I love the headline. It should be sub-titled "Boldly going where no redneck has gone before."

Thank you JTEX!. I was wondering what the heck he was going on about. Sheese.

Actually, Lake Mead is drying up and it is the reservoir for Hoover Dam the largest dam. So, your oil ompany, anti warming Hannity stuff wont fly here.

From what I understand, most western rivers have already been dammed in all the effective places. More dams would add little to our stored water.

Once again the media mis-states and promotes un-truths... Near St. Louis, the river was even lower in 1988 than it is currently. Not to say it won't get even lower and meet or beat the low levels of '88.

I just hope these stories aren't making people submissive...the rain is coming and it will flood the hell out of that place if they do not start preparing. Az got drenched last night which is a good sign the rain is moving in that direction (not this storm but soon).

All too often I hear about flooding and crisis along the Miss. and this year will be no different...just took longer, like the az monsoon.

Reading some of these MSN threads gives me little hope for America. Nothing will ever change because the populous is so fuggin dumb.

wallacet1947: The purpose of a national government is to ensure the country doesn't lose vital resources, like a huge transportation cooridor. This is bigger than what any one state can handle and must be a national priority.

Kornfed: I don't think anyone is saying that the world is going to end. The world will do just fine without us. But watching the price of flour double or oil go to $5 for the lack of transportation, even for a year, is going to be a hard pill for our nation.

Once again the media mis-states and promotes un-truths... Near St. Louis, the river was even lower in 1988 than it is currently. Not to say it won't get even lower and meet or beat the low levels of '88.

once again, nutcase right-wingers deliberately distort facts to promote their twisted agenda of destruction.

so much for "common sense", what part of "NEAR record low levels" don't you comprehend?

RI Mom...

As a resident of Iowa and one who didn't vote for branstad in 2010, I find your post to be very misinformed and inane.

You are attempting to connect dots that aren't there. Especially concerning the annual august recess of congress. Then again perhaps you would like to explain to us how many democrats are currently in the DC area carrying on government business.

Best stick to the topic at hand (drought and low Mississippi water levels) than try to blame anyone for the lack of rain in the midwest.

BTW - Iowa, so far, has shown a degree of fiscal responsability that some states haven't. Makes me wonder how RI stacks up? Solvent or struggling?

Not to worry, the new voter ID laws will clear this up in a jiffy

Roadlesstraveled...

LMAO, turning off the TV and radio doesn't make it rain. Anyone who grows field or sweet corn can tell you that it is not normal to see fields of corn less than 4-5' high for as far as the horizon allows one to see.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/08/08/13186379-carbon-credits-gone-awry-coolant-companies-raise-output-of-harmful-gas

the lower Mississippi produces 55% of all refinery products, if the water falls below their intake pumps, the refinery shuts down, it takes lots of water to crack a barrel of oil.

2.16

american-2051576

I was gob-smacked how the IOWA Governor

deflected

the drought situation into a rant about welfare waivers.

This was TODAY'S AM Chuck Todd interview to see how Iowans were doing with this summer's crop issue.

No matter how many times Chuck Todd tried to reason w. Brandstad, the Governor INSISTED that though the (R) Senate convened BEFORE the welfare waiver...this was the reason that (R) refused to help the farmers.

On so many levels, it was SHOCKING to see how inept a government can be when a partisan agenda rules.

Please send this to your Governor:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/aug/13/bob-mcdonnell/bob-mcdonnell-says-obama-unwinding-welfare-work-re/

He looked a bit crazed in that interview.

And...I pray for rain in your State.

I did not change the TOPIC...

Governor Brandstad went on National TV to blame welfare waivers for Congress' inability to pass Farm Aid.

Wow..... Politics drawn into something caused by Mother Nature/God/whatever one wants to blame. Hopefully global warming, climate change, and any other b.s is not true and this is only cyclical weather patterns. Another problem is population. People aren't dying at 60 anymore. Babies are being born simply for a few more dollars on a welfare check. It'll catch up with us one day.....

Yep, just blame "the Democrats", "the Liberals", "the Progressives", "the Tree Huggers", "the Eenvironmental groups" (include your own dismissive pejoratives) out of one side of your mouths, and continue to deny any possibility of climate change. That's a GREAT plan; you folks just go with that. And don't forget add ing as much additional coal, and drilling and fracking for domestic oil so we can increase the burning of fossil fuels. That can only make things better, right? Yeah, that's the ticket. Just a GREAT plan.

;-)

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! Ice is melting!! Ice is FREEZING!! Rivers are rising!! Rivers are falling!! Too much rain!! Too LITTLE rain!! Tsunamis!! Droughts!! Flowers blooming too early!! Flowers blooming too LATE!!

Umm, in case you don't know things do not move and occur in constant rates. We have had floods, droughts, earthquakes, warming temperatures, cooling temperatures for millenniums. There is nothing occurring today that hasn't occurred in past years, decades, or centuries.

