I started my tomatoes and squash at the end of February this year, they still have to be covered at night and a couple of night I brought them inside but they are enjoying outdoor sun for a good 6 to 7 hours a day, 2 month earlier than normal.

Global warming will bake the south, the very place where the Fox has the peoples brain on permanent spin cycle, but up here it's going to make things rather pleasurable for a few decades till it bakes us too, that's okay, I'm fifty and don't have any kids, I will get to retire in a warmer climate without moving.

Well, thanks Einstein! I guess that difference of opinion may apply to things other than ice cream flavors and cars. If exposure to the best music, whether country, blues, classical, or jazz, and the best food, the best medical schools, beaches, literature, and whew! weather, will bake the brain, then I guess I must be about done. I'm sorry to hear that wherever YOU are from isn't getting your brain baked like mine. Maybe your head is too far up your rectum for the heat to reach?

robert your head is buried too far in the sand to get baked. At least you have that going for you!

jhawk- you've proven your intellect well... please learn to read and spell.

while you are sitting there trying to 'prove' something, irreversible damage is happening everywhere. but please, keep insisting on more proof every time proof is offered up. just keep insisting it isn't enough. screw caution, right? your words are quite literally the epitome of 'redneck' ridiculousness. oxymoron- junk and science. and no, i didn't just call you a moron, although i know you think i did, which is part of what's so damn funny about it. lmfao.

Hey WOWI! Make that sand oil-soaked Gulf Coast zydeco Mardi Gras sand! Not like that other kind, frozen Great White North brown shale sand. Ya just doesn't know whereof ya speaks! do you feel me, you whiner!

well just keep making @!$%# up... sooner or later it will become fact. you are actually amusing to a degree (no pun intended).

oj simpson wasn't 'proven' to have killed anyone but we all know he did. you can argue anything you want. it doesn't make it untrue, it just makes you intellectually incompetent and completely void of integrity.

jhawke it has nothing to do with earthquakes. you really could AT LEAST pay attention, even if you don't pay your own hospital bills.

but again, just keep making @!$%# up and someday it'll become fact! lmao.

What I find absolutely incredible is that anyone can make the claim to scientific methods and then turn around and use a data set that is .00001 percent of the whole.

I'm certain that man is affecting his climate. I'm also certain that dirtying up our planet is a bad thing, but this Chicken Little @!$%# of running around saying that "Oh the sky is falling...." and then showing a theory as proof is ridiculous.

Call it what it is, another religion, because it is faith based not fact based.

Let's continue to do research. Let's just not throw out the baby with the bath water. If the global warming crowd is 100 percent correct, it doesn't matter anyway because it's too late. My viewpoint is that, again, dirtying up our planet in the ways we do is a very bad thing and we should control them, but there's no point in further handicapping our country when other countries are just going to keep doing what they want anyway. I'm not saying keep doing what we're doing, but we don't need to commit national suicide to do it. Make the changes we can that are common sense and affordable, work on the larger opinion of the other major countries, and then continue to research to find out what else we can do.

Who knows? Maybe this is nothing more than a skinned knee to Old Mother Nature. Maybe she's laughing at all the dumbasses running around thinking they know everything about her cycles. Hell, maybe this is nothing more than PMS to her. The bottom line: who knows? Al Gore sure doesn't. If he did do you think he would still have the carbon footprint of a small town?

Prove that 1) WE are causing climate change

It's not that we are causing it. Climate change has been a part of this planet since its existence. The question that everyone needs to take seriously, is how much or how little we are affecting this planets natural cycles.

To think that we have not affected this planet in any way with all of our toxic dumping of chemicals into our air and water, is akin to living in denial.

Yes, climate changes will happen with or without our species, but there is no possible way that our complete disrespect for this planet has not harmed it, or affected its natural cycle in any way at all.

The rest of your postings ended up being name calling and stereotyping. It really detracts from any valid points you may have had. Your post 1.8 really sums up your maturity in this discussion. To call someone emotionally driven after what you typed here, is the height of irony.

Jhawke-- I fully agree with you that climate change is happening, that human agency has not been proven, & that liberals have hijacked the issue as part of their agenda. And for the record, I'm a Rush Limbaugh conservative. But, given that we know greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, is it prudent to add to them thru the emissions of factories, power plants, & large, fuel-inefficient cars at a time when natural cycles are increasing the mean temperature of the Earth? This is an example of the 5% of all issues on which Rush is incorrect.

jim you say...

If the global warming crowd is 100 percent correct, it doesn't matter anyway because it's too late.

so if i read you correctly, you are saying that since you who believe superstition over science have argued and fought for so long to retain your 'right' to pollute, which has, in turn and as you say, brought us beyond the point of no return, then you should be allowed to continue to pollute? what kind of nonsense is this? is this how my bank decided they could keep the money they 'accidentally' stole from my account by way of false charges because i didn't notice it was missing before 30 days had passed? wtf?! get a clue folks. wrong is wrong, no matter when you notice it.

So , we have never had weather patterns like this in the past ?

Of course we have and my main concern is the amount of money to be made by the politically connected involving ANY legislation !

ray please tell me what 'agenda' you speak of. the billions of dollars that go missing in the middle east? the kickbacks to the oil companies? i'm waiting. oh, is this another "they want to get rid of my guns' fallacy? i'm guessing yes. i have no vested interest in any green or brown companies, btw. i simply want my kids to eat something other than soylent green.

...and JimP and NYMike-- your devoutly expressed convictions that human activity is causing global warming betrays your bias. You are inclined to believe it, with or without evidence, so you believe it. The well-documented political bias & fraud associated with climate change research have little or no influence on your beliefs. I repeat, what the IPCC amply demonstrated was that climate change is taking place-- not what causes it; & the evidence in favor of natural cycles is much more compelling than any that convict human activity.

i have an idea-

everyone who wants to make any factual statements regarding environmental concerns should first go learn a little something about the environment and, more specifically, ecosystems. you will never again call significant disruption a 'skinned knee.'

oj simpson wasn't 'proven' to have killed anyone but we all know he did. you can argue anything you want. it doesn't make it untrue, it just makes you intellectually incompetent and completely void of integrity.

A murder is pretty straight forward, wow, irrespective of the LA racist white cops that tried to ensure the black murderer was set up for guilt. Complexities of global weather patterns are not so simple and emotionally charged. The last five years worth of hurricane seasons for example were downgraded from their original forecast. You know, the post-Katrina-global-warming-supercanes you liberals told us about. We can't even forecast where tornadoes will hit, yet people like you are going to say with a straight face that my back yard grilling and SUV driving are causing polar bears to fall off ice burgs. Sorry - that's pretty funny. And AGAIN, that has NOTHING to do with local pollution issues that you liberal limp wrists keep trying to spin the propaganda into.

it has nothing to do with earthquakes. you really could AT LEAST pay attention, even if you don't pay your own hospital bills.

First, wow, I don't pay my own auto-repair bills when I get in a wreck, either. That's what I pay auto insurance premiums for. Think much there, liberal?

Second, wow, regarding shale and drilling halt, check this out:

http://www.wkbn.com/content/features/shale/story/Operations-Halted-at-Youngstown-Injection-Well/2YppccVx7kKJhkpw0F5gUA.cspx

Now tell me again about lies, brainiac.

wowicantbelieve it-- I refer to the agenda to redistribute wealth. It has nothing to do with gun control, your inappropriate reference to which once again betrays your knee-jerk liberal bias. But then, clear thinking has never been a hallmark of the liberal mindset.

