E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTemperatures are rising around the nation, making for an unusually warm January. Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Cantore reports.
How soon we forget. Sure, this last month has been warmer than average across the lower 48 states, but the record for warmest January was set just six years ago in January 2006 and it's too soon to tell if that will fall.
Deke Arndt, chief of the National Climatic Data Center's monitoring service, told msnbc.com that he can't rule out a record. "It's too early for us to call shots" on just where January 2012 will end up, he said, "but it has been quite warm so far and we expect it to finish in the top 15 or 20," based on records dating back to 1895. The official report for January comes out on Feb. 7, he added.
Weather.com meteorologist Stu Ostro noted that Jan. 1-23 in 2006 was warmer than the same period this year. "So at least as of that point this January was running well behind the record pace," he told msnbc.com.
With the exception of Alaska, which is seeing record cold and snow, the warmer temperatures have been widespread.
Michael J. Crumb / AP
These golfers in Des Moines, Iowa, were out on the course on Jan. 5 as temperatures reached 60 degrees.
Areas that saw above average temperatures cover "a rather large amount of real estate in the U.S. from coast-to-coast," is how weather.com meteorologist Chris Dolce put it in his look back. "In fact, the only places that have experienced overall below-average temperatures this month are the far Southeast (southern Florida) and far Northwest corners (western Washington and Oregon) of the country!"
The map below illustrates that, with above average temps seen in orange, red and brown.
Another measure is how many localities have reported record highs or lows for a given day in January. Turns out, nearly 2,800 daily record highs were tied or broken through last week. As for daily record lows, only 160 of those were reported.
Arndt cited two key factors impacting climate this last month. A La Nina cycle is in place, and typically that means colder and snowier winters in the northern U.S. But La Nina's impact was tempered by cold Arctic air being blocked from moving south by a shift in what's known as the Arctic Oscillation.
STORY: 62 below makes for deep freeze in Alaska
STORY: North set for colder months, forecaster says
The warm spell has also meant more tornadoes this month than normal. This month looks set to be the third busiest January on record, with 74 so far. That compares to 218 in January 1999 and 88 in January 2008.
noaa.gov
This chart shows how far off an individual year was from the mean for January temperatures in the continental U.S.
Back in 2006, news media reported the lack of winter as well. In Duluth, Minn., folks were flying kites and wearing shorts on Jan. 28, 2006. One widely reported upside back then, as now: lower heating bills.
Leave a Comment:
In before all the "there is no global warming" and/or posts referencing Al Gore!
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3
yeah what your two graphs , the first dating 2,000 year estimates, the 2nd dating only as far back as 2005, and that far out of proportion to try and show a correlation, what these graphs do not show, is that regardless of the temperature climb in general, we are in fact in one of the coldest periods in earth's history, a mini-ice age, second only to full blown ice ages. 95 percent of the time in our planet's history has had higher Co2 and higher temperature levels. Man is not contributing. The earth ''accidentally'' releases more co2 in one day than we do in 300 years.
Darn you Global Warming!!!! DARN YOU for making this last summer so mild i could actually go outside, DARN YOU for making this winter lovely enough for me and the kids able to go out everyday(cept when its raining) and ride our bikes, play soccer and get their butts off the freaking Xbox...DARN YOU, DARN YOU ALL TO HECK!!!!
Learn to read. Those sources say otherwise.
Of course, if you can't read I can't expect much from you.
Try this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Real scientists now say that there hasn't been any warming since 1997, and in fact we are now in a cooling cycle, all caused by....get this...variations in SOLAR ACTIVITY! Whoda thunk it?
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare (GEE, I WONDER WHY?) by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the Climategate guys). It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
It's over, warmers. Time for the left to find a new "cause" to promote in its' effort to destroy freedom and capitalism once and for all.
You think the Daily Mail is a more credible source than NOAA and NASA? Because those agencies have no real scientists? Because NASA totally didn't put the sun in the picture, right?
Seriously?
Just checking.
Dumbing down of America in action.
Rationalthinker: Good summary. This whole Global Warming scam (err I forgot they now call it "Climate Change" because the "Global Warming" terminology has been proven wrong) is exactly that - a scam.
There are TWO problems with the scam:
First, there must be proof the climate is actually changing. This has NOT been proven and is within the standard deviations of historical trends. Therefore any "warming" or "cooling" trends fall within the expected variations.
However, let's even assume the first IS true (that the climate IS changing) then there must be a second question which is whether the climate changing is caused by man or by nature. You hit the nail on the head talking about solar activity.
Wackos want to say our SUV's, factories, and flatulent cows are to blame but yet we live on an earth and in a solar system where SIGNIFICANT powers exist unimaginable to the human being. For example one major earthquake, volcano, or simply the lunar cycles are enough to affect our environment but let's not forget the MOST important piece of our system and that is the SUN!! Just the last few weeks solar flares were so bad they had to adjust plane flights? I believe the sun has much more power than flatulent cows so maybe JUST MAYBE there is a natural cause to what appears to be cyclical weather phenomenon?
However, the FIRST has yet to be proven that there actually IS a changing climate outside the normal fluctuations and without that the scam is already debunked. However, even if it WAS true there is no scientific proof that man-made events can offset or alter the normal variations caused by much LARGER power sources like the sun, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.