So let's stop with this whole "if we JUST STOPPED driving SUV's" nonsense. We have had 75 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years with 7 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 300 years alone. So rather being "Chicken Little" and trying to point fingers and blame at anyone and everyone to push your political agenda why don't we focus on what it takes to get through the various scenarios that occur.

Our discussion should not be HOW to keep the river from falling - that is wasted breath because it will rise and fall as nature has been happening for hundreds of years. The discussion should be how to PREPARE for the various rising and falling rivers and how to PREPARE for the water needs of the growing population.

You may have

COLLAPSED

my post 2.1

But I was CORRECT!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/15/693381/branstad-welfare-waivers/

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! Ice is melting!! Ice is FREEZING!! Rivers are rising!! Rivers are falling!! Too much rain!! Too LITTLE rain!! Tsunamis!! Droughts!! Flowers blooming too early!! Flowers blooming too LATE!!

Umm, in case you don't know things do not move and occur in constant rates. We have had floods, droughts, earthquakes, warming temperatures, cooling temperatures for millenniums. There is nothing occurring today that hasn't occurred in past years, decades, or centuries.

So let's stop with this whole "if we JUST STOPPED driving SUV's" nonsense. We have had 75 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years with 7 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 300 years alone. So rather being "Chicken Little" and trying to point fingers and blame at anyone and everyone to push your political agenda why don't we focus on what it takes to get through the various scenarios that occur.

Our discussion should not be HOW to keep the river from falling - that is wasted breath because it will rise and fall as nature has been happening for hundreds of years. The discussion should be how to PREPARE for the various rising and falling rivers and how to PREPARE for the water needs of the growing population.

Therefore, the current trend is in no way due to the hundreds of Tons of CO2 thats been dumped in the atmosphere over the past hundred years. Once upon a time, the planet had a CO2 atmosphere. Then algae started to pump in O2, a poison gas, which killed 98% of all things.

Point being, yes, the weather will change on its own over time. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT POINT. That is NOT proof to say, however, that the current trend is any less or different.

Speaking as a NYker, we NEVER used to have sustained 90 degree temps when I was a kid, and never had storms as strong as we have now. A 40 year sustained trend, or something permament?

Robert of OR.

Actually, I am a conservationist, was raised a Democrat and love the outdoors and believe it must be protected from those who do not value it, be it Demo or Repub. However, I am leaning more Libertarian because of our dysfunctional, wasteful government. I also believe that you can not believe everything you hear or read. I have not heard conclusive evidence from either side in regard to global climate change. I do not rebut it nor uphold it. In any case, I don't think we as humans can correct or control it any more than we could control a cataclysmic volcano eruption or asteroid strike.

Sorry, it appears your sky has indeed fallen.

Glen, all the storage and distribution in the world won't help if it doesn't freakin' rain or snow. I've always thought it ironic that some of the "reddest" areas of the west are the most dependent on large federal water projects for civilization to even exist.

Personally, I prefer living a bit higher in the watershed. As we say here on the West Slope of Colorado, "Flush twice 'cause California needs the water."

JTEX-4010614

denver bill 2: Do you not realize that the "Mississippi" being discussed here is the river, not the state, or does your myopic view of all things southern not allow you to have an intelligent thought when confronted with a word or name your regional arrogancy cannot fathom?

I know exactly what I wrote, and I read the article first. Does your myopic view of all things southern (or your regional arrogance) not allow you to believe there are rednecks on the Mississippi River?

You guys realize if this was 80 years ago, people would be starving in the streats after a drought like this? Water and transportation management is critical to our cushy consumer lifestyles we all take for granted. So stop with the finger pointing and work on solutions. Oh yeah that's right you all don't know crap about creating anything but rehashing political talking points. Great job folks. Carry on.

You know whats kind of hilariously stupid?

We can extract oil from the ground and repurpose it in a million ways. We can float it down a river, transport it through pipelines, we can essentially capture it anywhere and transport it anywhere...because there's massive profits involved.

But, we apparently, cant manage to capture flooding, clean the water, keep it in towers or reservoirs, for future use when the droughts come.

WHY? Because there isnt any profit to be made silly.

Of course, there is profit to be lost...when those massive floodings and massive droughts wreak havoc on those oil and farm businesses.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES...we reap what we sow.

GREED: it will be what destroys us...not our partisan divide (though, thats not helping either)

Don - we cant work on solutions because they cost money.

Tell me, who's going to pay for them? Republicans dont want govt paying for it...and we all know businesses arent going to pay for it.

Businesses pass the cost on to the customers, so WE would still be paying for it.

I personally, would rather pay in taxes, put people to work, create the solution, and have business not jack up my gas and food costs in the end...but im a crazy liberal...so there you go.

Oh, geez, how may billions of cubic feet of water would it take to dump into the beginning of the Mississippi River to make up the lack of enough water? Hmm, let's add a Great Lake. Oh, Canada might get a little PO'd.

