It is very difficult to "prove" anything regarding the weather or the planet's climate. Researchers deal with long term data from many many sources and very loosely based comparisons between those data points.

As long as there is a monetary and political incentive there will be people trying to contravene any conclusions. (just like in the 80's when the tobacco lobby had millions of idiots convinced that cigarettes were not "addictive" their just a bad habit... they don't "cause" Cancer there are jsut a few studies that were poorly done by doctors working for... blah blah blah.

Little Side Note: During the Clinton years NASA built a satellite called the Deep Space Climate Observatory that was designed specifically to bring many of those data points together so that real conclusions could be determined from a single source.... But, it was moth-balled by the Bush administration and now sits in a warehouse.

One year is weather change. One thousand years is climate change.

"The previous 12 months were the warmest in the U.S. since record keeping began in 1895,..."

Climate change is global, not just the U.S. We need records for the earth, not U.S. weather patterns. Does anyone remember the cold they had in Europe, significant snow in southern Europe, etc.? We need all that data as well to get a global average to determine if global warming average has increased or decreased.

Again: "NOAA does not attribute the warmer temperatures solely to man made global warming since other, natural factors influence weather as well. Instead, it notes that that the warmth is indicative of what one would expect with climate change." That sounds like something responsible scientist would say.

Twelve month spell over less than 5% of the earth's surface is meaningless.

hs321 - if you go to the link provided for the NOAA state of the climate report you can get the global information through March 2012. The global analysis for April isn't in yet.

In this the GOP and Bart Simpson have a lot in common in their response "I DIDN'T DO IT". Of course denver bill 2 has his own response. Wait a thousand years (then I won't be around to take responsibility).

When I was growing up in the 70s the same thing was told to my parents and they were told that they needed to do something or their children would have to pay. Well they were wrong. We are going to pass the cost on to our children.

@sparrow,

Climatologists try very hard to disassociate their science from meterology. Meterologists talk about what will happen in one place for the next few days. Climate experts are looking more at the whole planet over geological periods of time. So a meterologist will never legitimately tell you that a current heat wave is associated with global warming. A climatologist would be very quick to point out that nothing in "climate" has anything to do with the weather at any particular spot and point in time. They really are that unrelated.

And the DSCO was to be located at an earth/sun LaGrange Point and would have the best possible site for studing precisely how much heat the Sun adds to the planet. It would have been the Gold Stratdard for climate observation. But Haliburton had a great deal to do with it along with people like Cheney. There was a Popular Science (well-known liberal rag) artucle on it less than a year ago.

@hs321,

That's why people are starting to use "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" --- not all places will see warmer temperatures with some actually getting colder as wind patterns change and re-establish themselves.

A lot more snow --- such as in Alaska and Europe --- is not an indicator that things are getting warmer. Changes in weather patterna have shifted the mistral to the east. And more snow is an indication of increasing temperatures (warmer air can hold more moisture, so a significant drop in temps would also cause a drop in snowfall.)

We do get global data from all over the world via satellites, weather balloons, weather aircraft, rockets, undersea sensors, buoys, and official government weather stations all over the world. There are about 4 trillion data points added each day. But NOAA is more oriented to local United States weather, so they tend to be this country's official record-keepers.

"One year is weather change. One thousand years is climate change."

Bill,

Actually, if you study the history of climate change of our planet you would know that your statement is absolutely FALSE.

Major climate changes have happened in very short periods of time when one factor in balance reaches a tipping point that pushes the entire system into a new normal condition, often very quickly leading to the extinction of species that are adversely affected by the new normal.

Not surprisingly, C02 levels in the atmosphere measured from ice cores coordinate to those changes exactly.... (I know, I know, the ice cores are wrong... the data is wrong... the scientists were drunk... Glaciers are fake.... keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better.)

hs321 - yes I remember the massive snow, and when it's TOO COLD, it doesnt snow. massive snow, indicates it didnt get "too cold".

scientist predict that global warming launches into ice ages.

since our planet has seen a few ice ages (and emerged from them) it's logical to believe we might very well be headed towards another one, and it might be 1000 years away...or 100...or 50...impossible to predict.

in the meantime, whats the point in squabbling over who caused it...and why cant we just logically do things that make the planet we rely on, healthier? thereby making ourselves healthier to?

short answer: we are getting too fat and lazy to do anything but hit the easy button...even if it'll kill us in the process.

I call it slowly suiciding, but thats more specific to obese people eating themselves to death - all the while in denial about what they are really doing.

who knew that fat ass would have a heart attack before age 50? Shock dismay indeed!

who knew all the toxins we pump into our air, water and land will eventually - slowly but surely - kill and deform us?

shock and dismay indeed!

