Okay, for those of you who still say "the planet is cooling" - NOT!! (You climate denialists know who you are)

And still they will believe global warming is a lie! Good try though, David. Thanks.

Hey, I'm a glutton for punishment. :)

I need to do some traveling.

There is NO WAY it was warmer this year than last (at least not in the Eastern US). We have had more freezes than I have EVER seen here, plus the other days that didn't freeze were WAY cooler. I normally wear sweaters only one or two days a year. NOT this year, I have had to wear them practically all January and February and NOW March.

Did you read the part that said mean temperature? A mean is an average, the way you learned to calculate it in school: add up all the readings and divide the sum by the number of readings. In the case of the second graph, the averrage included readings from all over the planet.

Individual locations do not have to follow the mean, especially in the short term. So your observation about this year's vs. last year's climate can be true, but that doesn't make the graph less accurate.

The temperatures are global. The continental US is only 2% of the surface of the earth. So oddly enough, the rest of the planet doesn't always toe the party line. Go figure.

Oh, and all that cold air (January was actually warmer in the US) is supposed to be up in the Arctic but the odd AO this year shifted it down into the US. So while the US got more snow than usual, the Arctic was actually warmer than usual. And guess where all the ice is? And where the worst melting problem is? Bingo. So while we were whining about there being a lot of snow in winter (yep, snow in winter, what a concept), the rest of the world was nice and toasty.

David, David, David (shaking head while typing) you just don't understand. This information was prepared by scientists. Scientists have a well known liberal bias. I will sit up and take notice when the Telephone Repairman's Association issues a report saying that it's getting warmer.

Actually I am kidding. Yes, it is getting warmer.

Actually, my plumber also concurs, so I feel confident the scientists might have gotten this one right.

Every year my well pump freezes up EXCEPT THIS YEAR!!!

In the 12 winters I have spent in my present location my well has frozen up every year untill this winter. The little space heater I have in my pump house was NOT used at all this winter.

Is this crazy or what???

But hey, it snowed in Washington DC (in the winter!), and after all, what happens in Washington DC obviously dictates what happens everywhere else on the planet.

Oops, guess not.

Good article.

Thanks Elizabeth

Great post David!

Thanks Morgan

Why cold air in Washington DC doesn't reflect the planet - Canada and the Arctic are warmer than normal, etc., etc., etc.

Seems proof is out that the Bush Administration interfered with climate research and tried to keep NOAA and NASA climate scientists from talking.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

Thanks for contributing a post of logic and fact! :^)

January was warm in these parts and then February was like the 5th snowiest February on record, so whatever.

I still do not understand why Global Warming/Climate Change is being viewed as "The event in my area!" That just defies logic!

People see what is around them and forget that the world is bigger than their back yard.

True, yet, how long can they cling to bad information?

James Lovelock-inventor of the modern Gaia hypothesis, speculates that in a couple hundred years the 48 states will mostly be desert and people may move to Alaska.

Others have written that the world may warm, yet it has many times historically and life will go on--without people. Who knows, maybe lizards and rats deserve a better shake in life.

Developing a moon colony right away (try to warm that cold place up) could be a good idea for any survivors to have a place to go to chill out.

Lovelock is seen as a bit out-dated by most these days. His views of the future are rather extreme and not the accepted expectation of climate scientists.

The world has warmed and cooled in the past, of course, but only in geological time frames (thousands, tens or thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years). What we are seeing is unprecedented. And entirely consistent with what we would expect to see based on well-established greenhouse gas principles and the unprecedented spewing of CO2 into the air.

Keep in mind that oil and coal are the stored CO2 collected over many hundreds of millions of years from above ground and now below ground. Then we dig it up, burn it, and shove it all into the atmosphere in only a matter of decades. The planet just can't handle the sum total of millions of years of carbon sequestration all being released essentially at once.

As for developing a moon colony, wouldn't it seem more cost effective to simply shift our current planet to a sustainable energy future rather than try to find a place to renovate after taking no steps to keep what we have?

Lovelock is 90 I think, and plans on going to space aboard a private craft for a look at the Earth.