Ruken;
The data is from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, the MET office and the article further states that NASA expects the next solar maximum to be weak as well. The freaking Daily Mail didn't just make up the story, troll. Talk about dumb. Try reading the article before popping off.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century (wait...what was that???), the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
The fact is that AGW promoters were forced to admit that, based on data from 30,000 different temperature stations across the globe, surface temperatures have not increased since 1997. This is in direct contravention to what these same scientists have been predicting with their gloom and doom scenarios for the past 15 years. Further, we have been told that it was man's behavior that largely caused climate change. Now they quietly admit that the sun is the primary driver of climate.
I know that facts are difficult for leftists like Ruken to absorb, process and accept, but just give it a try. It is actually quite...liberating.
RationalThinker -
Misnomer. You counter data from NASA and the NCDC (a branch of NOAA) with the Daily Fail? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I'm not denying that the solar cycle contributes heavily to temperatures, because it will. I am implying that the Daily Fail is possibly one of the worst sources of accurate scientific reporting, ever. They never corroborate their sources, they never actually research out the data, they never have any kind of analysis.
Makky86 -
That is some weapons-grade denial. Warming has been increasing. 8 of the last 10 years have gone in the top 10 warmest years on record. CO2 is higher than ice core samples going back thousands of years have ever recorded it.
The Earth would normally have self-correcting systems of increased forestation, due to a longer growth season provided by warming, which could then suck up the CO2 (there are other negative feedbacks, but that one came to my mind first), that could adjust for the planetary CO2 levels. Not only that, but CO2 gets absorbed by the ocean only to a certain point, before the concentration in the ocean gets too great for it to handle at the partial pressures in the air. We are cutting down the forests, we are bleaching coral reefs due to excess CO2 in the oceans. We are emitting CO2 at a much higher rate than you care to admit. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Orlando:
They can make educated estimates to CO2 levels by ancient rocks. While we don't have any solar data before the 1970s, the fact remains that CO2 levels currently are significantly higher than ever before. This new variable makes it pretty redundant to look at the past to predict the future.
CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. It is in the atmosphere in record levels, while at the same time polar ice begins to melt, and the global temperature averages rise.
There is really only one common sense deduction, and keep in mind NASA could explain it if it were the sun. We have satellites, and have since the 1970s. It all points to one thing.
You think NOAA and NASA are biased? You have problems.
Which ones? How did they come to their conclusions? Because I'm pretty positive they didn't have the resources of NASA when it comes to astronomical and satellite-based meteorological analysis.
Ah here it is.
This just in: I'm a moderate, but I wouldn't expect someone who stereotypes to be...how to put it...a rational thinker?
Ruken, do you have any charts from the Mesozoic era or some of the ice ages? And what's your take on Milankovitch cycles?
Read my NASA link. It's all there for you to see. They even reference Milankovitch cycles for you.
Janstince, you can bash the Daily Mail, but THEIR source, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, is known and respected, and based its report on data from a huge number of measuring stations worldwide. Additionally, the Daily Mail's report cites data from NASA and Northern Arizona University scientists indicating that the sun is heading towards a "Grand Minimum", and that we may see cooling on the order of the historic Maunder Minimum. . .which sparked a mini ice-age in the 17th century.
Per NASA climate scientist John Casey;
We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.
You might do well to read the data presented by the Daily Mail article, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
I will be sooooooo glad when this cause celeb is permanently ignored. (And that line about Al Bore building a mansion on the very property he "predicted" to flood due to Global Warming? That's classic dupe-manship!)
Ruken: A couple problems with your conclusions.
First you make the incorrect assumption that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. That has not been independently proven scientifically. Let's think rationally, if rising CO2 caused global warming then why over the last 5 years while CO2 levels continue to rise we see a cooling trend?
The second problem is this idea of causation rather than correlation. Several short time period studies have shown that there is a CORRELATION between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Of course longer term studies debunk this (see reference in above section that we are now in a cooling trend even though CO2 levels are still rising) but there have been SHORT TERM correlation. The problem is this leap to rising CO2 levels CAUSING rising temperatures. That is a significant error in statistical analysis and EVERY Principles of Statistics textbooks in the country tell the reader NOT to assume causation.
Why? Because there are several other reasons this can occur. For example several studies have speculated it is not that rising CO2 levels that "cause" rising temperatures but rather rising temperatures that "cause" CO2 levels to rise. Or there can be another cause that is related to CO2 that is not considered. For example it could be that warmer temps cause humans to be outside more and work (or exercise) harder thus breathing in more oxygen and expelling more CO2. Now I am not suggesting the work/exercise is CAUSING CO2 levels to rise but simply explaining an example that is related to CO2 but not due to the assumed increases you discuss.
So you are aware I have a strong Statistics background and actually teach undergraduate Principles of Statistics so I am well aware of the "causation/correlation" discussion when referring to Regression Analysis but many don't understand that. So hopefully I have clarified for you that it is improper and incorrect to make an assumption of "causation" even if "correlation" does indeed exist.
Yashmak: John Casey is not a NASA employee, so he's not "OF" NASA. He is a consultant hired by NASA to review space engineering policy in regards to their shuttle systems.
AKA: He's an engineer and manager, not a climate scientist, which gives him as much credence on this topic as lint.
Finally, Mr. Casey's "Cold Sun" theory is another variation of Sun Spot theory brought up in the mid 90s and later ignored as fraud science as direct measurement of the sun and sunspots proved that the Earth's surface temperature doesn't vary with sunspot activity. http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
Orlando Patriot: C02's relationship to heat build up in the atmosphere has been proven and re-proven by scientists (see: scientific method) since the late 1800s.
Everyone together now:
NO MORE SNOW. NO MORE SNOW.
Global Warming YES. Global Cooling NO.
