Oh, dever bill 2, I so love platitudes.

However, science doesn't agree with your timescale. Sorry.

boom! reason

Oh, dever bill 2, I so love platitudes.

However, science doesn't agree with your timescale. Sorry.

Apparently you love platitudes about as much as I love smarmy replies. What timescale would you be more comfortable with?

As long as it's the Red States who cares. ;)

ignorant entitled myopic xenophobia.

who would have thought so many could be infected.

How did we ever get so greedy?

While the arctic ice cap showed its smallest cover of ice since satellites have been tracking this data (1979), the antarctic ice cap reached a record sized coverage of ice. Weather patterns are cyclical. Some species will survive and some will not.

denver bill 2 said:

What timescale would you be more comfortable with?

Normally I would tell you to do your own learning, but I realize that you are not the type to seek out knowledge on your own, so I'll be generous enough to spoon feed it to you.

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

The level of profound ignorance displayed by "deniers" is breathtaking! It is no doubt (one part) intellectual laziness, (one part)... "if I believe it is not true then it must be so", (one part)... by degree of one being cognitively challenged and (one part)... "Glen Beck told me so... so it must be true"! The numbers, data points, trending curves, statistical analysis and International consensus in the Scientific community has all arrived at one conclusion which is definitively empirical and repeatable. The CO2 curves matches data point for data point the rise in world wide temperature! By way of paleoclimatology and historical references it is becoming ever more evident that the Earth has not seen temperatures like this since the Pleistocene (sea rise was 230 feet higher at the time)! Let's give all these people free beach side property and later on when they change their minds make them get back in and swim back out!

FrugalDemocrat --- Did you read the article or did you jump right to your conclusion? It said it might be the warmest year but it will depend on the weather in the last remaining months. Let me guess you did not read the article, so try reading the article and then make some kind of logical statement. You completely missed the part about the warmest year not happening eight times because of extreme cold weather in the latter part of the year.

Kornfed--He blamed the altitude which is just as far out.

Kornfed: "If I believe that it is true then it must be science!"

No, you still need evidence and logic for that. :-)

"Lets also remember the "climate scientists" have been caught falsifying data to skew in the whole climate change debate."

Bullcrap. That is a lie no matter how many times the denial industry keeps saying it.

I deny the denial!

Bollocks.

Today, Dallas tied the record for coldest morning temperature.

Want to know what causes 'global warming'?

It's the SUN, stupid!

Incorrect and correct. The sun does indeed warm our planet haha; but I ask that you do a little bit of reading on the fluctuations in solar luminosity. There are several data sets out there.

The Answer is El Nino. Goggle El Nino and there's as many versions of what's happening as you want to read. From what i was able to decipher it can be a short four year heat up or even a slow seven years, and it looks like next years is going to be hot again and then were in for cooling for what appears to be five to six years and then back to a warm cycle. The sun determines it's own sun spots and we get what it gives us. And that seemed to be the largest change in our solar system this year. The earth was just a recipient. Enjoy the cold this winter if the heat in the summer is a problem. Global warming, El Nino!!!!

Also grossly incorrect without even a simple grasp of the mechanism at work.

Hey, Discovery Channel!

Please stop showing "Pawn stars" and "Ice Road Truckers" at once! A critical mass of ignorant people around here desperately needs documentaries with at least some educational value - since most of them would not bother reading. Please, please, would ya?

While the arctic ice cap showed its smallest cover of ice since satellites have been tracking this data (1979), the antarctic ice cap reached a record sized coverage of ice. Weather patterns are cyclical. Some species will survive and some will not.

This is a myth you see often. Parts of Antarctica are indeed expanding; however, many parts are retreating and the ice density is further decreasing. The Arctic versus the Antarctica ice sheets is two different animals— the Arctic is floating sea ice, Antarctica is mostly a landmass. Thusly, they're subjected to differing climate mechanisms.

Here's a little experiment for all you who don't believe man can increase the temperature of the globe. Go sit in your car in your garage and run the engine overnight. It's OK. That exhaust just contains natural elements that are all around us, like CO and CO2, just like those conservative blogs post. Why I bet you don't feel it getting warm one bit. Stupid libertards! We'll show them! Those socialist pigs at OSHA trying to tell us we can't run our generators indoors!? Huh. You show 'em and fire that baby up this winter!

Tom

That is NOT TRUE. There was NO falsification of data. You just want to believe what the right said during the "scandal" and when it was undeniably shown there was no malfeasance, just a bit of immature response. So, please tell the truth. It really doesn't hurt no matter what your contemporaries say.

The right has no shame, or is not very bright......or both!

Here's a little experiment for all you who don't believe man can increase the temperature of the globe. Go sit in your car in your garage and run the engine overnight. It's OK. That exhaust just contains natural elements that are all around us, like CO and CO2, just like those conservative blogs post. Why I bet you don't feel it getting warm one bit. Stupid libertards! We'll show them! Those socialist pigs at OSHA trying to tell us we can't run our generators indoors!? Huh. You show 'em and fire that baby up this winter!

Carbon monoxide would kill them first; further since greenhouse gasses work by IR it would have only a limited effect on warming. :P The energy loss from combustion would do more to warm their garage— while they're still alive of course.

Zathrose

Cannot have "proof" but there are many many indications and the modeling supports it. The deniers have not only NO PROOF that it is not man made, but do not have an inkling of a coherent argument why the warming is happening. And it is not like what was seen in the past, as many of you bring up. Citing the ice age and "how fast it came to freeze a Mammoth". That is one of the silliest things I've read yet. . If you read some of the pertinent literature you would see all your statements are dead wrong.

Hey, Discovery Channel!

Please stop showing "Pawn stars" and "Ice Road Truckers" at once! A critical mass of ignorant people around here desperately needs documentaries with at least some educational value - since most of them would not bother reading. Please, please, would ya?

Pawn stars is actually pretty legit; at least the people on there are pretty educational about things.

Thanks, Bill. Great point. See? Warming doesn't kill anyone. Now fire up that Buick!

Thanks, Bill. Great point. See? Warming doesn't kill anyone. Now fire up that Buick!

Haha classy bub, I like it.

while humanity has evolved scientifically, both in physique and regarding intellectual knowledge... there are at least two branches of the Hominidae family known as homo-sapien which tend to regress in brain capability, with the brain actually shrinking and the biped affected begins nuckle-dragging and mouth breathing. However this does not affect their mobility or ability to communicate really ignorant opinions about their surrounding society and world. Evidence as such can be found here in the Newsvine comments, submitted by the two members of the hominidae family known as the religious right and republicans.

while humanity has evolved scientifically, both in physique and regarding intellectual knowledge... there are at least two branches of the Hominidae family known as homo-sapien which are known to regress in brain capability, with the brain actually shrinking and the biped affected begins nuckle-dragging and mouth breathing. However this does not affect their mobility or ability to communicate really ignorant opinions about their surrounding society and world. Evidence of such can be found here in the Newsvine comments, submitted by the two members of the hominidae family known as the religious right and republicans.

I have to disagree with you here, it's a fact that all our human brains are shrinking. It's been linked to domestication of our own species by us. :)

Nothing wrong with people or republicans; it's human nature.

my 2 cents;

the earth has been going through warming/cooling cycles for hundreds of thousands of years...but this warming cycle is hastened by mankind and his generation of co2. we are at the point of no return already, but we should still attempt to slow the climate change as much as we can for future generations.

Good thing the teatards weren't around when CFCs got banned! They would have denied CFCs had any effect on the atmosphere and we'd have a much shrunken or non-existent ozone layer today!

I feel sorry for all the believers of climate change who live in those red states that are being most adversely affected by climate change. As for the non-believers, when your states start turning into desert, when the thermometer routinely tops 100 degrees F, when more frequent, more severe weather & storms start destroying your property, when your aquifer dries up (or gets polluted by fracking), all you have to do is ignore it all, because certainly it can't be real according to you. Have faith brothers, have faith!

"Lets also remember the "climate scientists" have been caught falsifying data to skew in the whole climate change debate."

WRONG. They were caught doing no such thing. A news company owned by Rupert Murdoc (Fox news) claimed something of the sort based on hacked emails taken out of context, but an investigation of ALL emails by the associated press cleared them of everything.