Amen Ray. All you have to do to know you've got a liberals panties in a wad is to sit back and watch the insults start flying. It's really quite amusing...like a B-grade horror flick on SyFy.

what about the mass change on land. forests, coral reefs are great weather buffers. yet coral reefs are disappearing for a few human caused reasons.watch carbon nation it is a eye opener. though I do think the climate goes through change similar to a long drawn out tided. I do see the science of how we have made global impact on the climate. Coral reefs for example Msnbc had a article on august 17th how coral was being impacted by humans. that 50% had been destroyed in the last 15yrs. It would be interesting to know how much had be destroyed before then. is that 50% of a 100%, 85%, .... National geographic had a article also about a different avenue that the reefs are being affected by deforestation across a ocean is allow spores to travel through on wind currents, that had been normal caught by the trees to land on the coral reefs which also started killing them off. Coral reefs play a huge role in weather, and fish life . coral reef provide storm breaks to the land (more storm damage, more cost). Plus the water is starting to become unsuitable for the corals which is also killing them. This is one example of many things, it all adds up. it makes longterm sense to pay attention to our water, air, soil, trees. All impact climate in big ways. I just don't see the longterm with the way things have been going.

a top climatologist from the University of Oslo in Norway said that every 12 years the earth is going to experience a warm weather pattern because the earth is resetting itself climate wise so think back and think about the year 2000 wasn't it warm that year? Why are we listening to Al Gore who graduated from college with a business degree and was Vice president of the United States, did he go back to school and learn about climates from an online course at the university of phoenix or something?

Your post 1.8 really sums up your maturity in this discussion. To call someone emotionally driven after what you typed here, is the height of irony.

Hey NYMike - hate to break it to you, but I punch back when being punched. And if you think my comment of "emotionally-driven" is even on the same insult level of "baked brains" that you had no comment about, then there is nothing more to say about the meaning of irony.

I agree with you, this warm spell is completely Obama's fault, once again.

Coral reefs are disappearing for 2 reasons-- warmer temps & deeper water, neither of which has been conclusively linked to human activity. In the 1990s two independent research teams, one U.S. & the other Danish, pulled ice cores out of Greenland that show abrupt warming trends from 5000 years ago that produced profound climate change in as little as 5 years. That wasn't due to human activity either. Nor was the Little Ice Age, which wiped out the Viking settlements in Greenland. The Earth goes thru these cycles, which regardless of your prejudices have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. That said, I stand by my original post. Given that we know greenhouse gasses contribute to this process-- however little they may contribute-- it is imprudent of us not to voluntarily limit them. For liberals to have turned this into an agenda-driven political issue has only muddied the waters, producing a knee-jerk rejection of the entire body of global warming science on the part of many conservatives. The fact that there is such a huge divide on this issue is therefore due primarily to its stupid handling by liberals.

wowicantbelieveit- while you are sitting there trying to 'prove' something, irreversible damage is happening everywhere. but please, keep insisting on more proof every time proof is offered up.

Which "irreversible damage" are you referring to, the climate changing, or the tyrannical monstrosity of global government that will be the end of free peoples?

The climate changes. It always has, even without combustion engines, styrofoam or plastic bags.

Making cleaner burning engines and power plants is fine, but do not, i repeat, DO NOT EVER, EVER allow these globalist elitist maniacs to start charging US "carbon credits" to heat our homes, drive to work, or have a camp fire, and pretty much everything else we do. They are already doing this in Europe, and the super-rich power elites would love to expand this across the planet- the biggest scam ever devised!

It would help us all a great deal if we could just convince "Mother Nature" that the term "climate change" is just politics and She should stop trying to be so politically incorrect.

"It's all just a cyclical thing ... la la la" .................LOL

TP are such ignoramuses...

timetraveller-- you are precisely correct.

...and RandyMalone, Mac, and Rush-- I provide conclusive evidence that you're wrong, & all you can do is make irrelevant remarks about Obama, sing, & sling insults. Pathetic evidence of the liberal inability to think, or even to stay on-subject.

Coral Grief: Warming Climate Threatens Reef Destruction ...

Coral Reefs — Global Issues

Direct Human Pressures

• Over-fishing (and global market pressures)—including the use of damaging practices (bomb and cyanide fishing);
• Sediments—from poor land use, deforestation, and dredging;
• Nutrients and Chemical pollution
• Development of coastal areas—for urban, industrial, transport and tourism developments, including reclamation and mining of coral reef rock and sand beyond sustainable limits.

The end of the line, if you have netflix i suggest you give it a watch scientific data is given about overfishing.

60 percent of the earth’s coral reefs are threatened by human activity

This is really sad. It reminds me of when I was a kid, and tobacco company propaganda managed to convince most Americans that "the jury was out" on whether smoking caused cancer. They cited all kinds of misleading data about all the millions of smokers in perfect health, all the other possible causes for lung cancer, etc. They successfully convinced the American public that the smoking-cancer link was liberal propaganda - an excuse to raise taxes on cigarettes and pass laws that "restrict our freedoms."

This "global warming is a hoax" business is all too familiar. And energy companies have a lot more money to spend on this disinformation than the tobacco companies ever did. It would be funny if the survival of our species weren't at stake.

Oh, and one more thing - I managed to make my point without personal insults and inflammatory language. Tip to my opponents - you do not boost your case by calling me a "limp wristed liberal," or telling me that "liberals can't think," or any other such nonsense. If we talked that way to each other in the real world, someone would end up with a broken nose. The rules of civility do NOT change just because you're on the internet. Treat each other with respect.

First of all, if one really wishes to address any influence mankind may have on global weather patterns one would expect that we have a stable control from which to deduct accurate temperatures from:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/30/houston-we-have-a-temperature-problem/

And then we have that history of pesky doctored climate change data......

And yes, we've all read the liberal propaganda about comparisons of climate change to tobacco and denial. It's pretty easy to look into a set of lungs and see the damage from smoking: smoker lungs. Someone smokes, someone gets smoker lungs. Smoke = lung damage. People also have been known to die from smoke inhalation in fires. Pretty simple and straightforward. Another liberal logic fail.

Jhawke

Amen Ray. All you have to do to know you've got a liberals panties in a wad is to sit back and watch the insults start flying. It's really quite amusing...like a B-grade horror flick on SyFy.

You are throwing out insults like candy at a parade.

I am a Democrat & I am enjoying the warm weather. Generalizing everybody within their respective political affiliations isn't good & just makes you look bad. Just because I am a Democrat does not mean I am going to sit back & bash on Republicans. I respectfully disagree with some of them. But I have the ability to respectfully disagree with anybody, not just regarding politics or religion for instance.

Hate/anger is not a pretty look on anybody. Have a good day & enjoy the weather!

Let there be no freezing.

60 percent of the earth’s coral reefs are threatened by human activity

PDF and GIS data included.

I can understand wanting your phone to read the right temp in your area. Temperature data is collected on site. so i am not sure the comparison though i get wanting your phone to have accurate temps.

Tao-- Over-fishing and global market pressures do not & cannot affect the activity of the coral polyps that build reefs. Bomb & cyanide fishing are illegal in most of the world, & have been since the 1950s. Sediment effluent affects primarily coastal areas. It cannot have any effect on Pennecamp Reef in Florida, any of the Caribbean reefs, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, any of the reefs of the South Pacific, or the vast majority of reefs in the rest of the world, which are hundreds or even thousands of miles away from any sediment that washes into the ocean. The same is true of nutrient & chemical pollution as well as coastal development. The idea that poor land use or deforestation have any influence on coral reefs is further evidence of hysterical liberal fantasy. Dredging could have an influence on coral reefs, in the fewer than 1% of all cases where a coral reef has actually been dredged. And your figure of 60% is unsupported by any evidence, as with virtually everything else you've said.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the subject at hand anyway. I thought we were discussing whether or not global warming was due to human agency. The effect on coral reefs has absolutely nothing to do with that, which is further evidence of the liberal inability to think clearly. The disappearance of coral reefs is an effect, not a cause, & it contributes nothing towards an understanding of the cause. Furthermore, I've conceded the fact of global warming as well as the prudence of not contributing to it by further emissions of greenhouse gasses, which constitutes the substantive total of your position-- but that isn't enough for you. You insist on arguing-- very ineffectively, I might add-- the implausible case for human agency. This is a clear indication that the politics of global warming are of far greater interest to you that the facts of it, or even what can be done to ameliorate it.