The too much CO2 argument. Well, stop cutting down on the forests and barrelling thru all the other green stuff to put in more roads and houses, etc. And don't let Al Gore chop down the trees that encircle the world up there in the north country. This is when we need to grow stuff so we'll have something to eat when it gets freaking cold again. Well, not everything we grow (or could grow if not for all the darn concrete) gets planted in the areas where we have a drought this year.

gamerk2: Amazing how you can have 7 short sentences and not make one statement that makes any sense.

First, you speak of CO2 and then make this broad assumption that, first, it is directly related to temperature swings and, second, make the assumption it is man-made. So much wrong there I don't know where to start - so let me try:

1) You state CO2 levels have been increasing over hundreds of years: There is a problem with that comment - either you lied and it wasn't true OR if CO2 levels have been INCREASING for hundreds of years then how do you explain the 3 major COLD temperature swings that have occurred over the last 300 years with the latest occurring in the mid 1970's. In fact Newsweek Excerpt (April 28, 1975): “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”. So if CO2 levels have been RISING for hundreds of years how can THAT be responsible for 3 major COOLING periods in that same time period?

2) Even IF CO2 levels have been rising for "hundreds of years" then how can you be so certain other things are not causing? Volcano activity? Solar flares? That type of comment is irrational and incompetent. That is like saying "every time I take a leak on the side of a highway the next car that passes me is most of the time speeding - so I guess me taking a leak on the side of the highway is causing highway speeders". So the next time you want to speak of how CO2 is "causing global warming" I have a better idea to keep from embarrassing you - don't...........

3) And lastly you say growing up "we NEVER used to have sustained 90 degree temps". So because your memory is bad and you believe the world revolves around your last 40 years doesn't mean it is so. Understand the earth has been around for millenniums and your last 40 years is like "blinking" over the course of a lifetime. Amazing how global warming nuts want to use a short period of time (like 40 years) and talk about a "trend" when we have earth cycles that have been occurring for thousands and thousands of years. That is like yesterday it was sunny and today it rains then say "the trend is we are getting more rain than before". But only if an unintelligent person was comparing to yesterday!!

Rain trends do not occur in short periods and "global warming" does not occur in short periods. We have had 75 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years with 7 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 300 years alone. If man is responsible for this latest MINOR temperature swing then how is man responsible for the last 74 MAJOR temperature swings over the last 4500 years?!?!?

The "cold swing" during the 1970s was really just about right on the 20th Century average (globally, according to NOAA data). Now, only about 40 years later, we are over 1 deg F warmer than the 20th Century average. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is now about twice what it was during the 1950s and 1960s.

bdjb for common sense,

How do you know what the river levels are going to do? Did you ask your Ouija board?

I can see that Probusiness is spreading his filth again! Didn't you learn from the last pasting that I gave you weeks ago?

Blame blistering heat waves on global warming,
study says Sun Aug 5, 2012

Apparently not because you never replied back at my last post that shut you up and shot you down.

Shall we go for round number two?

Warmachine: I didn't reply because it is irrelevant and you missed two very important points. If you want to go several rounds I am more than happy to oblige.

First, you cannot use short term trends to explain long term cycles. I have YET to see ONE study where both the statistical analysis AND the raw data is shown. Just because it is printed doesn't make it so. For every printed result of a "study" you find that supports the theory of global warming I can show you the result of a "study" that shows the opposite. But I studied (and actually taught) Statistics so very intrigued with an analysis. If I see the data and can run a regression analysis and get the same result then even I can be swayed. But I have YET to be shown actual data. Everything I have read shows the "results" but that doesn't mean a thing without the data that justifies the result. If you come across a study that shows the statistical analysis used AND the raw data I would be happy to see it - but I am certain you can't find it because I have been looking for over 10 years since Al Gore went "postal".

The second issue is there is a difference between "global warming" and "human caused global warming". There very well may be "global warming" (if I could ever see some data) but that is a long stretch to THEN say it is human caused. We very well MAY be going through a cyclical warming trend but all that does is confirm our earth is ever changing like the other 74 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years. However, since no study shows the raw data we can't even get past the FIRST hurdle of actually proving the globe is warming before even TRYING to then say it is human caused.

So your comment is typical of a global warming nut - All talk but no substance. I am ready for round three whenever you are ready.........

ProBusiness

But I have YET to be shown actual data. Everything I have read shows the "results" but that doesn't mean a thing without the data that justifies the result.

Actually this is still round two.

Or is it that you refuse to accept the already shown actual data? There is a big difference. Like I said, Well over 90% of scientists already have conclusive proof that global warming is actual. Your ignorance at accepting the actual data is the reason why you have YET to be shown.

It is these same scientists that have made real conclusions by testing and retesting theories, observations and statistical data using even global climate models. Your findings is based on a climate that was "just that" a climate that was 4,300 years ago. If I also remember my history correct, there were a lot less people back then. Reason being is because the total life expectancy of an individual was 30 to 40 years and thats if they didn't die from constantly fighting with spears and swords or die of diseases that for the most part is curable today.

Maybe you would like to explain how the abuses of Mankind over thousands of years is not relevant?

It is very relevent because it comes to only one conclusive fact that Mankind's arrogance and ignorance (like yourself) have no appreciation for the environment due to reckless thoughts and greed.