Not saying I am for global warming and what not, but learn your facts dip@!$%# sheep.

I can't believe you equate mouth breathing with being devolved, it is in fact the other way around. Nose breathing is the animal end of the spectrum. Ridiculous assertion that knuckle postioning and airway selection should be in your mind connected to judging people. Watch those gorillas to which you compare the people you disagree with, watch them breathe through their noses. Also, what sort of twisted nature do you have when you refuse to foster doubt in the right-wingers. Or is doubt only appropriate when it is doubt in the existence of magical deities crafting reality? Maybe if you had a verse from Revaltions which you could connect to global warming you might get more traction than with condescention.

I seem to remember reading somewhere fairly recently that the US is the only developed nation with a significant number of climate deniers and the largest number of people who identify themselves as strongly religious.

Developed nations are not only the most economically advanced, they're also the most highly educated. Except us. We used to be world leaders and now we're falling behind because people don't understand even the rudiments of scientific thought.

East Anglia, enough said! This is typical liberal propaganda and scientific nonsense! While we had a warm year in the US, there were other parts of the world, Russia and China for example, which had very rainy, cool years! The supposed reduction of the Arctic ice sheet has been overblown and the Antarctic ice sheet is growing! Global warming is just another way for non-producers (liberals) to take as much as possible from the rest of us! When we have a record cold snap this winter, these same enviro-nazis will change from "global warming" to climate change! I guess you can always be right if you change the rules as you go along! BTW, has Al Gore finally fixed the frozen pipes in his Tennessee home which froze up a few years ago? I guess he had a great big dose of "global warming" flooding his house when the pipes burst!

Most global warming dening "scientists" have been funded by big oil and coal companies. Sorry rich people with big ol' Hummers if you thought they were not biased.

@Ferrosynth

Nice tirade coming from the militant environmentalist side with ZERO proof of their assertions. Just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

Poor global warming alarmists:( Even if they could prove that man is causing global warming, nothing will be done about it. Hell, look at California. Their gas is going up due to their own regulations, and they are already crying about it.

Invent a VIABLE alternative and the world is yours libs! I would be happy to back your new idea if it works! Use your superior intellect all you libs keep boasting about, and getter done!!

i'm not a know-it-all and science in regards to climate is something i haven't read a lot about. but two points, one this is a topic so politicised that it's increasingly impossible to enter any debate without party/politics getting in the way. which leads to my second point and that is republicans think global warming and a man-made cause is all bunk and democrats tend to believe gw is real and mostly man-made. this shows full well that politics rather than a real knowledge and understanding of the science behind what is or isn't going on is formulating peoples opinions, and this is unfortunate ...

Hey Kornfed,

You must really be Kornfed an left alone in your pity....

California is not drowning in its own regulations - it is global demand for oil as well as your masters at Exxon ordering the "faulty" refineries causing the problem.

And let me tell you this straight - if we do not come ahead as a nation in the development of the next generation of energy our days are numbered. If you keep insisting on using Oil to power your V8 truck and shove your head in the sand when confronted by science then you are going the Dodo way ( FYI Dodo is an extinct species ). China, India, Brasil and many other will crush us - do you comprehend that?!!!

Some climate studies were put to the government with garbage data throughout the papers.. They were applying for another grant for millions of bucks each and you guessed it they got more money.. If we look at global temps. over hundreds of thousands of years we see that max. temp. and min. temp. can vary wildly.. Since we have not peaked to max. yet and that is still 5 thousand or more years away and we are about 1/2 a deg. ahead of the curve this is a chicken little propaganda play.. Canada will be a swamp again one day in the future and North America will be a jungle just as it was many times before.. And at some point this will reverse and Ohio will once again be under hundreds of feet of ice glacier as it had been many times before.. Man still thinks he is the center of all that is and this seems like it never will change.. Has anyone read the paper about volcanic warming of the ocean near Antarctica or the increase in activity in the Pacific and how this may drive ocean temps. higher some years.. Marine vulcanologist's have suggested a link between this and ElNino/LaNina events.. Geological stresses from Earths orbit and the magnetosphere are still being studied along with our Sun and its 14 year heart beat and slow variable rate output cycles that span hundreds of thousands of years.. We have also had several Volcanic events over the past 100 years that introduced huge amounts of gas into the air and have been shown to cause decade long weather changes.. To blame a change on just one factor is irresponsible..

There is technology that would make gasoline engines obsolete but the patents are locked away by the money movers at big oil and our government plays the tax game.. Imagine how much money the federal government makes off the tax on fuels.. Then think how hard they would fight to keep the bucks rolling in to their eternal spending machine.. They want to add a carbon tax, that's why they love to hear about global warming.. This is why no president would even think of invoking their privilege of voiding a patent for viable alternative energy that is not being put to use for the national interest.. That's why big oil men rarely pay taxes and our current president wants everyone to hate rich people like Bill Gates..Typical communist tactic..

LMAO - these people, instead of measuring temps in San francisco now measure from Sacramento. Can you say-FRAUD. Want the real truth- look at NASA satellite data. The planet has been cooling since 98. FACT

Let's get something straight about arctic versus antarctic ice caps. Any land mass near the arctic (such as Greenland) has a lot of ice on it, and when this melts, it sends fresh water into the ocean, which mixes with the salt water. Notice that to the east of Greenland and between Alaska and Russia there was more ice than usual last winter? Notice that to the east of Greenland is about the only zone that has almost normal ice now? This is caused by melting fresh water, and fresh freezes faster. About half the arctic sea ice melted.

As for the antarctic: the land mass has also been losing fresh water ice in its summer, and this fresh water dumps into the southern ocean around the continent. But that water tends to stay put, because there is a strong current going west to east that keeps the warm Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans from mixing with the Southern ocean. (This steady current is why there are tidal currents below Argentina and South Africa.) Therefore, there is now much more fresh water around Antarctica, which freezes much faster than salt water. But if you look at the AVERAGE sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic together), there was still less this September 2012 than EVER BEFORE.

Well, that is, ever since the Pleistocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), that was caused be a massive carbon release. We do not know the cause of the carbon release in the PETM, but species were starving, and got a lot smaller. Some ocean creatures died out altogether. Many places flooded. It took 150,000 years to reset the planet. Whether or not this present release of carbon is man-made, carbon is the cause of the warming this time too, and 150,000 years is a long time to hold your breath.

Gee, warmest on record! Let's see, the record dates back to 1895. And the earth is how old? I'm sure this must be accurate as I live in Iowa and I'm sure we had tons of thermometers in Iowa in 1895 like we have today. And the hot dustbowls of the 1930s probably were just a figment of someone's imagination too, after all the "real temperatures" taken back then we not used to come up with the official statistics about global warming.

Plus, it's easy to lower the earth's temperature, just have algore have a global warming conference! It's always cold then.

I remember doing a research paper in my early college years(early 80's) about mans influence on climate. In fact, I came across it a couple of days ago.

I called it "Watts wrong with the environment" (James Watts was Reagans Secretary of the Interior.) "The facts are that we do influence our physical environment, and evidence suggests that we do have an impact on climate. As long as we continue on the path that we have set up for ourselves, We probably won't see it before it is too late". That is how I ended a paper I wrote 25+ years ago, and I have not changed my opinion since then.

Is it to hard to understand what it mean when the records show it has been the wormest it's been since 1895?

weather patterns seem to be a political thing. don't want to talk about it someone might be offended. i'm glad weather doesn't care about politics

If we wait until we have indisputable proof of global warming, it will be too late to do anything about it. It it turns out to be true, we will all go down as the stupidest species in the history of the galaxy.

Put the politics aside and think about it. Don't be a sheep.

What I find interesting is that God has been punishing the religious Heartland the harshest and rewards those homosexual San Francisco/Oregon/Seattle pagans with nice, cool weather...

