I believe the problem is this. Most of Alaska's residents are right wing cons and as we all know they're the ones who blow off the most hot air. Maybe we should send some liberal Califorians up there to restore the balance.

I lived in Alaska from 76 til 78. Beautiful place.

The Egyptians and the Mayans both new of the earth 25 thousand year cycle;( how they knew i have no idea) the Magnetic North pole is racing to the west at 30-40 miles a year for the last 10 years; the earth is shifting on it's axis, in regard to the Sun, it is a Normal occurrence which occurs about every 25 thousand years; all part of a planet shift which has occurred for millions of years, just get use to different weather patterns, no big deal !

To be honest, it really hasn't been THAT frigid here in the Midwest. I remember years when we had temperatures at -30 F and wind chills from -60 to -80 F and I haven't see that in probably 15 years or so.

About the coldest it has gotten was 1 night at -20 degrees F and a windchill warning the other day for -25 degrees F, which is unseasonably warm here...

Unregistered User

Break out the Prozac - the planet's got Bi-Polar Disorder! HAAAAAAA.....I kill me.

lmao :)

Al Gore blowing all that global warming hot air I suppose.

Climate change, what climate change?

Maybe we need to start putting the oil back in the ground. It appears that the planetary bearings are seeing a bit too much friction and heatin' up! ~_o

Good call, saxon.

IMWHITEWOLF: Who are these "right wing cons" you speak of, or are you painting everybody with the Palin brush? Generalizations are as bad as political correctedness, and both reflect a person's ignorance and inability to think for oneself. Recycle, conserve, and bear in mind there are such things as fluctuations in Earth's cycles.

I wonder how many Greenpeacers actually know the accurate definition of "Global Warming"? One of them must have heard it somewhere (maybe dim recollections from a high school geology course?).

A pity he or she didn’t bother to research it first. We are, it seems, in a melt period of the current Ice Age. It’s worth checking that out. It started a few thousand millennia before automobiles and other fossil fuel-driven vehicles. Unless you count the ... er ... “natural” emissions from earlier types of transport like the excretions from horses, mules, donkeys et al.

"Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age..." Anyone who wants to know what Global Warming really is might check this site out, called "Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It's about time the silliness of "fossil fuels" and electric cars (with fossil fuels, btw, being the primary way to create electricity) gets filed where they belong ... under "Nonsense."

I love how that article, referrenced only a small time frame, relative to the age of the Earth and fails to mention what kind of impacts releasing even a portion of the trapped methane on this planet(located in areas of the ocean, and the Russian permafrost), which is very possible given the global temprature increases. For those of you who don't know, methane is a greenhouse gas many, many, many times more effective than CO2. Anyways, Global Warming is a naturally occuring phenomenon that occurs on a tens of millions of years time scale, we are not talking about global warming per se, we are talking about man induced climate change, and how we may be accelerating the global warming phenomenon. I have referrenced this before, and I will referrence this again, since we have companies trying to drill the oil under the Arctic ocean, look up the "Azolla Event" and once you have done that, think about the kind of impact it would have on our climate, and on Global Warming if we were to start releasing all of that sequestered carbon.

There are those that will deny the climate change is caused by man so when they don't like the report of environmental scientist, they'll hire their own to put out a report to "debunk" it. Even if all the ice melts on both poles and freezes the equator, they would still argue that the pattern is normal.

Saxon,

The pattern that you are talking about is a gradual pattern that occurs over the course of 25,000 years. It has nothing at all to do with the recent trend in which the Arctic is warming by several degress each decade. This is common sense. It is a gradual pattern. If the earth warms in the Arctic 1 degree every 10 years for 25,000 years, pull out your calculator and explain to me how there would be any life on earth at all. In fact, the Arctic is warming more like 2-3 degrees every decade. Your point may sound informed and intelligent and authoritative but it is neither informed nor intelligent. Generally, people who don't want to believe in facts latch onto any hare-brained explanation that keeps them comfortable. We're going to be cooking over the next 100 years because we are warming the earth and its melting the tundra and allowing bugs that kill massive amounts of trees to thrive. This is releasing massive amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere and killing our forests that trap carbon dioxide. These are natural processes but they are clearly facilitated by the behavior of man. Face facts.

Global Warming was invented to throw people off of real issues like Pollution. I remember pollution being in the news constantly (before they started thinking interviewing politicians was news), and when my son was in Elementary school in the early 90's - him coming home with information on how to sustain our planet, but what was once a huge issue - now gets an occasional whimper in the news.

Recycling should be mandatory!

When you look at everything as a whole - instead of chopping everything up in order to justify questionable procedures - then it isn't hard at all to see some drastic changes coming - we were told by Native tribes all around the planet - to live in balance with earth - and we still think we can ignore or defeat nature.

Second Sight,

How about those natural nuclear detonations?

All good things right?

You people make me laugh.

When its really f'n cold you people talk about global warming the joke.

I mean really, how can it be cold and have global warming.....

Its like im surrounded by idiots.

So who knows what happens when our atmosphere becomes unstable?

Ask the people in the mid U.S., Australia, and Europe in the last 3 weeks.

I hope you skeptics enjoy the wild weather. And DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!

LOL.

Sheep.

Drainbramage,....

Are you kidding me?

Global Warming is the effect after years of pollution.

Tsunami, wild stream thunderstorms, 3 inch hail, category 6 hurricanes.

You idiots will reap what you support.

Cant say what you sow because you idiots only support your leaders. You arent the ones doing this to ourselves.

A volcano erupting can cause a mini ice age in the northern continents, and we do and allow countries to detonate nuclear weapons for testing.

Everyone knows that we all didnt carry a radiation signature before the 1950's? Right? Now, beyond living in this petri dish of an atmosphere, all of us are radioactive...

When someone talks to you and says drilling for oil in our pristine areas is a good idea for America's energy dependence....

Punch them in the face, bash them in the head with a stick, they are misleading you.

When we open our food supply to oil drilling the companies that drill the oil will sell it to the countries that pay the most.

You dipshnits that claim that drilling in Alaska will help our gas prices dont know anything about anything. You might as well wake up, turn on FOX, and get your brain for the day.

I cant believe that the elite thinks you people are really that stupid.

Or do we want to socialize energy?

LOL Idiots.

Never knew a Tsunami could be caused by global warming, thanks for the update (note the sarcasm). Not to mention I only thought it went up to a category 5 hurricane

Where is Al Gore when we need him to explain things? Oh yes, he's enjoying his 'beachfront' mansion in California.

On a more serious note, here was an interesting quote from the article;

"But the question of whether the Arctic warming translates into long-term weather changes over a wider area is "very cutting-edge stuff" and as yet unproven"

I seem to recall an article from about 50 years ago in a popular magazine (perhaps LIFE) that proposed that, as the ice melted near the North Pole, winds picked up much greater amounts of cold moisture and carried it South, thus precipitating the onset of the next Ice Age.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The concept of Reverse Arctic Oscillation is very interesting and certainly fits within the Global Warming models.

The Deniers out there will eventually learn to "weather the storm" of Global Warming's veracity.

Here is an interesting chart that seems to indicate that the current Solar Maximum (estimated by sunspot activity which causes solar flares) will be perhaps only HALF as strong as the previous Solar Maximum. Since the amount of sunshine we receive obviously affects the Earth's average temperatures, it raises the question of whether that's related to the current weather cycle. Here's the link;

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Conservatives are tragically hardwired not to easily accept change or new ideas.

I suspect that, only when Deniers on the Coasts, are posting from underwater, in the nest 100 years, that they will appreciate the science of Global Warming.

Brandon-801865 "The concept of Reverse Arctic Oscillation is very interesting"

I agree. It could explain a lot of things. I need to research this a little more - especially the likely effect on food supplies. Massive disruptions in grain production are already causing great concerns for possible food shortages this year, and the resulting political disruptions that are already in evidence.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

PS - The gratuitous slap at "Conservatives" was unnecessary.

Roy, Conservatives are at war with Science, which is a big deal.

Considering the potential repercussions of Conservative retreats into superstition and anti-Modern, Biblical magic, it is not untoward of anyone to stand up for the citizens of the world.

I am calling Conservatives out for their "ideological" crime against humanity...and you are lucky that I was comparatively diplomatic.

Man up.

kristiG "I am loving the warm weather here in Alaska right now"

And I'm loving it here in Costa Rica right now.

