@vcyn ... You hate "dumbocrats" because they use logical and rationale?

I do not want to even think about you procreating.

None of the above posts are either logical or rational. Nor are they particularly polite.

Why do these discussions start whenever there is warm weather, or cold weather, or snow on the ground, or no snow on the ground. I'd also like to know why they quickly degenerate into name-calling matches.

When did rudeness become a substitute for intelligence in this country?

In response to a.p garcia , the article states that records have been kept since 1895. Nowhere does it say that 1896 was particularly warm. It says the warmest January on record was in 2006. It also says that the the second spot was shared by the January of 1990 and 1953. So, I'm confused as to the logic behind your argument.

It does seem to me that the climate is measurably warmer over the last 30 years, and, since the sun is measurably brighter now then in 1980, I can only point to an increase in green house gases in the atmosphere as a cause, and man is the most likely cause of this increase.

So, make what you want of it. If you have some other reason why the climate is becoming warmer, I'll listen. But I have no time to listen to people calling each others idiots, and dumocrats.

You want Logic and Rationality? Read post #1.11... ~_o

when the "global warming" fanatics jump and holler about green house gases, they repeat what they are told by the scare tactic media.

the earth has been through hot, cold, wet, dry, and any other weather type phenomonon over and over since it formed. They are natural occurances, and only the simple minded truly believe that "man" is causing the world to turn, orbit, or be in space at all.

those people also believed the world was going to end at midnight december 31st, 1999. now that (that) hasn't happened, so we MUST be dooming ourselves, at least until december 21st, 2012.

we truly must be gods, to hold the power these fools claim. I know, lets get hollywood to send a "hero" to save us, or maybe ted turner, where is captain planet when we need him?

Now you know they wouldn't have published that in no way, shape or form. That would just about ruin the careers of a many global warming folks.

The average temperature last month was 36.3 degrees Fahrenheit -- 5.5 degrees above the 1901-2000 average. The record is 39.7 degrees, followed by 37.2 in 1990 and 1953

Pay attention now you sharp toothed weaselly libs...1953 was the record....none of China was driving yet!!!

Kornfed, if you had actually read the story, you'd have noted that 2006 was the record year, and that 1990 shares the number 2 spot with 1953.

2006 is referenced right in the second paragraph, which is also the second sentence. So you didn't have to maintain your attention span for very long, and most amazingly, it is right there in the text you quote, "The record is 39.7 degrees, followed by 37.2 in 1990 and 1953".

What did the word "followed" mean in when you went to school?

This weasily lib thinks that people were driving in China in 2006.

Half-baked conservatives get half a fact stuck in their brains and they are off to the races.

Ok before we all run out of names to call eachother lets take a look at whats going on on the otherside of the world::>

Cold winter weather, snow in short supply this season
By RENEE SCHOOF - McClatchy Newspapers
By RENEE SCHOOF

What is ReadPlease?

Email Story
Printer Friendly
Text Size:

Winter's been so mild in much of the United States this year that you can slip out some sunny afternoons to the golf course or bike path. Many snow shovels have stayed in storage. Heating bills have fallen.
Meanwhile, Europe's suffering a brutal winter.
But in the United States - in the East, Midwest, Texas, the Plains and parts of the West - the average mean temperature was 5 degrees or more above normal over the past 30 days. Only Washington state and parts of Oregon showed cooler-than-average temperatures then.
It remains to be seen, however, whether U.S. winter records will be broken.
"We'll have to wait until February is over," said Kathryn Vreeland, a climatologist at the Northeast Regional Climate Center.
Mike Halpert, the deputy director of the government's Climate Prediction Center, said the U.S. had had a number of warm winters recently. But the last two were cold across much of the country, and that's fresh in everyone's mind, he said.
Part of the explanation for this year's mildness stems from the Arctic Oscillation - atmospheric pressure patterns in the Arctic and northern-middle latitudes.
The Arctic Oscillation has been in a warm or positive phase recently, meaning the polar jet stream is stronger than average and has shifted poleward, Halpert said. "Basically, that keeps cold air bottled up over the pole."
The last two winters were the opposite: A negative phase allowed cold air to drop down. That brought heavy snow to New York and New England last year, and the big snows in the mid-Atlantic in 2010.
Record keeping on the Arctic Oscillation began around 1950, Halpert said. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, there often was a negative phase, bringing colder winters. In the 1980s, '90s and 2000s, many winters had a positive AO.
The Arctic Oscillation is part of the planet's natural cycle, Halpert said; it's too early to tell whether climate change is having an impact on it.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/02/08/3856698/cold-winter-weather-snow-in-short.html#storylink=cpy

