climate Central:

Weather Anomolies - Winter 2011-12

Europe freezes as America enjoys a mild winter

It’s been a deadly end of January and start to February in Europe, where the cold has killed at least 460 people, according to health officials. The Weather Underground rates it as Europe’s coldest outbreak since at least 1991. The 1,780-mile Danube River — vital for transport, power, irrigation, industry and fishing and nearly as long as the Mississippi River — was wholly or partially iced over from Austria to its mouth on the Black Sea.

Why has Europe been so cold? A large area of high pressure is lodged over Scandinavia and northwestern Russia, allowing the jet stream to flow around its western edge and bring extremely cold, Arctic air down toward the Mediterranean Sea. This cold air has brought snow showers to Rome, frozen Venice’s famous canals and even brought very rare snowfall to northern Africa.

Even as the cold air has invaded Europe, it has remained incredibly warm in the United States, which is having a mild winter. Here’s the contrast on temperatures between the two hemispheres during the first five days of February, from the UK’s Met office:

_________________________________________________________________ Strange Minnesota winter continues MINNEAPOLIS -- Buds on the trees and an overnight grass fire near Hugo and the wild, weird weather trend in Minnesota continues into February. "It's unbelievable," said Lawn Ranger's Todd Dilley.

He chalks this season up as one Minnesota's weather anomalies. His Lawn Ranger snowplows have sat idle for most of the winter.

The greatest snowstorm we've had so far dropped a little over 4 inches back in December. January was one of the driest and warmest on record and despite a cooler temperature here and there, February is on pace for more of the same.

_______________________________________

We have had a weirdly warm winter. We got a couple of inches of snow one day, we had some ice another day. But mostly I am thinking that our weather must be more like what northern Georgia normally gets. Daffodils have bloomed (a couple of them - many have been in bud stage for a couple of weeks or so). Willow trees are coming out. The plants seems to be 4-6 weeks ahead of normal. Also - the ticks never went away. Zuma had ticks in December, January and February - normally we get a reprieve of a couple of months. It's very weird.

"Warmer Planet Could Be Dominated by Mosquitoes, Tics, Rodents and Jellyfish"

Of course we at Universal Jellyfish knew about the jellyfish, ticks, & mosquitoes - rodents is a new one...and swans...(though I doubt that global warming will be good for any mammals in the long run). Article in Scientific American today:

Imagine a planet where jellyfish rule the seas, giant rodents roam the mountains and swarms of insects blur everything in sight. It may sound far-fetched, but enough global warming is likely to change the distribution of wildlife on Earth. While species that are under threat, such as the polar bear, seem to get all the attention, others are beginning to thrive like never before.

In the past three months, new studies have been published about killer whales, wandering albatross and trumpeter swans—all of which appear to be benefiting from climate change.

Melting ice is turning the Arctic Sea into a giant buffet for killer whales. They have been arriving in growing numbers to feed on belugas, seals and narwhals, according to a recent study by scientists from the University of Manitoba. Warmer temperatures make it easier for the whales to hunt because their prey is less likely to climb onto sea ice or hide below it to escape.

At the opposite end of the world, in Antarctica's Southern Ocean, changing winds have been helping the wandering albatross find food faster. Researchers say global warming has produced stronger air currents that allow the birds to spend less time away from their nests, increasing the odds that their chicks will survive.

"The duration of foraging trips has decreased, breeding success has improved and birds have increased in mass by more than 1 kilogram," wrote the study's authors, who called their findings "positive consequences of climate change."

In Arctic areas, global warming is happening at roughly twice the average speed, which has allowed Alaska's trumpeter swans to expand their breeding grounds northward into regions that were previously too cold, according to a study published in Wildlife Biology in December.

....White-tailed deer in the northern United States are already showing a population boom thanks to this year's lack of snowfall, which has made it easier for the animals to find food, said Curtis. He also believes a warmer spring could benefit snakes and salamanders, giving them more time to grow and add to their fat reserves.