Jhawke-- this is an example of how to destroy a liberal. Simply get it to make ridiculous & unsupported statements while keeping your cool & not responding to provokation, & then calmly knock over its arguments 1 at a time while pointing out the bias that drives them.

Sarah - the left bashes the right, and the right bashes the left. That's how this nation works. The internet is not big enough for me to say "every Democrat is wrong except Sarah, Joe, Paul, and...".

I do find it ironic however that the left sits back silently when insults fly from the left towards the right but then come out of the woodwork when the right hits back. I'm not new to that double standard mindset.

Tao: there is much more to the story of false temperature readings that gets fed to climate change "researchers."

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44605

Thanks Ray. Your advice is wise naturally, but it's just not nearly as fun.

So Jhawke, what you are saying is the internet is not big enough for you to not stereotype? A lot of people throw insults around from the left & the right. I am just not one of them. I find insults & double-standards unnecessary. I do realize they are inevitable, however I choose not to partake in them. I am just saying I am a Democrat, I am enjoying the nice weather, global warming or not. I do not know enough about global warming to comment on it. Should we trash the planet? No. I think we should treat it as we treat it as we treat out homes. Well I do anyways, I keep a very tidy house. My whole point is not every Democrat is a bad person & not every Republican is a bad person. I am just saying it is a bit unfair to generalize.

Jhawke - since we are talking about the validity of scientific research, please support your contrary view with legitimate peer reviewed articles from scientific journals. Blogs and opinion pieces from newspapers don't work here. If you can find an article in a peer reviewed journal on climate science that disputes man made climate change, then we can talk. Until then you're simply trying to defeat science with ideology.

Oh, and my analogy with tobacco propaganda absolutely does hold, because even though you've chosen to ignore it, we absolutely DO have direct evidence that human activity causes climate change. Miles of evidence. Check those journals I mentioned. That might be a good start. Get your science from scientists, not from politicians.

Sarah-- I "respectfully" disagree. Liberals are congenitally unable to think clearly. You say you're a Democrat. Presumably that means you agree with Democrat positions on abortion, gun control, & the redistribution of wealth, as well as the human agency behind global warming. But abortion is a travesty & an outrage. Gun control merely deprives the citizen of the means to defend himself & his home. (And before we get into the Martin case, the inappropriate use of a weapon in just 1 instance does not obviate its appropriate & fully justified use in a host of others, nor should it trump an individual's right to self defense.) The redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not merely provides a disincentive to those who earn, as well as to those who do not. And while the human agency behind global warming has not been proven, or even demonstrated to a nominal degree of confidence, to continue to insist on it-- as your political party does-- serves only to deepen the divide between those who believe in human agency & those who do not, while preventing any consensus on what to do about the actual problem. This is why liberal political positions are inconsistent with clear & rational thought. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but it is a fact.

please support your contrary view with legitimate peer reviewed articles from scientific journals.

Please see my post #1.43 about the GAO showing that nearly half the temperature sensors in the US are faulty that drives the so-called "scientific journals" that you mention.

And no, tobacco use on lungs doth not equate climate change and mankind's activities any more than equating alcoholism to liver disease. There are givens, and my back yard grilling and SUV driving are not equal to sea levels rising.

revelwoodie-- I've already met your challenge by referencing the Greenland ice core studies & the Little Ice Age, neither of which was caused by human activity. You are therefore the one who is trying to defeat science with ideology.

Ray - I saw your comment about the ice cores, etc. The lack of links to reputable sources that we can all look at and verify for ourselves was glaring.

Jhawke - every link I saw you post was from a blog, an opinion piece, a radio station, etc.

My challenge stands. And it WILL stand. Because your position is simply not supported by the science.

NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program: Pollution

The data would disagree with you

Ray, if you respectfully disagreed, you would not go on to insult me by saying I am unable to think clearly. First of all, I am pro-choice. You assumed correctly on that one. As for gun control, you assumed my beliefs incorrectly. I fully support the second amendment. I think my idea of 'redistribution of wealth' may differ from what you believe all liberals think it is. I do not agree with abuse of the welfare system. i agree with people who truly need it (i.e. hard working people who have been laid-off or injured) using it for short periods of time. I think that their needs to be much more limits on items that can be purchased with food stamps. I do believe there are people who truly need them. I have never been on government assistance. I am 100% service connected disabled veteran of the Iraq war in which I proudly served due to a traumatic brain injury that has left me unable to work. I have three children who I receive no child support for but I still do not use government assistance whatsoever. But if I didn't receive the compensation from the VA (which is NOT government assistance or welfare or whatever) I would need these programs. I do understand their are women who are baby mills just to stay on welfare. I don't like this abuse of the system. Truth is no system will ever work 100% because of politics. I do have a question. I have always wondered this. People who are anti-abortion AND pro-death penalty do not make sense to me. (I am pro-death penalty btw but I think the government needs to stay out of my uterus). So if it is not right to take a fetus' life, how is it right to take a living persons life? This is not a sarcastic question. Just an honest one. I like the death penalty because it saves money. But how can people be for & against "murder" at the same time?

so if i read you correctly, you are saying that since you who believe superstition over science have argued and fought for so long to retain your 'right' to pollute, which has, in turn and as you say, brought us beyond the point of no return, then you should be allowed to continue to pollute?

wowicantbelieveit

Wow, way to take something out of context and make up a bunch of bull@!$%# to go with it. Obviously you didn't read me correctly because you apparently did read my post at all. My post was all about how the scientific method has not been truly applied because there isn't enough data to make a conclusion. You cannot make a conclusion with any certainty with less than one thousandths of a percent of the available data set.

...and JimP and NYMike-- your devoutly expressed convictions that human activity is causing global warming betrays your bias.

Ray Thorne

Another reading comprehension fail. I said man was affecting his climate, not causing global warming. Obviously we are affecting our climate. That is indisputable. It's not possible for man to put his finger prints everywhere and have no effect. That doesn't mean he's causing global warming. If you and the other posters actually read, my whole post was about how the so-called proof from the global warming nutcases was nothing more than an incomplete study and that saying otherwise turned their theory in a religion because it was faith-based.

Sarah - Thank you for your service. If you were my neighbor, I would bend over backwards for you and your family. Your political affiliation does not matter at that level. My WWII vet grandfather had nothing but terrible service from the VA in his final years, which is a prelude to Obamacare and government run health care.

And I know you asked Ray this, but I'll give my answer: murderers aren't innocent. Babies are. You are attempting two entirely different lives. Now I'd like to ask you a question since we are talking about pregnancies and unwanted babies: why should taxpayers and/or insurance companies pay for birth control options and even abortions that Democrats want?

revel - What part of the fact that the GAO found faulty temperature sensors do you not understand?

• www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/coralreef/CRanthro.html

I saw it, Jhawke. And the most important part of what I saw is that your link is to the blog post of a global warming denier. A link to the GAO report would have been useful, so that people can read these supposedly damning excerpts in the context intended by the authors.

In any case, I have a question for you. This "incorrectly placed sensor" problem isn't new - it's been that way all along. So if we have a sensor that's placed too close to building, for example,and it's been there for 20 years, and it shows an increase in temperature over that time, how is that increase invalid? Even if every one of those readings had to be adjusted downward a half degree or whatever, the trend would still show the exact same thing - rising temperatures.

Oh - Tao - who are those links intended for? You said they were proving someone wrong, but I'm not sure who you were referring to.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are cranking out 100's of gigatons of CO2 per year. This cannot fail to have a significant effect on the world climate. Even if the warming trend were natural (the natural cycle would have us cooling now), it would not matter, we would still be increasing and speeding up the warming. The warming poses an extreme threat to the survival of the human race. The statements I just made are facts of reality, they are not subject to debate, and NO, you have NO right to disagree. 2+2=4, no debate.

Global climate change denyers are as ignorant as flat Earthers, and they may be the real death of us all.