I am for space colonization--it indicates a competence at terraforming and regulation of chemical-environmental elements to a certain extent not shown here.

Because of political human nature there will always be those misusing resources for profit. The discipline of creating viable environments in space and planets/moons may help to restore the degraded environment of Earth with the new knowledge.

Lovelock believes the states will be a desert in two-three hundred years. Yet he isn't too alarmed. If human life on Earth stops, other life will continue.

I suppose when you're 90 you can say and do whatever you want and can pay for.

I have no problem with space colonization (I still hope to grow up to be an astronaut), but it seems like building the cleanup apparatus before doing what we already know how to do that will avoid the need for the cleanup apparatus.

Lovelock believes the states will be a desert in two-three hundred years. Yet he isn't too alarmed.

Of course he isn't alarmed. He's 90. He won't be here. Wonder if he has grandkids.

If human life on Earth stops, other life will continue.

Not entirely true. We'll kill off much of the other life before we're gone. But some form of life will continue. Perhaps cyanobacteria, fungus and coachroaches.

I read that some pesticides are causes sex changes in much of the U.S. Frog population--its not an Obama Administration policy surprisingly, thought the census is encouraging homosexual couples in Florida to say they are married.

Whales are reported to have sequestered as much Carbon Dioxide as the present forests of New England before the predation began by humans--that was surprising. Though many harmful chemical changes are occurring to the oceans and such, I believe that albino cockroaches have a good chance of surviving any sort of future holocaust ashore. Maybe Strong guppies will live beyond oceanic scourging.

I really don't mean to get into a fight. But have you thought about 100 years at a time or 200 years at a time. I've heard conflicting debates that the earth has been in fluctuation from it's birth. As it warmed earlier it will warm now for some period of time 100 to 200 years or so and then after that time start to cool down more then go through it's cycle again. I am not scientist. I don't know if you are. I know not all scientists agree with the fact that will be in harms way of death as a result of climate fluctuation. I believe we will move around to cooler areas ect.. Who can say, it's a guessing really. I've believe the earth is heating up and it is getting hotter but just don't think we will die as a result. It may get hotter and in 150 years cool down again. I've heard the global warming debate is a way for researchers to get funds for projects surrounding the idea. I agree with the fellow above. My mother disagrees but we just have to keep on living.. I DO agree we should not take care of mother earth. I think we should recycle and save energy I thought this 10 years ago when the Winnebago Co took our land for a four land highway. I'm indeed a treehugger. Not near as many people seemed to want to recycle as I wanted to and go green. It just seems like the media bandwagon starts more people. It's good just don't make it a fact we will die as a result of the warming because in science there can't be a proven fact. There is only some evidence.

I really don't mean to get into a fight.

Then we'll be fine. I don't fight. I discuss.

But have you thought about 100 years at a time or 200 years at a time.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Climate research goes back almost 200 years, with obviously the most intensive in recent decades.

I've heard conflicting debates that the earth has been in fluctuation from it's birth. As it warmed earlier it will warm now for some period of time 100 to 200 years or so and then after that time start to cool down more then go through it's cycle again.

Well, the planet has warmed and cooled historically, but we're talking in geological time terms (tens of thousands up to tens of millions of years). For example, some denialists have tried to say that scientists claim the earth is entering a new ice age. Well, what they are actually saying is that we could get into an ice age roughly 20,000 years from now. And that doesn't take into consideration the heating up of the planet from greenhouse gases that we are now seeing. So our fate will be decided long before 20,000 years.

I am not scientist. I don't know if you are. I know not all scientists agree with the fact that will be in harms way of death as a result of climate fluctuation.

Nearly all climate scientists agree that human activity is warming the planet. No one is suggesting that one day next week the world will end. What we are saying is that there is a process now ongoing that will continue to speed up over the next decades and centuries, and that in the time span of those decades and centuries we will be faced with significant climatic disruption. The reality of this is bad enough, but we're not looking at scenarios such as in the movie 2012.

I believe we will move around to cooler areas ect.. Who can say, it's a guessing really.

Actually, it's quite sophisticated. We know a lot, and are learning more every day. But one thing is clear - the planet is warming and we are causing it, and there will be significant climatic disruption if we fail to act.