Brandon-801865

Stupidity isn't limited to a person's political philosophy. Terms like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' can have different connotations, depending on whether you're talking about fiscal & monetary policy, social policy, science, the arts, etc. A person can have a 'conservative' outlook on fiscal matters and have a 'liberal' policy on social issues.

When it comes to science, the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' can have different meanings to different people, and most scientists could be described as 'conservative' from a scientific perspective, since it takes a lot of evidence to change established scientific views.

Roy, that is ridiculous.

It is common knowledge that Republicons hate Science and do everything they can to undermine it....in the name of making as much money as possible.

Humanity is the last concern, when it comes to the Right-wing denial of science.

There is legion of information that substantiates, corroborates, and reiterates what I contend, including The Republican War Against Science (which is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg).

Yes, it is political and yes, it is partisan.

Any Joe the Plumber can understand that.

Brandon-801865 "Roy, that is ridiculous. It is common knowledge that Republicons hate Science"

Brandon, I enjoy debating with people who have an open mind, but not with dogmatic people.

I'll refrain from any discussions with you in the future.

PS - I'm not a Republican, and never voted for Bush, or McCain.

You might not be a Republican, but you certainly are an idiot, and presumptuous, since I am a Republican and do not hate science (capitalization not necessary.) I have accepted Global Warming as a fact, since all of the evidence points in that direction. What is debatable is whether it is a natural cycle or a man-made occurrence. Nevertheless, living as green as possible within our means could never be a bad thing, and it might actually help in the long run. This IS the only planet we have!

Look at how many bone heads are bringing politics into this... The ONLY thing politics has to do with this, and it applies to ALL bents, (Dem/Rep/Cons/Lib/Left/Right/Center), is to find yet another way to tax your a$$ for it. Climate change is a real, natural occurrence. Is man adding to it? The only thing man is doing is poisoning the environment enough to eradicate him as a species.

Lets see if the link deal works (Great explanation):

Link ->

Maybe link -> www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Copy/Paste -> youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Last resort copy/paste -> go to: youtube and add: /watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Orbust. How does polar oscilation make any sense at all? Polar oscillation is a 25,000 year cycle. The change in temperature of the earth has only accelarated over the last 100 years. The Greenhouse Effect is not my personal theory. Its commonly accepted as the primary cause of global warming. The issue for most people isn't whether global warming is occurring. The argument is largely whether the warming that is clearly documented is the result of our way of life (anthropogenic) or whether its a natural process. And the huge changes in the temperature of the Arctic are a very recent phenomena which can't possible be linked to a 25,000 year cycle. Please, don't tell me that sunspots are to blame.

The science of ecology reports, that the Earth's natural ecosystems, the very natural surface of the Earth, that which seeded all life and maintains it right today, inherently regulate and moderate the climate as an ecosystem's, vital, free service.

What rests on the surface of the Earth impacts the climate. As modern man is in the business of concreting, bulldozing, chain sawing, plowing and entombing the natural surface of the Earth or ecosystems, is it any wonder, modern man is scrambling the very dynamics of life itself on the Earth?

Absolutely, unfortunately most won't understand your point.

we use to sit in front of the refrige when mom defrosted it on hot summer days..after that ice was all melted out of it it was hot....oh well

What a great comment, you get 1st prize! LOL,LOLand more LOL.

Roger that, good one :)

And the last part put the image of Jeff Dunham's "Achmed the terrorist" in my head and now I can't get it out LOL "I kill you"

Bi-Polar is good....let's hope the Mother Earth doesn't go manic depressive...Oh, wait..isn't that Australia just now???

from old Valerie Bertanelli sitcom, "I kill you two times."

All of the hot air by the global warming crowd in the eastern US is heading north, displacing the cold weather there and forcing it down over them. LOL

ISIS... one and the same. Bi-Polar is just another term for the antiquated Manic-Depressive.

Ah don't feel too bad. We here in NJ had one of the most beautiful, warm, and sunny summers I think I have ever seen. I'll take a Winter like this every year if we can have a summer like the prior one every year.

I like it, due to the constant shivering and shoveling I'm in the best shape that I've been in for about 10 yrs.

The ice is about the same this year (Red Line) as last year (orange Line) http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Also compare what is in the article with this site. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=01&fy=1979&sm=02&sd=01&sy=2011

Hmm - we are only left to wonder who is telling the whole truth.

Are you arguing for or against climate change theories? Your sea ice graph shows a steady decline in sea ice over the 9 year period (note that all of the recent years are below the first years).

Your second one is easy. Those pictures compare sea ice in February when temps are at or close to their seasonal minima. Put in dates earlier in the winter and then compare. You'll see a difference. The water is still freezing but the amount of time that it stays frozen is decreasing. Eventually it won't freeze at all.

Do you have any other nifty charts to show us?

The article says that the chanel just closed today and ice is less than every - basically. This is two sources the show otherwise. Follow the 10 year chart and the low point was 2007 and has been above that every year since.

The argument is that we have warmed more every year - the ice does not necessarily agree. So the shift in the last 5 years has to been - well, we are less than x number of years ago. Yes we are, but the trends are in a stall and if you follow these links the ice overall has increased.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

What we have is one group saying one thing and another saying something else. Both have Proof - but right now I'm finding more proof to the opposite in the recent terms that show the trend may be reversing.

Even comparing the color chart to the other northern hemisphere chart the color one shows the ice more consistent than the black and white version which shows less ice than the color one for several months this year - otherwise they are about the same in the last 10 years.

I would love find out how the author chose the source, and why not several sources to write an article. To me, this article is one sided if it is using a favorite or a source simply to make the point.

@DB Acron... looking at the Daily Sea Ice comparison site you linked. I'm not sure of your point.

It clearly shows the Sea Ice Concentration is now lower and coveres a smaller area. The Drark Purple purple and Red in the images is higher dencity of Sea Ice.

In the case of these images, White does not mean Snow and Ice.

DB Akron...your analysis is flawed... sea ice anomaly trend has been reduction (just because there was a 2007 minimum doesn't change that overall trend).

Your best investment is to give up your last life savings to the Technocrats to 'study the scientific (sic) issues' which welfare tax dole climate scientists are so good at, while American livelihoods for those unfortunates not Chosen of Mil.Gov spiral into 60-hour week 'independent contractors' as the Al-Gore'ian Climatollahs prepare their American Power Act of 2011 with its hidden National Climate Tithe-Tax, that will suck the last blip out of the 'overall trend' towards the Rest of US fast becoming Usury Serfs of America, while Technocrats will deny any complicity in crashing the train, right up until their can retire on their life-time pension, then fahged abahd et in their foreign panceons playing dress-up before the happy hour at Club Fed's mimosa bar, let's add, EXPATRIATE Technocrats no longer paying US income or climate taxes.

"I feel for the poor folks in the North East." - Don't feel sorry for us, feel sorry for yourself. I've lived all over the United States, including Southern California. After trying out life in other parts, I came to the conclusion that New England is the best place in the USA to live. The people here are the best. The cold keeps the lazy out. I love it here.

The cold keeps the lazy out.

Copy that.

It hasn't missed you Nutz. That's not normal weather for So Cal this time of year.

The more persuasive source I found was "Global Warming: A Chilling Prospect."

Check http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

I agree that more than one source should be used, not just the "sea ice" links.

The link above is poorly cited and what is cited is mostly 10-15 years old.

SoonerBorn... guess you don't know how to use source links, footnotes, and glossaries.

Global warming deniers seem to have a few things in common. Global warming is a hoax designed by Al Gore or its a hoax because Al Gore flies around a lot and drives in a SUV and lives in a big house. There's some hard science. Or global warming is a hoax because the earth was warmer 40 million years ago before man was around so, ipso facto, global warming can't be caused by man. Or global warming is a hoax because the poles shift, or because sea ice isn't melting at a consistent pace, or because the axis of the earth is tilting in a 25,000 year cycle, or because its's been really cold this week. Make a long story short. People who want to believe something will find any reason to believe it to be true. If you give those people a 100 reasons supporting a point, they'll pick the 1 point that is disputable and think that tears down the argument.

