Why? Smoke does what smoke does. Are they going to sue the lightening?

The only lawyers that believe in acts of god are the ones working for insurance companies.

My heart and prayers go out to those that have been lost and their families.

I hope this unusual weather pattern changes back to the better soon.

Get a good Republican lawyer and get a Class Action lawsuit started now in any state where the winds move from the west to east. Any good Republican lawyer can make a bundle from such a lawsuit by twisting the fact and making something out of nothing.

Kind of like John Edwards!

I think the heat is getting to peoples heads for them to turn these tragedies into politics..Get some Gatorade and recover your sanity.

what nobody is trying to blame this on a white person-I'm impressed

Nothing to do with lawyers. The article is incomplete and inaccurate. Pollution in most Midwest and Eastern cities are due to gasoline, diesel and coal-burning electricity plants, combined with high temps and sun. Even without the smoke from fires, the air i most big cities is unhealthy, especially for children. Humans are creating an ugly earth. It is the "let's trash the Garden of Eden" project.

Okay, so these places are well below our average temps and the people are dying while we're playing golf? What?

Seewhat I mean188

what nobody is trying to blame this on a white person-I'm impressed

But President Bush IS white.

I'm just tired of being hot.

Why God made some of us complete idiots is beyond me.

Maybe he was done. That leaves only incomplete idiots to work on.

I was thinking it's about time the EPA banned Forest Fires...

No Tony. Forest fires are essential to a healthy eco system (which) we don't have). What isn't essential to a healthy eco system is the Sierra Club and all the other eco freaks willingly creating these crown fire situations. Leave the EPA out of it and hang every eco freak you catch in the woods.

Well we got God & the government by the fifth post, I may as well add guns, an article on MSN this week said gun fire could have sparked at least one fire... I guess that's why they call it Hot Lead. Now if we can tie in abortion the cycle will almost be complete.

That's the point. God didn't make you, if you are white, exactly...you were messed with, manipulated a long time ago by visiting geneticists...God or Creator has been working naturally to re-balance humanity ever since. It was never a forgone conclusion that Humans would survive the trip.

But Creator is amazing and enough White Humans have reconnected naturally to the Creation system we live in and it looks like we are going to make it.

Here's a bit of cool info for you until recently deluded Folks. Strains of Indigenous People never were messed with like all us Euro-Caucasian-Persians. Funnily enough, they are the peaceful people....Duh!

If you poor, tricked, unwitting people want to live through what is happening, learn from the traditionalists, Hopi, Dakota, Nakota, Lakota, Kogi, Tibetan, African etc. Earth is earth, to survive here, you must be of her.

Yep, hate to tell you, but most of you white people, like me and some black people are descended from the manipulated beings (But mostly us white fools). And we are the ones doing all the damage all these years. Because we didn't feel we belonged to the earth, we were tricked to think she belonged to us. Tragic.

But it's over, People. Get connected or move on, you can't do both on Earth anymore. But don't fear moving on....there's no point and it's way better than the Hell you created here.

NC open heart: Are you talking about Yakoob's failed experiments?

Seewhat I mean188

what nobody is trying to blame this on a white person-I'm impressed

Well, it seems that at least two fires were started by people shooting guns where they shouldn't have been; at least one seems to have been caused by a camp-fire that was allowed to spread; and probably at least one was caused by someone tossing a cigarette butt out a car window.....

Funny how out west, it seems to be mostly white folks who spray bullets all over the countryside, allow camp-fires to go wild and have little or no regard for what actually happens when a cigarette butt gets tossed out a car window -- all in a tinder-dry area.

Am I saying that only a white person is responsible? No, I am not. I did say "it SEEMS".

Don't know that name.....I've heard Enki and Enlil and others. Nothing more than humanoids from another part of the universe that manipulated earth people to make a tribe to work for them and literally made white people using earth people and their own DNA so they could keep a garden. Of course it all got out of hand pretty quickly when the visitors left due to galactic effects that caused a large flood. They finally figured out they really messed up. So the 10,000 years we call human history is really just the time we've been trying to find a natural equilibrium. Meanwhile the natural earth people continued their essentially natural evolution. Of course now, the blood is all mixed up, thank goodness for us descendants of the visitors, 'cause it is helping us. Too bad for the earth people, maybe, as they have had to suffer our stupidity for the last 500 or more years in every last hold they had on earth.

How about we all give the politics and race out of something PLEASE!!!! At least one fire was started by gunfire, at least one started by someone pulling a camper or RV if you prefer over to the side of the road due to a problem. If the person who wants someone to be sued well good luck with that take your pick mother nature because I do believe at least one of the fires was due to lightning, the driver with the RV not sure if them or their insurance company will pay for one of the fires in the Black Hills, if any of the fires were started by someone throwing a cigarette out of a window don't know, but good luck in finding them. Fact is people are dying because of heat, and the fires are polluting the air where at one point it was not polluted. Wildlife and their habitat is being destroyed and peoples homes and lives destroyed so instead of blame we need to help those who we can and be careful about our behaviour and stop blaming anyone particular race, religion, or political party.