Ruken... You truly are an idiot with no facts or information. You posted:
Check out your precious IPCC report to see the poster was correct about CO2 levels being higher over the history of the planet and you were WRONG and falsely berated the poster. Have you ever read anything or do you just bluster and call names? TIA
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
See page 9. It takes a bit to download, but a good read.
See that's what I thought. Every scientific community has its detractors, so at the least maybe I thought he was just making his own claims, but the media was translating his claims as somehow representing all of NASA.
But yea, a consultant is entirely different. The vast majority (>95% I believe) of scientists do believe that this is an artificial global warming caused by greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
You're funny. My NASA link has CO2 estimates that say we are at unprecedented levels. Read it.
Nvm! I see. You want something like "millions of years ago CO2". :)
The problem is that CO2 estimates vary wildly from millions of years past. It's why you really can't effectively carbon date something past X years (I forget the exact time, but I think it's under a hundred thousand years). So there's no real way to give you a history of the planet.
But you can see that in none of the warming "post Ice Age" times in the last million years, has there been as close to as much CO2 as there is now.
This is a fact.
The USDA recently updated its hardiness zone map of the US. This is the one to warn farmers and gardeners what plants can survive the coldest expected winter temperatures. The zones for the U.S. are moving northward since the last update a decade or so back. Average temperatures all over the planet have been rising over the last decade with many different sources of data confirming it. (That is AVERAGE temperature, since some areas have higher and lower than average)
And if you don't believe real scientists or the USDA, then check out the movement north of insects and vegetation and viruses, the retreating glaciers, and insurance companies that are paying more claims and adjusting their statistics and rates because of it.
@Mike: Also there are pine forests that are dying and moving farther north.
I saw an image from a pine forest in Montana I believe it was, they were all purple and dying due to climate change.
you guys can argue about this all you like, but all i know is that my heating bills are lower this month than usual, and as far as i am concerned, that is a plus, not a minus. ---- the other thing most people do wrong when they look at climate change, is look at the whole planet, rather than individual regions. ---- there are plenty of regions where the effect of climate change has been the reverse of global warming, which is why the proponents had to change the name. ---- also, there are regions, such as wyoming, where the temps have remained steady over the past 100 years. ----- some of the most productive eras on this planet were during times of temperature increase.
There have been four ice ages in the last million years. You were wrong to berate the poster for a correct statement. You were wrong and won't admit it. You don't know much about the subject or time scales involved. You can't read the IPCC report.
Temperatures in the inter-ice age periods have been as higher or higher than today. But the CO2 is much higher now than during those times. Could it be that temperature is not the result of CO2?
That's funny, the NASA link says I'm right. The levels today are far higher than the past few hundred thousands years.
But then again, you think the Daily Mail is a credible source. I'll be sure to weigh your opinion accordingly.
Well, actually, if you believe scientists and their "educated guesses" and assumptions (and you seem to as you are quoting them), the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, this planet was at one point uninhabitable by life as we know it. This planet has been through many cycles of warming and cooling over hnudreds of millions of years. There have been extinction events (of which the scientists can't even agree on what that was). I guess my point is that it is typical human arrogance to think we really have any idea about what is going on, let alone that we can control it based on less than a couple hundred years of scientific data. And yes, they can make eduacted guesses based on current theories and assumptions, but those theories and assumptions can be flawed. So they really are just guesses and not fact.
Orlando Patriot, you're spending too much time trying to debunk innuendo. Climate change is not about the weather which is the biggest misnomer of so-called "greenhouse theory".
Fact, the ozone has been depleted due to industrial waste known as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Approx 90% of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, namely the United States and Europe. Although CFCs were banned in 1996 and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now, scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their "natural levels".
The ozone is the planet's shield against the sun's ultraviolet B rays which is a well known and documented cause of cancer and birth defects.
The ozone is just a part of it, whereas human's have impacted biospheres and landscapes within our stratosphere (below the ozone) in many ways, some of which had/have weather implications.
Fact, industrial (non-natural) pollutants have been found in lakes/ice formations with no human populations for hundreds/thousands of miles.
Fact, the rain forest which was responsible for rain transporation to other land masses, are now suffering severe droughts due to forest clearing.
Fact: The Texas dustbowl in the d1930's was directly due to human interference.
These are just a few expamples of thousands to show how humans are impacting our climates and the health of our planet. This is the only one we have, and need to remember there are an unknown number of generations behind us that are relying on it for their survival. Less humans = less impact.
Guesses over a few hundred thousand years ago are guesses.
Guesses after that time get increasingly and increasingly accurate the closer you get to today. I assume that they are using a method to measure carbon decay in rock and/or fossils from specific times to get the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Recent research (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) "used thermometer and satellite data to work out the effect of the Sun, Pacific Ocean changes (El Nino and La Nina) and volcanoes on temperatures over the past decades. They found that, combined together, these 3 natural causes had been acting to cool down Earth, but the global warming trend was strong enough to overpower them."
@EricH:
I have noticed that the past 2 or so years (although still warm) were not as warm as the 2000-2009 or so before it. Now, at first I thought this was the recession, but I still noticed CO2 levels were high.
Does that research explain what this was? Or just an aberration?
FYI: Before anyone says Solar Maximum or w/e was hit, I believe that's this coming year, 2012, that we hit it.
Makky: "95 percent of the time in our planet's history has had higher Co2 and higher temperature levels."
Yes, thank you for confirming the link between CO2 and temperature. Perhaps adding more CO2 might, oh I don't know, raise the temperature? Duh.