Jhawke, You right wing-nuts really make me laugh. On the one hand you whine about welfare mothers cranking out babies, and then you want to outlaw abortion and refuse to pay for birth control. I wonder if you people have ever had two consistent thoughts in a row. Enjoy your dreamworld. It ends in November.

post #1.29 and #1.42. and the general audience who think we have no impact.

revel - I'm not sure why you expect me to spoon feed you a link from failed temperature sensor data other than the fact that you don't want to know other possibilities. Regarding your question about temperature data and age, many of those sensors were new and placed after said buildings were built. Hence, no long term study. As any reasonably intelligent person knows, temperature fluctuations and any cause/effect cannot be extrapolated from 20 years, 30 years, or even 100 years of data.

Bear in mind here that nobody is denying climate change. Again. What's in question is what mankind has to do with it, if anything. Taxing us do death and mandating how we live and what we eat (because cow farts for example are blamed for contributing to global warming by the pro-AGW crowd) is not justified with the current unsubstantiated hypothesis of mankind-induced climate change.

And for anyone REALLY interested in C02 emissions and mankind's influence, it's about 3% of the total C02 in our atmosphere:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Yeah John (Irrational), that link is for your educational reference and C02, you typical insult-slinging liberal.

Jhawke, you are welcome. My father was also in the Army & was an Airborne/Air Assault sniper grunt who was in the battle of Hamburger Hill. He was hit from the shrapnel from an RPG. He is completely blind (with glass eyes), lost most of his hearing, a finger, & still has metal in his face & hands. He had a very tough time getting 100% with the VA after he came back. My father actually came back, went on to get his MBA from Syracuse & Alfred, then worked for the SBA in D.C. amazingly. I can understand your grandfathers troubles with the VA. It took me awhile to get 100% but my struggle was far less then my father or your grandfather (whom I thank posthumously for his service as well).

On the abortion/death penalty issue, I actually almost became anti-death penalty the other day. I think a lot about politics now that I've cleaned up my life. I was thinking two wrongs don't make a right. I correlated it with when I swatted my three year old daughter on her behind (I'm not against spanking) for hitting her oldest brother & at the same time I said "Don't hit your brother". Then I thought about what she must be thinking. I felt like I was being a hypocrite. I do believe in spanking when it comes to dangerous situations for shock value. So I guess I am still on the fence with the death penalty issue. I see it's pro's & con's. Now as for abortion, I am not advocating abortions used as birth control. But I do believe it is a woman's choice. I don't think a fetus should have more rights than a person who has been born.

I think insurance companies should pay for birth control & abortions as long as the person is paying their premium. I don't think taxpayers should pay for abortions but I think free & reduced birth control will limit the number of abortions.

Jhawke, You right wing-nuts really make me laugh. On the one hand you whine about welfare mothers cranking out babies, and then you want to outlaw abortion and refuse to pay for birth control. I wonder if you people have ever had two consistent thoughts in a row. Enjoy your dreamworld. It ends in November.

John: Actually I'm not against abortion, nor did I ever state I was. I am against OTHERS paying for abortion as I am on OTHERS paying for birth control. You wanna screw safely? Pay your own way. How's that for a consistent thought?

Sarah - your comments are what America is all about. We can actually have rational discussion without going at each other's throats. And that's awesome. You sound like a strong woman with a great spirit and that's what this nation needs - regardless of political affiliation.

Take care, and God Bless you and your family.

John Rational (or irrational?) Even if a person disagrees at 2+2=4 they still have a right to disagree. That's pretty unfair for you to tell a person they have no right to disagree. Stop being mean, you are the epitome of rights hating lefts.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

The Global Carbon Cycle - NOAA's Office of Oceanic and ...

Climate Change: Evidence

Why is there no ruckus about free antibiotics lol?

Jhawke - I see your only experience with the GAO report was the pieces of it you read on that right wing blog. I, however, have read the report. For the edification of all of us: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

I'd like to point your attention to page 31:

"Because the data from USHCN stations are used to identify long-term climate trends and the stations were thus selected in part on the basis of the stations’ stability of measurement conditions and continuity of data, NCDC officials said they would caution NWS against relocating or closing stations that do not meet siting standards. NCDC officials said they would consider closing a station only in certain situations, such as an observer not following NWS guidelines when recording weather observations."

So there it is, black and white. Sensors used for climate data were selected specifically for long term stability. So your argument holds no water.

And this remark of yours: "As any reasonably intelligent person knows, temperature fluctuations and any cause/effect cannot be extrapolated from 20 years, 30 years, or even 100 years of data." Well, 20 years of data can lead to conclusions about fluctuations over 20 years. 100 years of data can lead to conclusions about fluctuations over 100 years. Isn't that obvious to you, as a "reasonably intelligent person"?

So revel you can Google! Now, do you deny that temperature gathering data is faulty? Yes or no? A simple question warrants a simple answer. Facts have no bias. It is fascinating how you liberals are so infatuated with the theory of AGW.

Here's the real million dollar question however (with Cap & Trade in mind): is your home solely solar and/or wind powered? Do you ride a bike to work?

If the answer is no to the above, I don't need to read anything else from you.

Jhawke, I answered your points thoroughly, but apparently you're looking for a "simple answer"? That might be part of your problem. Anyhoo, I'll try again. The sensors are NOT faulty. Read the GAO report if you don't believe me. The problem is that many are incorrectly sited, i.e. too close to other things that may affect their readings. But as the report also clearly states, the sensors used for climate change data are selected specifically for their long term stability. They have NOT been moved from place to place. They are NOT faulty. And even if incorrectly sited, their data is still accurate for purposes of climate change research, because they show TRENDS. I can't say it any simpler than that.

And the insults again? I do the research you can't be bothered to do, and you say ,"Yay - you can Google!" Precious. Perhaps you don't want to look at the GAO report because you're afraid it might not say what right wing bloggers want it to say? Like that last link you posted -- Geocraft? Really? A global warming denial site owned by Monte Hieb, a spokesman for the coal mining industry? Do you actually investigate your sources, or do you just swallow it whole if it fits your world view? I'm sorry if that sounds insulting. I don't mean it to. But this denial of facts and evidence, this blind adherence to ideology over science, it really gets my hackles up.

Did you notice that three out of the six in the picture are very overweight?

Thank you Jhawke, I enjoy having a discussion like this. I read the news a lot to learn. I love learning & I love hearing all points of view. I learn a lot in the message boards. I never did this kind of thing before. I cleaned up my life 364 days ago after actively using drugs for 16 years. It is so nice to have these discussions & be a part of society. I like to get along with everybody & when I disagree with somebody I try my best to be polite when disagreeing. Thank you for this discussion!

I thought that election year politics, with all of that hot air (especially with the GOP primaries), were the cause of the current warming trend.

Not long ago I would politely quote facts and make rational arguments to conservatives. Then I came to see that rational arguments mean nothing to creatures which refuse to use their rational faculty or simply don't possess one. It is an exercise in futility to present facts to minds incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. It is enough to simply take away their power to harm the nation in November. Obama 2012!!!!!

John Rational why would you vote for Obama in 2012? Do you agree with H.R 347? I don't please join me in voting out all our representatives (only 3 voted no and 47 abstained) and all of our senators as none opposed passage and President Obama as he signed it.

Phunnny...like you all think we control the weather....lol

Of course we have and my main concern is the amount of money to be made by the politically connected involving ANY legislation !

You must be speaking of Big Business. What the oil companies alone made last quarter in profit is a damned scandal considering the country is still struggling with a recession.

You are indeed correct. Follow the money and you'll follow it right to Wall Street and Corporate America.

This nonsense about Al Gore and his profit is bait and switch. He could make a fortune and it would never amount to what these corporations are making as they rape the planet.

How could one man who owns virtually nothing ever have the influence of Giant Corporations that own everything including the news outlets? While Al Gore sits on his tiny out of the way channel, big business is saturating the airwaves with their propaganda.

Follow the money.

I wish to point out a moronic argument.

It's not that we are causing it. Climate change has been a part of this planet since its existence.

Now to blow this dumb@$$'s mind...

Fire has been around for billions of years yet it still can destroy your house if you fall asleep with a cigarette. :)

Now that you got the idea go F yourself. :)

Climate change exists. If you don't believe it, you are either ignorant or unable to comprehend the science.