Farmer friends of mine feel quite certain that the climate is changing. I'm grateful that we are discussing the facts. In the mean time I am compelled to take some action and personally use less energy, drive less and ride a bike more. It may not be much, but it's something and my body feels like it's in better shape, just like these other cyclists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1AvKDicxA

Chris - I'm not a big fan of unfounded, un-researched conspiracy theories.

http://oig.nasa.gov/old/inspections_assessments/g-99-013.pdf

NASA Office of Inspector General recommended ending the Triana (DSCO) mission in 1999.

No, Don. We are all paying now.

We are already seeing droughts, sea level rise and extreme weather. These all add to the cost of living. You can't relate a SINGLE event to global warming, but the SERIES OF EVENTS that we are seeing is CLEARLY related to global warming.

Bet on it.

ChitownMatt,

Actually, if you have studied the history of climate change, you would know my statement is absolutely TRUE. My claim that one year constitutes weather change is true. My claim that 1000 years constitutes climate change is also true. You apparently want to claim that the cutoff point between weather change and climate change falls somewhere in between, which I also agree with. However, unless the cutoff point is only a function of time, which neither you or I believe or can prove, neither of us can pin it to a specific date. Any good boxer knows you lead with your left (brain) instead of you right (brain).

Bill,

HAHAHAHA, I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

It sounded like you were trying to say that a data from a 12 month period could not possibly have any bearing on long term conclusions.

So according to your response, "....However, unless the cutoff point is only a function of time, which neither you or I believe or can prove, neither of us can pin it to a specific date."

you were not actually trying to make any point or any sense whatsoever. ?.?.?.

And I heard the deniers cry, "It's that damned Al Gore and his hair dryer trying to scare us again"!

On a more realistic note (it's not very realistic to say climate change/global warming is a money scam perpetuated by the Al Gores), this thing could very easily get ugly if food shortages get worse around the world. And I think they will.

Global warming.

Don't worry, global warming only happens during Democrat administrations. It will be over in 182 days.

They just had an article about the possibility that all the brontosaurus farts caused the planet to warm back in the dinosaur days. Methinks this time it is all the hot air being blown out by the reichwingers causing the harm. About the same as a brontosaurus fart in many ways.

Yes, liberals are the reichwing. They want to control what you eat, what you drink, what you drive, where you live, what you learn, what you watch, what you hear, etc.

ChitownMatt,

I merely stated two facts. I can not be responsible for your ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend them or draw conclusions from them.

Viking Wannabe,

Yep, them damned liberal reichwingers. They don't want me to eat or drink anything contaminated with cancer causing ingredients, they don't want me to drive my oil-burning smoker, especially on leaded gas, they don't want me learning no science........creationism and "god did it" is all I need to know, they don't want my five year old young'un watching porn. As far as where I live, as long as I can afford it and my skin ain't too dark, they could care less. Also what I hear. They could care less.

A small country can threaten to close four square miles of water - and - it costs the world hundreds of billions of dollars.

If we cannot adapt to that tiny event - how do you expect us to adapt to a changing climate?

It is not about stopping it or changing it. It is too late for that. The important thing now is to prepare for it.

Sadly, as poorly as it reflects upon our species, you may be right about that.

He is right about that.

Logical fallacy. Just because there have been warmer years in the past doesn't mean that this year's result wasn't man-made. You can have both events, you know.

The trend is clear. The earth is warming. You cannot deny it. It is a fact.

The ONLY question is what percentage is MAN MADE.

It appears that, without global warming, we would be in a cooling period heading into the next ice age. That is why the warming has been so slight over the last few decades. We also appear to be near several tipping points.

You know, a tipping point. Like the top of a roller coaster.

Hang on. It is going to be a WILD RIDE!

SRS...but if you rewind a few years you will find that the conservatives were still denying the warming altogether. But the corporate interests who profit from the use of fossil fuels will continue to stonewall as long as it's in their financial interest.

10-20 years ago, they denied climate change altogether.

Now that they can no longer credibly make that argument, they admit the earth is warming, but deny that CO2 has anything to do with it.

Tomorrow they will no longer be able to deny the influence of CO2...but will argue for mitigation instead of reducing CO2 generation. That is already starting to happen.

It appears that, without global warming, we would be in a cooling period heading into the next ice age. That is why the warming has been so slight over the last few decades. We also appear to be near several tipping points.

So I guess then Global Warming is a good thing. I will acknowledge some slight warming, but due to natural variation in temperature over time, not due to mans activity. With boggy man CO2 concentrations where they are, there should have been a higher rise by now. The evidence seems clear, there is little or no relationship between CO2 and rising temperature, unless you look at from the standpoint that higher temperatures release more CO2, then there may be a correlation.

