You can't just pick and choose your science. Climate science uses the same scientific methods as other areas of science, You can't accept all these other areas of science and then say that, when it comes to climate science, all of a sudden now science is wrong.

it couldn't be harp and chemtrails orchestrated by govt. geo-engineers that want to kill 90% of us could it sheeple. even the private sector has jumped into the fray for bigbucks under the illusion of saving earth from ozone depletion that the govt. purposely causes. go ahead you sheeple believe anyo big bad wolf story your govt. controlled and illuminati owned press and agencies print. when they lockyour ass up in fema camps, flouridate your water, eliminating reproduction, and inject your infants with the 20+ innocculations by the time they're 2 yrs. old to rid them of their bodies natural defenses. early death of the masses is all they want. wakeup sheeple.you probably still believe wtc 7 was hit by a plane too.

wow, these comments are pretty amazing.

Scarcely a mention of all the tens of millions of trees that died this summer, or the record ice melt in the arctic, or the unprecedented crop failures. there is a whole series of imbalances that are well underway, and as each one develops, it has a domino effect in the altering and accellerated collapse of the balance in other environmental systems.

It would be a good idea to find out as much as possible about the ecological systems of the world we inhabit, we all live under the same sky, but we do not all see the same horizon.

The problem is man made! Temperature recording equipment is inaccurate in different regions due to placement of monitoring equipment. One such recording device was found near an air conditioning exhaust, another 2" off a tar roof top, lack of calibration, poor upkeep, urban placement of monitoring devices don't factor in heat sources not typical to rural areas. Increases of earthquakes (movement of tectonic plates) on the rise mostly underseas release huge amounts of CO2 into oceans. Industry or man made pollutants overshadow those of nature typically but one big blast from nature can produce more in one day than man could in 100 years unless man has an itchy trigger finger and all out nuclear war. So what will fix all of our global warming problems? Dump technology, from Auto to Zener Diode, no plastics, no synthetic materials, no industry. That alone would kill 80% of America that couldn't survive without a grocery store. Solar is inefficient, wind farms are killing wildlife and problematic, electric cars have batteries that are extremely toxic to the environment, to produce any of the previous you need industry that pollutes. Why do you think there is less industry in America and we whine about lack of jobs, EPA regulations, can't breathe clean air and manufacture most or the devices we use on a daily basis. As long as you want your new smart phone, GPS and technology in your new car, and all your luxuries .

Have you ever accidently stepped on an ant and didn't know it? That's exaclty how much power you have over the weather.

None.

More progressive enviro bull@!$%#.

I accept the science of humans changing the atmospheric chemical composition through globalized industrialization. Much to my frustration and concern for future generations, the political reality is that there are so many ignorant Americans (some by choice, some by circumstance) it will take many years of violent and powerful weather, unusually hot summers, drought, and increasingly acidic oceans before today's ignorant are dead and more informed voters decide to take action. The problem is that so much more pollution will have been added to the atmosphere by then that the train of climate change will have already left the station and the seas will inevitably rise. What I don't understand is that we buy insurance for our lives, homes, autos, and other valuables but we don't place a value on our planet by paying for insurance just in case the science is correct.

For those of us who don’t like to be ignorant about the science of altering the atmosphere's chemistry, I suggest the following books with a brief quote from each:

1. A Green History of the World, Clive Ponting, 1991 – “The net result of these human activities is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by a third in the last two hundred years – from about 270 parts per million in 1750 to 350 parts per million in the late 1980s. About half of this increase has occurred since the 1950s – carbon dioxide emissions rose from 1.6 billion tons a year in 1950 to 5.4 billion tons in the mid-1980s. Global use of fossil fuels is rising at about 4 per cent a year (which means a doubling every sixteen years) and carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at about .5 per cent a year. Carbon dioxide has provided by far the greatest volume of greenhouse gas emissions and contributed about two-thirds of the total warming effect so far.” [page 388]
2. The Little Ice Age, Brian Fagan, 2000 – “The Little Ice Age reminds us that climate change is inevitable, unpredictable, and sometimes vicious. The future promises exactly the same kinds of violent change on a local and global scale. If the present, unusually prolonged high mode of the North Atlantic Oscillation is indeed due to anthropogenic forcing, then we must also assume that global warming will accentuate the natural cycles of global climate on the largest and smallest scales. Some of these potential cycles of change are frightening to contemplate in an overpopulated and heavily industrialized world.” [page 214] “Over a century ago, Victorian biologist Thomas Huxley urged us to be ‘humble before the facts’. The facts stare us in the face, yet we do not display sufficient humility. The vicissitudes of the Little Ice Age remind us of our vulnerability again and again. In a new climatic era, we would be wise to learn from the climatic lessons of history.” [page 217]
3. The Long Summer, Brian Fagan, 2004 – “Short-term climatic events like droughts do not often leave a clear footprint. But the droughts of the Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Climatic Anomaly, as it is often called) left giant tracks across the American west, wrought in deep-sea cores, pollen samples, tree rings, and ice cores from high in the Andes. From the California coast to the Maya lowlands to Lake Titicaca, five centuries of sudden aridity wrought havoc on human societies already living close to the environmental edge.” [pages 214-215]
4. The Weather Makers, Timothy Flannery, 2005 – “The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere in times past can be measured from bubbles of air preserved in ice. By drilling about two miles into the Antarctic ice cap, scientists have drawn out an ice core that spans almost a million years of Earth history. This unique record demonstrates that during cold times CO2 levels have dropped to around 160 parts per million, and until recently they never exceeded 280 parts per million. The Industrial Revolution changed that, albeit slowly, for even by 1958, when Keeling began his measurements of CO2 atop Mauna Loa, it was up to only 315 parts per million.” [page 29] “Today the figures are 380 parts per million….” [page 28]
5. Collapse, Jared Diamond, 2005 – “…the atmosphere really has been undergoing an unusually rapid rise in temperature recently and that human activities are the or a major cause. The remaining uncertainties mainly concern the future expected magnitude of the effect: e.g., whether average global temperatures will increase by ‘just’ 1.5 degrees Centigrade or by 5 degrees Centigrade over the next century. Those numbers may not sound like a big deal, until one reflects that average global temperatures were ‘only’ 5 degrees cooler at the height of the last Ice Age.” [page 493]
6. The Revenge of Gaia, James Lovelock, 2006 – “Predictions of climate change do not depend only on theoretical models in the form of computer simulations of the Earth. There is now a vast array of monitoring activities sustained globally. Air and sea temperatures are continuously measured, as are the gases of the atmosphere, the cloud cover, the floating ice and the glaciers and the health of the ecosystems in the ocean and on the land. The truth of the models is therefore continuously tested against the observations coming in from the real world.” [page 57]
7. Dead Pool, James Lawrence Powell, 2008 – “The question is not whether the earth has warmed, but why? The scientific consensus is that the cause is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which absorb heat and trap it near the earth. In one of the most prescient predictions in science, in 1896 … Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted the very rise that we now observe. Based on the knowledge that carbon dioxide molecules trap heat, Arrhenius calculated that if atmospheric carbon dioxide level were to double, global temperatures would rise between 7 and 11 degrees F. More than a century later with vastly more information, IPCC forecasts that by 2100, temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.5 degrees F, overlapping the range the Swedish chemist forecast long ago. Arrhenius thought it might take three thousand years for carbon dioxide levels to double, but sadly that is one forecast that he got wrong.” [pages 171-2]
8. The Flooded Earth, Peter Ward, 2010 – “Our planet did not break out of the 180-280 ppm range until about 1800, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise well beyond the old upper limit. By 1900, the level was 295 ppm…. From 1900 to 2000, CO2 levels went from 295 all the way up the current level of about 385 – a 90 ppm rise in just a hundred years. The rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing…is accelerating. Models using the latest values of the measured rise for the past decade, and projecting forward, lead to an estimate that CO2 levels will nearly double in the next two centuries. That is the level of the Mesozoic Period and will cause the ice sheets to rapidly melt – all of them.” [pages 56-7]

I make these suggestions to help frame the science behind the issues associated with human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Many people seem ignorant of the science behind climate analysis and content to put their heads deeply into the sand. The defining characteristic of humanity, complex intelligence, is enhanced by a broad liberal education. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about higher education including science: “the university [of Virginia] would be ‘now qualified to raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other state; and this superiority will be greater from the free range of mind encouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigoted adhesion to ancient habits.’” [from Thomas Jefferson, Willard Sterne Randall, 1993, page 588]

Persoanly i see the global climate chage as a real issue however lets leave that on the back burner. Does it really mater if global warming or climate change is real or not? The real problem here is fuel and energy period. We have what about 100yrs left of oil natural gas and coal globaly? So why are we waisting time arguing over climate change when the real problem is we are running out of an essential resource to power things. It dosnt matter if you believe in global warming or not we still need to develop alternate energy sources PERIOD. The past 100yrs went by in a blink of an eye and hardly any alternate energy sources were developed in thoes 100yrs so the clock is ticking. Will mankind wait until we run out of fosil fuels and suffer the consequences or will we pull our head out of our A$$es and develop some alternate energy sources that we need anyway regardless of your views on global warming.

According to Ice cores from scientific methods. The planet freezes over roughly every 10000 years or so. Lets freeze over the federal government, get rid of biased media and act like " we the people" These idiots work for us.

When the sun explodes, AND IT WILL, then you can call it global warming. Get a clue. Our planet will one day burst into flames.

I've been collecting weather data with a home station for the last nine years. The data gets uploaded to NOAA via the Citizen Weather Observer Program and is incorporated into forecasting and modeling programs. Whatever is going on this year, I can say without a doubt that 2012 has been the warmest since I started collecting data. Warm enough that I didn't get crap from my poor confused fruit trees. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You deniers wouldn't do well in Vegas. That map shows high odds that warmest year will play out. I'd bet the next 3 months salary on it.