Now, was this winter caused by climate change? That question is an oxymoron. Climate is defined by long term averages, singular events aren't relevant. In addition, the warmth this winter was caused by the jet stream going north and parking itself in Canada. Was this caused by climate change? I dunno. I haven't read anything that said it was.

While I know AGW exists, I don't know if the warmth this winter is entirely attributable to it.

Tao of wow

"John Rational why would you vote for Obama in 2012? Do you agree with H.R 347? I don't please join me in voting out all our representatives (only 3 voted no and 47 abstained) and all of our senators as none opposed passage and President Obama as he signed it."

TOW, Since I actually read what H.R. 347 says, I find no fault with it. Please share your concerns about it with us. I do mean YOUR concerns not your favorite pundit's. Quote us a passage from H.R. 347, and state your concern please.

Practically speaking your candidate will be Romney unless something drastic happens before the convention. Fundamentalist Christians are a large part of your base. Do you actually believe they will vote for a poly-theist with magic underwear who believes that satan was Jesus' brother? Mormons are not Catholics. If the Mormon prophet says jump they answer, how high sir, praise G*D! A lot of people out there are not comfortable with the Mormon prophet being the real president. I'm one of them.

Barring a major scandal, Obama is going to be your next president. He's done a great job so far. He is not a Muslim Kenyan Marxist (oxymoronic). He is your president and he will go right on being your president for four more years. The is the reality of the matter. Feel free to protest your fate, but that wont change it.

O.o I do not support any of the Republican candidates or Fundamentalist Christians nor are they a part of my base O.o? Nor do i believe that President Obama is a "Muslim Kenyan Marxist"

Outlaw Occupy: US set to strangle protest…

Chris Hedges Occupy the Courts NY Jan …

History of an occupation

6000 broken record hights in March. Huh. How many record highs were NOT broken,.....meaning it was hotter at some time in the PAST!

Was "global warming" in full-effect in Chicago on March 15, 1908 when the previous record high was set? Or how about Atlanta on March 8, 1934? March 25, 1977 Seattle? Oh. I see. "Global warming is only responsible for TODAY'S record highs. Well then, riddle me this: what is responsible for today's record LOWS???

When we break a record high, it's all the result of "global warming". But when today's record high was set in 1948,........that obviously wasn't the result of "global warming".

Side bar,.......why have we not seen any cases of non-global warming scientists falsifying THEIR data? Is it because non-global warming scientists DON'T NEED TO CORRUPT THE DATA to support their position?

wyomingliberal the trouble I have with you is that in your opinion everyone except a liberal is an idiot. What makes you think you are so superior to everyone else? The language you use really makes me think your IQ must be just above 50. Major problem with global warming is over population as what do you suggest we do about that?

When Al Gore and the rest of the Global Climate Change or whatever they call it next month crowd quit flying and move in together to quit wasting energy , call me. Until then it is a money grab just like Larry Summers derivatives from the 90's and we see what that got us.

I'm definitely on the side of human caused global warming but you still can't take one spike and extrapolate from that. Give me five or ten years of these kinds of trends and then we might be able to point to the data with any kind of confidence that the climate is warming for the non-believers. But even then we will need to lower the human impact, see long term trends in the other direction before we can have real confidence and proof that we are causing it. I believe it because the long term trends seem to indicate that the climate has been warming since we have been industrializing the planet. But until we can show that same negative trend many will not believe. And of course many will still deny it because it's in their best monetary interest to do so.

Problem is that when you look at the last ten years the trend is to cool rather than warm.

That's why the proof for me is to look at the trend going all the way back to the 19th century when we started to pump all the crap into the atmosphere. But again, it's not real proof, just proof enough for me.

only if you look at a ten year trend supplied by the oil companies or fox news. If you look at the actual ten year trend it was much colder in 2002, I kind of remember that considering I was alive in 2002 and living in the exact same place. In facts I take pictures of my yard every spring because everything in it flowers, 2002 there was 3 inches of snow on the ground on march 25.

So a ten year trend supplied by the ultra-left media is better than that shown on Fox News?

http://www.climatecooling.org/

And then you give a one month trend to prove your point?

In Greenland was being farmed by the VIkings and others. Today it is covered in ice. What caused that warming trend then? There were no cars or factories!

This cycle has been going on since the beginning of time and the present trend seems to be cooling - as we were told in the 70s.

http://www.climatecooling.org/

That being said, we should do all we can to clean up the environment. Just don't manufacture a crisis that willl cause irrational action rather than reasoned ones.

Why do you lie sir? I just saw a recent clip from Greenland and they have traded in their dogsleds for 4 wheelers, they have lost everything, their entire way of life is changing do to the LACK of ice. In fact when asked about Americans who don't believe in climate change they just laughed and shook their heads as they reached down and picked up a handful of dirt. I think you really need to shut fox news off it is poisoning your brain. You will not find a global warming denier in Greenland I promise you that, if you do you better check his bank account for any recent large deposits from the GOP or the oil companies.

If you want the real data for the last decade go to the NWS, NOAA, NCAR, etc... And no, most of these scientist don't get their grant money to study global warming. And those that do don't actually collect the data. They just study and try to based their theories on the data collected by all these other scientist who are generally studying some weird little esoteric weather phenomena. It's easier to get grant money if you are studying something that no one else is doing.

PLeeeeeaaaaassssseeee stop posting links to fake sites!!!!! I can make up websites too and post all sorts of fake data.

I will not click on one of your links, the last time I clicked on a link supplied by one of you paid deniers it took me straight to the Heartland Institute, a wingnut think tank. The GOP has a real problem telling the truth so why would I want to go read more of their lies. I am done arguing with you, talking to you people is like smashing my head against a brick wall, the only affect it has on me is to give a really bad headache.

Here in an hour or so all the wingnuts will be in their weekly brainwashing meeting at the local megachurch and THEN the rest of us can discuss the situation intelligently and perhaps come up with a solution to the crisis,

I never suggested that Grreenland was not losing ice - just that it is not necessarily caused by actions of man. As I mentioned - it was iceless in the 1100s and man did not cause that one either.

Fox News always allows both sides of issues to be presented. Can youu say that about your poropaganda source?

and watermoon, don't let the fact that you have 2 checkmarks on one statement go to your head, I accidentally clicked it by mistake as I was trying to hit the reply button, so the only person who gave you a checkmark was YOURSELF.

If you look at the actual ten year trend it was much colder in 2002.

LOL Maybe where you live. Here in western Washington the trend over the last ten years has definitely been a cooling one. In fact, in the twenty years preceeding 2006 we got snow in the winter here south of Seattle mabe 4 or 5 winters (which is why snow/ice removal around here is so slow), whereas since 2006 we have had snow every winter. Not to mention the "summer" of 2010, which was a f*cking joke unworthy of being called summer.

Global warming may be real, but you're going to need more than the last ten years to prove it.

Hey Wyoming, I didn't know you could 'like' your own post but I just tried it and you can. That's a pretty silly feature that Newsvine should correct. Unless it would work for all my multiple personalities...

If this tiny sample is evidence of some overarching trend, I'll take it! Thanks but I bet it will be cold down here in about nine months just like last year.

Global climate change is not really the thing in question. There has always been global climate change. The question is what are the causes and how much does mankind have to do with it. And despite what a lot of people who are using it for political propaganda say, the jury is still out. At any rate, the whole notion that political conservatives are not enlightened about this science and that liberals have the answers is absurd. And even more absurd is the notion that one should embrace a particular political philosophy if they want to save mankind from extinction. And this is the notion that the left is promoting in a Goebbles-like fashion.

Yep, Goebbels gobbles alright, and this site gets a gaggle of Goebbels gobbling like turkeys most days. You are correct sir, the jury is out, and in the words of Cool Hand Luke, "I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I got my plastic Jesus". Take that Rick Santorum, and all the rest of you stupid God-fearing Heaven-bound morons!

Personally, I'll cast my lot with all the educated people, like Mr.Gore(he was robbed!).