Man=0 , Global Warming= 1

A prevailing attitude is that some year must be the hottest ever, so it might as well be this year. Now if people see a multi- year trend, that might mean something. Of course by then it will be too late to take any positive steps to ease the increased heat. The problem is that people making money now want nothing else to change, what worked yesterday will work tomorrow.

They bring it up occasionally, but scientifically you cannot prove that any single record or heat wave is due to global warming, so there really isn't anything to suppress. Yes, global warming will make such records and heat waves more likely in the long run, but that is a separate issue from reporting the news that it sure is hot out there right now.

Yes, global warming will make such records and heat waves more likely in the long run, but that is a separate issue from reporting the news that it sure is hot out there right now.

No jock, it is not a separate issue, it is the same issue. If we were talking about one year then maybe you would have a point. But we are talking about records being broken this year, that were just broken last year, which in turn had just been broken in 1998. See the trend?

news that it sure is hot out there right now.

If that is the depth of your intellectual curiosity "sure is hot out there" then of course you consume corporate news without thought and wouldn't expect the news to ask the next question...why?

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm :-

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36^th consecutive May and 327^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average.

There's your multi-year trend....

The problem is that this is what we see for the entire decade, for the globe:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend

With this website, the only way to get the 2012 data to be included is to set the end year to 2013. Otherwise, it omits the available 2012 data. If you set the end year to 2012, you get 2011 as the final data, while omitting what we have of 2012. So, with that said, you can also set the start year as 1998 and get a similar result with less of a decline but it still is a similar result.

With temperature trends like this it is hard to make a case for continuing global warming at the present time. We will have to see what the next two decades bring to know anything more. All we do know is that there is a 1000-year or so cycle that has repeated three times in the 'recent' proxy records, we now being in the midst of the third such cycle at present.

Don't believe it? Go take a look at the raw proxy data and see it for yourself. We cannot blame heat waves on global warming as there is not enough data to demonstrate it at present.

All we do know is that there is a 1000-year or so cycle that has repeated three times in the 'recent' proxy records, we now being in the midst of the third such cycle at present.

I'm quite familiar with proxy data for the last 500+ million years, but have no recollection of seeing anything referring to a 1,000 year cycle. Do you mean 100,000 years? If not, do you have a link?

We cannot blame heat waves on global warming as there is not enough data to demonstrate it at present.

We have enough data to show that climate change makes heatwaves (and other extreme weather events) at least 900% more likely to happen. Is that sufficient to warrant action on this issue (finally)?

Thanks for the comment, Physicist, anybody got some ice?

Global warming/chilling is a natural fact of life and all the eco people were doing was asking that we not add to it while the cycle was in effect. If there were no cycles we would have the same temp ranges year after year and no need to keey statistics. The polluters got all jumpy and made a big deal out of fear they may have to quit polluting. Nice people.

" ... Global warming/chilling is a natural fact of life ... "

Yep, and God makes it happen. Or is it the scary brown in the White House. I get so confused.

The world is full of ignorance and stupidity. Most of it in America.

There are Island countries that are beginning to be covered by the rise in sea level. If that is not climate change, what is it?

Ah I know. It's all those Angles in Heave crying for all of us sinners.

That's it. Angles crying.

So what do you expect government to do? They already give you 30% off the top for solar power and $7500 towards a battery car. Are you waiting around for them to give them to you? Not going to happen. Over 80% of CO2 is generated by individuals, half by infrastructure, half by transportation. You want manufacturing jobs but not the pollution that comes with them.

All you whiners about CC, if you really believed your BS you would already have a roof full of solar panels and an Leaf in the driveway. Time to put your money where your mouth is or STFU. Can't afford it? Get a second/third job, or isn't the earth THAT important to you?

All those 97% of scientists you claim support CC, how many of them have a roof full of solar? How many of them have a Leaf or Focus electric in their driveway?

Inquiring minds want to know! :<)

Good point, if people believe climate change is a serious issue they should support change with deeds as well as words.

It will take much bigger deeds than buying Leafs.

Over the past few years, daily record high temperatures have been outpacing daily record lows by 2-to-1 on average, according to the website Climate Central. A 2009 study found that if the climate were not warming, that ratio would be expected to be even. So far this year, there have been 40,113 high temperature records set or tied, compared with just 5,835 cold records, a ratio of about 7-to-1.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0703/Why-has-2012-been-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-the-US

Physicist: Action is fine, but it has to be defined, specific, time-lined and results driven. This is the problem I have with the computer models. If they are to be taken on one side as being so accurate that the data is irrefutable, then the scientific community also has an obligation to put forth very specific actions that should be taken.

As stated above, those actions should be defined by exactly what has to be done, who has to do it, how long it will take, and a specific desired result to be achieved in a given time period by those actions. If the computer models are right, then there shouldn't be any problem quantifying exactly what has to be done. And from that, you should also be able to determine what the costs will be. And you must include all factors, both positive and negative.

In all the years that climate change / global warming...whatever you want to call it, has been an issue, I have yet to see ANYONE in the scientific community be willing to answer any of those questions. The reason, of course, is that they are not willing to put their reputation on the line and risk being wrong if countless billions are spent with no verifiable results.