Record cold in Wis.-55 Feb 2cnd and 4th. 1996. Duluth Minn Below zero 29 Jan to 5 Feb 1994 a record. Looks like its been pretty cold also in the last 30 years

NW Iowa-- no records this year. However, it was warmer than usual, hardly any snow, and no moisture since August. We have no subsoil moisture, which we need for the corn and beans to get a good start. The meteorologists say its not a record breaking year, unless you put those three together: warmer, no moisture, hardly any snow. We have had two snows. both melted within days. usually I have a pile of snow in my backyard (from the snow blower cleaning the driveway) that is 6-8 feet high. This year, I have no snow piled anywhere.

planetary temp drives c02 it has apprx. an 800 year lag look it up. anyone check the sun spots and solar radiation emmisions? co2 account for less than half a percent of greenhouse gas and that includes the ocean so please stop questioning if co2 is causing global warming. truth be the upper atmosphere temps and surface temps prove the opposite

wakeupfool:

Do you know what a greenhouse effect is? CO2 and other gases (like water vapor, methane, CFCs, etc) trap heat in the lower atmosphere.

wouldnt a doubling of present day c02 levels increase plant and crop production by upto 25% or more? heat it up lets feed all eat veggies more

wouldnt a doubling of present day c02 levels increase plant and crop production by upto 25% or more? heat it up lets feed all eat veggies more

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." ¹

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

• North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.²

• Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.³

• Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.⁴

• Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.⁵

• Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.⁶

Doubling the CO2 concentration from current levels MIGHT raise temps 1 degree.

As for the plants. Some might like it, some might not, some might not give a crap what it is.

Wakeupfool

"wouldnt a doubling of present day c02 levels increase plant and crop production by upto 25% or more? heat it up lets feed all eat veggies more"

No. If pollutions reflect sunlight back to space in the many ways it can, plants will get less sunlight. Along with this, warmer temperatures effectively give insects more territory to roam, within their temperature tolerances. Along with that, we are seeing a huge boom in the population of pest insects because of these conditions that give them more range and more food. Toss in the resistances they are developing to pesticides...

You need to get educated, CO2 levels will increase plant growth. We are not talking about pollutants, we are talking about CO2. If more plants grow, of course that will cause an increase of the insects that feed on them. This is not unnerving as you seem to intimate, it is just a natural phenomenon.

From my analysis, the raw data backs up the effects listed by region from the IPCC but NOT the fear mongering "that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant". Of course any violent weather will cause damage, global warming or not, significant is too broad a word. There is always some disaster going on all over the world, it is unclear if more climate change will add significantly to that number, (more dying of heat stroke vs less dying from exposure, etc.).

waverider.....your point is one that I think gets overlooked very often in these discussions. I live in New York's Catskill Mts. and we've had years like this before. These extremely mild winters usually are followed by a near plague like population of insects. I believe Lyme Disease carrying ticks, West Nile Disease, Gypsy Moth, Emerald Ash Borer and the like will florish in a warmer environment....especially if they get a few consecutive years of it.

In regard to the 800-year lag in CO2: that's only true for the end of ice ages, when something else starts the warming, and the oceans eventually release CO2, causing more warming. It can also go the other way; that is, greenhouse gases (from whatever source) can be the primary cause of a major warming event. It's happened before; look up the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) event 56 million years ago.

Ruken, I'd stop referencing IPCC links if I were you. They've been outed as nothing more than a shill front for activist groups like the WWF, and the academics are fleeing like the rats on the sinking ship that it is.

The truth is that no one can predict the future. No one, much less those whose models show no backward correlation and only little short-term going forward. The system is too chaotic, the feedbacks only partly known, and the computations too complex for us to have more than even a rudimentary grasp of the totality that is our climate.</p>

<p>So we'll keep on doing what we and the other animals have always done: Adapt, or die.</p>

ray, come on down to AZ - there's no snow!

