Today is MA it was 65. That is way to warm for Jan.!
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the
Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
Hopefully the over dramatic tin foil hat wearing crowd wont overreact....again. Am I hoping for a miracle?
And year after year after year after year after year...
I'm sure it' just a weird coincidence. Wake me up later...
The scientific consensus is clear, human activity is affecting the world's climate.
Because the effects are cumulative, and reinforcing, many of the consequences of global warming are yet to be felt -even if we dramatically reduced carbon dioxide formation today.
When we find that we can no longer farm the Great Plains, that there is no water source adequate to sustain California agriculture, and this nation has become a net importer of food - it will be too late. We will we more dependent than ever on foreign resources.
And your explanation for the very green grass in my backyard right now is...?
(hint: I'm in Sweden, we do not have El Nino, and we should be buried in snow by now)
"How will the El Niño phenomenon be affected by a global warming?
This is what the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and the Max-Planck Institute (Germany), Matt Collins of Univ. Reading (U.K.) think. There is even a short entry about global warming and ENSO in Wikipedia. The brevity of this entry may reflect the fact that the question about how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state (eg. Collins et al. 2005, Climate Dynamics, 24, 89-104. 19 and here)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-05-03.asp
I am wary of El Nino. It usually means drought in the Midsouth. But even without El Nino, our recent summers have been very hot and very dry. Luckily, we are in the rainy season - plenty of rain presently - PLENTY!!!
Lori The city the Norwegian side of my family lives in wasn't even inhabitable until about 150 years ago. The earths climate cycles cant be regulated by man and CO2 "global warming" is part of the faith called socialism. At least in terms of cars creating it. That's why every scientists that points to the energy fluctuations of the sun gets shouted down and accused of being a pawn of Big Oil. Don't EVER question the religious socialists belief in CO2 global warming!
10000 years ago my city was underneath a sheet of ice.Lori Most of Wisconsin was. Why did the earth warm back then? If you cant be intellectually honest and ask ALL questions and not just point to an unproven theory(cars are doing it) than you have been relegated to a crackpot.
Sorry, wrong again. Is your last name "Wrong," by any chance (middle name = "Always," of course)?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide."
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/dec06/noaa06-094.html
"The average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. will likely be the third warmest on record in 2006, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year is noted for widespread drought and record wildfires, as well as heavy precipitation and flooding in some parts of the country. Following the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M066
"1995 was the warmest year on record, but that was topped by 1997, and 1998 beat that in turn by a surprisingly large margin. Of course these were global averages of trends that varied from one region to another. The citizens of the United States, and in particular residents of the East Coast, had not felt the degree of warming that came in some other parts of the world. But for the world as a whole, for the first time most experts now agreed: a serious warming trend was underway.(38*)"
There is no doubt that El Nino is playing a role for the US this winter, but that does not explain there past several years of one global temperature record after another, year after year after year. Global warming, however, does explain this trend.
"Like I said in the 1930s there was a warming period and it eventually shifted back to a colder cycle making these brilliant scientists howl about a new ice age in the 1970s."
This was a very minor swing, in comparison to the global climate change that we're now seeing. Additionally, only a simpleton would attempt to argue that climatology hasn't advanced in the past 75 years.
"Lori The city the Norwegian side of my family lives in wasn't even inhabitable until about 150 years ago."
I strongly doubt that. Humans inhabit every corner of the globe, except Antarctica.
" The earths climate cycles cant be regulated by man and CO2 "global warming" is part of the faith called socialism."
This is sheer ignorance talking. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about what he's talking, except what his talking head pundits have told him to parrot. Looks like somebody needs to either do some studying or find a different subject to talk about. The verdict is in on global warming. Atmospheric CO2 levels have NEVER been higher. Based upon ice core samples dating back 650,000 years, the earth's atmospheric CO2 level has never been above 300 ppm. It is now nearing 400 ppm, and will skyrocket from there, based upon computer models. Global temperature increases have historically risen with atmospheric CO2 levels, which is why global warming trends are following precisely what computer models had predicted decades ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels began to dramatically rise right after the industrial revolution, which means that the increases are man-caused.