I've believe the earth is heating up and it is getting hotter but just don't think we will die as a result.

Again, no one is saying that all of humanity will suddenly die one day. What we are saying is that dry places will likely get drier, wet places will likely get wetter, the Arctic will largely melt, sea levels will rise, and significant displacement of the world population will occur. With 7 billion people now and 9 billion by 2050, that is a big deal.

I've heard the global warming debate is a way for researchers to get funds for projects surrounding the idea.

I've heard Elvis is still alive. These are things said by the non-science free market lobbying groups who represent corporations most likely to be effected by any changes in our current energy policy. They lie. See my post "Exposing Climate Denialism - A Guide to Tactics and Tall Tales." You have to consider the source. For example, all of the major national scientific academies of the world concur with the scientific consensus on climate change, versus the lobbying of non-science free market groups. Check out Fact or Fraud.

I DO agree we should not take care of mother earth. I think we should recycle and save energy I thought this 10 years ago when the Winnebago Co took our land for a four land highway. I'm indeed a treehugger. Not near as many people seemed to want to recycle as I wanted to and go green.

Glad to hear it. We all need to conserve. It just makes good sense. And the same is true with our energy. It makes no sense to burn carbon and send it in the air when the cleaner, more sustainable technologies to replace it are already here.

It's good just don't make it a fact we will die as a result of the warming because in science there can't be a proven fact.

It's difficult to keep track of things when there are people out there who are intentionally trying to disinform the public. But think about it. Scientists who study climate say we have a climate problem. Corporations who are likely to be most effected say we don't.

There is only some evidence.

Actually, the evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming. What we are observing is basic physics. CO2 and other gases are what creates the greenhouse effect that keep this planet warm. There is a balance that keeps the planet within a range that is liveable for humans and the environment. By taking all of the carbon that had been removed from the surface of the planet over many millions of years (in the form of oil and coal stored underground for millennia) and suddenly (in the last century) burning it and thus putting it all back into the atmosphere at once, we have disrupted that balance. And we're seeing exactly the effects we would expect to see by doing that.

As you say, science is always ongoing and we are always adding to our knowledge. But climate researchers have concluded unequivocally (i.e., 100%) that climate change is happening and that they are more than 90% sure we humans are doing it. Which means we have to act. Both because we have to, and because it is the right thing to do. Add to that the fact that acting will open up new opportunities for innovation, jobs, and economic growth, and the choice is clear.

David, I know how passionate you've been on this subject, but a "climate denialist" I remain as long as the focus is on global warming.

Hi August Lady. A couple of questions for you.

1) Can you explain what you mean by "as long as the focus is on global warming?" Is there a specific definition of that phrase you're working with? "Global warming" and "climate change" get interchanged so often it's hard to know exactly what definition of the two people are using.

2) Can you explain on what basis you consider yourself a "climate denialist" in view of the evidence for human-induced climate change?

Thanks

I have to go, but I'll be back to answer your questions!

1) If climate change was the terminology first used, I definitely wouldn't have become such a skeptic. Now that it's being interchanged with global warming (probably to shush the skeptics), I still have questions because G/W & C/C are totally different theories.

2) I think I just did :)

The terms climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably by the media, by the confused, and by the denialist industry when they want to push some point. As you say, they are in fact different. Here is just one explanation of the differences.

But frankly the fact that non-scientists can't keep the terms straight isn't particularly relevant. The science is the science and it doesn't change because someone says global warming when they mean climate change or vice versa.

The bottom line - mean global temperatures have been warming up for decades and the sum total of the data demonstrate that human activity is the primary cause. Other climatic impacts are also occurring that will result in some areas being more rapidly and/or severely impacted than others.

It's all part of the entire picture.

BTW, August Lady, I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I started a series on The Truth About Global Warming. The latest article is here and it gives a history of the greenhouse effect. The previous article highlighted some terms often confused, including the difference between global warming and climate change.

The series will continue with more information to help people see where the data come from and what we understand and don't understand.

I hope you'll join us.

TY for the links :)