Jimmy, before 1895 Benz had already invented the automobile (internal combustion engine) Diesel the engine that named after him, Bessemer the process to make steel. Not to mention all types of factories to manufacture all goods great and small FYI

Jimmy,

I don't know if your being sarcastic, but America emmits more CO2 by volume. However, Australia emmits more CO2 per capita. Read the Kyoto protocol, and "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. Also, some propose that climate anomolies began around the time of the American industrial revolution in the 1830's.

Doesn't China emit more than the USA by volume?

by volume yes...per capita no. U.S. still leads that I believe.

We may be pathetic, but you'reterribly undereducated

No, NASA has said solar activity cannot account for more than 10% of the current warming trend.

In fact, we had a solar minimum in the mid 2000s, and that's when the record 2006 year was.

Pretty much. We're in a high solar cycle now and it repeats every 12 years approximately. If you take the 1895 date and look at every 12 years from then until now, you'll see a lot of the years those record temps were set in the article match up well with the solar cycle. A quick and dirty analysis for sure, but definitely shows solar activity has a strong influence.

Mike, then why was the record 2006 year set in a solar minimum?

An flare hit Dec 2005 which disrupted GPS communications. Solar minimum doesn't mean the sun's totally dormant. Flares can still happen and hit Earth. I'm not saying it's completely dependant on solar activity, but the sun is an unbelievable source of energy that likes to explode off every now and then. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

Since we're quoting NASA...

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

• If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming.²

True, but those models account for the increasing temperature trends. I was referring to the the years where the record temps were set there was a correlation to high solar activity.

?

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. ⁵ Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. ⁶ Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That's just what I've been reading, if there was increased levels I thought they would say something.

Edit:

They also take solar activity into account.

Solar Irradiance. The sun has a well-known 11-year irradiance cycle that produces about .1% variation in output.¹ Solar irradiance has been measured by satellite daily since the late 1970s, and this known solar cycle is incorporated into climate models. There is some evidence from proxy measurements-sunspot counts going back centuries, measurements from ancient trees, and others-that solar output varies over longer periods of time, too. While there is currently no evidence of a trend in solar output over the past half century, because there are no direct observations of solar output prior to the 1970s, climate scientists do not have much confidence that they understand longer-term solar changes. A number of U.S. and international spacecraft study the sun.

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Record cold in Wis 1996 -55 far below average, Record cold in Duluth Minn. longest stretch below zero 1994.

CO2 is at higher levels than any time in the past 650,000 years.

Scientists have said solar activity caused previous climate changes, they also said solar activity cannot account for more than 10% of our current warming.

Yes I do think that we are partly to blame for the global climate change. I guess carbon dating tells us how much CO2 was in the air 650,000 years ago. I honestly don't think anyone will know the real truth. I do know that the US needs to cut down on the use of fossil fuels but there are too many money hungry companies so that will never occur. But because of our gov't being stubborn on air pollution we have no choice but to accept what we are creating. Might as well get used to it and adapt to the changes.

Mhm.

All we can do is....well....what we can.

CO2 is at higher levels than any time in the past 650,000 years.

Show me that data, I would like to know what agency had equipment to measure CO2 that long ago.

dadoftim:

They used a similar method to carbon dating.

Here's your data.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Both scientists emphasized that the deep ocean increasingly appears to play a huge role in the way carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, is processed by the planet's interlocking systems of atmosphere, land and ocean.

"There are all these organisms down there making biomass, and that's not accounted for in our carbon cycle at all," Edwards told OurAmazingPlanet. "The ocean floor is quite vast so there is an opportunity for these organisms to have an effect."

http://science.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/27/10252735-cold-dead-deep-sea-vents-are-anything-but-dead

Are those microbes making CO2 gas that escapes into the atmosphere? Or just depositing it on the ocean floor?

I only skimmed the article but I didn't see it.

Angela has smarts. Only a lobbyist would think the earth was breaking its 4+ billion year continual cycle for political volley.

Atmospheric determent is nothing new to this planet and yet it continues on and creates regrowth in due time. There is nothing wrong with prolonging humanity through environmental effort until the next natural apocalyptic event. It bolsters that 'good feeling' that events outside of our control will no longer happen because the earth is occupied with a race of thinkers.

Even if deep-ocean organisms are able to use excess carbon, CO2 only dissolves in the ocean at a fairly slow rate; that's part of the reason why the atmospheric concentration is increasing so rapidly, now at a rate of about 2 ppm per year.