Ruken, there are many things that affect temperature variation from year to year. Long-term trends from the greenhouse effect need to be looked at over several decades.
Grinspoon, this is from YOUR precious IPPC report
@ Ruken
The last Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago. Just saying......
"
Makky86
yeah what your two graphs , the first dating 2,000 year estimates, the 2nd dating only as far back as 2005, and that far out of proportion to try and show a correlation, what these graphs do not show, is that regardless of the temperature climb in general, we are in fact in one of the coldest periods in earth's history, a mini-ice age, second only to full blown ice ages. 95 percent of the time in our planet's history has had higher Co2 and higher temperature levels. Man is not contributing. The earth ''accidentally'' releases more co2 in one day than we do in 300 years."
The climate change denier morons are still harping on the little ice age that proves that global warming isn't real. First, the little ice age was a local event, affecting the northern hemisphere, only. Secondly, the cooling of the northern hemisphere was caused by a volcanic eruption, that put a lot of ash in the air, bringing cold temperatures to the northern hemisphere for many years.
For the facts about the little ice age, the medieval warm period and other global warming denier myths, why not do your research on website that is run by actual climate scientists, and not big oil companies or other climate deniers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
In response to: "I have noticed that the past 2 or so years (although still warm) were not as warm as the 2000-2009 or so before it."
2010 was as warm or warmer (globally) as any previous year, according to NOAA. 2011 was slightly cooler because of La Nina, but that mostly affects air temperature. Ocean heat content apparently rose in 2011, although I haven't seen the final data yet.
Makky86 - The above statement is, at best, a half-truth. It is true that the Earth's natural CO2 emissions far exceed those produced by human activity. But it is also true that these emissions are counter-balanced by an equal or greater absorption rate. The new factor is the approximate 29 gigatonnes of CO2 emitted by human activity every year. This has driven the CO2 content of our atmosphere to levels not seen in 800,000 years.
In 20 years time those arguing that human activity is not linked to global warming will sound like those arguing today that cigarette smoke is not bad for you.
Real denial is that of the 30,000 stations are reduced less than a few hundred for the whole world. The people who do this won't share how they reduced it, and other scientists complain because the number is so low that there is no way to accurately interpolate whole regions.
From what has leaked out there are only 2 stations used from above the 80th parallel - one in Canada, and one in Russia.
Man, the denialists will go through any mental gymnastics necessary to keep their heads in the sand...
Ruken.............You posted to ridicule another poster:
Learn to read. Those sources say otherwise.
Of course, if you can't read I can't expect much from you.
You were WRONG, the IPCC data was cited, and should admit it. Post 1.3 above. Instead, you compound your ignorance. It's the proper price for wrongfully trying to insult a fellow poster. Pay up!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Ruken
You treat government like it is not run by men. It is and yes people guild the lily on a regular basis to keep their job or make their point.
Example: The 5 year mid ocean measuring probe I believe completed in 2007 or 2008 was expected to show that the mid-ocean temperatures were rising according to AGW. The preliminary report with the head researchers name on it showed the mid-ocean temperatures to have declined by 1/2 degree C in 5 years. The Final report, signed by Hansen didn't list the temperature decline, but declared that there was no appreciable change".
Says who, db, says who?
Which is only 10 degrees of latitude below the geographic north pole, or put another way, 13 degrees north of the Arctic circle. This is a very small geographic area, and a great deal of it sea ice.
@Mike: Also there are pine forests that are dying and moving farther north.
I saw an image from a pine forest in Montana I believe it was, they were all purple and dying due to climate change.
Not so Ruken. Climate hasn't changed that much, its because of the pine bark beetle.
Anyone who denies that man made global warming is real is either delusion, doesn’t know what they are talking about or is in the employ of the polluters who want to dump their 90 million tons of pollutes in the atmosphere for free. What do they care?
The problem is the 2% of crackpot scientists in the employ of the polluters who sow doubt just like the ones who told you tobacco was good for you.
And I got news for you the latest computer projections (if nothing changes ) I believe it's already to late because some of these pollutes have a life of 20,000 years is that by 2090 the earth will be so hot it will not be able to grow enough food to feed the population and country will have an atomic bomb.
The best thing about improvements in Health Care is that all the Climate –change deniers are going to live long enough to see how wrong they were but by than it will be to late but the world will know who to blame. And you are wrong all reputable scientists around the world agree that we have global warming actually catastrophic climate change would have been a better term for it.