There are a few things that are beyond dispute by any reputable scientist. The sun provides energy to the earth. In order for the earth to not cook, heat from the sun needs to be released from our atmosphere into space. The Greenhouse Effect 'asserts' that carbon dioxide, methane and a number of other gases can result in trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. I don't know of any scientist who disputes these points. For all the criticism of Al Gore, the scientist who piqued his interest in global warming made an important discovery, and whether you like the messenger or not, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere. And the rate at which it is increasing can not be attributed to oscillation or the long term phenomena that global warming skeptics cling to as proof. This change in carbon dioxide is recent and it is not increasing at a steady rate as one would expect from a naturally ocurring phenomena. Consider this. The sequestered (stored) energy that we have released over the last 50 years probably reflects carbon that took millions of years to produce. This is clearly an anthropogenic (man made)process. You might want to argue that the melting of the tundra is probably a more significant greenhouse contributor, but the tundra would not be melting as it is if not for our burning of fossil fuels. This is why even the coal industry knows that coal will only fly if the carbon can be sequestered. We will be history if the world burns all its coal. This is serious business. This will not end well if we don't get smart.

We pay good money for our nice weather in L.A.

That freak December rainstorm in So. Cal lasted for days and drowned some main streets in Bakersfield as well as caused enough damage in other towns that it qualified as a disaster. You people from So. Cal have short memories.

In Bakersfield it even rained through January. It rained last week! In between the rain, we have had sunny days and 8 to 12 degrees colder at night, so the warm wet ploughed fields give off heat and humidity all night and the result has been deep pea soup fog for the last part of January from 9pm to 10am. Its hell driving through a rural area in that. You try to go to the main roads where there are traffic lights that other people will hopefully stop at.

Anyway this much rain has been a record in Bako I'm sure. We are supposed to get a good yearly rain in April, but with the weather this crazy it may just be a drought... Or a flood. Who knows anymore.

Oh, also, global warming is a trend. You know what a trend line looks like on a graph, you've seen them on stockmarket graphs on tv. They are jagged and fluxuate up and down, but have a general *trend* either up or down. Just because the temp jagged down for you this year doesn't mean it won't go up next time.

you pay good money for good weather and SMOG! YUK!

Call Roland Emmerich. He needs to make The Day After The Day After Tomorrow.

The earth is slowly turning on it's axis

Yep. Every 24 hours... Or 23 point blah, blah, blah in sidereal time, if you really want to get picky about it.

Will Sarah Palin be able to look out her kitchen window and see Africa then ?

France will be Alaska? Oh, my God, what will become of the vineyards?

Ice wine

eskimo pie alamode..

Yeah, it is a lot more fun to come up with witty remarks than to learn the difference between weather and climate.

I think the prudent thing to do is play it safe, and try to minimize any greenhouse gas production, but that's just me.

We can try but when Mother Nature releases all that methane in the Pacific Ocean our greenhouse gas problem will be a grain of sand on the beach.

Not to mention the droughts in the Amazon causing so much CO2 to be released. I think we just passed the tipping point.

Doesn't cutting down the rain forrests have a lot to do with that? Just curious.

Don't forget the estimated 400 billion metric tons of methane trapped in clathrates off the North Carolina coast. If the oceanic temps and water pressure change ever so slightly at depth, we could really cook the this lovely little spheroid.

I think so. But the shifting winds off the coast of Africa that used to bring the rain are the major culprit.

OLD SCHOOLER:

I'm sorry but Al Gore, and especially his movie, deserve to be mocked. Those who gave him a nobel peace prize should be mocked, any scientist who promoted the movie should be mocked, and any scientist who partook in the psuedo-science of the movie should be mocked. It was that bad and that un-scientific.

To be honest, I didn't even see the movie. Al Gore is not a scientist and I personally think that he's an idiot (at least in areas of state). But that doesn't mean that he's wrong.

Al Gore is an environmentalist that lives in a mansion. HELLO!!! Oil/water, honest/politician...

Living in a mansion means nothing towards enviromentalism. What if geothermal heating and cooling is in place? What if solar and wind power provide electricity? What it the mansion was built with reclaimed resources?

You should have brought up all the jet flights instead.

I'll say it again. Al Gore may be an idiot (he may even be hypocritical), but that doesn't mean that climate change is invalid.

Yes, things change, all natural phenomenon are chaotic, even 17-year locusts. You might try wagering in Las Vegas on the permutations of the jet stream and see how fast you lose your money. That has absolutely ZERO bearing on the Climatollah's Carbon.Con by Al-Gore'ian American Taliban, 'You Are All Guilty of CO2, Now Give Us Your Money, Or You Are All Going To He//!' ...is essentially their message. And Kerry (Kohn)-Lieberman are 'fixin' to get happy wid' a National Climate Tithe-Tax sucking ~$100 a month out of every American's wallet, direct pipelined to WA DC, after Kerry explicitly REMOVED any reference to tax funding for reforestation, environmental remediation, 'green' tech, national electric backbone, tele-commuting infrastructure,...it will all go 100% to Mil.Gov to underwrite their Pension Fund, and provide 'tax credits' to Wall Street's Chosen of G-d to speculate in commodities and energy derivatives, pushing both food and energy out of reach of the Average Joe American, and starving I'd guess 10,000,000 3rd-worlders every year who live as peons in malarial resources / oil colonial outposts around the world, that are sadly tied to the US$ as usury-slaves to IMF. I've seen kids living on bugs and pond weeds, ...so the Techno-mullahs can have their Carbon Pensions intact. Y2K.Con, WMD.Con, Credit.Con, Carbon.Con, ...same-same allatime li-da: Mil.Gov

Don't talk to about people and their Hummers...

Let's all be like Al.

From the Pittsburg Post Gazette...

Former Vice President Al Gore and his entourage arrived at Constitutional Hall in Washington, D.C., July 17 for his speech on global warming in a caravan consisting of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevrolet Suburban -- not the most fuel efficient vehicles Detroit ever made. "The driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left," noted Mark Block of Americans for Prosperity.

Sunday, July 27, 2008
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Yeah Al Gore may be right, or wrong, but he's certainly a hypocrite. The greenies should hang him, rather than laud him.

What a self righteous sack of crap. I mean really...I am a vegetarian, I don't go hunting...duh. I am huge believer in green technology, not so much for global warming, but for sustainability. Al Gore made a mockery of the entire green movement in my opinion.

Wow links are not posting well at all. Newsvine mods?

Doubt it.

Al Gore did for the green movement/global warming what Secretariat and Zenyatta did for horse racing.

How's that? By wasting more energy in a month that the average American uses in a year? By making a mockery out of whole deal with his hypocrisy? Really, Al Gore is to environmentalism as Rush Limbaugh is to the war on drugs.

As and ex-Vice President who gets lots of hate and discontent, I would travel (especially with my family) in a bullet proof SUV too. And if I was part of his security detail stationed in the car, I would have the AC running while I waited.

Just because he has a serious message about developing sustainable energy and more earh friendly living as a trend we must follow, does not me he will travel in a Chevy Vega and live in a tent...

Well actually Shawn, what has happened is that Mother Nature has been drugged and is acting totally out of character. What we are seeing is an out of control mother Nature.

And WE drugged her.

Willful ignorance. People don't like the message so they discredit the messengers; what do those scientists know, they're only the best and brightest people our education system produces and they've only spent their lives learning about climate. But no, you know it can't be true because Faux News said it wasn't. It's hard to believe how many people are choosing ignorance over reason by believing those telling them what they want to hear while the reality of the situation is crashing down around them. What a mess we are leaving future generations, a legacy of ignorance and greed.

I was with you Jay up until the Faux News comment. You are just as bad as those "Faux News" people just from the other end of the spectrum.

Mother Nature's natural progression cycle is being speedup up by us. I wonder how many years we shaved off the normal time frame for the next ice age. I'm guessing... more then we think.

Approximately 97.5% of climate scientists agree that there is indisputable evidence for manmade climate change. I'd call that scientific agreement.

Tod, who then is funding all the groups that say GW is a myth?

We have one side funding for regulations to our emissions and we have another side funding less regulations on our emissions.

It all comes down to what side you want to be on.

I am for less emissions. Not because of GW or climate change, but for a better life. Cleaner air and water is never a bad thing. People all the time state how we are saddling our youth with debt, but never a mention about leaving them dirty air or polluted water.

"Approximately 97.5% of public welfare tax dole climate scientists agree that there is indisputable evidence for manmade climate change. I'd call that scientific agreement" that if the mullahs don't come up with a Carbon.Con National Tithe-Tax, and fast, they'll have to get a REAL job, one that doesn't come with a salary, full benefits and life pension for twittering all day in the Al-Gore'ian's Carbon Caliphate Masques, a quick 20 years and out, then expatriate, tax-free.

Hey, it's a soft-hands mullah gig, if you can get it!

NYMike

Tod, who then is funding all the groups that say GW is a myth?