Hydrocarbons on the ocean floor turn directly into the frozen state due to low temperatures and intense pressure, from memory there are areas where this ice is thousands of feet thick. There is research going on now to invent technology to harvest it. From what I've read, there is over 1000 year world supply of hydrocarbons on the ocean floor.

There was actually a program on one of the science channels on this. The guy actually lit the frozen hydrocarbon on fire and it burned, talk about fire and ice!

The problem is 80% of carbon comes from the individual, 40% from the home, 40% from transportation. So if you are expecting the government to "do something", they already have: 30% renewable energy tax credit, $7500 energy efficient car credit.

If you expect them to do more, good luck. They've done their part, time for you to put your money where your mouth is and do your part.

There is no question that climate change exists. How much of that change is caused by human generated CO2??? Big Question. So far not proven.

No more than 10% of the current warming trend is caused by the sun.

That leaves....us.

and an algae bloom ruken

science crusader, I'm not a scientist, I don't listen to Rush or Fox news, and before you start directing your left wing insults at me, I voted for Obama. Not very proud of that one. What is your take on the latest report from the United Kingdom Meteorology Office contradicting global warming? See this link for the whole story:

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years

I heard about this last week on the radio. I found it alarming that this was not reported by MSN. Makes me believe all the talk about NBC not being a credible news organization any longer. If this report is true, I can understand the embarassment of those that have been claiming the sky is falling lately and as the article states, there are many scientists around the world that will have egg on their faces or worse.

and the normal cycle of coming out of an Ice Age along with it's normal effects of glacial and ice pack decline which exposes more ground to be heated by the sun which releases CO2, methane and water - the 3 biggest greenhouse gases. Are we helping it, yes. Can we stop it? NOPE!.

science crusader, I'm not a scientist, I don't listen to Rush or Fox news, and before you start directing your left wing insults at me, I voted for Obama. Not very proud of that one. What is your take on the latest report from the United Kingdom Meteorology Office contradicting global warming? See this link for the whole story:

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years

I heard about this last week on the radio. I found it alarming that this was not reported by MSN. Makes me believe all the talk about NBC not being a credible news organization any longer. If this report is true, I can understand the embarassment of those that have been claiming the sky is falling lately and as the article states, there are many scientists around the world that will have egg on their faces or worse.

Wrong.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Temperature still going up.

Since 2005 the five year moving average global temperature has not increased and in fact decreased sightly. Years and 5 yr moving average global temperature anomaly:

2005 - 0.56*C

2006 - 0.56*C

2007 - 0.56*C

2008 - 0.55*C

2009 - 0.55*C

2010 - 0.55*C

2011 - 0.55*C

Here's the information. You can do the arithmetic yourself or trust mine.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

The 15-year claim totally ignores the reason why air temperatures were so high in 1997-1998: it was a strong El Nino, which can temporarily warm the atmosphere as much as 15 years of carbon emissions. So the fact that we're just now returning to 1998 air temperature levels is what climate models predict. Also, ocean heat content was less in 1998 than it is now.

Eric - the 97/98 el Nino has no numerical effect on the five year averages starting in 2005. Total global temperature is diverging significantly from that predicted by the CO2 forcing model. Based on the CO2 forcing model we should be experiencing over 1*C anomaly.

Oh really? What do you know that pretty much every accredited scientific agency on climate and astronomy in the world doesn't?

i hope the polar bears dont die lol

If the correlation between increased CO2 levels and increasing temperatures is so irrefutable, then why isn't each year just a little warmer than the previous? Not only that I would expect temeratures to be rising at a faster rate as CO2 concentrations increase. But I guess that would be because there is no connection, it's all about money, power, and a political agenda. And don't lose sight of the fact the article is relative to the US. Europe is in the midst of a brutal winter.

hardtostarboard:

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

It's all about averages. There are bound to be fluctuations.

Climate research is a little bit more complex than what most articles report. Unless you are reading actual published peer reviewed papers on the subject, take the information with a grain of salt. Climate research is not to point blame. Scientists don't go through years of schooling to be detectives to point blame as to why the Earth is heating.