It was merely a high warm front that came through and lasted for less than a week from the midwest to the east coast. The low pressure front was on the west coast causing record lows, snow falls, and chill rain. The warm front was over a much greater area, than the cool front, hence the larger number of record highs to record lows. Having a high pressure front sweep through North America, is not necessarily an indication, nor proof of global warming. I seem to recall every winter that starts early, or has record snowfalls, many start claiming that as a sign of AGW.

I live in Ontario Canada, and it was a gorgeous week, but now the temps have gone back to normal, cold and rainy. Wouldn't be surprised if we get a little snow again. I don't think it's all that strange to once in a while have a warm spring. The records themselves prove this to be true. Our temp records are like a blink of an eye in geological time. I don't put all that much stock into them. And the proxy records aren't always all that reliable either. And don't bring that illogical straw man argument that my brain if fried cause of Fox News. I don't watch Fox news, I prefer journal reviews.

Here's my question to all the man-made climate change deniers......what if you're wrong? What if the corporations who have a monetary vested interest in quashing pollution output regulations have spent billions of dollars in lobbying, advertising, and salaries to the 5% of scientists on earth who don't have reputations they are interested in defending, succeed in pulling the wool over your eyes. What would be the earth's recourse? There would be none.

The damn aliens will laugh their heads off at our dumb a$$es. Haha, I had to use dollars signs to post that sentence. Ah, irony.

Problem is that when you look at the last ten years the trend is to cool rather than warm.

Is this trend a global trend?

In my corner of the world things are wetter, colder, warmer, and weird... I call it the 'super ball' theory, like it bounces low, high, then lower, then higher, ect., becoming more unpredictible... which is not to be construed as anything concrete, but can be added to data being accumulated.

However, I'm not absorbed enough to think where 'I' live is the end all and be all of scientific data. Warmer & deeper oceans certainly are a concern for the planet, but I do not mistake my concern as a faith. I'm a show-me sort of thinker, and always find it curious when asked about a 'belief' for or against global warming.

How about spent jet fuel? How much crap is spewed daily into air that we are all trying to breathe? And this while the planet is still trying to rid itself of the LEAD gasoline that we quit using around 1985 but is still floating up around the stratosphere for about another 40 years.

While I am not a climate scientist or meteorologist, and my biggest claim to anything scientific is a subscription to Scientific American, learning the weather changes could be done through the study and discussions of coral reefs, or of reading the GOA report on Climate Monitoring, or even learning more about the impact of spent jet fuel hazing up the air.

However, while I think the article had way too many exclamation points and so read all excited like, I'm fairly sure it had zip to do with Obamacare, guns, abortion, or fracking.

So a ten year trend supplied by the ultra-left media is better than that shown on Fox News?

A 100 year trend shown by the SCIENTISTS is what we should be looking at. Give that a try, why don't you.

I know you'll discount this however:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

Data references for Greenland ice levels:

A. The latest - Rutgers University keeps track of snow cover around the world. Their data show as slight, but steadily increasing snow cover in Greenland since 1966. See graphs for the northern hemisphere as a whole here.

B. Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."... Or about 0.020" a year or 0.2" since 2000...

C. Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume had INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf

2. The latest data on Antarcta...

A. A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.

B. Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. And the average Antarctica temperature has DECREASED during the last 40+years... According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...

C. The lastest sea ice coverage for Antarctica is ABOVE the normal for the last 30+years and has been for months. see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Go learn something people. Unless of course NASA and NOAA are just part of the giant liberal conspiracy.

Ruken,

You are correct use NASA & NOAA data, not the News Media & their deceptive headlines...

NSIDC began as an analog archive and information center, the World Data Center for Glaciology, to archive data and information from the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year. Since then, NSIDC has evolved to manage cryosphere-related data ranging from the smallest text file to terabytes of remote sensing data from NASA’s Earth Observing System satellite program.

See Data at NSIDC to browse our holdings, get information, and download or order data sets.

NSIDC manages and distributes data derived from NASA's Operation IceBridge aircraft missions, and implements tools and services extending the uses of IceBridge data products.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) team at NSIDC manages, archives, and publishes data sets with an emphasis on in situ data, data sets from operational communities such as the U.S. Navy, and digitizing old and sometimes forgotten but valuable analog data.

But understand their methodology and do the research to VERIFY their accepted margin of ERROR...

Unless you are willing to do this and the researchers are willing to release the information. Then the data presented is questionable at best...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/

BOTH sides of the AGW argument will discard new information that does not support their chosen outcomes. REAL science is always updating/contradicting itself.

For any one party to claim knowledge of the "truth" is disingenuous. Truth is of a static nature, by definition; it does not change. This is, unfortunately, contrary to reality, which is in a constant state of changing.

While it is true that such large numbers of industrialized humans have an effect on what would otherwise be the normal behavior of their environment. We truly do not know what that effect is. Nor do we really know what "normal" entails. We simply have not been paying attention for long enough.

We don't even know, REALLY, how much the population of the Earth has, or has not, grown in the last century. We've (earthlings) only actually been counting real populations for a very short time, and we still haven't come up with a way to standardize and collate that data. All I can say is that Americans, in general, are not much concerned with the big picture, and are VERY concerned with placing blame.

It sure is a good thing, though, that entities within the power structures of the world can so easily get us all to argue about silly constructs like republicans vs. democrats. Otherwise, we might have time to work together to solve the world's problems instead of being so distracted with blaming one another.

And one more thing: If nothing else, it is clear to me that there is no "solution" to the "problem" of global climate change. Things change. We adapt, or not. If we do, we go on. If we don't, we don't go on. Is it really so much better that we continue producing toxic plastics that later are "recycled" in a huge waste of energy and water? Or would it be a better idea to push for non-toxic, compostable materials...? We WILL change, or we WILL perish.

No it doesnt "average out" as you say, Europe isn't supposed to be cold. You dont take tempetures for one part of the world and mix them with temps from another part to "average things out". I don;t even know why I waste my time talking to you people. Here maybe this will help......

When I was little my mom use to read me a fabel about a man who was forewarned about the Ice Age coming to a rather abrupt end. He ran and told the people of his coastal village that he heard voices in his head telling him to build a big boat in preparation for a big flood. The villagers just laughed at him and the Fox news affiliate called him crazy and told everyone not to worry because "god" would never let that happen. When the waters come Noah and his family boarded the ark leaving the skeptics to drown as the Fox "news" tried to claim it was just a little drizzle caused by stoneage Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio melting glaciers with their cigarette lighters. The moral of the story is that when someone smarter than you (educated scientists) tells you a flood is coming, SHUT YOUR DAMN MOUTH AND GET ON THE FRIGGING BOAT.

And when scientistists tell you it is a scam? Can you go about your life then rather than be "chicken little" and shout that the sky is falling. That was an even more appropriate children's story. I still remember the liberal hysteria over the impending doom of Y2K when we were told to stockpile food and water.

http://www.climatecooling.org/

The only ones who say its a scam are the ones the oil companies pay to say it is a scam. You can post all the links to rightwing propaganda sites you want. The oil companies and the GOP are known liars, they will lie about anything and everything to keep the status quo and a certain segment of the population will be uneducated and naive enough to believe them. I don't really care what you believe, I know what the truth is and no amount of oil company propaganda will change that.

Why is it true when a left wing propaganda source says it but not when said by the right? Scientists are now being allowed to present the other side now - unlike before the UN IPCC email sc andal was aired. You really should allow yourself to read more so that you can make an informed position rather than jsut parrot the left wing propaganda you are fed.

Watermoon.....Wyominglib just can't help himself. Libtards like to talk about how educated and open minded they are, but when a differing opinion arises then it's all a big lie and they are the most closed minded people you will ever meet. Hypocrites!

You said it, Spanky!That's YOU trillion!

Wyoming, I admire your attempts to argue with these folks, unfortunately, as my own experience show, the results are the same as when you argue with a brick wall - it does not stick, you words fall on the empty ears.