That in and of itself shows that when the rubber meets the road, and it is their neck on the line, they don't want to be responsible for making a call that they well know could very likely be completely wrong. Thus they are more than willing to put their models forward, just as long as they don't have to be responsible for any actions taken because of those models. And that really doesn't speak too well for the faith they put in their own models.

It's much easier to claim the sky is falling, than to be the one responsible for the plan to hold it up.

Well, then, physicist-retired, I think you'd better open your eyes a bit if you cannot see the three cycles. Perhaps I should mention the common names for two of them so you can go back and look at the cycles again. The first two are the RWP and the MWP. Contrary to Mann, et al., the MWP was global as the signal can be seen in proxy data from several locations in the Southern Hemisphere. Only by inverting the Finland data and by a few creative manipulations to the raw data can the MWP be made to go away and become the MCA.

So, now, go back about 5,000 years and notice the cycles. You should see them now. There are three major "humps" in the raw data, the RWP, MWP and today. Each are about 1,000 years from each other, give or take some years. Current temps are comparable to those of the previous two--if you don't look at the data manipulated through "hockey-stick" coding, that is. :-)

JustOlJoe,

It's all in how the numbers are played. Seriously, that is how it is. Check the NOAA records, if you don't believe it. They summarize the first five months of the year as follows on their Climate at a Glance website:

January ...fourth warmest...
February ...17th warmest...
March: ...warmest March on record...
April: ...third warmest...
May: ...second warmest...

How that averages out to the hottest year in the contiguous United States I am not sure. I'd have to see the figures and crunch some numbers to see why they reported what they did. Here is a comparison for the last year worth of global data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2011.17/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2011.17/to:2013/trend

Here is for the last decade-plus, globally:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend

And, regional temperature variations don't translate out to squat, so far as the planet is concerned. Heatwaves occur in the US periodically. They also occur elsewhere from time to time, like during the time of an Atlantic cycle that sent searing heat into Europe from Africa's Sahara Desert a couple years ago. The globe did not get hotter, like so many in Europe actually thought at the time. They just got a taste of hot, Sahara Desert air blasted at them by the winds, caused by the Atlantic anomaly.

dcpyle

You know darn well you are cherry picking evidence to mislead the public.

It's unacceptable and reprehensible.

Don't pretend you did it by accident.

This is exactly what you did: HERE!

Your behavior is disgusting and will not be tolerated.

CNR,

As stated above, those actions should be defined by exactly what has to be done, who has to do it, how long it will take, and a specific desired result to be achieved in a given time period by those actions.

In my years on the Vine, I've often seen people post something like this on Saturday, but never return to see the response on Sunday. If you're still in the game, I'd like to explore this with you (especially given the wealth of information out there) - but I have little interest in posting long explanations to someone who's already left the room.

Let me know.

DCPyle,

Unlike today, the RWP and MWP have repeatedly been shown to be sporadic regional - not simultaneously global - events. If Willie Soon is your only source on this topic, I urge you to go to Google Scholar and look up the RWP and MWP. Here are the results for the RWP (181,000 hits). Here, for the MWP (105,000 hits).

dcpyle

You know darn well you are cherry picking evidence to mislead the public.

It's unacceptable and reprehensible.

Don't pretend you did it by accident.

>>snipped rest of ignorant blathering<<

JimmySD1,

Ummm, no. I didn't. I left all of the samples in and removed nothing. I also preferred to use raw, unprocessed and unsmoothed data available on a website that supports the common view of AGCC/AGW. Do yourself a favor and run the numbers from 1998 as well. You will get less of a declining slope but you still will get one. Only the next two decades of data are going to show us anything as to whether or not that declining trend in temperatures will continue or are just part of a continuing, overall warming.

Physicist-retired,

Yes, I am still here. I also am not using anything from Soon. However, time constraints may force me not to be able to respond in a timely manner. If you can handle that, please do explain--but do not explain away, do not alter the raw data before using it, and do not use fudge factors and/or exaggeration factors. I will "bust" you right here in front of everybody if you attempt any of it. :-)

By the way, Physicist-retired, before responding, I suggest that you read the following article as a starting point.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/qr/2002/00000058/00000003/art02371

Given the fact that the signal of the MWP and LIA are being found in more and more Southern Hemispheric proxies ought to give you pause before unconditionally accepting the claims of Mann and others of like ilk that the MWP was only a local or regional phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere.

Amazingly, I used your link to your Google Scholar results to pull this one up. May I suggest further that you take your own advice? :-)

dcpyle,

I said:

Unlike today, the RWP and MWP have repeatedly been shown to be sporadic regional - not simultaneously global - events.

You reply with a link that shows proxy evidence for a warm period in Antarctica. What were the years of that warm period? Do they coincide with other areas on the planet experiencing unusual warmth?

This is the issue that skeptics continually bring up. The MWP is broadly defined by skeptics to have existed from 500 AD - 1000 AD, or 700 AD - 900 AD (as this paper does), or even 700 AD to 1200 AD. And if any place on the globe experienced a warm period during that timeframe, it's 'proof' of the MWP.

In a word, no.