I do feel sorry for the people in the Heartland, don't take my comment for what it isn't. They're good, hard-working people who genuinely wish that God would go easy on them with the weather. I don't for a second think they're more deserving of bearing the brunt of the harsh weather just because they're religious. For my money, people in Kansas and Nebraska are nicer than people in San Francisco. Precisely because of that, it pisses me off that they've been taught that prayer will solve things. There's the subtle implication, at least to some of them, that the godless liberals in the coast are the reason why God is pissed off at America.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Most of you will be on here for hours pretending you have a clue about AGW and alternative energy. You’ll be pulling your little talking points out and ridicule each other for either believing or not believing an unproven science. The debate will grow heated as it always does, insults will fly, vitriol will be furious and in the end NOTHING other than wasted time will be the result. So, with this in mind I’d like to ask all you pretenders to respond after reading this.

I just have a few simple questions for all you Liberal tree-hugging buffoons.

How many of you have had a home energy audit done by RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) to determine your homes energy efficiency?

How many of you are driving in the most fuel efficient vehicles available?

How many of you have re-insulated your homes to the maximum R-rating recommendation?

How many of you have had your windows and doors upgraded to the newest NFRC (National Fenestration Ratings Council) standards?

How many of you have replaced your outdated appliances according to the new Energy Star applications? Including your furnace and air conditioner?

How many of you have installed a geothermal, solar or wind turbine system to release yourself from the grip of the utility companies?

How many of you travel to work in car pools?

How many of you travel on vacation by railroad, rather than car or airplane?

Should I go on?

Not many I bet.

Why not?

Because you’re all too lazy, uninformed and so hell bent against fossil fuels you can’t think straight. You all sit here and rail against BP, the oil industry, coal industry, nuclear energy and any other PROVEN energy sources, yet you all sit in your totally inefficient, drafty, ancient, energy sucking homes and cars and complain! ! !

Don’t even try to excuse yourselves by claiming there’s a scarcity of resources. The AEI (Alternative Energy Institute) was created in 1977, OVER 34 YEARS AGO ! ! ! I had a geothermal system installed over 17 years ago that still works perfectly. I have enough solar collection to power 68% of my home,,,,YEAR ROUND ! ! ! My insulation R-ratings are all at or above the recommendations of the WAP (Weatherization Assistance Program) guidelines. I have updated my appliances over 4 times in the last 23 years using Energy Star recommendations. I do have an inefficient 1999 Ford F-150,,,EXCUSE ME ! ! ! This has come at significant cost outlay on my part but my carbon footprint is 28% of the average American household and my cost savings are double what they would have been otherwise.

And guess what?

I still promote “DRILL BABY, DRILL”!

WHY?

Because we don’t have enough people doing what THEY should be doing and thousands of everyday products are made from coal, oil and natural gas. Most of you talk a big game as far as energy independence, global warming, green this and green that, but your don’t do SQUAT about it.

The problem with you Liberal Progressive/RINO, tree-hugging, Spotted-Owl “believers” is YOU don’t want to do it, you want the government or someone else to do it for you. You’re too busy watching Barrack Hussein blowing smoke up your butt or Michael Moore spewing his socialist trash at you while sitting in your La-Z-Boy, sucking down a Bud Light.

Your Messiah, Al “multi-million dollar mansion” Gore, is making fools of you all and you just sit by, uninvolved and uninformed except for your anti-business, anti-rich, anti-American rants. Barrack Hussein keeps the temperature cranked up in the White House until you can grow Orchids in there, but Cap & Tax is a must.

Hypocrites! ! !

When I finally see those CLAIMING there’s a crisis acting like there’s a crisis, I’ll believe there’s a crisis.

The argument is what is causing Global Warming. There is no concrete evidence that Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it is influenced by humans. Any conclusions that humans are causing climate change is just conjecture.

Oh wait, Al Gore said it was people, so we have to believe him. He also invented the internet, and Pres. Obama lost the debates because of the altitude.

Both the Arctic and the Antarctic ice coverage data is based on satellites, sense 1979...

That is 33+years, compared to either; the age of the earth or the length of the earth's climate cycle. This is weather, not even long enough for a trend...

The ice cores from the Antarctic and Greenland, show that during the last MILLION YEARS. The earth has experienced 9 cycles from hot to cold and now back to hot. These cycles are about 120,000+years long...

If you care to look at the temperature fluctuations, depicted in these numerous ice cores. The current temperature rise is SLOWER and has not obtained its NORMAL HIGH. Compared to the data that was depicted in the last 5+cycles when mankind existed...

Mankind contributes about 3% to the total atmospheric CO2 cycle. The oceans and land plants contribute about 97%. BTY - Volcanoes contribute about 0.3%, now...

For the people that like to throw numbers around. When was an accurate thermometer developed and when was the current temperature scales adopted??? about 200+years ago

ALL the temperature data prior to this are estimations and SWAGs...

Can mankind change the LOCAL weather - SURE & has...

For those that care. When thousands of years of WORLD temperature data is compiled, the USA is experiancing a NORMAL major dry spell, about every 70+years...

BTY - The TOTAL energy converted by mankind, during a YEAR, is about 1/12,000 the energy provided by the sun to the earth, every year. Mankind produces very little energy, he converts what the sun has supplied over the earths life-time, except for nuclear...

It takes energy to change things. The SUN has plenty, mankind has almost ZERO, when compaired to the sun...

I have an easy solution... how about wipe out most or all of mankind if man is indeed the cause of global warming?

(sarcasm)

Claiming that CO2 causes AGW is pure Junk Science

It is devious, dishonest, disingenuous “junk science” for the proponents of AGW to claim that non-cloud H2O vapor (humidity) is a heat-trapping “greenhouse” gas …. and then refuse to include the quantity of heat that it “traps” when calculating surface temperatures.

It is devious, dishonest, disingenuous “junk science” for the proponents of AGW to claim that the thermal energy (heat) “feedback” from the 100 ppm increase in/of the current 395 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of a recent 1F increase in surface temperatures …. but then refuse to consider the thermal energy (heat) “feedback” from a 10,000 or a 25,000 ppm increase in atmospheric H2O vapor when calculating increases in surface temperatures.

If as the proponents of AGW claim, …. that it is a science fact that 395 ppm of CO2 will affect the surface temperature on any given day, …… then it is also a scientific fact that 25,000 ppm of H2O vapor will affect the surface temperature on any given day.

There is no known entity in the universe that “traps” thermal energy other than the per say Black Holes at centers of galaxies.

All warming effects are the result of the thermal (IR) energy that is being absorbed and re-radiated by the molecules of H2O and CO2 that are currently residing in the atmosphere at any given time ….. and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how many days, weeks, months or years they have been resident in the atmosphere or what entity caused them to be in the atmosphere.

Now either H2O vapor is a “heat trapping greenhouse gas” the same as CO2 …… or neither one of them are “heat trapping greenhouse gases” ….. and the proponents of AGW can not selectively choose the “time & place” that H2O vapor is and when it isn’t.

Therefore their CO2 causing AGW claims are fraudulent and they know they are.

(#1.57) For the people that
like to throw numbers around. When was an accurate thermometer developed and
when was the current temperature scales adopted??? about 200+years ago

ALL the temperature data prior to this are estimations and SWAGs...

But the BIG question is, …. when did the NWS start using
calibrated thermometers at all their surface temperature recording locations?

DUH, t’was probably sometime post-1950. Thus, from 1895 up
to said time, the majority of all temperatures were being recorded by Citizen Volunteers using Mail Pouch Tobacco,
John Deere, Nehi Soda or whatever thermometer that was nailed to a wall.

Very few to none of those pre-1950 temperature records were
verified for accuracy nor were there a plan or procedure “in place” for inuring
their accuracy, primarily because they were not being used for any “long term” scientific
purposes.

Given said, then all pre-1950 temperature records are highly questionable and should not be
used for making any “statements of facts”.

SamC,

From the late 1970s to the early 2000s, the SST were from satallite data...

When the wind blows - the numbers change...

When there are clouds and/or atmospheric moisture - the numbers change...

When there are waves - the numbers change...

When the satalite sensor becomes un-calibrated - the numbers change... NOAA-15 sensor failure

And these are just the known things that cause data anomalies, in satellite SSTs...

Even the ARGOS data had to be recalibrated after a buoy sensor problem...

Oh look..... WEATHER.............. it changes................ get over it.........................