The Koch brothers.

Herman C, not everything is political. If you keep burning carbon, it is stored in the atmosphere. Heat can't escape and it gets hotter on Planet Earth. And BTW, your point of view is off the wall.

Shawn, asteroids and comets are "natural" too and can wipe us out in a day as well but not much we can do about it if we don't look for them far enough out. Doing research to make future climate predictions makes the same kind of sense.

steve, you get the first explanation of the day...

weather and climate ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!

Forget it. Don't bother trying. Look at the Amazon and the Arctic. The methane deposits might be next, but I said it before, and I really believe it may be true, I think we've already passed the tipping point.

Steve-2541779 - you are kidding, right? The Arctic is warm and the US is freezing. This is exactly what we were told would happen. Get your head out of where ever you've put it and see the light!

Dennis,

Don't get pessimistically defeated... yet. As I understand it, the next key marker, before the submarine methane deposits come into play is the Arctic tundra. When that starts to melt and rot we're gonna see a huge spike in methane levels and this, as far as I've read, may drive things beyond the point of no return. There have been signs of overall softening of the tundra, i.e. Alaska's "drunken forests" and wierdly curving roads, but it hasn't rotted... yet.

GCC is it now, huh strider? Not GW? Those three letters discredit you and the group aka GWers.

Tod you obviously have no clue on the matter. Whether it's GCC or GW or another variation of the name or a slight difference in what happens as opposed to what was said would happen...you are missing the point. Go do some research or at least read half a book before you waste your time spewing your nonsense. Maybe your mouth is causing global warming.

I've been reading and commenting on this topic for a long time and I'm quite convinced that Global Warming and the resulting Climate Change is very real. Some of this does occur "naturally", but some things our species does also have an impact. To deny either seem foolhardy.

Part of the issue is the political spin associated with the topic and that works both ways. Al Gore did provide some new interest in the topic amongst the younger generation and that's a good thing. At the same time though he created an elevated level of denial for the simple reason of who he is. Let's face it, many deniers are in denial for mainly political reasons. That's sad. Most believers are believing because of the facts presented.

There is significant differences in left thinking minds and right thinking minds. We process information differently. If you believe in truisms, see things as black or white and see compromise and flip-flopping as weaknesses, you're probably a right thinker. If you see truth as a constantly varying condition, frequently re-analyze and rethink, seek compromise, sometimes change your mind and see silver linings in dark clouds, you're probably a left thinker. These are provable things that have been researched and discovered. Of course, some by their nature can only deny that research.

I wish that deniers could set aside their political beliefs and look at all this with an open mind. Maybe it's not all that bad an idea to error on the side of caution. That will not happen though except in a few cases where deniers were still somewhat uncertain. (Luckily, there are those who fall somewhere in the middle and aren't afraid of changing their minds when new information is presented.)

I very much would be happy to be wrong on this topic and would welcome new unbiased information. This article is actually a pretty good example that helps explain what we are seeing. Unfortunately, this is not one of those things that will bring some future satisfaction in being able to say, "I told you so!"

Steve, you are kidding, right? I take it from your post that you didn't even read the article. Another person who saw a headline and decided to put his ignorant two cents in. Let me let you in on something here: THE ARTICLE STATED THAT WARMER ARCTIC TEMPERATURES AND COLDER US REGIONAL TEMPERATURES MAY BE CONNECTED.

HOLY CRAP! I can't believe the idiocy of some people. No point saying anything else except Steve, you're an idiot. And you make a mockery of New Yorkers.

"Get your head out of where ever you've put it and see the light!"

I saw the light, oh Lordie I saw the light, no more sorrow, no more fight, I'm layin' down my troubles now that Al-Gore'ia is Right, ...praise the Lord, I saw the light!

Calvinist Climate Caliphate's lame 'In America's Fall, We Sinned All' is so predictable! Next we'll be scourging ourselves with willow whips, and holding our breath until we pass out in frenzied devotion to Gaia, so we don't 'change the climate' ...the climate of inexorable and egregious tithe-tax redistribution of wealth from workers to drones.

Odd how the most 'advanced society on earth', the self-proclaimed 'last best hope of mankind' is so easily befuddled by Twittering i-Narcissism into giving up their estates! Our forefathers fought barefoot in rags in winter against these same Royals in IPCC.

Scnizel smizzel, I have a masters in environmental science and a bachelors in earth science. I actually know of what I speak, you go do some research. I've done mine and found MMGW seriously wanting as many actual climate scientists (not climate lobbyists) have.

I have a masters in environmental science and a bachelors in earth science.

Big deal. I'm involved in a lot of construction dealing with environmental scientists and I've yet to be impressed with what any have had to offer in the real world..

Can't say I disagree, captain standout. My point is this debate is that GW isfueled by money and politics. It is not pure climate scientists who are behind the man made global warming hype, it is the fundraisers and lobbyists who are pushing congress to give them the money to do research. Climate research is not a money maker unless you can go to congress and convince them that we are all going to die if you don't give us milllions in research. The jury is still way out on whether or not man is causing any global warming.

Oh, I agree Professor Ted. It's all about money, but I think it's much more than the climate change lobbyists and their quest for funding in the name of climate change research. And just so you know, when I go head to head with the guys in the office who say "do it this way" and I tell them "it won't work" we always come to an equitable agreement and maybe I was a little harsh with the "I haven't been impressed yet" statement. It's all about teamwork. Someone comes up with a plan, someone figures out what needs to be changed and you get the job done. Some of my best friends are degreed/sp? engineers and PHD's in the fields I deal with.

Interstingly; I spent 15 years in construction (siding, framing and finsh work) before going back to school. I can tell you that some of the smartest people I ever worked with were in those 15 years, conversely some of the dumbest (no common sense) people I've known are "educated". Especially those with a liberal education (most teachers). Science educated folks are usually fairly bright, but some tend to be, shall we say, socially inept.

Thank you Ted, and you've reinforced my belief that just because you have a degree doesn't mean much if you aren't willing to work with the guys expected to implement the work. Right? I think we agree.

I would actually go a step further; The 1st 2 years of college (humanities gen. ed.) make you stupider. The 2nd 2 years, if they are in the liberal arts, complete the the 1st two stupid years by solidifying you in a mindset that has no basis of reality in the real world . Thankfully some realize the folly of their ivory tower professors and adapt to that real world. Those who can't, or won't adapt, get back into education so the next generation is as polluted with their unrealistic worldview as they are.

Sadly, our society has bought the idea that success means a ridiculous piece of paper, and we all have to play the game. Well, as you can probably tell, I beleive the King has no clothes.

Don't get pessimistically defeated...

When people keep spouting off that some entity called "Mother Nature" is in charge I just want to spit nails. There is no such woman, and we humans have been kicking up a storm here for decades. If you honestly believe that human beings cannot alter the climate of the planet then you simply are ignorant of the numbers. Human beings put more carbon into the atmosphere than all volcanic activity combined. Those who say otherwise are NOT looking at the numbers. They are spoutinc political talking points.

There is no Mother Nature throwing curve balls. It is a vastly complicated system and we have already had a great effect. We were COOLING the planet with our particulate pollution up until the 70's, hence the former calls of heading into an ice age, and now that we let all the sunlight in, but still pump carbon into the atmosphere to keep it in, we are warming up.

However since we will pass the tipping point long before the worst effects catch up to us, and because so many of the deeply religious right want to poke fun at liberal Al Gore, the political talking points have taken priority in this country, while most of the rest of the world is already trying to do something about it.

Oh, and there are plenty of stories from Siberia about the tundra melting. It started a while back and is accelerating, just like the loss of the Arctic ice, and Greenland's ice sheet. Also, the global conveyor has already slowed by over 10%. The results are there for anyone to see, except for us Americans.

Thank God we have Mother Nature guiding this planet to Paradise, or we would be in some serious trouble.

So... what did she do to Venus?

Seriously Dennis,

you are pulling that stuff out of your rearend. The only thing you said that has any scientific validity is "that it is a vastly complicated system".

MMGW is at best an hypothesis with (at present) very little documented evidence, and some documeted refutation. Is the globe warming? It appears so, and real science points to some possibilities, all natural. Politics and money are fueling the man made part of GW, nothing else.

If you want to point fingers at a threat to CO2 levels you need to go outside the U.S. to the worlds tropical rainforests (carbon sinks) and stop the deforestation.

you are pulling that stuff out of your rearend.