Using such evidence to support a claim of a global MWP would be like me citing a heatwave in Henry VIII's England to support AGW. You'd laugh - and rightly so.

In order to prove an MWP, skeptics must first define when it even happened, and then show that all available proxy data during that timeframe supports the claim that the planet warmed during that period.

No skeptic has ever done that research. The proxy data is out there. I wonder why they don't just crunch the numbers and prove the dam thing.

Physicist: Give it your best shot. I'm always happy to have a civil conversation with someone on the other side.

If you can give me logical, fact based responses to the questions I have asked, then I'm more than happy to listen, especially if you can back up the time and cost elements that I have alluded to. I would love to see that. As I've said on other threads, in all the years I've been following this issue, I have yet to see anyone in the scientific community put forth anything resembling a concrete plan.

What I have seen are ill defined, nebulous statements from various sources that say things like "our goal is to reduce green house gas emissions by 20% by the year 2032"...or some other such vague notion. And to those statements, my question is always the same: To what end? What will that achieve other than reducing green house gases by some picked out of the air number. What will achieving that do? When will it happen, and how much will it cost.

The vague statements like those are NOT what I'm looking for. I want a concrete plan with actual specific action tied to a time line where an expected result is to be achieved in terms of global cooling, and with a cost associated with that. Again, if the models are so good as to be irrefutable on one side, then logic dictates that those same models can also produce concrete numbers to achieve a pre determined rate of desired change.

If you can logically deal with it on that level, then we'll have an interesting discussion.

Physicist,

There is considerable overlap in the years. So long as they fit and overlap together within the same range of years it is an indicator of the MWP. Anything not overlapping needs further examination.

Something that people like you need to understand is that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are not in lockstep, so far as climate goes. Even today we can see the trends and how they diverge from one another. See the graph, here:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1998/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/to:2013/trend

This graph covers the same period from 1998 to the present, with the NH on the top plot and the SH on the lower plot. Note the differences and the similarities. Even though we can see differing individual trends, the signals in the SH still show matches with the NH in enough of the data to show the signals of an overall trend from 1850 to the present are there. This last decade of data is no different, with the exception that the temperatures have declined globally over the last decade.

So it is with the two hemispheres in the proxy data. It is to be expected that there will not be exact matches over all the same periods of time in toto with such variations between the hemispheres of the planet, but when the signals can be seen overlapping the same period, it is evidence of a global something going on, namely the MWP, particularly when so many proxies now are showing the signal in the same overlapping time frame.

There is an interesting article you should see. In it, a climate scientist is quoted to the effect that another major climate scientist contacted him via email and told him that they needed to get rid of the MWP. They have been working on doing just that ever since.

Why? They have to do so because it conflicts with what many of them are trying to get across to the public. (Did you know they even have a propaganda guide on how to get people to believe at all costs what they write, including the use of emotionalism in writing? I have read this document (entitled "Rules of the Game") so don't try to tell me it does not exist).

But, the evidence among the proxies is growing. Mann et al. made considerable effort, including the use of interesting mathematics and outright flipping to the inverse the Finland data in order to make the MWP go away and become the MCA. I was pissed off for a couple days after reading and going through Mann's latest offerings. He was still up to his old tricks, it would seem. Unfortunately, I am retired and can do little to nothing about it at the present. I don't even have access to a lab and relevant equipment anymore.

As to the article I mentioned above before getting sidetracked, unfortunately, the article is not in English. For those who can read German text, the article is here:

http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/beispiellose-erwarmung-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

Yes, it is a blog article. So what? The fact that some scientists are working very hard to suppress the MWP is disconcerting, to say the least. And, based on what I have been reading over the decades, there are some, shall we say, interesting shenanigans going on in the climate sciences these days.

In some cases, it is very, very difficult to get one's hands on raw data. In a number of cases the raw data is discarded once it is 'normalized' or otherwise had an algorithm (or, should I write "algore-rhythm"? :-) ) or two applied against the data. I would never have done such a thing in my day. (It is important for scientists to be able to replicate the results using the same methodologies or the whole process is trash). Neither should those of today be allowed to get away with doing such things.

One more thing. Following is the official statement of a scientist that gave Senate testimony regarding the email prompting him to "get rid of the MWP."

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

You should read this statement so as to have context for the discussion that will follow, should you choose to engage in it.

OK, here is one more thing and that is it for the day. See this article written by an environmentalist who used to support actively the IPCC's CO2 'theory':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

He also mentions the 1,000-year cycle I did. I was not even aware of this article until today, finding it while looking for something else. Even a former IPCC supporter sees the pattern. Why don't many climate scientists and their followers speak much of it? :-)

Physicist: Instead of posting a long explanation, how about breaking it down into smaller components and see how that works. You can pick any segment of the argument you wish to start with, and I'm sure it will naturally lend itself to other aspects.

Personally, I would love to hear why you feel that a model addressing a planet wide structure as complicated as the climate is so accurate to begin with. As you can no doubt guess, I have a whole host of questions and arguments for you on just that part alone. Bring your best game with you. You're going to need it ;-)

dc,

You must think I'm new at this. Picking the warmest year on record, as a starting point for trend analysis is disengenuous at best. Let's start your plot at 1950, shall we?