9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. there is less Arctic sea ice than ever before now. Add it up. Global Warming is happening whether anyone likes it or not. Adapt or die.

I looked at a map predicting the effects of AGW and it shows exactly what we are seeing now. I live in an area that is only slightly affected by AGW because I planned ahead.

Do you all remember when Inhofe flew to Europe for that big AGW conference? The Europeans called him "ridiculous. The Europeans are smarter than republicons.

Wow, it really amazes me that anyone can come on here and comment seriously that the toxins we spew into the air are having no bad effects on our environment. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that. I just takes a tiny amount of common sense. We are poisoning our air and people are so afraid of admitting that maybe we might have to make some changes if we want mankind to live on after we're gone. But most of the deniers are only concerned with their own lives - they don't want to give up their gas guzzling trucks, or pay a little extra to keep manufacturers from dumping toxic waste into our water. They cry that its a our country is broke when anyone suggests putting funds toward developing greener energy, but vote for the guys who will continue huge subsidies to big oil and coal. Even if oil and coal are not causing global warming (and I truly believe that they, amongst other toxins are causing it) they are not renewable. We will eventually strip our earth dry of its natural resources and all of the crazies out there crying "drill baby drill" will see our reserves dwindle right before their eyes, but be right there at the front of the line to get their hands on the new technology they were so against before, rather than paying the higher and higher prices for the gas and coal that they love so much. Deny all you want. Our air and water are getting more and more toxic. We are causing it and whether you believe it or not, unless we make changes now, you or your children and grandchildren will have to live through it. Is that the legacy you want to leave for your family? A planet so broken, it is beyond repair?

At least 1 other time in recorded history has the sea ice in the north melted and ships had sailed there.. The Vikings made records of sailing up to the far north.. The fact that they were pushed out of Greenland and Northern Canada from the onset of cold weather seems to escape the doomsayers.. Sure we are poluting mother Earth and are having an effect on things but not at the rate the doom sayers are crying.. We need to force the release of the sequestered technology locked up in the patent office and move beyond the oil age.. But as long as the government is dependant on the revenue stream from fuel taxes this will never happen.. Why the heck else do you think they plan a carbon tax?? It equals more money to burn...

To Jarth Jader and PRober--There IS a verse in Revelations that addresses global warming---" He will destroy those who destroy the earth." Rev. 11:18.........

SamC

There is no known entity in the universe that “traps” thermal energy other than the per say Black Holes at centers of galaxies.

Actually, a relatively low percentage of the thermal energy, in various forms of radiation, from the sun is reflected. Once that thermal energy is converted into heat at the surface, the infrared radiation emitted is well reflected back and ultimately trapped within the confines of the atmosphere. Its called science; look into it.

But the BIG question is, …. when did the NWS start using
calibrated thermometers at all their surface temperature recording locations?

Actually, thermometers have at least been roughly 'calibrated' by the fact that the temperature that water freezes and boils has never changed. But even if they hadn't been, the random calibration errors would offset resulting in a roughly consistent average.

Also, your point about water vapor is included in the AGW. In fact it is well documented that the increase in CO2 levels, which results in warming, in turn increases the levels of water vapor thereby compounding the effect.

Stop making stuff up!

(#1.63) 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred
since 2000. there is less Arctic sea ice than ever before now. Add it up.
Global Warming is happening whether anyone likes it or not. Adapt or die.

miklkit, …. “getta clue”, …. prior to 1958 they didn’t know or even had a clue what the actual
quantity of CO2 that was in the atmosphere. Charles Keeling solved that problem.

And “YUP”,
according to their records ….. “9 of
the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000”, ….. which is not
surprising given their “fuzzy math” calculations and their horrendous extrapolation
of all surface temperature records for the continental US prior to 1960. Just
Google “history National Weather Service” and educate yourself on the first 100
years of recording surface temperatures.

And “YES”, they
can claim there is “less Arctic sea ice NOW” than there has been since they started
measuring it 20 some years ago. But
you can “bet your farm” that there
was considerable less Arctic sea ice
during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm
Periods than there is now. Of course you
could also deny the historical fact that Hannibal
marched his 40,000 man army and herd of war elephants across the top of the Alps
to defeat the Romans … iffen you want to.

And ps, Global Warming has been happening for the past 23,000 years ….. and the
proponents of CO2 caused AGW claiming that said Interglacial Warming …. abruptly stopped ….. just because they
started recording surface temperatures
in 1873 is silly, asinine and foolish.

(#1.64) Wow, it really amazes me that anyone can come on
here and comment seriously that the toxins we spew into the air are having no
bad effects on our environment. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that.
I just takes a tiny amount of common
sense. We are poisoning our air ……..

Sally Lu, diesel exhaust is a medically proven carcinogen
and a dastardly cause of “long term”
lung and/or breathing problems in young children and exacerbates breathing
problems of senior citizens …. and there is no local or nationwide “outcry” by
any group to “put-a-stop-to-it”. Gasoline powered vehicles are mandated to have
catalytic converters on their exhausts but diesel powered vehicles are not, …… so
why are the “clean air” activists using
atmospheric CO2 as their “whipping
boy” and averting their eyes and their minds to the dangers of diesel
exhaust?

And Sally Lu, atmospheric
CO2 is not a toxin, nor is it dangerous to one’s health. As a matter of
fact it is responsible for one’s good health because without it all of humanity would quickly die.

(#1.67) SamC

Actually, a relatively low percentage of the thermal energy,
in various forms of radiation, from the sun is reflected. Once that thermal energy is converted into heat at the surface, the infrared
radiation emitted is well reflected back and ultimately trapped within the confines of the atmosphere. Its called science; look into it.

NewStart2012, I’ve been “looking into science”
since probably long before pee water was ever running down your leg outta your
diaper.

And NewStart2012, best you look up the definition of “thermal energy” before you attempt to
educate me on what “heat” is or isn’t.

(#1.67) Also, your point about water vapor is included in
the AGW. In fact it is well documented that the increase in CO2 levels, which results in warming, in turn
increases the levels of water vapor thereby compounding the effect.

Stop making stuff up!

NewStart2012, I won’t accuse you of “making stuff up” because
I know for a fact that you are simply
mimicking the tripe and piffle being
propagandized by the proponents of CO2 causing AGW.

NewStart2012, I dun told you that it was silly and asinine for anyone to claim
that both H2O vapor and CO2 are thermal (IR) energy “heat trapping greenhouse gases”
… but then immediately claim that the H2O vapor doesn’t “trap” any of said
thermal (IR) energy.

Worse yet, NewStart2012, in your above statement you are asserting that the H2O vapor
doesn’t “trap” any thermal (IR) energy until
after the CO2 has “trapped” it.

“DUH”, iffen the CO2 “traps” it first ….. how is it possible
for there to be any left for the H2O vapor to “trap”?

If CO2 is such a great n’ wonderful “trapper” of “heat” then
why is no one using it for insulating
homes and businesses?

Used as “insulation”,
… wouldn’t that “heat trapping” CO2 save BILLION$ in the costs of home heating/cooling?
Sure it would, …. iffen it has those “magical”
properties that the AGW’ers claim.

And ps, plants per say "trap" thermal energy by converting it to mass, and thus we use the fossil fuels to release that energy by "burning" them. Like Einstein said, ..... E=MC2, ya know.

Sam, you're wrong, any gas in the atmosphere that has the requisite polarization or has the requisite number of atoms absorbs IR and re-radiates it in all directions. CO2, H2O, CH4, N20, 03, all vibrate when exposed to thermal IR radiation. It's what keeps the earth warm at night; unless you believe it's the moon that's providing that IR. Further, if you look at atmospheric pressures on mountain peaks that above the timber line, they're covered in snow because there is less atmospheric pressures and therefore less heat in a given area.

This is just an over simplistic description for you bub.

Also, they do use greenhouse gases such as SF6 for insulating electrical components; there are also other uses of greenhouse gases in insulation. Double paned windows anyone?

Haha and your E=MC2 plant reasoning is pretty funny.

And ps, plants per say "trap" thermal energy by converting it to mass, and thus we use the fossil fuels to release that energy by "burning" them. Like Einstein said, ..... E=MC2, ya know.