It's funny how they are now saying that "yes, the climate is clearly changing/warming, but there is no proof humans are causing it". Up until a couple of years ago they were foaming at the mouth screaming "there is no proof the climate is changing esp. warming", and that the scorching summers and records highs of the early 2000 were not suggesting a pattern, and that the summers are always "hot". LOL. So now they are agreeing the climate is changing, but they sometimes still argue "it's still not warming! Look at the snow in Seattle!"

Well, Seattle is where I live, and have been living here since 1999. And I can tell you this: "yes, we've seen ridiculous amounts of snow in the lowlands". But at rather wierd times - in November (2010), and March (2009). AND - it was not what one would call snow. It surey looked like it - but it is not normal, old-fashioned snow. It's actually tiny snowballs, sometimes encased in ice, so they look like hail made of snow, sometimes they are not so tiny, and when encased in ice, they can be rather harmful. And ponder on this: none of the modern languages (I speak 4) have a name for this type of precipitation. None. Nada. My kids and I made up a name for it - we call it snall/snalling (snow+ball) when it's tiny, and snail/snailing (snow+hail) when it's huge. Is this freaking normall??? To see a brand new type of atmospheric precipitation in your life time?

And how about this: For the first time ever, in 2010, I think , we witnessed this phenomenon: it was snailing, with the bright sun shining (it was March, I beleive), thunder and lightning (virtually unknown in Seattle, cuz our atmospheric conditions are normally not conducive to it), and a freaking rainbow in the sky, all at the same time! Talking about surreal! It certainly creeped me out then, but now it happens every year. Is this normal? H*ll no! But once again, deniers will tell you "nothing to see here, folks, move on. Thunder and lightning have been happening for as long as the Earth existed, all 5,000 years, so has snow and sun"... Ugh - how can you reason with folks like these? Who replaced reason with denial a long time ago?

So I sit here and watch this creepy wierdness around me happening almost every day, and look at my kids, and think "what a f*ed up world you guys are going to be living in, and there is NOTHING I can do reverse this wierdness, or even slow it down". Freaking depressing.

Another new voter.

If you are looking for a term for this 'new' type of precipitation I would suggest you look up graupel. If I remember correctly it is a german term, I am fairly sure german is a modern language, a local meteorologist here in montana even sells t-shirts that say 'got graupel?' I have experienced thunder and lightning in late winter/early spring coupled with significant snowfall, a large front blew in on a mild day. We were standing in a lift line at the ski resort when lightning struck one of the towers, a 6 foot arc of electricity shot out either side of an electrical outlet followed immediately by a loud clap of thunder. We decided we had taken enough runs for the day and headed to the truck. The precipitation was coming down so heavily that a full inch of snow piled up on the seat in the amount of time it took for me to open the door and get in, pretty amazing. Any how, just because you don't personally know of certain terms or haven't personally experienced certain atmospheric happenings doesn't mean they have never occurred.

Tdub - I am not disagreeing with you. Yes, technically you are correct, but I hope you noticed the bigger point I was trying to make, and did not get lost in the "technically incorrect" details. I meant to say in none of the 4 modern languages that *I speak* have a name for this. I asked my mom who speaks German (I don't) - she says "graupel" is nto a word she's heard about. So your meteorologist may have come up with a new term from German before me - it does not meean it's a normal, existing word familiar to Germans, just like snall is not familiar outside of my family.

WRT thunder, lightning and sun that you experienced - all the same. I was simply commenting on *my* observations of 13 yrs in Seattle, and what I heard from the locals - who agreed with me this was the wierdest thing ever - but now we've been seeing it every year, and it is becoming our new normal, just like snalling. You did not mis-proove my point, as I am sure I did not change your mind.

Beleive what you want to beleive. I will observe what I observe, and will report on the changes that I am seeing that I am attributing to global warming caused by humans.

Until we meet again...

Why? All they are reporting about is the number of records broken for one month in this country where we live. They didn't point to it as proof of anything or propose and theories based on it. The article was just pointing out some facts. I'm sure the news in Europe reported on their extreme weather without mentioning the US.

Um they didnt ignore the record cold in Europe, in fact that is even more proof that climate change is happening and it was predicted 25 years ago that europe would get colder as the Ice melted. The Greenland Ice sheet dumps fresh water into the north atlantic changing the Gulf Stream which channels warm air to western Europe.

"The Gulf Stream, together with its northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is a powerful, warm, and swift Atlantic ocean current that originates at the tip of Florida, and follows the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland before crossing the Atlantic Ocean. The process of western intensification causes the Gulf Stream to be a northward accelerating current off the east coast of North America. At about

WikiMiniAtlas
40°0′N 30°0′W / 40°N 30°W / 40; -30, it splits in two, with the northern stream crossing to northern Europe and the southern stream recirculating off West Africa. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It is part of the North Atlantic Gyre. Its presence has led to the development of strong cyclones of all types, both within the atmosphere and within the ocean. The Gulf Stream is also a significant potential source of renewable power generation."

From wikipedia

And yet:

http://www.climatecooling.org/

They were farming in Greenland in the 1100s and there was no evidence of flooding around the world - nor did they blame man for the warming. We are not even approacing that warmth today.

All right I have to say this "Greenland was not ice free during the age of the Vikings". The coastal regions were. Also, the medieval warm period was largely a northern hemisphere anomaly so the temperatures in that particular region may have been warmer but the planet as a whole was not.

Not only that but they were trying to encourage growth and saying it was a fertile land, ie Greenland tricked people into moving there..........spreading catholicism was also a factor for the name as well.

watermoon

why do u keep sending us links to one stupid site...ur like a broken record...only kim jong il has more propaganda than the oil/energy/republican triumvirate. How stupid can u be to believe their drivel while gas prices approach $5 and glaciers and arctic ice disappears.

Have you been to Greenland? Have you visited any glaciers lately? Have u been to the arctic or antarctic or talked to people living in these places? Have u taken a hike up the mountains in spring to check out the snowpack?

Oh wait probably been to busy sitting in front of fox news and surfing nazi propaganda or maybe like the rest of middle America u might not be able to do any of these things without massive SUV's and wheelchairs to move around in. idiot.

Watermoon,

I prefer getting my information from reliable, scientific sources. Check out the Royal Society web site, National Geographics, or the EPA'a own global warming site. Please keep the Faux news supported denier's sites out of the discussion.

Pole shift isn't on a 100 year cycle, I'm not sure when the last time it happened

""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_polar_wander

Watermoon,

Oh yeah, Wikipedia is probably your best source of information. Did you write this one yourself, or did you have help from Rush?

I helped! sincerely, Rush

It's like you're trying to look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe global warmong is caused by a huge god fart? Certainly as reasonble as the Al Gore hypothesis.

Now that was funny!!!!!! you've got a senator from Oklahoma running around telling everyone that the Christian "God" wouldn't allow the planet to be destroyed by Global Warming, and now we have wingers on her claiming their "god" is the one causing it. Too Funny

Global warming is a farse. The world came out of an Ice Age and is moving into a Heat Age.

The pendulum is in motion. Ice Age to Heat Age and Heat Age to Ice Age.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Just ask any Dinosaur. They will tell you all about it. As matter of fact Dino the dinosaur told me they are migrating south this year because Yellowstone is going to blow.

And there is that rep from Geaorgia who worried that Guam would tip over if we added 40,000 troops there. Guess idiocy is bi-partisan.

I love you man!! Jeffery you do all the work for me, all I have to do is sit here and let you talk and that is all the proof that anyone needs to see conservatives are litterally insane. Hopefully you are being sarcastic, I would hate to think that in the 21st century there are still people who truly think like that.

Have fun everyone

Yoiu should read the bible. It is all in there. Enlighten yourself and ask Jesus Christ into your life so your soul can be saved before it is to late.

You liberal lunatics don't have a clue of what is going on.

We ARE the God Farts! And we stink!

Jeffrey, I prefer my fairy tales with a much more rational, consistence, moral message.

not worth the time

Um...Jeffrey...(in case you forgot,) Jesus was a liberal.