But since you do start yours at 1998, and plot for 15 years, then I have a challenge for you. Find any 15-year period during the MWP, and show global warming during that time. If 15 years is a definitive range, let's stick to that.

CNP,

I'm not sure what you're asking for now. I thought you wanted a climate 'action plan', with well defined steps to be taken, based on climate model projections. Chapter 3 of this should get up started. It begins on page 53.

Physicist: I'm not sure what you mean by Chapter 3, page 53. I went back and looked over your posts and didn't see a link to anything in particular. But if you'll post it, I'd be more than happy to go look at it.

Physicist-retired,

I think nothing of the kind. By the way, you messed up the parameters for the plots. And, if I were you I would not yet use HADCRUT 4. It needs work and--last time I checked--was incomplete, so far as sampling goes.

You also badly misunderstood what I was doing. I was showing the differences in the trends between the NH and the SH from 1998 to the present so that you could see the divergences. All setting it back to 1950 does is converge the NH and SH plots closer together to hide the divergences, the divergences between NH and SH being what I intended for you to see...

You may not be new at this but your attempt at plotting the data the way you did seems to show otherwise. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, however and ask you to actually try to read what I posted next time before formulating an argument before you have done so. Please try again. :-)

Incidentally, as an afterthought, 1998 has no longer been considered the hottest year for some time (last time I checked that was stated to be 2010)--at least by the Goddard Institute. :-)

Physicist-retired,

This was the core of my argument in my above post regarding the NH and SH (as it is pretty obvious that you missed the point of the exercise entirely in attributing disingenuousness to me):

Something that people like you need to understand is that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are not in lockstep, so far as climate goes. Even today we can see the trends and how they diverge from one another. See the graph, here:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1998/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/to:2013/trend

Physicist-retired,

Here is yet another reason NOT to use HADCRUT4. Did you even bother to check the raw numbers and sampling? Using it in your trend plots actually skewed the results! I thought that the trend line looked a bit off-kilter. Run your numbers again, using only HADCRUT4 global. Remember also that they are not even offering an unadjusted dataset at the present for that series.

That is pretty sneaky of them to leave off 2011 and 2012 when you set the trend to include data from 2011 and 2012! But, as I said, it is apparent that the series still is not yet complete. Best use HADCRUT3 if we are going to continue using the Wood for Trees site for limited analysis. At least that series includes 2011 and 2012 data to the present.

Did you catch what you also did? You mixed up data from HADCRUT 4 NH with HADCRUT3 SH. No, I don't yet think you are new at this. It is something anybody could do if not paying attention. :-)

Here is what I uncovered when I checked the data that appeared in your sampling from HADCRUT4 (notice the bolded end data which came directly from the data underlying your plots):

#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre
#http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut4_monthly_nh.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2011
#Selected data from 1950
#Selected data up to 2013
1950-0.42
1950.08-0.23
1950.17-0.1
1950.25-0.18
1950.33-0.06
1950.42-0.12
1950.5-0.18
1950.58-0.17
1950.67-0.07
1950.75-0
1950.83-0.41
1950.92-0.09

>> snipped out intervening data between 1950 and 2009 (check raw data if you doubt me) <<

20090.54
2009.080.6
2009.170.44
2009.250.51
2009.330.45
2009.420.63
2009.50.65
2009.580.67
2009.670.7
2009.750.58
2009.830.58
2009.920.5
20100.59
2010.080.6
2010.170.81
2010.250.82
2010.330.72
2010.420.76
2010.50.83
2010.580.77
2010.670.56
2010.750.69
2010.830.92
2010.920.41
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 732
#Mean: 0.15582
e

...

Chapter 3 of this

The data underlying Meinshausen et al. (2009) is some of the same fanciful data invoking exaggeration factors of between 2 and 4 that were trumpeted by the IPCC some years back. Meinshausen et al. (2009) forms the basis of the paper to which you refer, notsojingo. It also is the formula for economic decay and failure. Like the world really needs that right now! :-)

The way things are looking, and if we remain at the status quo, we are likely not going to see increases much over 1 degree C by 2100. The IPCC's predictions in the TAR already have failed to account for the current cooling trend that has been seen over the decade from 1998 to the present. It won't be long before we see the failures of predictions in their AR4. Already that report has been found to have been riddled with errors of fact. That said, they are very likely to come up with some creative means and methods to give them the data they want in the very near future. :-)

They can't account for the heat loss because the models don't have sophistication enough to account for all of the environmental factors on the planet. Another two or three decades should let us know which way we are heading in observable, real-world data.

Yep, because if this keeps up, there won't be any trees left to hug here in the Rockies.

Just make sure it's not on fire.

Go hug a tree.

Can I wait till it stops burning first?

Actually, think we need to spend federal money thinning the forest these fires are happening in.

Hey Corp, Dah Devil changed your Jesus fish into a godless evolutionary fish which proves that dah devil is a force to be reckoned with.

Trees produce oxygen, absorb C02, anchor soil, produce shade, produce fruit and nuts, provide beauty. I'd reckon that they do a lot more GOOD for this planet than you do!

I tried to hug my trees, riverman, but they are dying for lack of water.