But I guess that figures with a nickname like probusiness. Because you would be out of your cushy job if you were to really accept global warming instead of keeping your eyes closed! I bet you make whoever is paying you very proud!

Warmachine: Sorry, we are in round three. All I ask is a link to the study of which you quoted that shows me the statistical analysis, the confidence level tested, and the data. Show that to me and let me review the study. If it is legitimate then I will concede. But I have nothing to worry about because these studies NEVER release the data. I wonder why?

But to just tell me "scientists say" is as incompetent as telling me "politicians say". So you start calling me names and making incompetent comments like "maybe you would like to explain how the abuses of Mankind over thousands of years is not relevant?". What an irrational and unsubstantiated comment.

I told you that the climate has had 75 MAJOR temperature changes over the last 4500 years. If your logic was true, that humans are affecting the climate, then how did it change 74 OTHER times in history? Is it possible that humans have only a marginal affect of the environment and natural occurrences such as volcanic activity and the sun's solar flares have significantly more impact to the environment than humans? Is it possible that ocean currents and atmospheric conditions have more of an impact than the human? It has to be otherwise we would not have had 74 other MAJOR temperature changes in history.

So I go back to my original comment that all I need to see is a reputable study so I can see their statistical study and data. If all these "scientists" are so certain the data shows this then why can't we see the data? All your name calling is irrelevant and just a cover because you don't have the ability to backup your claim. You are naive, read fancy articles, but not intelligent enough to ask yourself if it makes sense. How do you confirm it makes sense? Look at the study and data.

So I will be waiting to see the study and data...................

ProBusiness

So I will be waiting to see the study and data...................

You want proof........ Here it is!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/

One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. The National Climatic Data Center contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCDC's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Climatic Data Center, helps to provide longer term perspectives.

Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. The IPCC met in full session in 1990, 1995, 2001 and in 2007. They address issues such as the buildup of greenhouse gases, evidence, attribution, and prediction of climate change, impacts of climate change, and policy options.

Listed below are a number of questions commonly addressed to climate scientists, and brief replies (based on IPCC reports and other research) in common, understandable language. This list will be periodically updated, as new scientific evidence comes to light.

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr^-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO₂ in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21^st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

3. Is the climate warming?

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19^th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data.

Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.

There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20^th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.

Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.

Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. Sea ice extent for September for 2007 was by far the lowest on record at 4.28 million square kilometers, eclipsing the previous record low sea ice extent by 23%. Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.

4. Are El Niños related to Global Warming?

El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is a major research question.

5. Is the hydrological cycle (evaporation and precipitation) changing?

Globally-averaged land-based precipitation shows a statistically insignificant upward trend with most of the increase occurring in the first half of the 20^th century. Further, precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. On a regional basis increases in annual precipitation have occurred in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and southern South America and northern Australia. Decreases have occurred in the tropical region of Africa, and southern Asia. Due to the difficulty in measuring precipitation, it has been important to constrain these observations by analyzing other related variables. The measured changes in precipitation are consistent with observed changes in stream flow, lake levels, and soil moisture (where data are available and have been analyzed).

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent has consistently remained below average since 1987, and has decreased by about 10% since 1966. This is mostly due to a decrease in spring and summer snow extent over both the Eurasian and North American continents since the mid-1980s. Winter and autumn snow cover extent have shown no significant trend for the northern hemisphere over the same period.

Clouds are also an important indicator of climate change. Surface-based observations of cloud cover suggest increases in total cloud cover over many continental regions. This increase since 1950 is consistent with regional increases in precipitation for the same period. However, global analyses of cloud cover over land for the 1976-2003 period show little change.

6. Is the atmospheric/oceanic circulation changing?

A rather abrupt change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation behavior occurred around 1976/77. Often called the climatic shift of 1976/77, this new regime has persisted. There have been relatively more frequent and persistent El Niño episodes rather than the cool episode La Niñas. This behavior is highly unusual in the last 130 years (the period of instrumental record). Changes in precipitation over the tropical Pacific are related to this change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, which has also affected the pattern and magnitude of surface temperatures. However, it is unclear as to whether this apparent change in the ENSO cycle is related to global warming.

7. Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?

Examination of changes in climate extremes requires long-term daily or even hourly data sets which until recently have been scarce for many parts of the globe. However these data sets have become more widely available allowing research into changes in temperature and precipitation extremes on global and regional scales. Global changes in temperature extremes include decreases in the number of unusually cold days and nights and increases in the number of unusually warm days and nights. Other observed changes include lengthening of the growing season, and decreases in the number of frost days.

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed. There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought.In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events. Even in areas such as eastern Asia, it has been found that extreme precipitation events have increased despite total precipitation remaining constant or even decreasing somewhat. This is related to a decrease in the frequency of precipitation in this region.

Many individual studies of various regions show that extra-tropical cyclone activity seems to have generally increased over the last half of the 20^th century in the northern hemisphere, but decreased in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, hurricane activity in the Atlantic has shown an increase in number since 1970 with a peak in 2005. It is not clear whether these trends are multi-decadal fluctuations or part of a longer-term trend.