I read on here the doom and gloom all the time some for some against, but one basic question who on here has a hard core science degree? Ruken who quotes NASA and NOAA? You have to remember NASA nor NOAA is one individual. We are just now and read this careful just now placing satellites into orbit to properly measure the solar activity and the extend it plays on weather. NASA and NOAA both rely on government funds they get grants to do research. I remember one article read that one of NASA scientists looked at the model that all the GW people were using and said it was way over blown about the amount of Global warming. It is easy to google the article. I have a hard core major in Mathematics and a license to practice engineering neither of those are easy to get. There are a lot of people NASA I know some can not get those letters after there name. I have friends there and not all of NASA agree on GW. First thing you have to understand is GW is a theory not a fact and could never be a fact. Science requires that you have same sun output same orbit all other conditions have to be the same and you vary the co2 outputs to proof it. You don't have the planets for that. You can simulate it in a lab type conditions but there is no way you can possible simulate all the variables that the Earth goes thru every year. Plants control weather so do oceans, winds, clouds, ice, fires, volcanos, sun, droughts, etc. Try to plug all that into a lab it is impossible Computer only recently were able to model what goes on when a plane went from subsonic to super sonice speeds why? It is very simple the Math has been around for years but only now can a computer model that so it doesn't take a 100 years for 1 plane to solve, that is the reason we test fly plane and put pilots at risk in new planes. Think about that a airplane going from subsonic to super sonic not a very big system with a huge amount of variables and we can just now do it with a computer. You have to now think of the Earth how large with all the variables want to bet that the computer models get it right in the next 30 years anybody willing to take that bet? Chaos theory is a branch of Math that is very good at modeling weather systems. There are just not that many people on the planet that can do that level of math. The people that do it may make a fair model or not, did you take in all the variable into account you only have to miss one. One of the GW people said oh the surface temps have cooled in the last 15 years it is because of China's emitting all their particle into the air. I thought that was suppose to be causing GW, but then again I am one of the dumb down ones because I don't agree with all the GW people say according to Ruken.. A few common sense points to look at. 1700's England started to industrialize the skies were full of black smoke they had some of worst winters on record. The U.S. in the 60's steel mills were goig stronge I remember going to a city as a kid seeing red iron particles in the air we had some of the worst winters on record. The planet weather has changed alot in the last thousand so years go look at the record. Washington crossed the delware while it was froze over a feat you could not do today.uring Washington time there was a mini Ice Age. Lets look at Greenland the Vikings had a colony there for few hundred years they died out because it got to cold. We have had several mini Ice ages and major ones. The Earth has also seen warm periods too. a cycle that is predicted on the last 40 or so years of data and don't say we have over a 100 because a hundred years ago we had far fewer reporting stations and were done by hand human error you understand plus calibrations. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and we may make it were we can not live here, but I doubt it. Humans can eat anything and the very worst case predictions we can never completely destory our environment. Ruken there are smart individuals that do not agree with all the GW extreme I am one of them. This is not from a emotional point of view but instead from knownledge. I have degree in Math and minor in computer science do I think that while I was in college and all my friends who are now the very peopel at NASA you quote could have pulled off a accurate computer model of our weather system? No, do I think they could do it today without missing something important? No. You could get a educated guess might be as good as a uneducated one. We might one day pull off making a computer model that accurately predicts the weather and GW but I would bet it will not be for another 50 years or so even if we keep uping computer tech at our current rate. The variables and the math is way to complexed to be solved today. We need alot better data cloulds particle emissions manmade and non man made solar activity. we need a satellite that can measure the amount of solar energy reaching Earth everyday. The Earth temps are not about one variable that I am sure of look at what a volcano can do.
Ahhhhh...look at my fellow humans bashing each others brains in again.
My 2 cents is the same 2 cents I always add to this topic - Where are the news reports on POLLUTION????
What's happening with those plastic islands in our oceans (many of you don't know there are more than one). Where is all of our garbage going...how many posting here pay the extra to recycle? Since they object to higher taxes - I assume that an extra payment for anything is out of the question. We wouldn't want to take away some of your beer budget.
Pollution is the red-headed step child of news topics...I guess it's because it is a lost cause, it puts the burden directly on consumers, and that is just too heavy for some to address. Al Gore and climate reports are easy to attack, but self responsibility??? No way man - don't go there.
We tolerate the intolerable and are intolerant of anything that exposes us as to what we really are.
Personally i can't quite understand what the hell was wrong with glass and paper,or metal containers. Hell mankind didn't miss a beat in its evolution without plastic containers or packaging and i seriously doubt it would suddenly begin to fail without them now.
I'm not any kind of expert on global warming or anything like that. However, I live in NW Iowa, and in my backyard there are big cracks in the soil, due to the fact that there is no moisture in the subsoil. While this winter may not be a total record, we have the record warm temperatures so far this winter, no snow on the ground at all, no moisture since August, so adding those together, there IS a record. If we don't get a snowcover, we won't get any moisture in the subsoil, which helps our corn and beans to grow. If it just rains a lot in the spring, the moisture runs off and causes flooding like last year. So we need snow, not just spring rains. I love the temperatures we've been having. but we only have one more month before spring weather comes along. That, in a nutshell, is making me really nervous.
And then for all you "global warming" lemmings comes the MSN story of -62 degrees in Alaska........
Comment # 1 restored for clarity.
Can't speak for the rest of the country, but it's the end of January in Vermont and there's zero snow on the ground. That's extremely abnormal. It's been warmer at night, than during the day. We'll get snow during the day, and rain or simply a complete melt-off at night. There is literally no winter in my 32 years, that matches the kind of strange weather I'm seeing this winter.
I'm in MN. We have 1" of snow, and forecasts for 3 days in the 40s this week.
I haven't seen a real winter since I was like 8.
Oh, I've seen real winters here in the State's plenty of times in the past 10 years. This one is just a freak abnormality.
Very warm in Indiana. Lowest heating bill in years (Good)!
I was talking to my propane supplier last Friday. They are on the verge of collapse due to lack of sales (Bad)!
Definitely a crazy January!
colorado same thing, no snow for the longest time and lots of 60 degree days. our biggest concern is for the trees and shrubs. they think it is spring and if we end up with a hard cold snap after all this warm weather it could really do some damage. i hate winter without snow, it is like summer without sunshine.
Definitely agree, we didn't turn the heat on in the house until December 14th this year in Vermont, and that's...seriously, never happened before. That's just not normal. My only real thoughts are that it's just a really really strange winter. Last winter we had plenty of snow on the ground by now, so it's not like this is becoming the norm. It's certainly been 'warming' over the years, but it's so gradual that it's hardly noticeable unless you compare long periods of time (like years, not just this year to last year).