Richard - then are you saying that you like this hot weather and raging fires that your devil will provide you with for eternity?

And your next chapter will be when precipitation falls on the burn areas.

Already happening. We've had thunderstorms moving though the High Park fire area the last day or two, along with flash flood warnings. Got more rain scheduled for today and beyond.

Well, it is possible he may change his mind and fund the EPA, maybe if Obama supported cutting the EPA then Romney would support giving them more money.

And his "elk." How did animals get involved with this? It's "ilk" Democratic retard.

Elk is the animal. Ilk means the general gist or idea of what you are saying.

If Mittens had an elk it would be strapped to the roof of his campaign jet.

If Mittens had an elk it would be strapped to the roof of his campaign jet.

Or entered in Elksage, or Elk Ballet in the Olympics with his Horse ballet teammate...

And how many of you have a roof full of solar panels and a Leaf in the driveway? Put up or STFU.

Come on Valhalla Phil, that is a straw man just like if i said u can't be against abortion unless u have adopted unwanted children already....

I don't have solar panels, but I also do not drive a car, I have no cable, no gaming systems, no huge plasma TV. If it weren't for this heat wave, I wouldn't even be running my A/C. I have leaves in my driveway, but they come from my trees, lol.

c

For pete's sake this is not about politics!! People are dying due to the heat; and wildlife and peoples homes are being destroyed by the fires that is what is important to do something about now not politics. All of the fires have polluted the air, destroyed homes and forests which will in turn help cause flash floods. I am not a hunter but for those that are the fires will also claim the lives of wildlife that you might have hunted. For others the heat and lack of rain is not helping crops which will in turn make your groceries get even higher. Right now politics are not the important thing helping ourselves and our neighbors is. And go ahead and call me a bleeding heart liberal I am not that but there does come a time that we need to think beyond ourselves.

Your kind of selfish, dumbass attitude is one reason the world has so much wrong with it.

Aww, Karl can't afford AC and is bitter.

Well if someone would send me "a round toit" Id take mine out of the crate and hook it up. Until then, a fan will have to do. lol!

I am lucky to have A/C. I didn't before. Most of the children and elderly who are dying are dying because of heat stroke. Local municipalities are working their brains and bodies out to try to restore electricity to these houses so they can at least run a fan. blesssings to all who are suffering!

Ok genius,

You live in the desert, where evaporation works, and evaporation is a cooling process that removes heat from your body...

People die in areas where the air is saturated, hence evaporation doesn't work, and their body temperatures are below the ambient temperature, people die when their bodies absorb heat instead of lose it.

I live in the desert. Mankind has lived for thousands of years

Yes mankind lived everywhere for thousands of years, they also have died in those areas due to exposure and heat for the same number of years, survival is a struggle, and evolution has worked and continues to work.

I agree about the cold. It will kill you faster than the heat. Just don't forget that in the desert you have low humidity. High humidity makes it hard to breathe and it feels hotter.

I'm pretty sure misspelling *dying* makes YOU the F@#! moron.

I lived in AZ for 18 years and lived through 123 degree temps. Yes, I had A/C. Would do it again instead of this 100+ and the HUMIDITY. Circumstances brought me back to MI...... UGH. Remain grateful that I have A/C. Won't complain about not being able to be outside. It could be worse.

This is the alternate attempt. Along with trolls saying "Oh, well, it rained here so the world is all right", the other idea is abuse everyone in order to lower the quality of discussion. It's another aspect of "The Party of No." The idea is to not allow anything constructive to happen.

This is not global warming. In June and July the heat is hot anyway.... then you add the extreme heat from Colorado's massive fires... which started a little over two weeks ago... yes, that heat travels upward... is picked up by the winds that constantly travel from the West to the East... the extra heat added to the regular summer heat equals above normal temperatures.... then the heavier slower smoke takes a ride on the same winds....

add to that, the past two weeks of abnormal sun flares... which are going to be with us through 2013, and you have heat and abnormal high winds combined....

and then in Death Valley... where the heat is produced normally and passed along the Eastward winds... yeah... all this is part of our Earth doing its 'thing'.... except the unusual volume of fires.. that now believe to have been started by a camper on the high ridges in Western Colorado....

or maybe someone did it deliberately?

We need to realize that every action we take has an affect on the entire world.... all these war machines that blast out fire and death.... where does that heat and smoke end up? Maybe in the rain water... or the ocean.... and carried to all nations... maybe it will be in your snowman.....

global warming is just a cover up for our own rudeness to our Earth and it's people.

We need to realize that every action we take has an affect on the entire world.... all these war machines that blast out fire and death.... where does that heat and smoke end up? Maybe in the rain water... or the ocean.... and carried to all nations... maybe it will be in your snowman.....

You just described the cause of climate change. Congratulations.

Accountable, I always heat up twice in the winter, first when I cut the firewood the second time when I burn it.

How does, say, an 80 year old woman with no A/C cool off? Especially if she can't get out of her house, or needs help getting in the tub? For a time, my mother was that woman, Accountable

Have a fundraiser for the local senior center to add backup generator. Have seniors taken there for extreme conditions. It's not exactly rocket science. Don't have a senior center? Another fundraiser and volunteer labor, problem solved.