...Jellyfish populations are also suspected to be swelling because of climate change. In recent years, the creatures have been clogging the nets of fishermen, stinging record numbers of beachgoers and blocking the water intake lines of power plants in at least three countries. Some scientists are linking the phenomenon to warmer waters and ocean acidification caused by high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Studies have found that today's oceans are 30 percent more acidic than in the 18th century, when the Industrial Revolution began.

...Certain species of insects, like mosquitoes, ticks and invasive beetles, are also expected to benefit from warmer temperatures. In fact, a 2003 study published by the Ecological Society of America concluded that "all aspects of insect outbreak behavior will intensify as the climate warms."

...Future levels of carbon dioxide may help beetles, as well, according to researchers from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who found that Japanese beetles lived longer and laid more eggs after eating leaves that were grown in an environment with additional carbon dioxide.

..."What we really don't know is what the long-term consequences of climate change are," explained Curtis. "There will definitely be winners and losers, and it's hard to predict what some of those will be." He said animals that can migrate—like whales and birds—are more likely to adapt, while species bound to a particular environment, or food source, will face greater challenges.

Even creatures that appear to be benefiting today may not be so lucky in the future. Scientists predict the winds that are helping the wandering albatross will become increasingly violent by the end of the century, threatening the birds' survival. And Colorado's marmots don't easily adapt to heat, so rising temperatures may soon put them—and the plants they eat—at risk.

"It's hard to say if swans will even benefit long-term," said Schmidt, who explained that the ponds they live in may already be drying up. "If those sorts of things are occurring, it might be a zero-sum game. Or it might be negative."

"China Wind Power Capacity Could Reach 1,000 GW By 2050"

Reuters / China's wind power generating capacity, already the world's largest, could reach 1,000 gigawatts by 2050, a study prepared by a think tank of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) showed on Wednesday.

China had more than 41 GW of wind power capacity at the end of 2010.

The potential capacity in 2050 would reduce the country's carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 gigatonnes per year, roughly equivalent to the combined carbon dioxide emissions of Germany, France and Italy in 2009, the study from the Energy Research Institute under the NDRC showed.

The capacity would generate about 17 percent of China's electricity output in 2050, compared a 1 percent share now.

The International Energy Agency provided technical support for the study.

"Jellyfish image wins wildlife prize" UK

An image of a jellyfish captured off a small uninhabited Scottish island has scooped the top £5,000 prize in this year's British Wildlife Photography Awards.

The photograph taken by Richard Shucksmith from Shetland was snapped at Sula Sgeir, which means Gannet Rock, a remote island 41 miles north of Lewis that is home to a wide array of marine life.

Greg Armfield, photography and film manager at wildlife charity WWF, described the shot as "fantastic".

He said it was "a truly beautiful shot of a jellyfish that perfectly captures its iridescent colours and magical qualities; all the more remarkable that it exists in UK waters."

The competition, now in its third year, awards a top prize to the overall winner and also £1,000 of prizes from Canon for 10 categories, ranging from animal portraits and behaviour to landscapes, urban wildlife and the British seasons.

"Mexico's newest export to US: Water"

From msnbc.com:

SAN DIEGO — Mexico ships televisions, cars, sugar and medical equipment to the United States. Soon, it may be sending water north.

Western states are looking south of the border for water to fill drinking glasses, flush toilets and sprinkle lawns, as four major U.S. water districts help plan one of two huge desalination plant proposals in Playas de Rosarito, about 15 miles south of San Diego. Combined, they would produce 150 million gallons a day, enough to supply more than 300,000 homes on both sides of the border.

The plants are one strategy by both countries to wean themselves from the drought-prone Colorado River, which flows 1,450 miles from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez. Decades of friction over the Colorado, in fact, are said to be a hurdle to current desalination negotiations.

The proposed plants have also sparked concerns that American water interests looking to Mexico are simply trying to dodge U.S. environmental reviews and legal challenges.

Desalination plants can blight coastal landscapes, sucking in and killing fish eggs and larvae. They require massive amounts of electricity and dump millions of gallons of brine back into the ocean that can, if not properly disposed, also be harmful to fish.