There are a copious amount of variables to consider when thinking about climate change. On a solar level you need to consider the level of activity with the sun. The sun cycles are roughly ten to fourteen years so you need to look how they may have changed over a hundred year period and not simply a decade. Also, when thinking about solar complexities involved with climate change you need to look at the milankovitch cycles. These cycles deal with the Earth's obliquity and precession and how Earth gets different amount of radiation base on how it faces the sun. The Milankovitch cycles are on a geologic time scale so to observe those you need to look back tens to hundreds of thousand years in the past.

Radiation coming in and leaving the Earth can be measured. To measure the incoming radiation you need

((1380*T^^{PA/101.3*Cosψ})*Cosψ) + .3(1-T^{^PA/101.3*Cosψ})*1380*Cosψ

T = transmittance and Cosψ = the zenith angle

As long as you know the correct transmittance for any given time then you can calculate how much solar radiation we are getting from the sun and see if that is the main cause for heating.

Moving on past solar causes, there are also wind and ocean currents that need to be looked at. Ocean and wind currents distribute energy around the Earth and are a major factor in climate change. They need to be studied closely so we know how the suns energy is being carried around the globe and how that will change temperatures.

In addition to those there is human activity to consider. There are seven billion people on the planet and to think they won't have an effect on climate is insane. It is not simply gases that we put into the atmosphere that will change temperatures. No one has mentioned the affect manmade structures have on temperature. Concrete absorbs and holds in heat really well. The more structures we build the more it will change land cover which will change the surface albedo. If there is a forrest with heavy vegetation in an area and then one day a Wal-mart is built there that will change the areas temperatures drastically. The forest will reflect heat more and the evapotranspiration of the trees will also cool the area a lot. Then when you put a man made structure there built out of concrete and have a huge parking lot in front the area is going to be a lot hotter. All in all, when it comes to thinking about humans affect on climate it cant be limited to C02 traces.

Climate science is not about assigning blame. It is about observing how the atmosphere and the Earth react to changes in their system whether it be natural or human changes.

hardtostarboard: "If the correlation between increased CO2 levels and increasing temperatures is so irrefutable, then why isn't each year just a little warmer than the previous?"

That is a good question. The answer is that CO2 is not the ONLY thing that affects climate, so may other factors come into play, especially in the short-term. The correlation is obvious, but it is not 100% (few correlations are in the real world).

Then I guess they should move.

All over the world the ice is melting. It's melting on both poles; it's melting on the Greenland icecap; it's melting on mountain glaciers where ever there are mountain glaciers. Ice has no political agenda. Ice cannot be bribed by Big Oil. The earth is warming.

The melting did NOT start last century. Glaciers and ice caps, on average, have been receding for many thousands of years before humans could even have effect on it.

Just more left wing fascist propaganda and fear mongering. Unlike MSDNC and other leftist outlets, Fox has no agenda and reports both sides so the viewer can make up his own mind rather than be preached to.

That's why they have more viewers than all other cable new channels combined and have been #1 for the last decade.

As stated earlier and hinted at by the IPCC, the US will see warming as a net benefit. Some areas will do better, others will do worse. Fear mongering only serves to generate more deniers. Also as stated earlier, true science is not about fixing blame, it is about reporting results dispassionately.

That might be, Stump, but we have helped to increase the rate at which the ice is melting.

Facts confuse only those that cannot comprehend.

The problem is the more extreme claims ARE junk science, and that is poisoning the rest.

So is the warmth tied to climate change? Scientists can't make that connection on such a short timescale, Crouch said. "We are seeing a long-term trend of warming winters," he added, "but there are a lot of factors in any given month."

Heh, you noticed that too?

well so your ex president said he would do it again right ? HIS name was Bush btw . the world DID NOT begin in 2009 . global warming is junk science . i think we should drill baby drill and disband the epa lets go back to when real men drove real cars . wooghooo

Sorry Jim.

:(

Hey Jim and Ruken,

Agree! lol

The science is complicated and the amount of data is huge and it is mixed. That's why it is "easy" for each side to make their case. What turns me off is the global warming fear mongers. I think it's prudent for the U.S. to reduce industrial pollution and green house gas emissions... but not beyond the point where it kills our ability to compete on the global market place. However, the people who come across as shrill doomsday preachers turn a moderate like me off.