Now, perhaps when we've all educated ourselves as to what's going on and why, we can finally put an end to the nonsense spewed by the "anti-human survival" crowd, and finally progress beyond the burning of fossil fuels as a source of energy. What is it about you people that forces you to flatly refuse to embrace the staggering economic and technological advances that will result from our shifting from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources? Why are you people so anti-economic and technological growth? What have you got against advancement? Did your great grand-parents hold onto their buggy whip manufacturing facility a bit too long as well?
I would strongly urge you to take off your ideological blinders long enough to view Gore's movie. If you can somehow find a way to put away your false beliefs and your harsh partisanship for 2 hours, I guarantee you'll come away enlightened.
Jeff, your usual nonsense is becoming more desperate.
There is a political party of global warming?
Bush has said, after five and a half years of denying it, that the US must take steps to reduce global warming. Is this a dangerous tilt toward socialism?
The usual suspects in the "socialism is coming, bar the doors" debate are universal health coverage and increases in the minimum wage. Is global warming a ploy to ensure health care for all Americans. Will denying global warming keep real wages low??
Inquiring minds want to know.
The only "citizens" that matter in the U.S. are the corporations. They ARE the citizens. Anytime the theme of "we're all in this together" crops up, all you hear are cries of "Socialism, Socialism, Socialism!!!" In reality, corporatism is not that much different than communism. Remember the last scene depicted in Orwell's "Animal Farm?"
Daniel M.: "California will be a model for the rest of the US, with regards to legislation cutting CO2 emissions."
Certainly! Many states are following CAs lead. I just hope Texas doesn't do enough damage to reverse the progress that CA and other states are trying to make.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=596&campaign=583
Dr. Kevin Trenberth writes:
"Our recent work has raised questions about how El Niño will change as climate changes, and detailed statistical and diagnostic analysis has provided a good basis for believing that there is a relationship."
"How El Niño changes as climate changes and global warming progresses is a critical question of great importance for many regions of the globe. While our exploratory analyses are suggestive and form useful hypotheses for future work, climate models do not yet simulate El Niño well enough and are too different from each other to have any confidence in their projections. ...The underlying hypothesis is that El Niño exists and plays a role in the Pacific Ocean as a means of removing heat from the equatorial regions of the ocean, where it would otherwise build up. An implication of this, if correct, is that further heat buildup from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would lead to increased magnitudes and/or frequency of El Niño events."
http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews/DrKevinTrenberth.html
*****"Lori The city the Norwegian side of my family lives in wasn't even inhabitable until about 150 years ago."
I strongly doubt that. Humans inhabit every corner of the globe, except Antarctica.*****
Clark you doubt a lot of things and being wrong is starting to become you.
**** Yes, and heaven forbid Socialism get anywhere near the US border... the place would actually have to begin caring about its citizens. Oh the horror of it all!*****
Lori The poor in our country are fat and lazy. They deserve no sympathy, except their children who weren't allowed to choose their parents.
You deserve no more of my time.
When a person as dim as Bush begins to understand that global warming is a problem, then the only ones who are still in denial are on drugs, psychiatrically disturbed, or employees of Exxon Mobil (and these categories often overlap).
Bush is the dimmest President in a century, and even he begins to understand that global warming is a problem. I did not cite him as an authority (unless it were cronyism or duplicity, of which he has few peers), I cited him as an illustration of how established the understanding of globakl warming has become.
Listen carefully, Jeff, this is where you get lost. If a poerson as dim as Bush understands this problem, how stupid must be the one's who still believe that it is a socialist plot?
Considering your comments about the folks with whom you disagree, and your statement (factually wrong, and astonishingly cruel -even by Republican standards) about the poor, it is impossible for you to insult someone. You have no place to stand.
Second I stand by my comparison of treating American poor like victims when there really is poverty in this world. Telling any American that they are a victim is irresponsible because it makes lazy people feel entitled to things without having to work for them. Its funny how dirt poor Mexicans can sneak in this country and work their way into buying their own homes and buying 40000 dollar trucks yet some American borns cant even hold a job I was always taught to be lucky I am an American and told that people in other countries could only dream to have what we did. Poor people need to be reminded of the same thing..
The socialist plot is simple. Tax corporation tax gas tax workers bla bla bla. Government control. Anything that CAN be used against free market corporations WILL be used against corporations. The main reason why we are so addicted to oil in the first place is because its so cheap and easy to produce that government is extorting 40% of every dollar pumped into your vehicle. You think they could take the hit if that was gone tomorrow? Wise up peter.
so i really dont wdf you are talking about jeff.Reducing yourself to throwing around names is a infantile thing dont you think?