And P.S.,

You're way off the mark here.

SamC

You're living in a dream world.

Worse yet, NewStart2012, in your above statement you are asserting that the H2O vapor
doesn’t “trap” any thermal (IR) energy until
after the CO2 has “trapped” it.

Clearly you didn't actually read my post. You had a predisposition of what you expected to read, then provided a counter-point.....to what? The rest of your points are so ludicrous they're not even worth responding to. You have no concept of what you're talking about.

Go rant somewhere else.

SamC

NewStart2012, I’ve been “looking into science”
since probably long before pee water was ever running down your leg outta your
diaper.

A clear case of alzheimer's then. There must be something to explain your irrational behavior.

(#1.71) Sam, you're wrong, any gas in the atmosphere that has the requisite polarization or has the requisite number of atoms absorbs IR and re-radiates it in all directions. CO2, H2O, CH4, N20, 03, all vibrate when exposed to thermal IR radiation.

William Bentley, I appreciate your responding to my post and am pleasantly pleased that you are knowledgeable of the above. At least you are learned enough to realize that said gasses do not “trap” energy of any form.

Anyway, this discussion was centered on the effects of H2O vapor and CO2 ONLY and thus there was no reason to even mention those other minor atmospheric gasses.

(#1.71) It's what keeps the earth warm at night; unless you believe it's the moon that's providing that IR. Further, if you look at atmospheric pressures on mountain peaks that above the timber line, they're covered in snow because there is less atmospheric pressures and therefore less heat in a given area. This is just an over simplistic description for you bub.

You are right, William Bentley, that sure was “simplistic”, but hardly appropriate for this discussion. Maybe if you spent more time learning the fundamentals of Physical Science instead of proving you are great at responding with asinine commentary then it would be beneficial for your ability at engaging in intelligent conversations.

And PS: the desert areas such as the Gobi, the Sahara and our Desert Southwest all currently have an average 395 ppm of CO2 in the air above them ….. but that CO2 doesn’t do a damn thing to help keep those deserts “warm at night”.

(#1.71) Also, they do use greenhouse gases such as SF6 for insulating electrical components; there are also other uses of greenhouse gases in insulation. Double paned windows anyone?

William Bentley, I seriously doubt that anyone will agree with you that SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) is one of the atmospheric “greenhouse” gasses associated with AGW. And neither is argon.

(#1.71) Haha and your E=MC2 plant reasoning is pretty funny.

(#1.72) And P.S., You're way off the mark here.

William Bentley, if and/or when you become better educated in science, such as Botany, then you will surely gain an understanding of my above noted “reasoning”. But you can start now by learning about plant photosynthesis by …… “clicking on this hyper link”.

(#1.73) SamC

You're living in a dream world.

NewStart2012, you are probably right …… given the fact I am trying to educate you in matters of science. But being a Professional, ……. with an AB Degree in Education, …… I am still obligated to try …. whether or not you take advantage of the learned knowledge I have to offer.

(#1.73) Clearly you didn't actually read my post. You had a predisposition of what you expected to read, then provided a counter-point.....to what?

NewStart2012, trying to CYA after-the-fact, ….. doesn’t work on me. You were quite specific in what you stated in that comment …. so don’t be posting the above obfuscating rhetoric in a silly attempt to blame your ignorance in/of science as being my fault. To wit:

(#1.67) Also, your point about water vapor is included in the AGW. In fact it is well documented that the increase in CO2 levels, which results in warming, in turn increases the levels of water vapor thereby compounding the effect.

NewStart2012, the part stating “in turn increases” is the part whereby you specifically stated that the “CO2 effect” precedes the “H2O vapor effect”

And “NO”, my point about H2O vapor IS NOT addressed or included in any literature or commentary published by proponents of AGW.

As a matter of fact, NewStart2012, proponents of AGW explicitly state that “my point” is not addressed, to wit:

Exerted from: Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity

CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback,

“Uncertainty”, HUH? ….. HORSEHOCKY, …. they are intentionally refusing to consider or calculate the temperature increase resulting from “the water vapor feedback”.

(#1.73) The rest of your points are so ludicrous they're not even worth responding to. You have no concept of what you're talking about.

SHURE NUFF, …. NewStart2012, ….. and just because you “say so”, ….. RIGHT?

Instead of “badmouthing” me you could have told the truth by telling me you are “going to go hide somewhere until a new article on AGW is seeded”.

SamC

NewStart2012, I've been "looking into science"
since probably long before pee water was ever running down your leg outta your
diaper.

I'll post the same segment from your comment above. So, please explain to me the basis for this comment. You know nothing of me, yet you make claims of fact without any basis whatsoever, much like the rest of your arguments. You are merely claiming to be an expert, but as a nuclear physicist myself, with my father's PhD doctorial thesis being on atmospheric spectroscopy I can retort your above claim with utmost certainty.

You're treating this whole discussion about AGW as though it were a religion, where you can define your own reality as you please. I've never been the type to make personal attacks on another's character, but you certainly bring out the best in people with your rhetoric and attacks of your own. That being said, I can say that you are one of the most confused people I've met, at least on this subject anyway.

(#1.77) SamC

[quoting SamC Post# 1.70] NewStart2012, I've been "looking into science" since probably long before pee water was ever running down your leg outta your diaper.

I'll post the same segment from your comment above. So, please explain to me the basis for this comment.

NewStart2012, are you really that naive, completely clueless or afflicted with ADHD?

You stated in Post #1.67, to wit: “SamC ….. Its called science; look into it.”

And I referenced that comment in my response ….. and now you are wanting me to explain the basis for my response.

NewStart2012, your obfuscated “weazelwording” responses to my posts is a “dog that won’t hunt”.

(#1.77) You know nothing of me, yet you make claims of fact without any basis whatsoever, much like the rest of your arguments.

NewStart2012, I now know quite a bit about you, … just from the content/context of your posted commentary. And it is an obvious FACT that you are not as learned in the Physical Sciences as you have been asserting that you were. High School Science should have taught you “there is a basis” for the rest of my arguments.

(#1.77) You are merely claiming to be an expert, but as a nuclear physicist myself, with my
father's PhD doctorial thesis being on atmospheric spectroscopy I can retort your above claim with utmost certainty.

NewStart2012, your father's PhD doctorial thesis and $3.76 might buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

And it would surprise the ell out of me iffen a Nuclear Physicist would ever post this statement on a public forum, to wit: “Once that thermal energy is converted into heat …”.

“DUH”, thermal energy is heat energy. Heat can not be converted to heat.

(#1.77) You're treating this whole discussion about AGW as though it were a religion, where you can define your own reality as you please.

“NO”, absolutely not. I am stating it as “a FACT” …. that “CO2 causing AGW” is Junk Science and is therefore a religious belief of many of its proponents. To believe in Junk Science is to harbor a religious belief.

And NewStart2012, the proponents of AGW are the ones that are ignoring factual science and defining their own reality in ways they prefer seeing it.

(#1.67) I've never been the type to make personal attacks on another's character,

Yeah, “right”, ….. and just what do you call these statements I exerted from your above posts, to wit:

• Its called science; look into it.
• Stop making stuff up!
• You're living in a dream world.
• You had a predisposition of
• You have no concept of what you're talking about
• Go rant somewhere else
• A clear case of alzheimer's then.
• to explain your irrational behavior.

(#1.77) but you certainly bring out the best in people with your rhetoric and attacks of your own.

Said “attacks of my own” are inkind responses to personal attacks against my person, my good name and/or my creditability. NewStart2012, if you don’t like my “inkind responses” then don’t be launching a personal attack against my person.

(#1.77) That being said, I can say that you are one of the most confused people I've met, at least on this subject anyway.

NewStart2012, that doesn’t surprise me any that you would think that, HA, I have known that fact ever since I read your 1^st response to my post. And ps, many Bible believing Creationists have the same opinion.

NewStart2012, my commentary is based solely on the Laws and Principles of actual factual Science & Mathematics, actual observations, common sense, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions ….. and not on the piffle, tripe and obfuscations being purported by the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ask your father why Hansen et el doesn’t include the “warming effect” of non-cloud H2O vapor in their calculations of Average Temperature Increases.