But desalination has helped quench demand in Australia, Saudi Arabia and other countries lacking fresh water....

Water agencies that supply much of Southern California, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tijuana, Mexico, are pursuing the plant that would produce 50 million gallons a day in Rosarito near an existing electricity plant. They commissioned a study last year that found no fatal flaws and ordered another one that will include a cost estimate, with an eye toward starting operations in three to five years.

Potential disagreements between the two countries include how the new water stores will be used.

The U.S. agencies want to consider helping pay for the plant and letting Mexico keep the water for booming areas of Tijuana and Rosarito. In exchange, Mexico would surrender some of its allotment from the Colorado River, sparing the cost of laying pipes from the plant to California.

Mexico would never give up water from the Colorado, which feeds seven western U.S. states and northwest Mexico, said Jose Gutierrez, assistant director for binational affairs at Mexico's National Water Commission. Mexico's rights are enshrined in a 1944 treaty.

"The treaty carries great significance in our country. We have to protect it fiercely," Gutierrez said.

The San Diego County Water Authority is also considering a plant at Southern California's Camp Pendleton that would produce up to 150 million gallons a day. Poseidon wants to build one in Huntington Beach, near Los Angeles, that would churn out 50 million gallons a day. Those ideas face significant challenges....

The San Diego agency wants to get 10 percent of the region's water from desalination by 2020 as a way to lessen its dependence on the Colorado River, which is connected by aqueduct about 200 miles away. Tijuana also wants to rely less on the river, a priority that gained urgency after a 2010 earthquake knocked out its aqueduct for about three weeks.

Spiritual Atheism

This is partially in response to: "Beyond ‘New Atheism’" in the New York Times - by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

"Kitcher’s secular humanism reanimates the debate, promising much needed serious reflection on whether the divine can or should be eliminated from our moral lives."

What I see as the problem is the divine as being represented by essentially a War God - the War God of the Old Testament. In these debates, many (men, esp.) do not see that that is part of the problem. The problem which many people are rebelling against.

Christianity was liberalized by people who absorbed ideas from old texts from India and other parts of Asia (during the 1800s, 1900s). Transcendence and nature have been considered more important in Asian spirituality than it has in traditional Christianity. So we have liberal Christianity which rejects the ideas of Original Sin and the idea that life and sex are bad. Some Christians, such as those who follow the Pope, and others who take Genesis Literally are more likely to be more attached to the War God - and God as a powerful Male who rules the world.

Religion cannot improve until it leaves such ideas behind - ideas which are really about establishing and maintaining power. A War God is not compatible with the spiritual side of people. The spiritual side of people (right brain thinking - see A Stroke of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, for instance) is about the loss of boundaries, unity with others, peace, love and understanding. And seeing ourselves as part of an amazing universe - not at odds with life - but an integrated part of life. Some gnostics thought along those lines before the Catholic Church put an end to such diversity of thought and spirituality.

Ideas about hell and even heaven are in effect more about the church maintaining power than anything. It is not until all of the power aspects of religions are dropped and life is affirmed - that religion as spirituality can be understood. So it is not a question of the divine being eliminated from our lives - but how we define divine. If life itself is understood to be divine, then there is nothing to eliminate.

"Free to Die"

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.

But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”

...In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Are voters ready to embrace such a radical rejection of the kind of America we’ve all grown up in? I guess we’ll find out next year.

"New atlas shows extent of climate change"

From the Guardian:


In Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, Greenland has lost around 15% of its ice cover between 10th edition (1999) (left) and 13th edition (2011) (right). Photograph: Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World
If you have never heard of Uunartoq Qeqertaq, it's possibly because it's one of the world's newest islands, appearing in 2006 off the east coast of Greenland, 340 miles north of the Arctic circle when the ice retreated because of global warming. This Thursday the new land – translated from Inuit as Warming Island – was deemed permanent enough by map-makers to be included in a new edition of the most comprehensive atlas in the world.

Uunartoq Qeqertaq joins Southern Sudan and nearly 7,000 other countries and places added or changed since the last edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, reflecting political change in Africa, administrative changes in China, burgeoning cities in developing countries, climate change, and large infrastructure projects which have changed the flow of rivers, lakes and coastlines.