Surely, Jeff, you're not serious.
_____________
Then the King will say to those at His right, "'Come, my Father's blessed ones, receive your inheritance of the Kingdom which has been divinely intended for you ever since the creation of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when I was thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was homeless, you gave me a welcome;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 when I was ill-clad, you clothed me; when I was sick, you visited me; when I was in prison, you came to see me.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 "'When, Lord,' the righteous will reply, 'did we see Thee hungry, and feed Thee; or thirsty, and give Thee drink?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 When did we see Thee homeless, and give Thee a welcome? or ill-clad, and clothe Thee?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 When did we see Thee sick or in prison, and come to see Thee?'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 "But the King will answer them, "'In solemn truth I tell you that in so far as you rendered such services to one of the humblest of these my brethren, you rendered them to myself.'
And, even the Dunce in Chief accepts this now. That is why his dim and belated recognition is so important. He now admits that human activity contributes to global warming.
The argument is whether or not those who persist in denying human agency in global warming are desperately seeking refuge in claims of a socialist plot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
Like everything else the environment has been politicized by the left.... Nuf said.
I still look forward to "corporate welfare reform." I mean that's where the really big bucks are. Democrats are talking about "rolling back" some of the subsidies to the oil companies. Now I wouldn't necessarily say that those executive packages that the oil company executives get make them lazy so much as narcissistic - or do you think that vices are just a characteristic of the poor?
We're back to the deep deniers who have only the fears of socialism (!) to fall back on.
I hope you got a lot of Gather points !
Scientists blame sun for global warming
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
I've known quite a few corporate exectives, who fit that description. But one example I think most everyone is familiar with is Enron. I know, also, of a very reliable source, who says that Arthur Andersen was destroyed to keep the truth about that situation from coming out.
Lori: "I think a couple of you folks need to get out from under the American propaganda machine. It is obvious the school system has done its job. You have gross misconceptions about socialism."
I don't know alot about socialism. But my overwhelming impression is that there's not a hair's breadth of difference between communism and corporatism.
"There just hasn't been enough research/evidence to support the global warming theory yet. I am not sure I believe it."
If you happen to visit this thread again, please read two articles. The first relates to "solar forcing," to which Jeff refers above. The second relates to Exxon's PR campaign to confuse the status of the science on global warming in the public mind. Your thinking exactly the way Exxon wants you to think. Actually, the science is pretty clear, though a diminishing number of skeptics remain.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Check out who is currently the richest man in the world.
And for the record, I am not from Scandinavia. I am from the US. I moved to Sweden a little over a year ago.
Steve you are doing exactly what the people who politicize the environment want you to do. Blame everybody that questions the liberal view of what causing global warming as being pawns of big oil and corporations. To deny that the exclusive heat source on earth is the sun and to deny that the sun's energy output fluctuates is asinine. I believe in energy conservation and alternative energy sources. But I wont support the doom and gloom loons that USE doomsday scenarios for political gain and for the purpose of getting support to raise taxes and grow government.
Amy is right. All theories are just that...THEORIES. More research needs to be done for us to completely understand the environment. Steve if you just pick one theory and damn all others because an article tells you that big oil is trying to confuse you, that means you are being close minded and are not part of any real solution. We don't know why there have been heating periods AND ice ages long before man could have had any influence on them at all and now we hear that this time its humans. Listen to yourself.
The truth is, the people of Scandinavia has just as much discretionary income (on average) as people in the US. They choose to use it differently. They aren't all about the flash and putting on airs. They think that is rather sillly... and so do I.
Now that you have no doubt done your research and found Ingy, go look up the countries with happiest people. the list came out last fall.
Just saw that.. made me smile.
And yes, we pay more in taxes, but in exchange for that we haven't got all the bullshit to deal with when it comes to medical care. Let me tell ya something. I am not a pauper. I have quite a good eductaion level. I was not one of you fat poor slobs. I could not get insuirance because of a history of cancer. Turned down even by the high risk big-buck premium companies.
Because of that, I could not see a doctor for anything other than an emergency. Life or death. They just refused to deal with anyone who is not insured. I gladly pay the higher taxes here. It means that I get medical care when I need it.