8. How important are these changes in a longer-term context?

Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the distant past.

For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19^th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20^th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.

Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

9. Is sea level rising?

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used (high or low) projected sea-level rise is projected to be anywhere from 0.18 (low greenhouse gas increase) to 0.59 meters for the highest greenhouse gas increase scenario. However, this increase is due mainly to thermal expansion and contributions from melting alpine glaciers, and does not include any potential contributions from melting ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica. Larger increases cannot be excluded but our current understanding of ice sheet dynamics renders uncertainties too large to be able to assess the likelihood of large-scale melting of these ice sheets.

10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m² since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21^st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

11. What about the future?

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.

Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21^st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics, with much of the increase coming in more frequent heavy rainfall events. However, over mid-continental areas summer-drying is expected due to increased evaporation with increased temperatures, resulting in an increased tendency for drought in those regions.

Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat.

Now, show me your proof! Hypocrite!

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Last week, I posted a commentary on NASA scientist James Hansen’s study and op-ed, which attribute recent extreme weather to global climate change. In the op-ed, Hansen stated:

The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change. And once the data are gathered in a few weeks’ time, it’s likely that the same will be true for the extremely hot summer the United States is suffering through right now.

My commentary concluded: “Hansen’s sweeping assertion that global warming is the principal cause of the European and Russian heat waves, and the Texas-Oklahoma drought, is not supported by event-specific analysis and is implausible in light of previous research.”

Although Hansen does not explicitly attribute the ongoing U.S. drought to global warming, he does blame global warming for both the 2011 Texas-Oklahoma drought and the current summer heat. And in his study, Hansen states: “With the temperature amplified by global warming and ubiquitous surface heating from elevated greenhouse gas amounts, extreme drought conditions can develop.”

This week on World Climate Report, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue that the current U.S. drought “is driven by natural variability not global warming.” Their post (“Hansen Is Wrong“) is concise and layman-friendly. Here I offer an even briefer summary.

A standard measure of drought in the U.S. is the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), which measures the combined effects of temperature (hotter weather = more soil evaporation) and precipitation (more rainfall = more soil moisture). “The more positive the PDSI values, the wetter conditions are, the more negative the PDSI values, the drier things are.” The PDSI for the past 117 years (1895-2011) shows a small non-significant positive trend (i.e. towards wetter conditions). There is no greenhouse warming signal in this data.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Global warming, or climate change, is a subject that shows no sign of cooling down.

Here's the lowdown on why it's happening, what's causing it, and how it might change the planet.

It Happening?

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Are Humans Causing It?

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

What is Climategate?

In late November 2009, hackers unearthed hundreds of emails at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia that exposed private conversations among top-level British and U.S. climate scientists discussing whether certain data should be released to the public.

The email exchanges also refer to statistical tricks used to illustrate climate change? trends, and call climate skeptics idiots, according to the New York Times.

One such trick was used to create the well-known hockey-stick graph, which shows a sharp uptick in temperature increases during the 20th century. Former U.S vice president Al Gore relied heavily on the graph as evidence of human-caused climate change in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The data used for this graph come from two sources: thermostat readings and tree-ring samples.

While thermostat readings have consistently shown a temperature rise over the past hundred years, tree-ring samples show temperature increases stalling around 1960.

On the hockey-stick graph, thermostat-only data is grafted onto data that incorporates both thermostat and tree-ring readings, essentially presenting a seamless picture of two different data sets, the hacked emails revealed.

But scientists argue that dropping the tree-ring data was no secret and has been written about in the scientific literature for years.

Climate change skeptics have heralded the emails as an attempt to fool the public, according to the Times.

Yet climate scientists maintain that these controversial points are small blips that are inevitable in scientific research, and that the evidence for human-induced climate change is much broader and still widely accepted.

I see all this proof from reputable organizations, one of them is the government that this is real. I see all this stuff on global climate change but I have yet to see the so-called proof that you say it is not real. Not even on the internet.

Why?

It just tells me that your all smoke and mirrors. Well maybe just smoke!

I've been waiting for your proof for over five hours now probusiness and still no reply to my challenge for you to provide your proof.

Looks like I won! Again!

So now you can just shut up!

So now you can just sit back in that little office cubicle looking down below from high above in that high rise building of yours.

Meanwhile I'm going to break open a bottle of Captain Morgan. Cheers!

I guess your just all talk probusiness. Maybe you should just change your name to pro-con-artist instead. Because all your talk and rhetoric about global warming is just that, a con.

For all those interested. there are multiple websites that does give research about global warming. Something that people like probusiness does not like for you to know. People like probusiness is just that, for business only. people like probusiness go around from forum to forum trying their best to debunk global warming and its effects without ever realizing that the effects can already be seen for example extreme drought and the ever spreading wildfires that accompany the heat wave that the U.S. is going through right now.