Any effort by the U.S. needs to be matched by at least China, if not by India and Russia as well. Otherwise we will just be peeing in the wind. Bankrupting the U.S. while the other countries continue to pollute the atmosphere.

I think it's prudent for the U.S. to reduce industrial pollution and green house gas emissions... but not beyond the point where it kills our ability to compete on the global market place.

That's my view also.

I look at it this way....The U.S. could cut it's emissions to ZERO and it wouldn't change anything, other than destroying this country.

It does amaze me when someone asks "Don't you believe in global warming?" Dumb question, on many levels, but mostly what they mean is "Don't you believe the industry allowed by conservative poltics is causing harmful climate change?" I like to answer "Oh yes, just as we managed to "end" the last ice age 14,000 years ago with our conservative global warming ignorance." Gosh, if we had just followed the liberal path starting 10 years ago, the poles would be 10 degrees cooler, right? Generally, those who know more than anyone posting here, believe that about 120,000 years ago, the climate was very much like it is right now. How did we cause that?

There are indeed similarities between 120,000 years ago and now; in both cases the Earth's orbit has (or had) a favorable low eccentricity which prevents the Sun from being too far away during certain months. However, if the current rapid warming trend due to greenhouse gases continues much longer, we'll soon be into warming territory that the Earth hasn't seen in many millions of years.

Again with the leftist lies. Obama is supporting clean coal and got more from BP that any other politician in a decade, how does that square with your propaganda?

What does Obama supporting clean coal and getting a bunch of money from BP have to do with climate change?? EVERY politician should support clean energy or cleaner methods of burning the fuel we are currently using. And the effects of the BP spill more than likely won't be fully realized for another several years. So yes, BP should've paid out a hell of a lot of money for what they did!

There is no such thing as " clean coal @ pdab " i was born and raised in west Virginia . Cleam coal is one of those fuzzy sciences . " Most people call clean coal a lie . but drill baby drill . You are Funny .

It's a total myth that "all signs point to 20 to 30 years of cooling." The only such "sign" I'm aware of is the possibility of an extended solar minimum; however even if that happens (and it isn't certain), it will likely offset only a decade or so of carbon emissions according to research published last year.

And, EK, as usual you're only pointing out part of the information. Why has the lower 48 been so warm while the northern latitudes have been bitterly cold? It's because the jet stream has stayed further north this year rather than dropping down to the southern latitudes as it normally does. This in turn has trapped the cold air up north and left the south with only tidbits of winter when the jet stream occasionaly does drop.

Yes, many weather stations are located in less than ideal locations. However, population growth has outpaced the relocation process of the weather stations. There are enough stations placed in locations to get 'real' temps to get a broad view of what's happening to our world. Also, there are equations that can factor in those 'anamolies' in order to get 'real world' temps as well.

These stations are NOT the only way to get a viewpoint of global temps and you know this.

Why in the hell do people retire to Florida if the normal temperature in January is in the 40s? They should retire to Georgia, it is warmer - low 50's.

I call BS on Georgia thats a whole long state thats just in the way .

LOL racists and peanuts , why would ya want to stop there ?

I have only driven through. My point was that I am just not buying that up until recently the average daily temerature in most of Florida was 30 degrees below 70 - i.e. 40.

Reagan the Scientist. Ketchup is a vegetable for school lunch. What a prize. See how healthy those school kids are these days.

Yeah, Reagan took down those solar panels off the White House the Carter put up. Now the Germans and Chinese dominate the solar panel market. The he eliminated the CAFE standards on American cars and helped the Japanese car makers sell more cars.

Reagan's glory is a right wing myth...

More leftist propaganda. Solar panels were a joke back then at $15/w in 80's dollars. Only now at $1/W are they considered viable.

Moreover oil man Bush put them back on the white house in 2003, here's the link:

http://www.sma.de/en/products/references/solar-inverters/isolator/the-white-house.html

Facts trump liberal lies every time.

Whats the lie? You yourself said that Bush put them back on... That means that Reagan took them down which is what 111 said.

Of course the manufacturing price comes down as time goes on. Look at computers and microwave ovens. What is your point? 111 said the Chinese and Germans dominate the market, I say it is because their people did not resist everything that is new and different.

What is the lie and propaganda? 111 spoke the truth and you proved him correct.

My mistake above replace all the 111 with newbook. Newbook had it right with no lies and 111 proved him correct.