LivingBarefoot: If your logic is that by Boom!Reasons logic since the article only mentions the U.S., Global warmng is debunked, proves that your logic is useless. Yes, the Article only mentions the U.S., however Boom!Reason didn't even mention the article, he just stated "the Evidence is clear" and never mentioned which way that evidence went.

By the way, the evidence is clear and we are causing it, however I don't care as i have no choildren and don't give a damn is you all drown in your ignorance.

I guess since the article didn't mention it explicitly, then there must have been what?

no climate on the rest of the planet?

nothing out of the ordinary with the climate on the rest of the planet?

cooling on the rest of the planet?

I'm trying to understand why you think because you paid no attention to any of the weather stories though out the year all over the world it has some baring on global climate change. AND PLEASE NOTE, IT IS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NOT GLOBAL WARMING.

I guess you missed the stories about how polar bears were starving because so much of the Arctic ice melted this year?

And just as an FYI- Australia had the 25th warmest winter on record. Western Australia had abnormally warm temperatures where they had 10 highest temps during the winter. They had below average rainfall.

You keep bringing up Australia..... you do realize the Australian Government has embraced global warming?

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/understanding-climate-change.aspx

Easy sport. I wasn't aware of the great Australian Government conspiracy to hoodwink the population. But I guess you're all over it.

Record heat/drought in some places, but lots of rain in others. Hmm... Manhattan size portions of the ice sheets in Greenland, Antartica, and the Arctic floating away and disappearing... Hmmm... I wonder where all that sea ice went? I wonder... Ah, anyway, back to leaf-blowing the driveway 'cause I'm too lazy to sweep it!

In the 70's this same group of scientists were predicting a new ice age! How about the so-called "ozone hole" which was going to fry all of us! Turned out that the hole just kind of expanded and contracted no matter what humans do! BTW, I haven't seen New York underwater or Florida disappearing like the enviro-nazi liberal pundits promised! I guess the fact that most of the ice sheet was FLOATING on water made the impact a lot less than these "scientists" promised! Look at a glass of ice water! If it melts, the actual level of the water is pretty much unchanged! The fact that the antarctic ice sheet is growing may also show that this is just another phase of natural WEATHER!

How can mankind cause global warming when a single volcanic eruption can put out more carbon, particulates, etc. than the entirety of mankind's existence? This is the ultimate case of being totally full of oneself! I haven't seen many examples of dramatic change in weather that has been proven to have been caused directly by human action, but, I do remember being in the path of Mount St. Helens and being covered in inches of volcanic soot! How about the famous "Year without a summer" which happened in the Eastern US after a major volcanic eruption in the early 1800's (I believe it was in Indonesia)! We almost lost our country because of the famine and suffering which occured! I guess we have to arrest "Mother Nature" for daring to contradict the mighty Al Gore and his minions!

Dan M-1100664 said:

In the 70's this same group of scientists were predicting a new ice age!

Stop listening to talk radio and check the facts. In the '70s, there were 6 times as many scientists predicting warming than there were predicting cooling. "Global Cooling" is nothing more than an example of sensationalist journalism, unsupported by the scientific community.

How about the so-called "ozone hole" which was going to fry all of us! Turned out that the hole just kind of expanded and contracted no matter what humans do!

Another bout of nonsense. The ozone hole is still being managed, but our actions created a potentially dangerous situation, and our actions have greatly reduced its size.

Stop listening to entertainers and politicians, and start paying attention to what scientists actually state.

How can mankind cause global warming when a single volcanic eruption can put out more carbon, particulates, etc. than the entirety of mankind's existence?

Seriously, you have clearly never bothered to check the facts given to you by talk radio and it's clear. As per usual, you're wrong.

This is the ultimate case of being totally full of oneself!

Indeed you are.

People: you don't want to end up enraged over lies like Dan, do you? Do you really want to be as gullible and swayed by nonsense as Dan?

humans add a small amount of co2, but we only help along the vast amounts of co2 produced naturally by mother nature herself !!

Don't confuse data on greenhouse gases released by volcanoes with CO2. I'm certain you're intellegent enough to do the research and get the facts. The usgs site has plenty of non-partisan facts on the subject.

In short, volcanoes release 10's of of millions of tons of CO2 per year; we release 100's of billions of tons per year. The vast majority of greenhouse gases released by volcanoes is water vapor which is removed from the atmosphere in months. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere takes decades.

Don't just spew a bunch of Limbaugh bullcrap. Just because you take his word as gospel doesn't mean I have to. His objective is political in nature and nothing more.

A common ploy of Global-warming deniers is to point to the really cold trend in winters, lately. The DrudgeReport trumpets this recent fact all the time. To this, I would point Global-warming deniers to the planet, Mercury. Mercury gets hotter than an inside of a volcano during the day, and then Mercury gets colder than minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit during the night. It has no atmosphere, at all. Either way, no living organism (not even bacteria) can survive in this environment, night or day. Atmosphere helps regulate temperatures. We are losing our atmosphere and this should alarm everyone on our planet.

@Roosterboy, we aren't "losing our atmosphere" and won't end up like Mercury. That makes no sense whatsoever. There is CO2 being added to the atmosphere, thus trapping more energy from the sun and increasing the temperature just enough to grossly impact our weather patterns, resulting in large variation, increasing ocean temps, and huge fluctuations in the size and scope of storms.

Our atmosphere isn't going anywhere. We aren't losing anything and aren't turning into Mercury, or the Moon which has the temperature variations you mentioned due to its lack of any atmosphere . That's not happening to the Earth at all.

Google - Ice core temperature data, Antarctic & Greenland...

Google - World Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies...

Google - Snow coverage, Northern Hemisphere Dec- Feb 2011/12...

Google - Arctic experiences Ozone hole due to extreme cold temperatures...

Google - ARGOS buoy data - Though only 12+years long, it uses thousands of data points, numerous times a day. Unlike the previous temperature data that was error prone and/or had very limited data points...

You can pick the data source from the many references. I prefer the NASA, NSIC, & Rutgers data..

Then we can discuss the temperature change/trend the World is currently experiencing...

Roosterboy,

Research the latent heat in ice and the quantity of ice currently existing in the World...

Research the specific heat of water compared to air...

For G&G - Look up how much the Sea Surface Ice Coverage varies in the Arctic during a normal winter/summer... The lowest on record (now) - 3.61 million square kilometers and the highest on record 2011 - 13+million square kilometers

For further fun - Take a magnifying glass and hold a piece of paper; 90 degrees to the sun - earths equator, 45 degrees to the sun - most of North America, then 10 degrees to the sun - the Arctic...

Tell me how long, in these three positions, it takes to set that paper on fire...

Do you think it is the sun melting the Arctic Ice??? Try wind patterns, ocean currents, atmospheric soot, and maybe the hundreds of active under-water volcanoes, that were discovered, 20+years ago...

Practical physics - can easily disapprove many of the proponents on both sides of the fence...

Opps - Sorry that was 15.24 million square kilometers or (5.88 million square miles) of sea ice coverage in the Arctic during Mar 2012...

And it keeps the trend (or natural variance??) of decreasing in thickness for the last 9+years of satellite observation...

In other-words the ice coverage will melt faster, exposing more water of the Arctic sea surface...

Sounds like albedo--the more dark surface of the ocean is exposed, the more heat is absorbed by the sun rather than reflected back into space by the white ice...

If your research consists of Google and the Farmer's Almanac, we aren't interested.

Wait a minute. I thought the Bible had all the information we needed? Did I miss a memo at the church potluck again?

Gee, sullyness if you are going to insult christians, I guess I should insult your prophet! Al Gore is a fat, ignorant, moron who has made millions by preaching his stupid belief system! You have just as much true data as Christians do! The similarity between you and the ultra-religious is that you take everything on faith and if they disagree with you they are "infidels" who should be banned from your glorious personality!

There's a reasonable chance that everything will be Romney's fault in a few months.

Wait a minute. Al Gore is the Messiah now? Crap, I really do need to get to more of the potlucks this year. Good point though, Dan. Someone's level of body fat and general attractiveness are directly correlated to the feasibility of their ideas. Data is JUUUUST like faith. Just like. Yep siree.