The IPCC admitted they grossly overestimated the effect of CO2. A lot of fear mongering was based on that mistake. The fear mongering now is purely profit motive, follow the money.

VP - Indeed. All those poor oil companies that barely make $10 billion a quarter don't stand a chance against the uber-wealthy environmentalists, academics and research scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, huh? ROFLOL!

and 1495 was significantly warmer than 2011.

According to who? Temperature reconstructions that I've seen show the years around 1495 were near the beginning of the so-called Little Ice Age, cooler than normal in the northern hemisphere and probably worldwide.

Tom...in answer to your question, we are going to find out whether it does or not, because we are running an experiment on the only lab model we have...planet Earth. If the experiment goes south, we'll just have to start another experiment with another model....oh...wait...

thats why newt wants to go to the moon, he is the only rightie who believes in global warming, and is too afraid to admit it.

hs321,

We tried that experiment on Mars, toasted it, then jumped to Earth. Screw this one up and the next jump is Venus, hellfire and brimstone there. Kinda fitting, huh?

id say, there's a pattern of "climate change" since we emerged from the last ice age.

but that is just my unprofessional opinion, but im pretty sure the ice has been melting ever since...which means the planet has been getting warmer ever since.

and if my math is correct, we'll launch ourselves BACK into another ice age, at some point in time.

which leads me to conclude 1 of 2 things:

perhaps man really doesnt have much control (beyond polluting ourselves into sickness, but not really affecting the planet as much as our ego's would like to think)

OR

civilizations much like ours have ALWAYS risen up, and have ALWAYS snuffed ourselves back down due to our own ignorance and refusal to believe WE are the reason things go from Ice Age to IM MELTINNNNNNNNG!

we know that the poles have shifted before, and they will likely shift again - but dont have any idea how or why it does that...maybe it's the poles shifting that trigger the ice ages? maybe as the earth heats up, we lose our grip on the poles and bam...the planet shifts quickly and violent into it's new position?

perhaps it's time to build a new ark, and gather all the creatures of the planet (in pairs of course)....and hope we ride out this next wild wave. Here's hoping we dont snag any gay animals. that might explain the extinction of the dinosaurs...come to think of it.

As demonstrated by virtually every major environmental disaster since the 1970's, the only thing that never seems to change...is humanity's limitless capacity for self-delusion.

We are on the right track, more wind and solar is coming on line all the time. More natural gas plants are replacing coal plants, etc. Our gas usage and carbon footprint are already trending down.

It is China and India and the rest of the third world at the root of the problem. Either we nuke them or we start buying spf 50 sun screen. Changing a few light bulbs pales in comparison to China adding two coal fired plants a week. They plan on doing that for the next 30 years, great news for the UMW I guess.

Opps, I guess I found out why its getting hot its called sun spots

Opps indeed. While it is correct that the sun has an 11 year cycle of activity, your conclusion that the sun's activity is the cause of the warmest 12 months since 1895 is incorrect.

11 years does not equal 117 years.

monkeymonkey: no two solar flares or sunspots are not the same. Opps I guess you did not know that.....

Measurements from space show very clearly that the global temperature increase of about 1 deg F since the 1970s cannot be attributed to increased solar activity; see the NASA website (climate.nasa.gov) for details.

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

As mentioned above, at present, perihelion occurs during the southern hemisphere's summer and aphelion during the southern winter. Thus the southern hemisphere seasons should tend to be somewhat more extreme than the northern hemisphere seasons. The relatively low eccentricity of the present orbit results in a 6.8% difference in the amount of solar radiation during summer in the two hemispheres.

Since orbital variations are predictable, if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to "predict" future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects may modify or even overwhelm orbital effects; and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood.

The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years. A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.

An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.

The best chances for a decline in northern hemisphere summer insolation that would be sufficient for triggering a glacial period is at 130,000 years or possibly as far out at 620,000 years.

sliderdude,

I'd say the clowns stealing our tax money are the ones that decided to spend 800 billion, getting close to that trillion, on a missile defense shield for europe. Now that's some big bucks.

The "urban heat island effect" isn't that significant globally ... confirmed by research last year. Also, ocean heat content is rising too; see NOAA/NODC data, especially for the top 2,000 meters of the world's oceans. Plus, plenty of other statistical evidence of changes such as increased precipitation in some areas.

Lukey,

Don't think anybody is going to collapse your post. Most of us enjoy reading ignorant posts just for the laughs. The whole "denial" movement is political, not the science. Or haven't you noticed?