The world's biggest physical changes in the past few years are mostly seen nearest the poles where climate change has been most extreme. Greenland appears considerably browner round the edges, having lost around 15%, or 300,000 sq km, of its permanent ice cover. Antarctica is smaller following the break-up of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves.

But the Aral Sea in central Asia, which had previously shrunk to just 25% of its size only 80 years ago, is now larger than it was only five years ago, thanks to Kazakhstan redirecting water into it. Elsewhere in Asia, islands are appearing off the mouths of the Ganges and the Yangtze rivers as the amount of silt brought down from the Himalayas and inland China changes.

Sections of the Rio Grande, Yellow, Colorado and Tigris rivers are now drying out each summer. In Mongolia, the Ongyin Gol has been redirected to allow gold mining, while the Colorado river these days does not reach the sea most years. "We are increasingly concerned that in the near future important geographical features will disappear for ever. Greenland could reach a tipping point in about 30 years," said Jethro Lennox, editor of the atlas.

"Giant crabs make Antarctic leap"

From BBC.com


Writing in the journal Proceedings B, scientists report a large, reproductive population of crabs in the Palmer Deep, a basin cut in the continental shelf.

They suggest the crabs were washed in during an upsurge of warmer water.

The crabs are voracious crushers of sea floor animals and will probably change the ecosystem profoundly if and when they spread further, researchers warn.

Related species have been found around islands off the Antarctic Peninsula and on the outer edge of the continental shelf.

But here the crabs (Neolithodes yaldwyni) are living and reproducing in abundance right on the edge of the continent itself.

Judging by the density of the crabs and their tracks, the scientists estimate there may be 1.5 million crabs in the basin.

A female crab retrieved from the area was found to be carrying mature eggs and larvae.

"Our best guess is there was an event, or maybe more than one, where warmer water flushed up across the shelf and carried some of the larvae into the basin," said project leader Craig Smith from the University of Hawaii.

It is believed that this species cannot tolerate water colder than 1.4C.

The seas here get warmer as you descend; and the crabs were only found below 850m.

The researchers calculate that they have probably been there only for 30-40 years; before that, the water would have been too cold even at the bottom of the Palmer Deep.

They cannot as yet survive on the continental shelf, which is at a depth of about 500m; but that could change.

"If you look at the rate at which the seas are warming, (the continental shelf) should be above 1.4C within a couple of decades, so the crabs are likely then to come into shallower waters," Professor Smith told BBC News.

With a legspan of up to a metre, the animals are generally top predators in the seafloor ecosystem.

(more)

"30,000 years ago, as few as 1,000 humans in Asia, Europe"

In USA Today:

Though it may seem difficult to believe in a world with almost seven billion people, humans were once thin on the ground, and at times teetered on the brink of extinction.

For most of the history of our species, there weren't many of us, probably in the "tens of thousands, comparable to modern populations of gorillas and chimpanzees," says Richard Durbin, a genome scientist with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England.

Durbin and Heng Li, a colleague at the Broad Institute of Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have a paper in this week's edition of the journal Nature in which they present a new method they have developed to look at a single person's DNA sequences and using them as a representative of all their ancestors -- and thus map out the history of the species.

They applied it to seven people: a Chinese man, a Korean man, three Europeans and two Yoruba men from west Africa. What they found was interesting.

Anatomically modern humans originated in southern Africa. It's generally believed that some of them began to move northwards out of Africa between 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

However the researchers' evidence shows that there was at least some differentiation between African and non-African human populations as early as 100,000 and 120,000 years ago.

In addition, once the European and Asian groups had left the continent, it wasn't as if they never intermingled again. Genetic exchange between the groups continued until around 20,000 years ago, their research found. That doesn't necessary mean one person every year, "but maybe every few hundred another bunch left," says Durbin.

Those populations who left lived through very hard times. The people who became modern Europeans and Asians underwent a severe population bottleneck sometime between 100,000 and 30,000 years ago, getting down to as few as 1,000 people who were reproducing, it appears.