Concernedone, help support the propane, and propane accessory guys! Grill out in Indiana tonight, I'm going to!
Everyone together now:
NO MORE SNOW. NO MORE SNOW.
Global Warming YES. Global Cooling NO.
I live in central Maine and this winter has been fairly mild. However, last winter, and the previous three winters were brutal. 2007-08 saw record snow. 2008-09 saw record cold: It was -50 F on the thermometer at Black Mountain in Northern Maine. Last year and the previous year saw lots of cold and snow. As a matter of fact, the declining deer population in Maine over the last 10 years has been attributed largely to the extremely harsh winters we've had.
Good Jack! And........
"Screw the polar bears we like seals!"
"Swim a little further, see how it feels!"
"Water is soft and ice is hard. Bears are mammals that swim for lard!"
Oh my God it is not man made global warming. We already know what it is. La Ninia drifted closer to Australia than we expected, and held a large sum of the moisture needed to produce cold weather in the US. It's already showing signs of reverberating the moisture back in the next several weeks, and within a month we will be closer to average temperatures. GET OVER IT.
Moisture isn't really the issue, honestly, it's a matter of the temp + moisture combined. We've had plenty of precipitation, and honestly, we've had plenty of cold weather. There's just a bunch of warm weather mixed in there, which strangely enough has been around the same time that the precipitation occurs. Ergo, more rainy days than snowy. Not enough days of sustained cold to keep the snow on the ground.
My driveways a sheet of ice though, so the water is certainly staying there...just not in snow form.
No. I am telling you. Straight from the Meteorological field. A temporary depletion of our moisture, particularly in the midwest, has caused a significant heating trend. La Nina is just doing it's thing, a little further south than we expected.
and it doesn't hurt that the jet stream is tracking more north than usual.
La Nina alone doesn't explain why 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record.
Climate change is about long-term trends, so by definition all of the things that go into creating year-to-year variation are irrelevant. Climate is not weather.
Makky, your problem is you are citing Meteorologists. They are not climatologists.
That's your mistake Makky86. In the world of the better smarter scientists meteorologists don't count, even though they calibrate their equipment regular (the scientists don't) and observe the stations 24/7 to insure nothing man made affects the reading (the scientists don't).
La Nina alone doesn't explain why 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record
Because it has been a persistent La Nina that has lasted longer than normal. You do know the mechanism by which La Nina works don't you?
There have been about 10 La Nina years on record. Prior to 1980, they always resulted in below average temperatures, but the 2008 La Nina was +0.35 deg C and 2011 was +0.40 deg C (compared to the 20th Century baseline). If anything, a longer-lasting La Nina would make it cooler on average, not warmer.
Makky, are you guys this dumb..you will run for whatever quick-out helps fit your hopes. La Nina and El Nino are directly affected by climate change. They are the result of global warming, not a cause in their own right. Seriously, folks, come on. Here is what you have: you must either believe that ALL the peer reviewed legitimate climate scientists around the world are in some massive corrupt scheme to help form a commie world government or you realize that they are reporting the data and these wild extremes and fluctuations fit almost to a bulls eye what is being predicted. It is an amazing testement to human brain's working that they can carefully parce through information to cull out only what fits into what they want to believe.
a
Are you telling me that because we have a one degree change in average temperature over the whole planet that we have some kind of cataclysmic scenario to fear? Total destruction of our ecosystem? I'm not buying it! What if you were able to go back another hundred years, wouldn't it be possible that there was one degree of global cooling? Sounds way too much like Chicken Little to me.
@ Larry - During the last major ice age, the temperature was only 3-5 C cooler than current trends. Not that 1 degree necessarily means the sky is falling, simply, it doesn't take much to cause major, major havoc.
Larry, the last iceage probably will not be the last. It's possible for an ice age to start in our lifetime. It will be born when we have a winter that starts but does not go away in the spring. I'm not worried about a slow ice age. What bothers me more is the super volcano in Yellowstone erupting as it's projected to sometime in the next 1000 years. When it goes it will make nuclear winter look like a picnic.
I'm in Hell and it's totally frozen over.
threevok,
Are you in Alaska also? This has been one NASTY January!
Right now the forecast shows that February will be a little better but we've seen forecasts of "a little better" all month and then they get changed to "more of the same."
Global warming. I love it!
Like my screen name says im from arizona and we have temps now getting upwards of 68. it was nice yesterday, and went down to 42 last night. no snow except on mountain ranges.
I, for one, am not going to complain. At this time last year, I was watching the fourth nor'easter in as many weeks approach, all of which left more than 20 inches of snow EACH on the ground in my state. By the middle of February, there was nearly six feet of snow in my back yard. And I'm not even counting the drifts, which reached my second-story windows. After last winter, I would not be sorry if it didn't get below 60 this entire winter.
I'm not sorry either. I hate snow.
I just get worried about droughts in the summer, and the future and stuff.
I'm just enjoying the nice weather. It could get as high as 50 degrees here today. Heck we still have salt in our garage that is two years old since we haven't had much need to salt our sidewalk the last couple of years.
Last year we had freezes in March, this year the lowest temp has been 36 in deep south Texas. Conclusion: Weather can't be predicted for more than a couple of days. Warm weather has another benefit-low heating bills.
global warming, climate change, normal cycles of the planet, fallicy of humans, or just another age in the progression of time. doesnt really matter one way or the other. IMO, we cant keep dumping crap on our planet, its the only one we got right now. the things that need to be done to clean up the environment is needed if only to improve the quality of life for humans, or to fend off climate change, whichever your view, the end result is the same, we need to take care of our home.