It is these businesses that do not want you to know the facts for fear that if America was to change course and start using alternative fuels to power their machinery that there very lively hood would be in serious jeopardy. That our reliance on oil keeps them very rich at the cost of the consumer.

Even though last months CO2 levels have dropped considerably to 1992 levels due to corporations use of natural gas instead of using coal, gasoline and other sources that attribute to global climate change because of the current economy just doesn't mean that they will stick with it. Natural gas, though it burns cleaner then most fuel sources still emits CO2 but at a lower level. Just refer to my post from yahoo.com for the article. Because once the economy gets back on track and normalized, it will be business as usual for these companies and they will once again go back to the CO2 emitting fuels.

Dealing with me is like dealing with the sun! You get no where and you walk away burned!

ProBusiness

the climate has had 75 MAJOR temperature changes over the last 4500 years

Hey ProBusiness, I looked up your comment on the 75 major climate changes over the last 4,500 years and you know what I got! Zilch!, Nadda, None. But I did find an article from ABC News, wanna know what the headline article reads.

Global Warming Denialism ‘Just Foolishness,’ Scientist Peter Raven Says

It goes on to one particular paragraph that reads this:

“Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, details how ideological, political and fossil fuel industry interests have been able to confuse and intimidate many leaders in legislature and media.

Maybe you should explain that one. Would be very interesting to get your take on this.

Another article from another website under your statement

http://www.desmogblog.com/4-500-year-old-arctic-ice-shelves-break-up?page=1

4,500-year-old Arctic Ice Shelves Break Up

CBC reports that researchers from Trent and Laval universities have recorded the break up of hundreds of square kilometres of Arctic ice shelves - some as old as 4,500 years

“These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present,” said Trent University professor Derek Mueller.

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1l9tR)

As far as I can tell from multiple web searches using your statement. IT DOESN'T EXIST! So, maybe you would like to show the masses just where you get your statement from because just like you the statement is just full of horse pucky!

warmachine, the denialists don't needs facts or proof, they just need to make a buck. it doesn't matter if it kills everyone in the future, as long as "the captains of greed and industry" can make another buck now without giving up their profits to something new.

Mississipians ! This drought is the revenge of God, for having permitted and fighting to retain slavery, and then for fighting integration, and for trying to secede from the USA ( We should have let you go ! That dumb Republican Lincoln, the one they said looked like an ape...he should have said good riddance to those Southern States, all it does there is flood, or they have tornadoes,and hurricane and flash fires.)

God is also ticked off at Southerners because they don't read,do well in school and because they practice lots and lots of incest. Treasonous secessionists......Republican Lincoln should NOT had fought them...

I agree dan but someone has to shut them up! And if I have to make this a war, so be it! I'm all for waging a war on these global warming skeptic's and deniers for it will be a war they won't win.

One day,I figure, there will be one last remaining,desiccated Red neck, whose parched last words will be "Those climate change eddyou cated folks were, (cough-cough) darn rong".

That's why they call you "plain" or "simple" Bob

Mary Jones...

We can adjust to one year of drought. It will be multiple years of drought that will be a challenge. Multiple years of drought and bad ag practices gave us the 30's dust bowls.

Plain bob, I don't like cutting grass. However, I would rather cut grass than see my neighbors have reduced soybean and corn yields.

I hope thatas these low yields trickle through the economy you will recall how awsome drought is.

I believe in survival of the fittest. Farmers have fail safes for their way of life. Most have insurance that will cover the lost bushels. Google "government subsidy checks", find your state and I'm sure you will recognize a name on it somewhere. Farmer's will never know they had low yields, financially that is. It's the consumer that's gonna get one broke off in 'em. I don't have "grocery insurance", or get my "food subsidy" check every year. So don't feel sorry for most farmers, start wondering about the impact on yourself.

Our environment changes and we need to be able to adapt to change. if we can not adapt we will suffer. Most of the midwest is just now coming out of a historic wet season based upon tree ring studies from multiple groups. Think of it like this... If you have a broken or leaking pipe in your yard the grass will be all nice and green around it growing tall and thick.. Fix the pipe and that grass dies. We developed expecting the resources available and environment of the geographic area were a constant when in fact they were not. We took that temporarily abundance of resources and pushed it to its limits with our growth in these areas. When it reverts back to normal how will the area support the growing population? it won't..

This is what global warming looks like. It will only get worse if we are unable to address the problem.

Oh JEEZ!!!!!! I was wondering when some fool would bring "global warming" into this discussion. We have had 75 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years with 7 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 300 years alone. So stop with the "global warming" generic comment that isn't worth the space it's written. Sometimes it rains too much - and sometimes it doesn't rain enough. Sometimes it gets too cold - and sometimes it doesn't get cold enough. Why don't we realize that nature is not constant and things happen, and HAVE been happening for centuries and centuries, and the question is how we prepare for the fluctuations in our weather patterns.

It seems no one on this thread is old enough to remember the drought of the 50's. The lakes dried up just like the corn did. As, I'm sure, did the Mississippi River. The field corn in the 50's looked just like the corn in the picture shown with this article.