However, natural climate change is real.

LOL

And being pushed off a cliff is all Gravity's fault too. LOLzzzzz :D

Liberal solution, cut down trees and put up solar panels that takes all kinds of resources to manufacture.

Did you just make that up or hear it on fox and friends?

Sounds more like a conservative solution to me. Installing solar panels on roof tops and parking lots (also keeps your car cool in the summer time) is a more logical solution. But what would i know, i'm just a liberal.

No, it happened right by my cabin. FPL cut down thousands of trees to put up solar panels.

As a liberal, do you know how much energy it take to produce a solar panel and how much tax dollars?

Solar belongs on roof tops, NOT on open land. Paving our deserts with silicon is an environmental disaster. I have 10KW on my roof, they work great and are viable now if you DIY the install.

Solar is the ONLY source that pays you. All other sources cost you, wind, nuclear, geo thermal, etc. My electricity will be free in less than a decade.

Oh, and I'm as conservative as they come. If you are conservative it's a great way to get some of your tax dollars back! Green credits are tax cuts for the rich after all! :<)

I'm a doctor and I need to sterilize your whole family, stat!

I'm a doctor and I need to sterilize your whole family, stat!

Wouldn't help, they clone those kind. :)

Seattle,

Hey Doc, my dog has a hot spot. He never had one until I bought a gas-guzzling SUV. Do you think an electric car would help him?

Barefoot is right, these UN treaties totally negate the constitution and are nothing but socialist wealth transfer in disguise. If you think this economy is bad, just wait until the UN can control our budget.

Barefoot is right, these UN treaties totally negate the constitution

Blah, blah, blah. Words are cheap and having no proof is the province of a fool. Next time try harder.

And that record keeping equates to less than an nano second of what's happened on earth so far, so it means nothing.

And that equates to being non-sequitur. :)

Don't worry, you can look it up.

It's already 1 deg F warmer on average than during the 1970s. If that trend continues, we've got a real problem by about 2100, probably sooner. Doesn't matter if the Earth is 1,000 years old or 4.7 billion; the future changes (and their consequences such as rising sea levels and more intense storms) are predicted by the laws of physics.

The problem with heat in your area is the humidity. Humidity is was makes it intolerable. I know because we lived south of Houston for 15 years. Now it gets hotter in Phoenix but it is more bearable because the humidity is so low. In other words, 90 deg at 80% humidity will always feel worse than 115 deg at 15% humidity.

Nah, that Obama's game.

figures - great approach- what happens when NO one can survive - if it gets so bad people are killed off- and we do nothing to stop it how much worse would it get - yeah genius bad enough to kill everything -

We're a long ways from the end of the world. A half degree increase won't kill you. By the time we reach the dinosaur era temperatures, we will be out of oil. Then the liberals will find something else to worry about.

That's the thing the fear mongers hate to hear. This stuff takes centuries to impact the environment yet we are already shifting from oil. We'll need oil for transportation for likely less than two or three decades. By then BEV's will rule and solar and wind will be a substantial portion of energy generation. Even China is planning to wind down coal beginning three decades from now.

Problem is, if China and the U.S. wait that long to wind down coal, it will almost guarantee another 2 to 3 deg F warming by 2100, maybe more if certain feedbacks happen. It's true that the really big sea level changes (200 feet) take centuries or more, but 3 feet in the next century is considered likely.

Lukey,

It would seem that if one of the coldest winters on record is immediately followed the the warmest year on record that maybe it just might be that something is changing.

Space............earth's climate has been around a heck of a lot longer than recorded climate. If you look at the cycles of earth's climate changes back to precambrian times or even further you will see that earth is now on the upswing from a cold cycle. Whatever mother earth wants to do, it will do with or without man. Will man speed it up....possibly....but if the earth is on a naturally occurring warm up, then it does not matter what we do. It is going to happen and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

GCCal,

Those who think man's actions are not going to change the environment because it is just some great natural process, ok, fine. You are certainly free to think that way. But if we know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased global temperaturees, and we are aware of the fact that sometimes the planetary ecosystems have in world history suffered traumas from which they could not recover and mass extinctions took place, then it would be a little crazy to "keep the pedal to the metal" and speed the process up faster and faster. The signs of this getting out of control are everywhere if you have been doing much reading. As far as anyone being able to do anything about it, apart from forcibly dropping our populations down to something like what was recommended in the Georgia Guidestones you are probably right that there is not a damn thing anyone can do. It might be too late anyway

NOAA also compiles and publishes global averages, which have been above the 20th Century average for something like the past 30 years. 2011 was the warmest La Nina year ever recorded.