Please share your concerns with the single largest planet soiling machine. China. Who is exempt from the left wing global warming policies trying to be implemented.
They shouldn't be exempt. The U.N. climate negotiation process is trying to change that.
Makky, you are 15 years out of date. All new negotiations on climate include China and India and other developing nations.
They are exempt because they ignore limits. They basically exempted themselves, nothing to do with the UN. China and India both thumbed their noses at Obama over climate change.
the us are the ones who walked away from the un climate kyoto agreements famously under Bush!
To refresh your memory EMB, it was Congress that refused to OK this one sided arrangement. The vote was a bipartisan 95-0.
Bin ladin getting back at us from hell LOL
It's a sign of the upcoming Mayan Apocalypse!
Maybe you guys will buy off on global warming when all of the glaciers are gone, as well as the mountain snow packs......have you heard nothing about the huge increase in meltoff??????
I can tell you winters are a lot warmer than they were 20 years ago...and those were much warmer than when I was a kid in the 60's.....we used to count ourselves lucky to get a day or two at 45 back then in Feb, now that's pretty frequent.
It is not that there is NO Global warming It is what the cause is Man or the SUN I will go with the sun and the earth itself with volcanoes As there have many times that the earth was colder and hotter then it is now. We are now just above the middle of the 2 extreams and lots of people are blaming it on man and cows.
Here's a pretty good chart that graphs temparatures over the last 2 billion years:
http://scotese.com/climate.htm
There's an interesting quote, "During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs."
Nobody ever said that all climate change was due to humans. That would be absurd. But we ARE affecting it.
About as much affecting as pissing in the ocean the raise ocean levels
mj, 97% of the climatologists disagree with you. So, who should I believe?
Jock 15 - more physicists defected just last week.
Some are, some aren't. No trend here, your memory must be faulty.
The 97% figure is not true.
Raddave, among other scientific "Facts" that have since been tossed on the rubbish heap: (1) The earth is flat, (2) the sun and moon revolve around the earth, (3) _____— (insert any race or nationality) are genetically inferior to _____— (insert any other race or nationality), (4) the application of leaches can cure _____— (insert any disease), (5) disease is caused by "bad air", etc., etc., etc.
Just because a preponderance of scientists, climatologists, physicists, or politicians believes something is "fact" today doesn't mean they are right, or that they have a complete grasp of the causation of perceived "results."
The only real constants are short memories and even shorter attention spans.
The only real constant is people constantly defining what the only real constant is.
Ruken... that chart of 1900 to 2010 temperature imposes a average steady slope of increasing temperature over the that time. And CO2 has been increasing how? A nice linear slope or a log increase? So climate varies as the log of CO2.
And what does that temperature curve look like if you used a 10 or 20 year moving average to extrapolate climate. Cooling recently? LOL
Many factors affect climate, so it is not going to be exactly correlated with any one of them.
No thanks Ruken, I am a meteorology student, and it is you who needs to learn how to read. When in your dubious little head did 95 percent of our planets history begin in 0 AD? Is Earth only 2,000 years old?
You must be a C student then, because they have archeological data that proves we are at unprecedented levels.
I see why you are citing meteorologist, You're studying to be one.
Ruken - you are wrong and too dumb to admit it. Instead you keep showing your ignorance by trying to insult people. The levels of CO2 are a small fraction (370/8000) of what they have been during the time life has been on Earth. The planet was not incinerated; Life survived and prospered.
When atmospheric CO2 was much higher in the distant past, the Sun was not as bright. The Sun increases in luminosity about 1% every 100 million years as its core contracts.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Try again.
Nothng brings out the Dumb FUX watchers like facts about Climate Change....
10 years from now these same Minions of the 1% will be blaming the Democrats for Climate Change...
No one Spins the Truth or re-writes history for personal gain like the 1%.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8
You're exhibiting the very traits you claim others have. Better luck next time.
Everyone together now:
NO MORE SNOW. NO MORE SNOW.
Global Warming YES. Global Cooling NO.
Ever since I was a kid I've read articles about mankind someday controlling the planet's climate. Well, it's no longer science fiction. Instead of running around crying about the sky falling why don't they build on what has been done already? Personally it would be great to never have to see another snowy winter again, ever.
While I'm not one to complain (I love bicycling, and no snow means I can do more of it), we have to think about the planet as a whole. The long term consequences of global warming are unknown, they could be relatively benign (if you don't care about a significant species extinction), or they could be catastrophic (think Venus type of runaway greenhouse effect).
We just don't know. It's better to hope for the best but plan for the worst.
All depends on how you look at it.
http://www.real-science.com/january-2012-coldest-days-2002
And of course you can't look at the US and say global. Europe is in a deep freeze and so is the Arctic. And Russia too.
At least the media is starting to realize that CO2 isn't a factor.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hot-weather-20120128,0,6875555.story
I don't believe this year's cold is a direct result of climate change. You can't say that one year's events make or break a climate. Just like one can't say one freak warm winter is the result of climate change.
However if this trend continues over a period of 5-10 years, I would be more open to the idea.
The claim that CO2 isn't a factor is absurd. This should indeed become more clear in the next 5-10 years, but why even wait that long ... 2010 tied the global temperature record (according to NOAA), and 2011 was the warmest La Nina year.