Not only that, but better medical care. The doctors here are in it to help because money is not an issue. In the US, when I did have insurance they were constantly pushing me (or trying too) into tests which had nothing to do with the symptons simply to pad the bills. I took Chippenham hospital to court over it and won after my appendicitis.
So yes. We pay higher taxes. We do not have several hundred dollars per month going to insurance companies though.
It all comes out in the ned.
If the shoe fits, Jeff.... Perhaps you can explain why Exxon leaned on Bush to reverse his 2000 campaign pledge to regulate CO2 emissions. And perhaps you can explain why Exxon leaned again on the Bush administration to insist on the IPCC replacing its director of research just after Bush took office. Who's playing politics? Poor oil industry - so innocent and victimized!!! Give me a break!
Jeff: "To deny that the exclusive heat source on earth is the sun and to deny that the sun's energy output fluctuates is asinine."
Do you ever read anything I link to? No one denies this. It just doesn't account for the observed warming.
Jeff: "But I wont support the doom and gloom loons that USE doomsday scenarios for political gain and for the purpose of getting support to raise taxes and grow government."
Talking points, talking points, talking points.... "raise taxes and grow government - who's playing politics?" Thank you for stating what your real agenda is here.
Jeff: "Amy is right. All theories are just that...THEORIES."
Some "theories" are actually supported by evidence. There is not one reputable SCIENTIFIC organization that seriously doubts the role of human activity in global warming. Even the article you quote above does not argue with that - yet you do. Why? Oh yeah, it's about "raising taxes and growing government."
Jeff: "More research needs to be done for us to completely understand the environment."
Scientists state that enough is know now to take action. Even so, how much research, in your opinion, would have to be done in order to "completely understand the environment?" Why look for evidence at all if theories are just theories?
Jeff: "Steve if you just pick one theory and damn all others because an article tells you that big oil is trying to confuse you, that means you are being close minded and are not part of any real solution."
No, you just keep bringing up "theories" that have been ruled out. And no matter how many times someone tells you, and offers you information to that effect, you keep bringing it up anyway - why? Oh, yeah, it's about "raising taxes and growing government."
Jeff: "We don't know why there have been heating periods AND ice ages long before man could have had any influence on them at all and now we hear that this time its humans. Listen to yourself."
Science, Jeff, science. I listen to what the scientists say. Even the article you posted above does not argue against reducing greenhouse gases. Why do you insist enough is not known?
Then your opinion is, at best, uninformed. There are reliable records of temperature, CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere dating back 650,000 years. That is not opinion. It is scientific evidence from ice cores. This is not a scientifically controversial point. BTW, over that 650,000 years, there is a nearly 1:1:1 correlation between temperature, CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere. That is not opinion.
unplug your ears and stop saying lalalala and you will find that there are plenty of scientists that don't conform to the new political trend of global warming. Yeah they get accused of lying and don't get funding for any research to prove their point and are called pawns of big oil by the radicals. But who cares. I ask you when has the scientific establishment declared that they proved global warming is caused by CO2? They haven't they tell of doom and gloom and claim they need more funding to prove it. Wise up.
Im done here we can agree to disagree....
My faith is in scientists. Nice try, though. I love how you ideologues try to misconstrue the views of those, who disagree with you. That's called "strawman," and it is an informal logical fallacy - or have you never heard of logic - I mean real logic - academic logic.
Jeff: "I couldn't convince you otherwise anymore than I could convince you that there is no God."
It doesn't matter to me if you're an atheist. Our respective religious beliefs are not being debated here. I would never debate that.
Jeff: "Im done here we can agree to disagree...."
Yes. You're done, alright.
Susan. Thanks for the comic relief. I needed that!
Nathaniel enjoy your points. You re welcome.
Future generations will look at people like Jeff for what they truely are, self-serving, self-involved ignorant people.
Sure hope you dont have any kids.
I wouldn't waste my time.
Jeff: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/
Jeff: "Steve when you can tell me what caused the warming and cooling periods of the past, then I can take you seriously."
It doesn't matter, Jeff. I've responded to your talking points ad nauseam. You don't read, or you don't comprehend my responses.
Christine: "Unfortunately by this time it will be far too late, if it is not already, to do anything about it."
Fortunately, Jeff is not in a policy making position.
Fortunately, politicians of both parties, industry and religious leaders are all beginning to take global warming seriously. I look forward to the policy changes. What those policy changes should be IS a worth debate!