Seriously Tod, I probably read a bit more than you do. Since none of the above came out of my ass. Your comment and so many others remind me of the "world is flat" arguments in ancient times. That is why I think we aren't even going to try to avoid what is coming. Mother Nature is going to give Humanity a collective spanking. Of course, it's a rather slow spanking, taking a couple hundred years...

So all the times in the past, when man wasn't around, who was messing with her? Why do humans think they know everything when it comes to nature they know nothing.

oh sure.....like we've had a global warming on record before and noticed the disruptive behaviour??? Really?? Do you guys actually hear what you are saying?

So shawn,

What makes you so sure you know everything so that you can so conveniently dismiss the affect of the species' polluting behavior on the planet? Climate change has happened before and will happen again, so nothing humans do can possibly effect it in any meaningful way? or is it that it does not matter how human behavior effects the planet, because climate will eventually change anyway? Either way, that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in a while. It's like saying "forest fires have happened and will happen again, so why practice fire safety?"

Is Global Warming proven beyond a doubt? Of course not. But if there is even a chance we are poisoning our planet beyond the threshold of sustaining life as we know it, shouldn't we at least look into it? You and so many people like you want to bury your heads in the sand. Why are you so opposed to research into this issue? Why do you try to stifle discourse with your dismissive rants? Are you afraid you'll be proven wrong?

I see it like Shawn does. We have already heard the discourse for many years from people who for whatever reason want to freak out the public with stories of gloom and doom if we dont stop using fossil fuels and the such. Frankly look around you now and you'll see a rising in the amount of people who just dont buy it anymore.

steve, actually the number of deniers continues to dramatically DROP.

haha are you serious stspecialk? Really? ummm might want to double check that.

Saddened, I'm a very realistic person who at 61 knows that nature can not be predicted. Yes there is GW but it's something that has happened many times and to assume that humans are the problem is insane. True, we need to clean our house but we can't control nature. Remember, Nature has burned oil, gas, coal and trees long before man arrived and she still does it today.

Shawn, we really should do what Al tells us. We should not question scientists or anyone that supports global warming. They're smarter than we are. It doesn't matter if someone goes through their emails and finds something that looks suspicious. All of that was whitewashed and we should just get ready to pay these people so they can make the weather right again. It's way too complicated for us to understand, so trust them and the government. They are here to help you.

Ben, LOL!

Ben,

1. the scientists ARE smarter than you.

2. question, but question with facts

3. your suggestion?

Steve, Shawn,

We practiced "the law of infinate dilution" for years. Just look at the pollution of our rivers (fish die), lakes and the ocean. Pollution of our atmosphere by burning coal, gasoline, trees does infact put CO2 into the air. Most dissolves out into the ocean changing the pH of the ocean. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html

Don't forget DDT. Shawn might remember DDT. We did that. All you have to do is look at how thin our atmosphere really is against our planet, and understand, really understand how many people there are on this world. We do make a difference. We have seen it. On 9-12, the day after 9-11, all the planes in the world were grounded, and the skies cleared, and the affect of those planes exhaust was measured. Fact, not fiction. They call it Global Dimming, and it's one of the factors SLOWING global warming. See, it cuts both ways. The point is, we do make a difference, the world is not as big as you think it is, and there is nothing in nature that promises to maintain a world WE can live in.

snailguy, Mother Nature has done the same long before man. Now, our pollution is clean compared to what I grew up in in the 50's and 60's. We have cleaned up a lot. I remember looking at Baltimore and not being able to see it, the creeks were brown and the DDT was everywhere. We looked like China! Nature, with a storm, wiped out 2 million trees in the Amazon and that's a lot of CO2. Get real nature will do what it does best: the planet!

Shawn

I lived in LA during the 50s & 60s. You could not see the end of the block because of smog. Thanks to the EPA (and added cost to gas), I can breath and see across the basin and the mountains. That was "Mother Nature's" cleaning?

Yes we should trust the scientists that say eggs are bad for you and then say they are good for you. They say coffee is bad for you . . . oh wait it is good for you. Drugs that FDA approved are pulled because they find they are harmful. I don't doubt that we are contributing to climate change. The thing is none of us are going to significantly change our lifestyles. With more people around the world wanting more things that cause more pollution it will only get worse. Maybe it's time to start writing articles about how to survive when it all goes black.

In the Middle Ages the Chosen of G-d believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and that was the 'Science of the Day'. Anyone found 'denying' that Given Wisdom had all their books destroyed, and were publicly pilloried, then gibbeted or burnt at the stake.

Guess these new Global Carbon Caliphate Climatollahs will have to modify that practice, ...now unrepentant Climate Deniers will have their Nooks and Kindles force-ably recycled, then be i-pilloried on FaceBook, before being sunburnt at the stake. Ouch!

Global warming causes normal weather patterns to be disruptive. You can't predict Mother Nature; however, we as a polluting people can certainly mess with her and this is what we get.

You global warmers are ridiculous...give it up already.

Sarcasm works.

stspecialk - let's keep debate open. Nobody is all knowing. This is good.

Snailguy - "the solution to polution is dilution" more sarcasm, but that's been our policy for years. We all want clean water.

Dennis-816242 - DDT was overused and abused. It also wiped out to a large extent malaria, and a few other problems. I'm not saying it was perfect, obviously far from it, but perhaps modified it could be beneficial. Malaria is still killing millions. Survivors are affected horribly for life. But we are killing the oceans. Keep this up and we all die. Plastic water bottles would be a good thing to do away with at this point.

We all want to live here and have clean water and clean air. We've gone through our industrial revolution and to a large extent cleaned up our act in spite of the EPA and their policies. Others are going through their industrial revolution and they are polluting like there's no tomorrow. There's a floating plastic trash dump twice the size of the US in the pacific (and growing), and we're fussing about how much we should pay Al Gore. Let's concentrate on what we agree on.

For the record, I've converted my fleet of vehicles to run on Waste Vegetable Oil which I get for free from the bar. It's a waste oil which is carbon neutral, burns very clean and makes my engine last 3 times as long. What does Al burn in his car? We need to start at the bottom. Ignore what the government wants us to do because they're bought and paid for. We need to do this ourselves.

What are you doing?

"Patterns" are merely a human attempt to make sense of the chaos known as "weather". Having patterns be disrupted is normal, or chaos as usual. It is evidence of nothing more than nature it self.

Global Warming is about "MONEY"

It is a LIE!

that is a FACT

you have the right to be a sheep and believe GW is true. but others have the same right to not believe. SUV's are evil to right? What about when we enter the next cooling phase? I can't wait till scientist tell us we all must drive SUV's to save the planet.

REMEMBER: "Global cooling" was going to kill us all in the 70's - 80's
then "Global warming" was, then the models all failed. So now it's "Climate change" a catch all, brilliant. its colder than ever, record freeze hits, etc etc oh we cant explain that with "warming" so its unpredictable "change" . All a bunch of BS. Look at the temperature charts for the last 2 million years. we are close to the max temp of a cycle. very soon temps could drop toward an ICE age. Human activity may be the only thing holding temps stable. Scientist don't know.

Lets use hockey puck chart logic: Based on last years Temperature data from February (40 degrees) to August (90 degrees), temps should be what about 140 degrees now in February 2011! OMG doom and Gloom! oh wait its 30 degrees??? hmmm....

Climate change is real, its winter, soon it will be spring then summer then fall then winter.... seeing a pattern yet?

Nothing wrong with saving the planet if it saves you money, why does going green cost so much? you know overseas a city might enact recycling programs and they sell that and it reduces the citizens tax burden, one city by 20%, but here we enact a recycling program and they raise the cost of garbage pickup. Its about scaring people so they can charge you more and you not freak out about it.

Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for extorting money from people who wanted information about global warming, which should of been FREE. But, you know its not about helping people or saving the planet, its about making MONEY!

Look, there have been five major ice ages in this planet's past. In between those the temperature very slowly rises to a peak and then slowly drops back toward the next ice age. This happens over a period of thousands of years. The last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago.

It is currently predicted that the next ice age will begin around 50,000 years from now. That is by previous ice age data. So we have a bit farther up in temperature to go and you won't be here when it starts to trend back down.

This is a general trend and Geologists and other scientists have studied this effect extensively in polar ice cores and the sedimentary rock strata record, even petrified tree rings, though the warming is happening a bit faster right now as effected by technology, animal husbandry and the use of fossil foods. Also the change in temperature in reality looks like a jagged trend line, trending up or down with a lot of jags in it, not a smooth curve. You are not going to find us going smoothly into warmer temps. That is not the way of reality.