Pretty much everything economykiller says is absurd, but he says it a lot.
economykiller, Europe may be in a "deep freeze" at the moment, but until a week ago, there had been hardly any snow and temps were well above normal. BTW, why do you cite a denier sight? The owner of that sight has a Masters in electrical engineering, that does not qualify him to attack AGW.
Eric:
There is no verifiable, provable, direct causal link between CO2 levels and warmer temps
Yes, there is a direct link via the well-understood mechanisms of absorption and emission of thermal radiation as predicted by quantum physics. Although almost nothing in science is 100% "provable," the evidence (both theoretical and experimental) is very strong.
How in the world could a mere 7,000,000,000 oil consuming humans have an impact on the environment that they live? Ludicrous.
Let's be serious a non-consequential 80 million barrels of oil a day are pumped out and consumed PER DAY. There is no way that could have an impact. I'm positive of that because I just said it. It must be true.
Big oil cares about me. The tree huggers are the ones out to line their pockets. Not big oil. No, no, no, you must be misunderstanding them. They really care about me.
I am an uniformed, uneducated, citizen who eats too much and watches Dancing with the Stars when I'm not praying for tornadoes to hit my neighbors in lieu of myself. I get all of my information from fair and balanced networks.
Why should I bother reading anything from the BBC, Stockholm, Oslo, Paris, Sydney, or Tokyo. Sure they are our allies but lets be realistic they are backing all of the money that is lining the tree huggers pockets. One would have to be mentally insane to not be able to see the amount of money going to all of the people who want their children to have clean water to drink and air to breathe. Those people are fascists some even call them communists! Lock your doors, hide your barefoot wives and children, the treehuggers are coming for you! All of them.
They say that they care about the environment but they really just want your money!!!! Look at them, riding their bikes to work, owning fuel efficient vehicles, using their own bags for groceries........These fools even recycle. Don't they get it there is always going to be enough oil with no adverse effects on us. They say that greed killed all the bison, they say it was arrogance that t killed all of the passenger pigeons, they blame industry for over fished the seas, they say it was the oil companies that spilled the oil in the gulf. It's never the tree huggers fault. No they sit back and act like they've done nothing wrong.
Those tree huggers and their hidden agenda. ....It's appalling how they try to trick you into believing scientists from around the world.
Lock your doors people, lock your doors.
Oh great! More fodder for the know-it-all, sky-is-falling, couch scientists to point their fingers at all the "deniers" and scream I told you so! I told you so!
Damn NASA couch scientists! Damn them to HELL!
I told you so.
billcushman... Just thought we should note: All that oil we burned and will burn, the carbon was removed from the atmosphere long ago and is just being returned. Think of oil as a very long term renewable. That goes for coal and natural gas too.
A trend is not destiny.
Oops!
Forget about all that man-made global warming alarmism, it 'may' be time to begin worrying about a mini-Ice Age headed our way within a decade. In what may indeed be the science story of the century, scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory report that three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin which could mean that the Earth - far from facing a global warming problem - is actually headed into a mini Ice Age:
Luke, first of all you are plagiarizing a sight, that has topics such as "islamofacism" It is quoting physicists, not climatologists. And the truth is we have been in a period of relatively low solar activity for a couple of years now, and temperatures having decreased.
OOPS.
The possibility of a new extended solar minimum similar to the previous "Maunder minimum" has now been studied by several researchers, who have concluded that it would only offset perhaps 10 to 15 years worth of carbon emissions at the current rate.
To all who deny the global warming thing and the scientists who show the facts(not the politicians that tell you what they want you to believe), I wonder what is it you are so afraid of?
Reading your posts there is no evidence for the reason of your denial.
The question I ask is, "What if the global warming is true? What does that mean to you, personally?
What have you to lose by admitting that there is a real and apparent danger?
Does it scare the bejeebers out of you? Does it mean your pampered lifestyle is subject to change?
Do you hate change?
I mean, get right to the heart of the matter, just what are you afraid of?
If it does mean change it doesn't mean the end of your lifestyle.
It is actually providing an incredible need for change.
And where there is a need going unfullfilled, there is a lot, and I mean, a lot of money to be made.
All you have to do is just embrace it.
When computers were coming on the scene everyone was afraid they would cause them to lose their jobs. When in fact it opened an avenue for fortunes to be made and jobs a-plenty.
Just think if you had accepted it then and had gotten in on the ground floor.
Fear and denial can be your own worst enemy.
The problem is not climate change, it's that the raw data does NOT support all the fear mongering. This was sited in a recent Wall Street Journal op ed, by a number of prominent scientists. Their basic point was when you hear the fear mongering, follow the money.
Gore was a prime example of this, spreading fear all over the place and selling cap and trade as the solution. Two problems, C&T does NOT limit climate change and Gore was heavily invested in the Chicago climate trade business.
If you stop thinking of him as a climate expert, (which he is obviously NOT!), and think of him as a politician, then you can understand that he was trying to get a law passed to make his investment pay off. Sound familiar? Just like the insider trading going on in congress, it's profiting off of the laws they pass.
Not a bit afraid because I don't believe a bit of it, the climate change models don't include enough of the variables and complexities that make up atmospheric physics.
There is no danger, real or imagined.
There is plenty of danger; the models are not perfect but include a lot of physics, including the most important physics of the thermal radiation properties of greenhouse gases. And why is it even logical to conclude "no danger" from less than perfect (but still good) models? Would you say the same thing if a flight simulator showed that an airplane might crash?