Why not consider some positives, such as history revealed because of the drying of the Mississippi. After all these years will the remains of Napolean, Arkansas be revealed again?

The scientific evidence, although imperfect, suggests that the current upward "temperature swing" is larger (globally) than any other for at least the past 2,000 years, probably longer.

ProBusiness

Oh JEEZ!!!!!! I was wondering when some fool would bring "global warming" into this discussion. We have had 75 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 4500 years with 7 MAJOR temperature swings in the last 300 years alone.

So please explain why just this last winter was the warmest that the U.S. has ever experienced ever since temperature record keeping started back in the 1800's?

Explain why there has not been any tornado activity in the famous tornado alley that usually happens during this time of the year?

Explain for the second year in a row that a high pressure system seems to just linger above the Midwest causing the jet stream to move farther north than it is supposed to be during any other time of this month and has never happened before consecutively?

It just seems that every time you talk, all I ever see is your never ending garbage of denying global warming when you know for a fact that over 90% of the scientists in the world say that it is here.

The only fool there is around here probusiness is fools like you.

JEREMY-664722

Yes, farmers have insurance for their crops. So what? You have house insurance, car insurance, health insurance. How many times have you collected on those? Farmers have to buy it every year, regardless if they use it or not. This is the worst drought we have had out here in years. The insurance companies have done well the last few years around here, until now, but I doubt they will go out of business, they will pay out what they have to and try again next year. If all farmers stopped right now, the world would starve and you would find out what survival of the fittest really means.

A little too much rain for my taste right now--we could use a week of nothing but sunshine--I don't want to lose my tomato crop!

My thoughts and prayers for rain are with those farmers in the mid-western states though--I've several rain barrels full to the brim that I'd gladly send their way if it would help.

Charle7834...

Thanks, I bought a rain barrel this year to help water the family garden. It has yet to reach the bottom drain hole. At least our town hasn't restricted water usage for gardens yet, I can live with the brown grass, but I do like peppers and tomatoes.

Ctviking, yes the drought will pass. Mother nature always has a way to make life a challenge.

Prayer does nothing to help those who don't help themselves. Prayers cannot stop an ongoing climate crisis caused by human fossil fuel use.

Luthiel, and what can you/we do about that? Spoken like a true hypocrite, I'll bet.

I think that would be a terrific idea. New England still burns heating oil which should have been illegal twenty years ago. Stop sending them oil. Not only with those be blue States but the people will be too. While we are at it, why not change the laws that effect oil and gas prices that travel across State boundries. All those libs that want higher prices, to curb demand, will have their way.

Screaming like Mid West Republicans for farm aid?

Former Iowa governor vilsack is obamas sec of agriculture. Seems more likely that it is the democrats that are screaming for farm aid and obama is trying to buy votes by promising to purchase some small livestock from the farmers.

Do you remember what happened last year? This drought was very predictable, we are in a La Nina cycle.

the mighty mississippi...will roll again...ain't skeerd...

I don't know but I'm getting an English/Canadian dictionary just in case...

;)

You don't need a dictionary, just say Eh! after everything.

We are actually moving to the El Nino pattern. It will begin to rain soon. The precursor cold fronts indicate a stormy fall and winter ahead.

Ok with me just quit begging for farm aid you self reliance Republicans.

im pretty sure Canada is sleeping with one eye open on Americans

and Wally im with you...ive been watching weather patterns my whole life, no professional here, but with the heavy rain thunderstorm over phoenix last night is a good indicator it is coming.

Wally: From a recent Nasa report:

Thus it appears quite likely that 2013 will break the surface temperature record, and quite possibly by a large margin, with a solar cycle peak and possible El Niño year. There is also a reasonable chance that both 2012 and 2013 will break the surface temperature record.

doesn't look much like rain...eh...

We've been having extreme weather events for the past 10 years. As NASA notes, this is far outside the usual range. Unfortunately, unless we change, things are going to get much, much worse over time. More than likely, we will have another 50 year drought within less than 10 years.

Hey wallace-does everything that happens to you in your life, be it good or bad, all revolve around politics?

They went conservative, balanced their budget and thier economy is booming. Their currency is worth more than ours for the first time in history.

Seems you don't know much about what's going on either. "Global Warming" will mean more rain.

Oh yes here it is "the sky is falling" run chicken little tell everyone... The human race has gotten so stupid. Tell me Jimbo how will paying a carbon tax help out the fictitious global warming? Are you going to demand the Global elite reduce their carbon emissions too? Are you going to demand all excess sporting activities be halted? I thought you could not answer those questions but you will blindly believe and follow what your leaders tell you to, what a sheep you are.

LynyrdSky,

I don't live there. You can do it any way you want, or not at all.

Many of us teapublicans know a lot of science, I'll have you know. And the global warming hypothesis is not science.

I thought Satan was attacking America you Tea bagger? You and your boy Rick Santorum.