What does converting to green energy do? It makes the air clearer to breathe and the fresh water fresher, which is a good thing in and of itself. We should be doing that anyway. Slowing the warming effect helps the animals adapt so that they don't mass die off because of the suddenly different climate. Reefs will mass die if the temperature changes too swiftly. Not that drag net fishing isn't ripping them up fast enough.

Really? They predicted 3 inches of snow here in southern Kentucky yesterday... all we got was rain. What makes you think they can predict something 50k years in the future, when they get it wrong in just a day? hmm?

And we still have bigger things to worry about. For starters;

• Why is magnetic north shifting 40 miles towards Russia each year, and increasing?
• How do we clean up the floating plastic trash dump that is now twice the size of the continental U.S. in the middle of the pacific?
• Anybody seen the beach on the West side of Africa lately (I hope it doesn't all look like Liberia)?
• Is the solution to overpopulation really AIDS and starvation, because that's where we're headed?
• Tesla vs. Edison. Was Tesla right?

Is Al Gore & Co.'s retirement really our biggest problem as a planet?

Excellent Ben, but I wouldn't expect any answers very soon.

"Is Al Gore & Co.'s retirement really our biggest problem as a planet"

Good one Ben.

Kanderson,

I agree with you about natural trends (though I think your ice age #'s are a bit off, maybe you are speaking of major ice ages). I am not so optimistic about Green technology however, It's too political. If it were privately run with no govt. I might be more on board. But as long as our govt. keeps subsidizing ridiculous ideas like Bio fuels I don't trust it. If business is legislated its not gonna be efficient, period.

So you just don't like Government. Anything the Government says is lies and we need to get rid of government, right?

That makes you a communist.

I was under the impression that communism made government bureaucracies larger, so I'm definitely not a communist. I don't like government interference. Local government is better than federal government. I like our constitution, and I wish they would use it.

Tod,

Biofuels do not work unless they are subsidized, so they don't work. I run my cars on Waste Vegetable Oil, and I get no subsidy. Only politically connected people get subsidies.

No, you confuse it with Socialism. Under true communism, there is no leadership, no government, just happy people doing what they want and sharing in the wealth. The path to communism was supposed to lead through a socialist state where the power was concentrated into the hands of a small runing body that would then distribute the power to the people and then disolve. However this is not what hapens in real life. In real life, when the communist political party has gathered all the power into the hands of their top brass, that's where it stops. Power corrupts, and absolute power is kinda neat. That, and simply put, some people suck.

I agree that we've probably never really seen true communism. Probably because it doesn't work. Dictatorial communism, if that is a fair description of say the USSR or China requires a large bureaucracy to maintain control. Our own government is bloated with a large bureaucracy. I don't advocate the removal of all government. I do think ours is too large, too intrusive, and getting worse. It's becoming a lot like theirs. I think we agree, especially with your last two sentences.

Well, take it a step further. The fact is, we aren't (even in America) seeing true democracy. Even more important than the political structure is the economic structure... because, let's face it... unbridled capitalism means corporations can do whatever they want to you. Anything. Were we ever supposed to be capitalist vs. free market (huge difference)? Hmmm....

I don't think anything in it's pure state is all that great. Capitalism with regulation seems to be the best for economic issues, limited social programs (yeah, socialism) are good for social issues. Go too far in either direction and you are screwed.

With democracy, you need a judiciary that can say NO, that is unconstitutional, despite winning the most votes. Checks and balances.

regulation

one of the key components

Right, but the thing is, Dennis... capitalism means one thing, free market means what you seem to think capitalism means. Capitalism literally means the corporations do what they want... and interestingly was never a part of America's founding. Why do we tend to say "well, they are doing the American thing and looking the other way for max profit and this is ok, because the American dream is max profit" rather than expecting corporations to be responsible in the first place?

What point are you making? It sounds like you want to argue with me, but are just making my point. Or is this a semantic issue? You want to argue over what capitalism means? Free Market Capitalism as opposed to the tightly controlled markets of socialist or communist nations.

Free market isn't the same thing as capitalism. I don't think you'd understand the point without looking at how the two are different.

In simple terms, a free market is capitalism with no regulation.

You basically had it reversed, but the basic distinction is spot on.

What do I know, I'm no economist so I'm glad I came close.

as opposed to the tightly controlled markets of socialist or communist nations.

The issue isn't whether that is bad. The issue is whether unbridled corporate control is also bad. It is. If nobody is watching, corporations will do whatever they want. They already try to.

No, this was a conversation about the issue of climate change and you got distracted with semantics between capitalism and free markets. You seem to be focused on corporations as being evil only under one system, which is just false in my opinion. Even under the socialist controlled markets of China, corporations pollute like big dogs.

What I first replied to was definitely about capitalism vs. free markets.

By the way, even pointing to China as socialism rather illustrates the point that all paper ideologies don't work. Capitalism won't... because the "market determining who dies" means, in all likelihood, YOU will die. If you do, the market demanded it. Pure paper socialism will never work, because there will NEVER be a government that is truly 100% a servant of society (no... it isn't supposed to mean handouts... but it is a paper dream, just like benevolent pure capitalism). So...

I'll agree, in both cases.... corporations are bad. Even in a socialist system... nothing is truly socialist, it is still serving profit margin. This leads me to my point... having NOBODY watching the profit margin for profit margin's sake is the WORST option available.

And again, you made my point. I think you just want to argue.

Well if you check, my original reply wasn't even to YOU... it was to the immediate above my original reply.

Do I like to argue? Sure. So do you :) .

I think we largely agree, other than your original reply to mine NOT to you was a "capitalism with regulation" comment... to which I have been attempting to illustrate is an oxymoron. Capitalism derives from capitalizing on the market as the rule of all. Free market derives from minimal interference... regulated capitalism doesn't make sense. Trivial in the sense of me and you bickering (or probably not if we both look back?). Perhaps. The problem is, there are plenty of corporations and politicians who want everybody to think pure capitalism is the answer. Hence... I merely wanted to point out that regulated capitalism is really free market, and capitalism is not the answer.

NO, science now know it's the sun causing us to warm, there's very little CO2 in the upper atmosphere. All reported on this site.

I agree with Shawn. There is little to no evidence that Co2 is causing anything out of the ordinary. You have some whack job scientists trying to instill some sense of fear out there, and there are just as many scientists on the other side saying otherwise....i.e Joe Bastardi. Look up his latest info if you disagree

Unfortunately, there are studies that show there is a build up, ad others that show the opposite. It's hard to get it straightt, when studies only find what the funding people want it to find.

Botom line is, the climate has always been changing, with or without humans, and there will be many people who will suffer, as humans have spread to cover nearly the entire planet. As it changes, naturally, in it's own cycle since the earth first formed, there will always be people ready to blame others.

Steve, here is someone that disagrees with Joe Bastardi lol. After reading, go into the related posts.

It's pretty biased, so I'll research what's posted there before I agree with it....but you asked? lol

Steve, I live in NC also but knew this winter was going to be cold and nasty even when the weathermen said it was going to be normal. Back in May I noticed nuts growing on the trees, now this usually doesn't happen until late June. I grandfather taught me how to read nature and he did a good job. One more thing: the ground hog is wrong, winter is going to be around for awhile. People have lost their natural instincts and can no longer judge nature and that goes for the scientist as well.

Whoops! the link didn't post. Lets try this again...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/06/joe-bastardi-worst-long-range-forecaster-accuweather-global-warming/

You can disagree all you like Zedd, it still doesnt change the fact that a well respected scientist/meteorologist disagrees with YOU and the whole debacle which is "Global Warming". There are many many scientists that have a whole different theory. You mention bias, but isnt that the basic tenet of Global warming anyway? Only the ones who agree seem to get the airtime, but like I said before, that is changing dramatically now. lol so enjoy your research.

There is copious evidence that CO2 is responsible for Climate Change, it's just the deniers who refuse to listen to the evidence and instead cling the the tiny fraction of those who disagree. But heck, there are people who deny that the Jewish Holocaust ever happened too.

Once again science just proved that the sun is causing us to warm at this time.

actually no differnet...the CO2 levels rise and fall and the vast amount of Co2 emissions are actually from natural causes. We can't control volcanic gases which produce amounts of Co2 that dwarf our own piddly amounts. So when you want to say that us "deniers" have no evidence, be careful with that. I have researched this in a large way, and you just cant keep this "warming" train chugging along with this kind of evidence.