2012 is not even close to 1934 in the USA. It actually WAS hot in 1934. Really hot. The only way NOAA has been able to make 2012 warmer is to remove about 1.5°F from the older raw data and to add about 1.5°F to the modern raw data. Menne, Karl, and other studies only can justify around 0.5°F for homogenization and other adjustments, which is about 60% of the claimed "AGW signal". It is shocking what NOAA is doing to corrupt the record, we are now at more than 3°F in adjustments in a vile attempt to make 2012 seem like it is warmer. If you want to see the real hockey stick, read more about it at Steven Goddard's blog. NOAA is going to have to come clean on this before anyone is going to believe the latest data. He's got them squirming now, and the entire record is now suspect.

Here is one of many articles you can read. All of this you can verify yourself, if you dig through the 22GB files to extract the raw data. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/ushcn-resolves-their-temperature-problem/

Absolute B.S.

When will all people realize that the earth is heading for disaster? When the average temperature during the summer hits 125 degrees all over? It will be too late then.

my buttcheeks feel like they have some global warming going on.

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.

With so many things that literally disproves CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming then it is apparently a “religious belief” of many or most of the proponents of said that causes them to deny said literal “truths”. To wit:

• the INTENTIONAL exclusion of the “degree increase” due to the Holocene Interglacial “warming” of the climate from all of their calculated Average Temperature “increases” disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• assuming that Interglacial “warming” abruptly stopped when their claimed “CO2 causing AGW” started is asinine, silly and highly arrogant
• mathematics disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the Keeling Curve disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the geologic record disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the highly questionable 100+ years of temperature records disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the “fuzzy” math used for calculating and claiming Average Temperature Increases disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the intentional ignoring and omission of the effects of atmospheric water vapor on surface temperatures disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the intentional ignoring and omission of the effects of “heat island” infrastructure on surface temperatures disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• data from various fossil plant stomata studies disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the highly questionable atmospheric CO2 ppm extropolated from glacial ice proxies disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• measuring the percentage of C12 isotope of Carbon in the atmosphere does not prove claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the extremely quick increases/decreases of temperatures in desert areas of extremely low humidity disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
• the absolute lack of any direct association or correlation between Average Global Temperature increases, world population increases and/or atmospheric CO2 increases disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW

The fact that the warming of the earth is on steroids is irrefutable. The only question that remains is how much of the cause is anthropogenic. In essence, the appropriate question here is not how much of the cause is anthropogenic. I believe it is how much of the solution is anthropogenic By the time we learn the answer to these question, it may already be too lat

To those in a terminal state of doubt, I would like to pose the question: Does burning billions of tons/gallons/cubic feet of fossil fuels cool the climate?

Let's look at the "adjustments" that have been made to the temperature record.

The past made cooler and the present made hotter.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/inside-the-hockey-stick-factory/

As long as you are fudging the numbers you can make it be anything you want.

There is a system of weather stations that are located according to NOAA guidelines. That system have temperatures that are 2 degrees cooler than the system being used for official records. The official system was been encroached upon my buildings, parking lots, air conditioners, even barbeque pits. All things that get hotter than the natural objects that are supposed to be near the stations.

And even with this bad system they still have to adjust the temperatures upward so they can claim hottest ever.

The republican take on climate change is pretty much the same thing as any other issue. Scientists say the earth was warm in the past so scientists saying the climate changes now are due to the almost 20% increase in greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning are liars. The right speak out of both sides of their mouth, and the really bizarre thing is that allot of them don't even know they are doing it, even when it is pointed out to them. It is cognitive dissonance on a massive scale, and the reason for it is actually kind of simple. If they recognized the climate changes that have happened, are happening and are forecast to get worse, then they would have to recognize their responsibility in causing them and their responsibility in taking the painful steps to change directions. Those minds would rather blame any and all their neighbors for everything and anything, than take responsibility themselves. That is the republican mantra. Blame thy neighbor. Like the global economic collapse was not gaming the unregulated free market. It was their neighbors, the undeserving poor, sick and elderly took advantage of a market regulated for them.

This study is crap as I live in Northwest Florida and we have had a below average year for temperatures (summer) and average year for rainfall amounts. Yes we had higher than average for winter months, but the scientists who are proprogating this crap are once again attempting to sell the snake oil. While I do believe we do leave our footprint on our land, we do not leave it to the extremes the scientists (loosely calling them this) attempt to claim.

Critical times hard to deal with, will be here.

Dumb Arse's,who pays these people for this crap anyway?.It is Oct 10th and it's 31 degrees and snowing here in North Dakota which some would say here is about normal to an early winter,but for the past 5 years,I haven't seen snow this early.So tell me again about this global warming BS.

Look at this adjustment from HADCRUT 3 to HADCRUT 4.

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-the-scammers-are-getting-shameless/

Why the adjustment? To make it seem hotter than it is. To make it seem like it is warming.

When you see things like this you know it is a scam.