Tea baggers know nothing about science, preferring mythology. Your answer is a gov Perry prayer vigil. God works through your hands , not sit on your rears and issue thoughts and prayers. God gave you a brain and hands, some Republicans anyway, use it and quit begging Obama for farm aid and disaster relief

Wally-1853299

Many of us teapublicans know a lot of science

No, the earth is not 6000 years old and man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.

why do politics have anything to do with this? Im amazed at how easily people are swept up by the relentless politics in every single thing...now politics over the rain omg...i am not even gonna bother checking into this...anyone arguing over drought/rain is the reason our country is falling apart. Life is life....grow the hell up

Where's General Grant when you need him? Heard he's buried in Grant's Tomb

Fosz, quit watching Oprah and the View and get a job! Quit sucking on the govt tits!

Hating the rich, how silly and how progressive.

There's not much the Feds can do. They're currently dredging as fast as they can, but yearly floods drop so much silt, it's very difficult to maintain river levels. Also, current dam projects and farm irrigation has drawn a lot of water out of the river, making river levels even lower.

Dave you make 'The Fosz' sound like a congressman...

Looks like the barges will lose a lot of business on the corn and soybean haulage this year. The terminals in New Orleans won't be too busy, either.

Seems like this summer is a good opportunity to dig out a lot of that silt. The Corps can walk a giant dragline across the exposed sandbars and dig it out much quicker than a floating dredge could in normal water levels. That could make room in the riverbed for the next big flood.

Then quite begging the feds for farm aid and to clean up oil spills. Be self reliant, figure out how to irrigate, plant certain crops with certain weather cycles. And since you Republicans can forcast by sticking your finger in the air, you should not have corn burned up because you knew what the weather was going to be.

its really simple, turn off the radio and tv for two weeks.....whalla drought gone!! and life moves on

"forcast by sticking your finger in the air,".... May as well stick it somewhere else.... Fact is, there's nothing we can do about weather and it's patterns, no matter one's political affiliation.

Helping any business is welfare to the rich? Next time you are out of work, if you aren't already, ask one of those OWS people for a job.

sounds like you weren't around in the 1930's - the extremes were just as bad, if not worse, than recent years. Weather is a variable phenomenon, and our recorded history for weather in the US interior is very brief. The trees that held the history in their rings (for a few hundred years - still brief in geologic time) are mostly gone.

If we could see the weather history for the last 2 or 3 thousand years, we would probably see some droughts where the Mississippi stopped flowing and temporarily became a chain of ponds.

Forget global warming for a minute and realize that the Mississippi is the most polluted river in the country. The last 80 miles towards the Gulf is known as cancer alley. All the refineries dumping in the river as well as run off from agriculture.

Dust Bowl was caused by poor farming techniques and a drought.

The gov spent how much to facilitate commercial movement of goods? why didn't the commercial entities involved spend money to do this?

Liberals don't read. They have never heard of the dust bowl.

and cheney said put some fracing fluid in it... so they can't drink from their well...

I agree cathy. I was just thinking that now would be a good opportunity to create some although temporary jobs and clean up some of the dirtiest areas of the Mississippi river and let the civil corps of engineers reassess the land.

I wouldn't want the Corps of Engineers anywhere near the Mississippi. They are largely responsible for all the deaths during Katrina. New Orleans is still not safe due to those idiots.

Actually, sea levels are rising.

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

You are right about glaciers melting. Polar ice is melting. That is fresh water into salt water changing its acidity affecting sea life and disrupting the Gulf Stream

I chuckle every time I see someone using Wikipedia as a reference.

Look at a satellite picture of Greenland you moron.

I'm sure those Marshall Islanders who have flocked to the western US because the sea-level rise has compromised their rainwater collection system so that their atoll will no longer support its human population will be comforted to know you've given them the all-clear to go back.

Oh yeah, it's fake.

Chuck C,

If the ice is melting and the sea level is not rising, then we have bigger problem. That would mean something is eating the ozone layer, our water is simply evaperating into the space. You know the Mars was not born to be dry. We need restore forest to replanish the ozone layer!

You do realize we have an oil-slick in the atmosphere already and it would be stupid to deliberately assume we can sustain our delicate environment and trash it at the same time???Now that the atmosphere is heating up in the arctic and antarctic (as scientists projected), warming the perma-frost, we will see that carbon released from the perma-frost added into the equation, and there is LOTS. It will heat things up faster. After the poles heat, the next region will be the equatorial zones, with more droughts, floods, extreme weather, and much less food being produced. The scientists were saying this years ago! Where were you at? We all were told this was coming 30 SOME YEARS AGO!!!! Oil companies have had free license to pollute the air for years and years. They should have been penalized for years and years and maybe we wouldn't be steering ourselves over the big cliff......

The gas prices are why we are getting jacked at the grocery store, this will only add insult to injury.

Obama wanted $8 gallon gas. It has doubled since he was elected. It is all part of his plan.

I'm curious as to who you work for? Do you work? Are you living off of the government. Where do they get that money?

I would be willing to bet that you haven't ventured 50 miles from where you were born and have never been to New Orleans.

"When times are bad, and life's a curse, cheer up, tomorrow may be worse".