Shawn, I live in Colorado. When we first moved into this house (with lots of trees in the yard) about 20 yrs ago, we used to rake leaves a full week before Halloween to fill those giant pumpkin and spider bags my wife loves to put in the yard. But those leaves have been falling later in the season over the years. The past few years I've had to rake on Halloween morning to fill those bags because the trees hadn't dropped enough yet. This year I had to "borrow" from the neighbor's yard (I asked and they said the didn'g mind LOL). This tells me the seasonal patterns have been changing over the years, not what kind of winter we are going to have that year.

Steve, as I said, I don't agree or disagree with what was on that link I posted until I have done my own research on it. I had never heard of him before you posted his name so I looked it up. I form my own opinions reading non biased posts. I find biased sites or articles a good place to start by researching their "facts" as a guide to do my own searches.

My own opinion is that no "one" thing is the "smoking gun" for any of this. You have to take it all into account. And taken together, my current opinion is that yes the earth is warming, and yes man is contributing. There are scientists on both sides of the debate. I read from all I can find regardless of their beliefs.

I do thank you for posting his name though. Now I have more to research.

Zedd, The longer the trees hold their leaves the colder the winter, it's their way of producing more food for themselves. The Red Oak in my front yard tells me every year when spring is coming, it begins to lose the leaves that it kept all winter. No early spring this year.

Shawn, it's not one year our leaves fall at a different time. It's a very consistant trend over at least a decade since I have noticed it. In that time we have had both mild and harsh winters. I haven't seen any correlation to any given winter.

C02 levels have risen! From 1958 to 2010 CO2 levels have risen from from 312 ppm (parts per million) to 389 ppm. That is 79 ppm in 52 years! If my math is correct that increase of 79 ppm (.000000079) is only an increase of .000079%. This info is from:  http://co2now.org/ . This site also states:

Why is CO2 significant?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change.

I remain skeptical

Scientists claim that all the water vapor in the earth's oceans came out of the rocks (eh?) then, or, fell from the sky as comet debris (eh?) then oxygen in the air came from a special type of slime bacteria that no longer exists (eh?) but that plants arose in the carbon dioxide atmosphere left (eh?) from the earth's molten core as it cooled (eh?) out of interstellar debris (eh?) and the plants transformed oxygen from carbon dioxide because they have slime bacteria genes (eh?) and there are new 'species' like this being found every day, but nobody has ever seen a species evolve (eh?) in 'recorded' human history of 30,000 years (eh?) but we had plenty of success with training wild grasses to Mendelize into GMO corn (eh?) and if you could time travel back to Cro-Magnon days and tell those hard-working hunter-gatherers that this race of soft white public welfare tax dole climate scientists would rise up one day in the future and demand tithe-tribute to sit around all day inside, and pick at their navel lint, those Neanderthals would have cooked you with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Enough of tithe-tax Religion-Science! The only reality is politics: root hog or die!

Take some science classes Herman, so that you don't spout drivel. If you don't understand something, it is incredibly easy to look it up. Especially since you seem to have a computer.

Also, methane is way worse than CO2 as a green house gas.

eh?

RockDoctor. You better check the batteries on that calculator. 312 ppm to 389 ppm is a change of 24.68 per cent.

really bad math

Taking the anthropomorphizing of "mother nature" a little far there, aren't we?

Totally agree with you Mipak. Although I probably wouldnt use Mother Nature as my terminology. lol But your point is valid and makes much more sense than this nonsense that Al Gore and his Minions are spewing constantly. The Global Warming crap is looking more and more like what old Europe used to believe with the Flat world theory.

haha, you dont have to listen to talk radio to understand that its freakin freezing down here mr. bigglesworth.

My theory is that you need to use the comma key more often and the enter/return key a lot less. Your computer is not a typewriter.

MikeyMike, That was by far the funniest post yet.....thank you.

Hi econ, -30 sounds cold but how does that compare to the normal average temp there. Also, what really matters most is how long the summer melt lasts and how much winter snow/ice is added. It will always get warm and cold there but time relationship is what counts.

Exactly.

warmers are like liberals......think something so it MUST be true....

No facts??? lol your case has no facts at all...just ideas and crackpot theories. I don't call those facts. I like to live in reality, not disney world.

steve, the facts are ALL out there. Might I suggest the NOAA or NASA for the actual numerical data that you in all your ability can interpret.

Naw, why would they bother checking the data? Steve and his buddy SHAWN will probably just keep collecting their commission checks from the Koch brothers for every denialist post they make.

It's warm - it's global warming

it's cold - it's global warming.

I can also pull evidence out of my a$$ that says mars is made of cream cheese..

You libtards crack me up...give it up already...honestly.

Gloabal Warming is about MONEY, nothing else

Like I said, the deniers won't look for facts. These are the same people that can look at a birth certificate and say it's not a birth certificate.

And yet, oddly enough, they often believe that there is a magic man living in the sky that watches them every minute of every day, and when they die he will judge them on how they lived their lives. If they didn't do it right, they are then tossed into an eternal lake of fire to burn for all eternity... because He Loves You!

Johnny

Here is just one example of "clean drinking water."

So let's all POLLUTE as much as we want, is that what you're saying? You are a complete FOOL to think that way! Let's face it, you're just too LAZY to want to recycle, carpool, etc...so sit back in your easy chair you big fat consumer and watch the real World implode AROUND YOUR BIG 'OL ARSE!

key2joy....johnny said nothing about polluting at will. If you want to bitch to someone about damaging the evironment send a notice to CHINA!

Key2joy - Oh yeah...you are a REAL joy...LOL!!!

We should stop polluting this earth and find ways to stop using oil because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because of the scare tactics of the GW crowd.

REAL science in fact tells us that the opposite is true, our seasons are now in flux because we are on the verge of another ice age. Do you want proof? Look no further than the fact that many politicians and government officials that have bought ALOT of land in Costa Rica. You just have to Google it. Do you think if global warming was REAL, they would be buying land closer to the equator? Think about it for a minute and you will realize that anything that comes out of a politician's mouths cannot be trusted. And the scientists that they have bought off to sell us this GW garbage should be jailed. Most good sheep out there are going to buy it, lock stock and barrel.

Check out what real scientists and meteorologists have to say about it:

and 2 days ago:

Bastardi: Three of Next Five Winters Could be as Cold or Colder

Feb 2, 2011; 11:21 AM ET

Share |

This winter is on track to become the coldest for the nation as a whole since the 1980s or possibly even the late 1970s. According to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, three or four out of the next five winters could be just as cold, if not colder.

He is worried that next winter, for example, will be colder than this one.

Bastardi adds that with the U.S. in the middle of one of its worst recessions in its history and the price of oil in question, he is extremely concerned about the prospect for more persistent cold weather in the coming years putting increased financial hardship on Americans.

"Cold is a lot worse than warm," Bastardi said, "and that's why your energy bill goes up during the winter time: because of the fact that it takes a lot to heat a house."

While there are many different factors that are playing into Bastardi's forecast, one of the primary drivers is La Niña and the trends that have been observed in winters that follow the onset of a La Niña.

Hear more from Bastardi on his forecast, La Nina and the implications that more cold winters could have on energy demands and the economy, click on this video.

Current La Nina Signals More Cold Winters Ahead

La Niña occurs when sea surface temperatures across the equatorial central and eastern Pacific are below normal. La Niña and its counterpart, El Niño, which occurs when sea surface temperatures of the same region are above normal, have a large influence on the weather patterns that set up across the globe.

The current La Niña, which kicked in this past summer, is unprecedented after becoming the strongest on record in December 2010. Bastardi thinks this La Niña will last into next year, though it will be weaker, and will not disappear completely until 2012.

According to Bastardi, studies over the past 100 years or so show that after the first winter following the onset of a La Niña, the next several winters thereafter tend to be colder than normal in the U.S.

He says the first winter during a La Niña tends to be warm. The next winter that follows is usually less warm, and the winter after that is usually cold.

"There's a natural tendency for that to happen because of the large-scale factors," Bastardi commented. "What's interesting about what we're seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold."

Temperatures this winter so far are averaging below normal across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country.

He adds, "If the past predicts the future, then the first year La Niña is warmer than the combination of the following two."

He said that with the exception of the winters of 1916-1917 and 1917-1918, the first year of every moderate or stronger La Niña available for study has featured a warmer-than-normal winter from the Plains eastward. This winter, it has been colder than normal.