Mike, if you go look at the antarctic ice core samples of the last 500,000 years, you will REALLY get some data and see some trends! National Geographic Magazine published a foldout in one of their magazines that had a big graph on it...October 2007 issue.

Lisa of all the magazines available on everything from kids games to sports and fashion. You are right on about Nat Geo. I truly believe that they tell it like it is.

Yeah, you can pretty much rest assured that a "critical mass" of people are going to opt for not doing jack $#!t until something really painful forces them to.

sullyness, you are right! I guess that a "critical mass" of people are going to vote out Obama and his liberal minions this November! We have had the pain of almost 4 years of ridiculous spending and a president who believes that he can govern however he choses, even violating the Constitution if he choses! You are right, we need to suffer pain in order to change! Bye, Bye, Obama!

Technically speaking, we've had 12 years of that, not 4.

Since Romney is enlisting many of the same political, economic and foreign policy advisers as the Bush administration, I suppose we're all supposed to celebrate? Worst recession since the Great Depression and longest wars in US history ring a bell? You realize that government spending and debt has increased under each successive president for many years now, exploding under GW Bush, but it's decelerated under Obama more than any of the last 6 presidencies, right? I mean that's inconvenient for your "O-bum-O is a big spender" scenario, and all, but it's reality. It's just patently dishonest to try to stick it ALL on the last guy holding the bag. Also, please Google "private sector economy under Republican vs Democratic" and get back to the class on what you find. Here's some fun, the first hit is even from Fox Business, so maybe there's a chance you'll even read it.

It "says" that the dynamic range in local climate is becoming more volatile and could result in significant disruptions of planting and harvest times as well as the length and suitability of crop growth conditions in your area.

Save your breath, ckneeley. You lost 'em at "volatile"...

ckneeley means if it can't be global warming it must be "climate change"! That is what liberals do when the situation does not meet their expectations! It must be nice to never have to admit mistakes! It must be Bush's fault!

Focusing on isolated data points doesn't mean didly squat. Its the trends and standard deviations that matter.

Actually, I think you lost 'em at "dynamic" ckneeley. And, Dan - speaking of admitting mistakes, do you remember toward the end of his reign of terror when Bush was asked on live television what he felt one of his biggest mistakes was as president? He stood there with his patented deer-in-the-headlights look, stuttering and stammering and couldn't come up with ONE thing that he had done wrong as resident-in-chief. Not one thing. Even an idiot knows that on live television, you come up with something. Unfortunately, Bush wasn't as smart as the average idiot.

Alfred E. Newman?

Alfred E. Neumann - What, me worry? Typical republicon...........

Hey Dan, I'm about as liberal as pepper spray in a useless hippies face. Politics do not change reality, you all can have a happy green orgasm or you can ignore what's outside your front door I don't care and neither will the world. My concern is with having clean water and available food at a price that I can afford, the Earth is a wet ball of rocks-it will be fine, it doesn't have a belief system and like me it doesn't care who or what you cast your vote for.

Exactly. Climate change might not be real. Global warming might not be happening. But there's a big, and growing lump of data that makes that look plausible. Science is rarely ever 100% on things; it's probabilities. So what's the consequence if you bet wrong on this probability? It doesn't make much sense to me to do nothing and just see if we were wrong.

I'm also concerned with having clean water and available food I can afford--and both are increasingly hard to get these days! Major drought in mid-west, dropping water tables, pollution, etc. Frankly, whatever side you come down on in the global warming/climate change issue, keeping the environment as unpolluted as possible just makes sense--it's back to the old ***did you learn what you needed to learn in KINDERGARTEN?? If you make the mess, you clean it up!?!***

... weather =/= CLIMATE!

Ah, the sweet smell of sarcasm. Or so I very sincerely hope.

It's too bad Cap and Trade is now evil. If it was still "good," like back when Republicans first brought it up, maybe we could've worked out a trade between the too-cold and the too-hot areas. Just box up yer unwanted heat and ship 'er on over! Oh, but I forget: man doesn't have any control over heat.

The start was the industrial revolution, the actions of any political party or candidate will have no significant impact on climate change, we are decades beyond the tipping point. The world will heat up, the seas will rise, climate patterns will change, there is nothing we can do about that. What we can do is mitigate the long term damage so that in one or two hundred years we'll begin to return to a more normal (aka good for people) climate pattern and then some large number of years later the crop regions will again become suited for agriculture. A political candidate may be able to set us on a course to better adapt to the impending disruptions in water, food and energy availability but that is unlikely.

Come on guys. Everyone knows we can pump big, billowing plumes of black crap in the air and it doesn't do no harm. Same for all that fracking fluid we pump millions of barrels of into the ground. I don't see nothing, so no harm, no foul. Also, the world ends at my hillside, 'cause I don't see any of the places you all are from.

Thanks for telling us the truth...that nothing can be done about, all we can do is learn to adapt.

100 bucks to the first one who can grow self-filtering lungs and kidneys!!!

And you're from Texas? Who'da thunk it?

We're not entitled to be around forever, but why would you want to end it? All species aim for survival, what makes humans any more self-centered than other species?

what makes humans any more self-centered than other species?

Self-awareness.

"There's no law that entitles us to be around forever..."

No, but that is not a logical argument for suicide.

No, but that is not a logical argument for suicide.

Reverting back to the 19th century isn't exactly a model for success, is it?

Who said anything about reverting back to the 19th century. Quite the opposite, we are looking for a smarter energy policy for the 21st century.

we are looking for a smarter energy policy for the 21st century.

Like Solyndra?!?

And what do you know about Solyndra, technically, not politically.

So Solyndra got screwed because Chinese who will work for pennies a day started cranking out competing product. Boy, there's a reason to celebrate, huh? F' America, huh? Yeah, what was our government doing trying to grow an upstart technology in the US?! Leave that $#!t to the Chinese!!!

Then the company here in the US that was supposed to make batteries for the Volts has begun to furlough most of its people. Guess the taxpayers lost a bundle on that one too.

Rex, no amount of spending is bad if the intentions were good! How dare you expect the government to be accountable to you little, mouth-breathing, American citizens!? And also remember, the Constitution is a "living document" which the libs can ignore if it gets in their way!

What about Solyndra? They had a better product and deserved some help.

Their solar panels cost more to build but were quicker and easier to install, plus they were more efficient than the last generation stuff the Chinese are producing. So the Chinese government flooded the market until they put Solyndra out of business. Now they are jacking up the price way above and beyond the 250% tariff Obama hit them with for their market manipulation.

But leave it to the unAmerican republicons to cheer for the Chinese, just like their lead liars R&R.

You know, it is good to ask, "what were you guys thinking" on stuff like funding Solyndra. But it's really dishonest to pick and choose based on political convenience. We all know farm and oil subsidies have a long history, among other corporate welfare. Those all seem to get a "pass" though? Oh but Solyndra is hippie liberal socialist meddling. Oh, that seems fair and balanced.

huh?

Of course you can't prove, it's just some predictions based upon a lot of statistical observations.

Why do liberals call people who question their beliefs, deniers!? How about this? Any liberal who doesn't vote for Romney is a "Truth Denier" who should just be taxed into oblivion and treated as second-class citizens! Now the libs are beginning to know how us in "fly-over country" have been treated by their ignorant statements!

Congratulations Dan, you may very well be the most ignorant rwnj poster I've seen... and I've seen a bunch on here. Anyone who has followed Mitt Romney's speeches, interviews and now debate(s), know the guy is a compulsive, pathological liar. And it's very sad to think folks who are members of the double digit IQ clan believe otherwise. Whenever all one has to do is read and watch some TV. Oh, wait... maybe that's the answer to your affliction, peel yourself away from that Faux News Spews crappola and try listening to something other than Lush Rimballs on the radio.

Denying what is happening is nonsensical. Do you know that the Coast Guard has added 4 new stations on the Alaska North Slope because there is no ice there anymore?

They are not using climate models of any kind. In fact the artcile does not address climate change at all.