Shilodance said:

How does, say, an 80 year old woman with no A/C cool off? Especially if she can't get out of her house, or needs help getting in the tub?

Can't be too different from how they did it when she was growing up. Did you know that she grew up without A/C? If she needs help, she should have someone living with her.

When she grew up, she wasn't old and fragile, boom. Is your point that we should let these people die because in the past they barely made it to 60? Any idea how much assisted living costs? And how few insurance companies cover it?

When she grew up, she wasn't old and fragile, boom

Her grandparents were; people being old is not a modern phenomena. Of course back then, families cared enough about one another to live with their aging family and take care of them, and would never think to send them to a facility that houses many elderly, who are routinely neglected and abused (had such places existed, which they did not).

I'm shaking my head. Simply amazing.

I suppose that I should not have been too surprised that my comment would fly over your head, however.

Ya, it was reported earlier that Mr. Obama was wearing red, spouting horns and carrying a pitch fork.

Fox News was feeling frisky today?

DC and Chicago?? Wow.

Was he wearing a mask, Khan? You might mistaken him for the mighty Mitt.

Sssh.You may not want that to get around.

And how many solar panels are on your roof? Is there a Leaf in your driveway? If not, STFU hypocrite.

Actually, that's the day the Aliens land. The book, "How to Serve Humans" has gone on sale in the Orion region of the galaxy and they are heating up their grills.

Why is everybody blaming the corporations? Has anybody ever heard of supply and demand? If we didn't use it they wouldn't produce it.

UNDERGROUND bunkers

Anyone watching Doomsday Preppers this season? Did you know there is a companion Doomsday Bunkers program? Yep, the guy will build to order your dream underground bunker with all the amenities of home! :<) Check it out when it comes back on.

Sounds familiar, Phil. Back in the days of the Red Threat, we used to have nuclear attack drills. Mostly consisted of getting under our desks (and kissing our asses goodbye).

buzz: Having spent the majority of my life in the midwest, yes, this is the first time this has happened in my experience -- this level of heat, and this level of drought. Wildfires happen, as you pointed out, but in my entire 50+ years of life, I've never read about fires as bad as this year. Also never heard before that over half of the US was under drought conditions, which it currently is.

Actually there is/was fires in Wyoming and South Dakota also all burning at the same time. I know the one in South Dakota made national news as the aircraft that crashed fighting the fires was from North Carolina, did so working in the Black Hills in South Dakota. God bless the men who lost their lives in the crash and their families, and no I am not saying their deaths were more devastating than the deaths of any of the people who have died due to the heat. And for the comments about cooling off in the desert just how active are you outside and do you have any health problems or are you younger or older which makes you more vulnerable. Anybody with heart or lung problems will have more problems with the high humidity.

And how many solar panels are on your roof? Is there a Leaf in your driveway? All the EPA will do is demand you buy both. Why wait? Either you are a player or a poser, which is it?

How can we tell, they only started keeping records in the 1890's. So just over 100 years verses how many centuries, millenniums before had summers like this? Was 1980 Global Warming? How about the early 1900's when alot of the records were set or the dust bowl of the 30's.

just normal cycle change.

We can tell because it is both heating up and heating up faster than almost any other time in history. The highs we are seeing today were still often the norm at past times. The problem is that it took thousands of years for it to get that hot and life had time to adapt.

Note I said "almost any other time." The exceptions are when the earth suffered serious extinctions. The problem with mass extinctions, both in animals and plants is that our technology depends on the the current ecosystem. If the ecosystem dies, our technology fails us. Of course, it is possible to argue "Oh well, we can innovate fast enough to keep up with the change", but the problem there is that humanity is suffering from a population explosion and that, in of itself, creates demands for sustaining technology.

Sure, a few individuals could easily survive a very hostile earth with our current state of technology. Are you willing to volunteer to be one of the ones who dies off?

LOL! teatards just aren't ready to admit to Global Warming.............I guess it's only fitting their states are suffering most....

Global warming? We call it summer. If you're right luke , we can save money by decommissioning some ice breakers. Oh, and i can make money by opening up a orange grove in Montana.

Dang though..we will lose all those Canadian tourist down here in the sunshine state. Maybe we can go up there and tell them how ever thing is better down south.

Again Luke,

And how many solar panels are on your roof? Is there a Leaf in your driveway? All the EPA will do is demand you buy both. Why wait? Either you are a player or a poser, which is it?

Hahahaha, Libtards and global warming, hahahahaha

Here on planet earth, it has been one of the hottest months on record. In fact it's pretty bad:

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm :-

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36^th consecutive May and 327^th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20^th century average.

Seen any rain?

TexasZ, I agree. I have set here and listened to all the people who would never live in Texas because of the heat, now say THEY are having heat like we did last year. The difference here is most of us have ways to cool ourselves or are so used to the heat that it is little bother to them. It is 97 here right now with rain predicted for tomorrow until the end of next week, where it reached high 100's much of last summer with no rain. No fires here either (knock on wood). I am hoping the best for the fire areas AND those battling unusual heat.