Taking a look at one of the exceptions, the La Niña winter of 1916-1917, colder-than-normal conditions were observed across the northern part of the Plains and East (not the South). Bastardi said that never before have colder-than-normal conditions been observed across the South during a first-year La Niña winter, as has been the case this winter.

If this winter, which has been colder than normal across the eastern two-thirds of the country, is historically supposed to be the warmest of the next three winters for the U.S., according to Bastardi, we have some frigid times ahead.

Bastardi: Shift to Colder Climate Predicted Next 20-30 Years

Bastardi thinks that not only will the next few winters be colder than normal for much of the U.S., but that the long-term climate will turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years.

"What's interesting about what we're seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold," said Bastardi, "and it's coinciding with bigger things that are pushing the overall weather patterns and climate in the Northern Hemisphere and, in fact, globally over the next 20 to 30 years that we have not really dealt with, nor can we really quantify."

"That ties into a lot of this arguing over climate change," he added.

Bastardi has pointed out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases usually about every 20 to 30 years, has shifted into a "cold" or "negative" phase.

Over the past 30 years or so, according to Bastardi, the PDO has been "warm" or "positive."

This change to a cold PDO over the next 20 to 30 years, he says, will cause La Niñas to be stronger and longer than El Niños. Bastardi adds that when El Niños do kick in, if they try to come on strong like they did last year, they will get "beaten back" pretty quickly.

"When you have a cold PDO and lots of La Niñas, when El Niños do come on, you generally tend to have cold, snowy weather patterns across the U.S.," Bastardi said. "That's what we saw in the 1960s and 1970s."

In Summary

Overall, Bastardi is predicting three or four of the next five winters to be colder than normal for much of the U.S., based on trends observed in La Niñas throughout history.

He is concerned that, amid the current recession, more colder-than-normal conditions in the winters ahead will put extra financial strain on families in the form of higher heating bills.

Bastardi is also predicting the long-term climate to turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years with global temperatures, as measured by satellite, returning to levels they were at in the late 1970s.

A lot of this is what climate change models have already predicted...Climate change means more extreme events - colder colds, hotter hots and intensification of storm systems and droughts.

But thanks for proving our point there.

Climate change models are not real science, just junk science making predictions over a long time period, and everybody knows how inaccurate they can be. The NWS uses them for local forecasts and they quite often don't agree and diverge more and more the farther out you go. There is no causal link between these weather events and so called climate change.

The NWS does not use climate models for local forecasts. They use the NAM and the GIS, both of which are short term models (no longer than 2 weeks). That's because they predict WEATHER, not CLIMATE... And just like any mathematical model, climate models are based on available data and they get more accurate as more data becomes available.

Just out of curiosity, why do you call it junk science? And don't give me some crap about "everybody knows..". Give me a good, original reason (if you have one, I'm guessing that you don't).

It is apparent that Bastardi is discussing U.S. weather patterns.

That is not the same thing as global climate patterns.

I realize many people do not know the difference.

And by the way, "real scientists" would presumably include those belonging to our national scientific organizations. As has already been stated here, every one of those organizations regards human-exacerbated global climate change as a reality.

You missed the last sentence in the article, Sherri, where he states that globally the weather patterns will return to what it was in the 70's.

From how you stated your rebuttal above, you seem to think that the United States weather operates in a vacuum, when in fact weather patterns move globally from west to east, and the weather that we get in the U.S, will be the weather in England in about a weeks time.

When you look at this satellite data from today, you will see a huge storm coming into the Pacific which is typical at this time of year and they call them the "Pineapple Express" since they spawn in the Pacific and track close to the Hawaiian Islands which you can see in the bottom left corner of the satellite image. These storms coming into the Pacific Northwest have been much stronger and larger this year than they have in previous years, and this is what has been driving the snowfall in the deep south as well as the Midwest and then the Northeast. After that it heads toward Europe and has caused their snowfalls to be much larger than the norm. This large system we see barreling into the Pacific NW will have some serious repercussions for us later in the week as well.

Sorry, I had placed the link up above before my explanation of it, but somehow it didn't take. Will try again now.

No link, still.

Yes of course weather moves from area to area.

Yes, larger storms will drive greater snowfall. So will anything that puts more moisture into the atmosphere, such as evaporation of ocean water, which is increasing...why? Because of rising oceanic temperatures at sea level.

Again, weather is not the same thing as climate. A meteorologist is best qualified to explain weather. A climatologist is absolutely best qualified to explain climate.

Yeah, most of the US becomes colder in winter because the arctic vortex weakens and allows cold air to spill over. Meanwhile other areas go from rain forrest to vast new deserts and major parts of the population move out of their slowly sinking coastal properties.

Why don't you look at the whole picture, rather than the local forcast for America?

A reflective Aluminum/Barium spider web created by jet contrails??

Either the Maui Wowee's been a bumper harvest this year or your tin foil hat may need a little adjustment.

That is a close tie with your other post MikeyMike.....pretty funny stuff.

Got a little brown somethin' on your nose there Chris.

Seriously? You were so proud of this mess you had to post it twice?

It was so annoying I couldn't even read it the first time.

Mother Nature... a new God? Some magical being that keeps the planet in balance? Does she also ensure we don't wobble onto our side?

i think climate change has passed the point of science, and now should be declared a religion

Philosophies do tend to get elevated to the status being religion-like, once it becomes apparent to the adherents that the refusal of others to get in line will result in consequences too horrible to contemplate.

Understandably.

Wow. I don't know whether to curse you for being selfish or say congratulations on your smart planning.

I've been in the PNW all my life. Its nice around the coast all year. A little moist at times.

You should really look at the numbers some time. I'm just saying.

Dennis, how do these numbers work?

C02 levels have risen! From 1958 to 2010 CO2 levels have risen from from 312 ppm (parts per million) to 389 ppm. That is 79 ppm in 52 years! If my math is correct that increase of 79 ppm (.000000079) is only an increase of .000079%. This info is from: http://co2now.org/ . This site also states:

Why is CO2 significant?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change.

I remain skeptical. 79 ppm rise of CO2 in the atmosphere over 54 years to cause a rise in global temperature, when the average percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .03% is a pretty hard thing to swallow. I don't buy it.

Uh, no. If you want to talk about "percent of increase" you don't compare the fractional numerator to the denominator as you did (incorrectly by the way) in getting 79/1,000,000 equals .000000079, (which is actually 79 Billionths, if you understand how the decimal system works). 79 millionths is written .000079 which by your argument would be .0079%, but that's not the point.

The point is that you want to compare the numerators: from 312 parts per anything up to 389 parts is an increase of 79 parts, which compared as a percentage to the original amount is an increase of about 25%.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical population of 1,000 people. Suppose out those, that 10% or 100 are wearing denim blue jeans. Now if that population goes up to 125 people, that's an increase of 25% right? From 100 up to 125. There are 25 percent more people wearing jeans. Agreed?

We do not calculate the 25 out of 1,000 and say, oh, the population went from 10% jeans wearers up to 12.5% jeans wearers so that's only an increase of 2.5%, which is basically what you're trying to do up above. Sorry, it doesn't work that way if you're talking about percent of increase. Semantically, that's different from an increase in the percent. I hope this helps.

@RockDoctor,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And just for good measure:

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

Because it's not JUST humans, it's several factors. ALL of it needs a solution.

Hey Arlin, the cold in the Brittish Iles is due to the Gulf Stream stopping and also caused the 40,000 crabs on the beaches due to deoxygenated water at the bottom of the ocean. The flooding in Australia is due to Mother Nature removing the fresh water from the coral sea. Also, flooding in Brazil, the east coast of South Africa, and Shri Lanka off the eastern coast of India.

Thw Gulf Stream has stopped. Holy crap. I couldn't believe this was true, but I checked and there are definitely some reports to this effect. I wonder why this is not bigger news. I've got to do some more research...

http://info.themicroeffect.com/?p=1011

Get confirmation before panicing. This is the frst I have heard of it, and the author does seem a bit doomish. If it's true, it's bad for Europe.

Please read my explanation at 4:54.

Interesting reading. So, if I understand all of that, the variation I saw in 1977 can become more frequent, along with the warming trends, thus creating wilder cycles- or am I off in left field somewhere? As I intimated, my specialty is a long way from climatology.

Also foreseen by clairvoyants...Jan Tucker will meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger...

What in the world are you talking about? Clairvoyants? Please tell me that this post was a joke....

nupe they keep'r real with the post...lol