It actually isn't and you know it. Not one temperature prediction has held true. Your models cannot even predict past weather accurately. If they can not do that they cannot do future events. So please get a real job and get off the tax payers back. We have far more important things to spend money on...

Like starvation across the planet...

Wow, BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL organizations make claims that send more money their way is all the proof you need!

What true scientist uses such a small percentage of data to draw conclusions?

The current climate models are actually quite accurate for the long term trends they are intended to predict. If anything the problem is that warming is happening faster than the models predict.

"What true scientist uses such a small percentage of data to draw conclusions?"

The conclusions being made are based on massive amounts of data.

Those are not predictions, those are trends based on real data measurements.

Liberal vs Conservative has nothing to do with it. The data is real, it has been reviewed and confirmed, and has been published in peer reviewed publications.

The trends are clear and easy to see for anyone who is not ideologically indoctrinated.

Please explain to where my ignorant self can understand how using 50 years of 4,530,000,000 years is valid data to make a conclusion?

If you can do that, then we can have a logical discussion.

lving, it dpends on what conclusion you wish to draw. Since the main question is whether climate is warming now, what happened in the previous 4 billion years is not relevant.

The question is whether it is cyclical or man-made and all I am saying as that cyclical CAN'T be ruled out!

And that is what is being done.

The question of whether we are already seeing the anthropogenic signal is not 100% answered yet but it is getting there, and most accept it. But almost all climate scientists agree that if we haven't seen it yet, we will soon enough.

Jesus, have some of you people ever had a conversation with someone who's devoted their life to science, versus some monetary pursuit? Yeah. Right. THOSE people are all about lying and deceit to keep in the money. You can tell by the way a lot of 'em dress... Never mind those guys on Wall Street, the REAL crooks are in the lecture halls, libraries, and laboratories! For F' sake...

All of these organizations (NASA, etc) owe their existence to governmental funding. What would happen if they did not follow the template that Obama and his minions throw down? They would cease to exist! Self-protection at its most primal!

Yes Dan, all "these" organizations including the science that created the computer which allows you to spew your ignorance would not exist. Too bad the science of birth control was not practiced by your parents.

Nine of the ten hottest years globally on record have happened since 2000. The trend is clear. Deal with it or die.

Global warming also means a longer growing season and more rainfall. Another win-win situation.

AND, amazingly cheap beachfront property, too!

Yuo are talking about one day. Why do you think that is relevant?

One day, one year or one century is just as relevant when discussing the earth's history.

You just change the amount of data from one .00000000002 to like .000000002. None is worth a crap!

lving, what you are saying makes no sense. We are not trying to determine the average climate for the history of the world, so the length of that history is irrelevant. The question is whether the climate is warming NOW.

Where I live was once underwater, therefore it was warmer here at one point.

The argument is whether we are causing it or if it is just cyclical.

How can you debunk the argument that it is just cyclical?

"How can you debunk the argument that it is just cyclical?"

Good question, and therefore one that is addressed in all reviews of the climate science literature.

We can attribute it to human influence because it doesn't fit the knowm natural drivers, and becuase it does fit the trend expected by the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Okay, so cutting down trees to put up solar panels by my cabin was a horrible idea?

Everything has tradeoffs. Solar panels are carbon-free energy, but cutting down trees releases carbon as well as making the house hotter in the summer so you need more energy to cool it.

They take much carbon to produce with limited effectiveness.

Everything has its tradeoffs. the technology is getting better, but energy conservation and efficiency will always be important too.

Where I live we used to get a sprinkling of snow every now and then in the 1950s and 1960s. No snow for decades.

Thunderstorms were very rare events, now they are common.

We never had tornadoes here until just a few years ago. Everyone pooh poohed the reports until the nightly news started showing the damage on tv.

And I live in an area that is not being hit by AGW much at all. What is it like in the red zones?

Then you should like the record cold temps you just had in Texas...

Aunt Anna

Just look at the map. Nowhere in Texas was the average below normal. But yesterday it was cold!!!

The tragedy is that you're probably serious

Here in Tulsa, we reached an all-time low temperature for this time of year.

I spent a winter in Oklahoma. It would be 75 one week and -15 the next.

Have you gotten around to hiring any firefighters yet?

At least 95% of the thousands of climate scientists around the world accept anthropogenic global warming. Consensus does not prove anything, but it should encourage us to take notice.

We have had heating and cooling cycles since the Earth was formed. Thats science. And proven. Man made Global Warming/Climate Change is not proven and is simply put out there to draw more money into their bank accounts. I mean these scientists... the same ones that predicted an Ice Age due anytime back in the 80s are the ones making the claims now. I mean where are all the massive hurricanes??? Havent seen in years now... so maybe, just maybe they are wrong.

"We have had heating and cooling cycles since the Earth was formed."

We all know that, and we all know it is irrelevant to the question of whther we can affect the climate ALSO.

So jock we are in agreement.

We cannot use temperatures to draw our conclusions and that is what is being done.

No it is not.

We have two separate questions. Does CO2 affect temperature, and is it already doing so?

The prediction of future warming is not based on the temperature record at all, but rather on our knowledge of the physics of the greenhouse effect. You are correct that the temperature record alone cannot prove anything about the cause. But that is not what the predictions are based on.

Jock, please explain how you can say CO2 is causing warming without using temperature as your indicator.

I am all for as much conservation as possible.

I want plastic grocery bags banned, water bottles cut down, fertilizer limited but I don't want to make Al Gore rich, drill on the other-side of the earth and use millions of gallons of fuel to ship fuel here, put up solar panel that take all kinds of energy to make with minimal results.

If you want battery cars I have given the solution. Combine the NCAA with NASCAR for an electric car series and if they are viable, they will develop them.

From the map it looks like the West coast has had below normal temps for the year.

"please explain how you can say CO2 is causing warming without using temperature as your indicator."

We know CO2 will cause warming because of the physics of the greenhouse effect, and because of the evidence of the correlation from the paleoclimate history.

Whether it has already caused warming is harder to prove, because the system is so variable, but most climate scientists think so.

It's getting warmer.....fact

CO2 is rising.......fact.

They are related........not fact, but probably.

Yesterday it was raining.......fact

I got wet.......fact

The rain caused me to get wet........not fact, but probably!

It is cooler here in California. It is also windier. More heat energy in the atmosphere creates more wind. More wind moves cooler sea air deeper into the big valley, thereby cooling it. This is all predicted and is happening.

mik

You're absolutely right, but that's way too subtle for the anti-scientists to wrap their little minds around.

Fred

Actually it's not happening on other planets. That's one of the myths and the cherry picking of data by the deniers. The experts say it ain't happening, but the bloggers say it is. I'll side with those who actually know what they're talking about.

This article has nothing to do with the election. And scientists do not fudge the numbers.

jock, they were caught fudging them, so yes they do!

No, they were not. There have never been any cases of fraud in the published literature on climate change.

just like all the bs you believe, thom. forgive me, but if the economy is bad, you, thom, have only yourself and your party to blame, after all you, thom, and your party made it a priority to do as much damage to the US economy to make your party seem like saviors. as for foreign policy, again, thom, you and your party of mayberry machiavellian's fought two wars off the books, lied the country into one of them, took your eye off the bad guys that attacked us, and now you want us to take you seriously. Really, thom. really? i think America is over with you dead ender republicans.

So what was all of the press about a couple of years ago?

Those were private emails in which various data analyses were discussed, and some over-zealous stuff got said that sounded particularly bad when taken out of context. But several independent reviews found no indications of fraud.

Wow, great spin and goodnight.

I love the earth, just spent 10 days on the Peace River and will be in the keys a couple of times this week.

I just know that the oil rigs in the gulf produce infinite amounts of more life than that one spill, where lefties forced the rig deep, killed and drilling here is much better than drilling on the other side of the earth and shipping it here.

living

Once again and please read this.....they did NOT fudge the numbers, There is NO evidence they did.

Please, if you want to make an argument, tell the truth!

lving brain dead!

Uhh, Thom - is your computer steam powered or what? You may want to think about calling others hypocrites, lest you be called one yourself.

LEGO weren't you on the Titanic telling everyone that it was just a small leak that could be plugged with bubble gum ?