It is more likely due to fracking. Fracking is a new kind of natural gas drilling that releases poisons into the air, the sort that cause global warming. They also use fluids that poison the groundwater. Go to Youtube and look up "fracking." Also see the movie "Gasland." (Look up Gaslandthemovie). There are many sorts of pollution that cause global warming, but fracking is accelerating the process.

"Frac"ing, or fracturing isn't new. It is a process where they pump fluids, usually a gelling agent and brine water and sand into a oil or gas producing zone to "fracture" the formation.The gel and sand go into the fissures created by the pressure and keep the fissures open, thus allowing the product to be collected easier. Get your story straight Chicken Little.

Fracturing is not that old in any manner that was highly utilized; it's negative effects as the fracking is increased 100s-fold are proportionally worse.

Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, as a result of the action of a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally- certain veins or dikes are examples- and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.^[a][1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.

The first use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947 but the modern fracking technique that made the extraction of shale gas economical was first used in 1997 in the Barnett Shale in Texas.^[1][2][3] The energy from the injection of a highly pressurized fracking fluid creates new channels in the rock, which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons.

Proponents of fracking point to the vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract.^[4] Detractors point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these.^[5] For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even banning it.

History

Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil industries in Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia by using liquid and later also solidified nitroglycerin. Later the same method was applied to water and gas wells. The idea to use acid as a nonexplosive fluid for a well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, created fractures would not close completely and therefore enhanced productivity. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.^[13]

Due to shale's high porosity and low permeability, technology research, development and demonstration were necessary before hydraulic fracturing could be commercially applied to shale gas deposits. In the 1970s the federal government initiated both the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydro-fracturing pilot demonstration projects, and the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium that received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.^[16] In 1977, the Department of Energy pioneered massive hydraulic fracturing in tight sandstone formations. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources (now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation), Mitchell Energy (now part of Devon Energy) developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as "slickwater fracturing" that made the shale gas extraction economical.^[2][3][17]

In 2011, France became the first nation to ban hydraulic fracturing.^[18][19]

Hydraulic fracturing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is controversial, if only looking at the amount of water it ruins in its use alone.

And it has allowed for a much higher extraction rate of energy. At what price is the issue.

Peace

Conspiracist nonsense. HAARP has not the power enough to modify the weather. We are a long way, technologically, from that.

Fracking isn't going to do it, either.

Now solar power, on the other hand, might. Since 1978, the production of solar cells and panels has resulted in many, many tons of two man-made gases (NF3 and SF6, as well as several related chemicals) being dumped into the atmosphere that are thousands and tens of thousands of times more potent GHGs--molecule for molecule--than CO2, and which theoretically will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

As we increase production of solar technology that uses these gases in manufacturing we will ramp up the amounts of these gases in the atmosphere, potentially undoing all that CO2 we supposedly will remove from emission into the atmosphere while going solar.

How's that for destroying the planet to save it? The irony...! :-)

For those who doubt what I just typed above in 20.4, here is a scientific paper dealing just with NF3.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035913.shtml

Valhalla Phil, how do you feel about contributing to the atmosphere a gas that is 17,000 times more potent a GHG than CO2, molecule for molecule, with those there solar panels of yours? Just curious. :-)

We are all in this together. "Again, not a word of compassion" pretty much assumes "for the grace of God go I." Well, it's going to be you and me next. This is happening to all of us, if not today, it's going to be next year. Should we leave a children a brown earth or a green earth? Should we not discuss that?

And again,

And how many solar panels are on your roof? Is there a Leaf in your driveway? All the EPA will do is demand you buy both. Why wait? Either you are a player or a poser, which is it?

Phil, that's the third time I've read the same post, I responded to it ages ago, please knock it off.

yes, I do that in my apartment complex. all the little kittens trying to find shade and relief from this heat. it's sad to watch, they don't have the ability to get in out of the heat.

Good advice, Roadwind. Droughts are hard on wildlife. When I used to live in Florida, we had a water fountain in the yard. Our yard was the watering hole for the area. They sell those at places like Home Depot. A pump cycles the water through the fountain. People usually buy them to make their yard pretty, but I noticed that they serve a much more important purpose during dry times to provide water for thirsty critters.

Thank you for thinking about those who can do nothing for themselves. There are a couple of us in my neighborhood that keep dishes of water out for the animals and food also, and a note for people who cannot take care of your animal please take it to a shelter do NOT dump it off somewhere. I and my neighbor are caring for several scared pets that were dumped, and yes we do help catch them and make sure they get to the animal shelter where the original owner should have taken them. Also if it is too much for you to take care of your pet please let it go to someone who can and will take care of it or ask for help caring for the pets. And the birds really like the small pool that is kept partially filled for them to cool off.

A Big Heart Smile!

Thanks for showing Humanity. A very special thread this one is.

Peace, and Good Stewardship, Fellow Earthlings!!!

(((((=

I remember as a boy sleeping in one of those canvas tents during the summer ---- and, that smell, that smell that would clog my nose and I couldn't breath. Those were the good old days.

Oh, man, I remember those days...!

I don't know...is it possible to sue Santa in a class action for people who did not get what they wanted for Christmas?