Please post a site about this? Does Snopes agree?

My Spirit is one of the Four Horseman. The one on the black horse with the red eyes.

GOD does not have a site on the internet but his spirit is in those of us that believe in HIM.

Jeffrey, you should take your bible thumping ways to the television shows. You could become the next Pat Robinson, just rolling in the dough from your followers. The Bakers, Tammy Fay and her husband sure fleeced a lot of money from their fellow thumpers.

Anything is possible, right? Why waste your talents on a web site, go nation wide with the television program.

The "Scales over their eyes" are there for one reason Jeff, and one reason only. "The Time" is not for us to know. All of the Prophecies are falling into place. Israel did not even exist in our parents and grandparents, great grandparents time. It 'magically' comes to be? after WWII as the 'Scattered' (for the last time) Jews return to the land historically theirs? The Six Day War is not even taught in war strategy, it is unexplainable. The Middle East and infinitesimal Israel dominate world news..... even today? 'Scales' are inevitably the reason preventing enlightenment. "This Generation Shall Not Pass"...

Well maybe you should do something productive and start organizing global warming protests. Remember that this is a global issue so pack your bags and prepare to start organizing your protests in China too. Let me know how that works out.

trilliondollar,

Hmmmmmmmmm? And your point? There are plenty already speaking out about Global Warming, and if it is Man Made by carbon emissions, then as long as we burn Fossel Fuels, the temperature will continue to go up.

But of course until something drastic happens like an F5 tornado wiping your town off the map, it doesn't affect you personally. Hind site is 20/20.

There are plenty who don't like to face the truth when it's painful to deal with. Hitler would never start a war, until WII came. Chamberlain and "Peace in our time", etc. Iran and "We only want nuclear power for electricity." Then when and if they get nukes and use them, it will be "Why didn't somebody stop them when they could?"

I believe the real eye opener for Global Warming will be when an Ice sheet slides off into the ocean and suddenly sea level rises a foot across the world. Then it will be "Is Global Warming actually happening, and why didn't someone do something about it when they could have?"

AJC I don't think people disagree with global warming as much as the cause or what to do about it. I don't think the for one you can have the population explosion that is going on without effecting the earth temperatures. Earth quakes have an effect also as it shifts the earth just a fraction of a degree and that in itself has a big effect. So there are many factor and I believe the huge population increase is a major cause so what do we do about that one.

Wally,

Bush already bankrupted the country. The point is that if we don't ALL change our ways very soon we damn our children to a dying planet.

iseenow

Personally I like the warm weather. It allows me to be on the lake and working on my tan.

Great iseenow, because you're a nonbeliever in liberal lies you get only a nice tan by a cool lake. At least you heed the warning of Rev Jeffrey D, and shall be spared the lake of fire he so poignanty warns us about.

Agreed, john5651...upper Iowa here. This has been strange weather, no doubt. I wonder what the consensus will be come August.

As a rule, I gauge Spring by the weather on St. Pat's. Always grateful if it's in the 40's, so I can air out the house while cooking corned beef and cabbage. This year it was too hot to cook, with all the windows open. After 40 years of this "method"....I've never seen anything close to these temps. I have also been kinda wondering if this might have something to do with the increase in solar activity. 2012-13 is supposed to be peak for this cycle.

h engbers

Reading this story, seemed to imply global warming. I dont understand the reluctance of the author to just say that. Or was it that in 1945 it was only 2 degrees cooler

That's only you've a perceptional bias, because scientists don't normally speak and write like those whom are limited to concrete thinking and short choppy sentences delivered in active voice.

Maybe you could find someone who authentically has studied global warming and they could walk you through the wording

and explain the scientific method.

Hi Wally-1853299,

Also, there is no proof that climate change could/would/should cause extremes in weather behavior. Where is the science that supports this notion.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Everything I have ever heard or read that predicted what Global Warming would do, is create extreme weather fluctuations. Meaning, floods, storms, droughts, of extreme nature and in places many times where they don't normally occur.

That pattern seems to be a reflection of what we are seeing acorss the world today.

AJC......But that is an empty claim. We have been having warm spells, cold spells, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. for thousands of years. There is no evidence that there is an increase in the severity or quantity of extreme weather. It looks to me like it is a marketing ploy. Now they can claim that every extreme weather event is a result of climate change.

Hi PutAmericaFirst,

But that is an empty claim. We have been having warm spells, cold spells, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. for thousands of years. There is no evidence that there is an increase in the severity or quantity of extreme weather.

I don't clam to be a weather expert, but I have read some on the subject, and also do watch the news. You are correct there have always been weather fluctuations as part of a natural cycle. But those fluctuations seem to be happening everywhere today, and we are seeing a lot of extreme weather events.

Also, there is data since temperatures have been kept, as well as ice cores, and tree rings, etc., that show the temperature in the 19th-21st Century has risen and sharply.

Whether this is Man Made (Whichh I believe it is), or also because of increased Sun Spots, I can't say. But I believe we are seeing Global Warming. I also believe we are going to see more Freaky weather of an extreme kind around the world.

But do they seem to happen everywhere because we have more technology to detect them? We didn't even have doppler radar 20 years ago. My guess is that the same amount of extreme weather is happening, but we can detect it and report it much easier.

Wally-1853299

Only eight short years ago Denver got 3 feet of snow from March 17-19th. Back in 2008 Denver had the last freeze on June 8. Relax...the pattern is starting to change and it will trend to cooler and wetter. Also, there is no proof that climate change could/would/should cause extremes in weather behavior. Where is the science that supports this notion

Wally it has long been known that heat causes gas (air) to move more rapidly. In the case of our atmosphere, heat causes storms, storms have a counterclockwise rotation in the northern hemisphere and clockwise rotation in the southern hemisphere. The left side of a storm in the northern hemisphere pulls up heat from the equator, and the right side of that same storm pulls down cold air from the north pole. This has been known for centuries.

You cannot judge the veracity of climate change from local weather in one city or state over the span of a few years. The weather of 1/2000th of the Earth's area does not lend itself as a full and valid statistical sample of what is occurring world wide climatologically.

One thing I can never understand is this: Whether or not burning gasoline causes climate change, why are all the Rightys so fired up AGAINST using electricity to fuel cars in the future? Why is ANY fuel other than gasoline such an atrocity? Now, I can see if the U.S. produced all of the oil that fuels the world, that would obviously make sense. But when you look at the most expensive and most ridiculous building projects in the world and see that they are being built in middle-east nations that have absolutely no other export besides oil, you have to wonder why our own citizens argue about how to send money to the middle east faster. We aren't profiting from making sure that our government cancels all clean & cheap energy projects. You would rather pay triple for your energy as long as the money goes to Iran instead of Illinois? Please, someone explain this to me, I just don't get it. I keep hearing all this debate about why we should never even look at getting free solar or wind power, but why exactly?

We are not against using electricity to run cars at all. We are against the corporate subsidies for electric vehicles that people do not want to buy. There will be a time when electric cars are the future, but we think it is a waste of money to have these corporate give-a-ways until that time.

And of course, the proof that science is bad is all those fake dinosaur skeletons that those crazy scientists keep planting all over the world. You know that scientists must be absolutely batty to do something that whacky. Heck, the world is only 4,000 years old, right? Preposterous that oil came from those fake dinosaur bones, jeez. So that proves that all science is silly. And obviously, oil is the mana that fell from heaven and we can never run out. God wants us to burn oil. And to quote from the gospel according to Sarah, "mankind doesn't have the ability to make a dent in God's world". So, break out all the nukes this 4th of July and light up the sky. It won't hurt us in the least. (sorry, that sarcasm was building for a while)

Yeah, you go man! The trillions of dollars that the top 5 scientists rake in every month is really p---ing me off! Give me the non-profit oil companies every time. You know they are legit. They have absolutely no reason to lie - They don't MAKE MONEY FOLKS!!! Heck, I'm turning this computer off and starting my car up in the garage and wallowing in those safe and pleasing aromas. I suggest you do the same.