"It also looks like the Africans also decreased at the same time, though not as much," Durbin says.

What's known about that era is that it was one of extreme changes in climate, with ice ages coming and then receding. This was especially a problem in more northern latitudes and perhaps less so in Africa. The latest ice age only finished about 10,000 years ago, after which agriculture began to flourish.

Today's human population represents an enormous shift from those early, few and threatened primates. "The fact that we're pervasive in the world now is sort of an anomaly in the history of great ape populations," says Durbin.

"Sizzle Factor for a Restless Climate"

By HEIDI CULLEN (in the New York Times)

ENJOYING the heat wave?

The answer is probably no if you live in Abilene, Tex., where temperatures have been at or above 100 degrees for 40 days this summer. It’s been a little cooler in Savannah, Ga., where the mercury hit 90 or more for 56 days in a row. Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma are coping with their driest nine-month stretch since 1895.

Yes, it has been a very hot summer after one of the most extreme-weather springs on record. It’s time to face the fact that the weather isn’t what it used to be.

Every 10 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recalculates what it calls climate “normals,” 30-year averages of temperature and precipitation for about 7,500 locations across the United States. The latest numbers, released earlier this month, show that the climate of the last 10 years was about 1.5 degrees warmer than the climate of the 1970s, and the warmest since the first decade of the last century. Temperatures were, on average, 0.5 degrees warmer from 1981 to 2010 than they were from 1971 to 2000, and the average annual temperatures for all of the lower 48 states have gone up.

For climate geeks like me, the new normals offer a fascinating and disturbing snapshot of a restless climate. The numbers don’t take sides or point fingers. They acknowledge both powerful natural climate fluctuations as well as the steady drumbeat of warming caused by roughly seven billion people trying to live and prosper on a small planet, emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the process.

Even this seemingly modest shift in climate can mean a big change in weather. Shifting weather patterns influence energy demand, affect crop productivity and lead to weather-related disasters. In the United States, in any given year, routine weather events like a hot day or a heavy downpour can cost the economy as much as $485 billion in crop losses, construction delays and travel disruptions, a recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research found. In other words, that extra 1.5 degrees might be more than we can afford.

And while the new normals don’t point to a cause, climate science does. Drawing from methods used in epidemiology, a field of climate research called “detection and attribution” tests how human actions like burning fossil fuels affect climate and increase the odds of extreme weather events.

Heat-trapping pollution at least doubled the likelihood of the infamous European heat wave that killed more than 30,000 people during the summer of 2003, according to a study in the journal Nature in 2004. And if we don’t ease our grip on the climate, summers like that one will likely happen every other year by 2040, the study warned. Human actions have warmed the climate on all seven continents, and as a result all weather is now occurring in an environment that bears humanity’s signature, with warmer air and seas and more moisture than there was just a few decades ago, resulting in more extreme weather.

The snapshots of climate history from NOAA can also provide a glimpse of what’s in store locally in the future. Using climate models, we can project what future Julys might look like. For example, by 2050, assuming we continue to pump heat-trapping pollution into our atmosphere at a rate similar to today’s, New Yorkers can expect the number of July days exceeding 90 degrees to double, and those exceeding 95 degrees to roughly triple. Sweltering days in excess of 100 degrees, rare now, will become a regular feature of the Big Apple’s climate in the 2050s.

The next time NOAA calculates its new temperature normals will be in 2021 — when there will be about another billion people on the planet. Lady Gaga may no longer be hot. But the climate almost surely will be.

Heidi Cullen, a scientist at Climate Central, a journalism and research organization, is the author of “The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes From a Climate-Changed Planet.”

US Drought Map as of July 12, 2011

D0 ... Abnormally Dry ... used for areas showing dryness but not yet in drought, or for areas recovering from drought.

Drought Intensity Categories
D1 ... Moderate Drought
D2 ... Severe Drought
D3 ... Extreme Drought
D4 ... Exceptional Drought

Drought or Dryness Types
A ... Agricultural
H ... Hydrological

For more maps - see: http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html