A snowball fight breaks out near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
It’s cold. Does that debunk global warming?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 01.29.09
As Al Gore delivered his testimony to Congress on the urgency of addressing climate change Wednesday, snow and ice blanketed the nation from Oklahoma to New England, snarling commutes, knocking out power for hundreds of thousands, and providing an apparent irony that was too rich for some commentators to ignore.
It’s almost Groundhog Day. That means it must be time for Americans to wait anxiously for Al Gore to pop up out of his hole, mumble “global warming” to the shivering masses and then scurry away again while we suffer through several more weeks more of winter.
We won’t be disappointed. Gore is scheduled to nuzzle his way into a hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday to warn of a warming planet. Temperatures are near freezing. It may even snow.
Gore’s appearance in the dead of bone-chilling winter is almost five years to the day since he came out of hibernation in New York and called President Bush a “moral coward” for his climate change policies. That very day the mercury in Central Park registered the coldest day the Big Apple had seen in 47 years!
Not much has changed – in the weather or Gore’s message. This time around, it might not be so bone-shatteringly cold, but it certainly has been a chilly winter.
ABC’s weatherman Sam Champion told viewers this season’s weather “feels like the coldest winter in years.” He added, “and a report from NASA climate scientists says 2008 was the coolest year since 2000.”
What the writer left out is that the same NASA report concluded that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. As relatively cold as 2008 seemed, it still ranks among the top 10 hottest years on record, NASA says.
And the only reason that this winter may seem so cold is that the rest of this decade has been so warm.
Those who deny global warming often note that the hottest year on record was 1998. Writing recently in the Daily Telegraph, columnist Gerald Warner points to the chilly temperatures in England and claims, “Global average temperatures hit a peak in 1998, but have been declining since.”
This is nonsense. According to Britain’s Met Office, which has been recording temperature data since 1850, the next 10 hottest years after 1998 were, in order, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, and 1995. Does that look like a decline to you?
The Met Office’s press release quotes Oxford climate scientist Myles Allen, who says, “Globally [2008] would have been considered warm, even as recently as the 1970s or 1980s, but a scorcher for our Victorian ancestors.”
So why are a whole bunch of people (all curiously located in the northern hemisphere) saying that the cold weather refutes climate change? Because they aren’t differentiating between weather and climate.
The National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. Climate, says NOAA, is what we expect; weather is what we get.
In other words, you can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even.
So if you’re feeling chilly this season, take heart: Winter is almost halfway over. The snow will soon disappear, and with it, perhaps, these silly arguments.
<< Gore: Stimulus package will help curb climate change | MainComments
2. Chicken Little | 01.29.09
Is the sky falling? Click the link and think for yourself. This site appears to have done their homework — http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
3. Gary E. Masters | 01.29.09
I do not deny warming. I just wonder if we want it to be warmer of colder. I think we have a giant blind spot and it is the chance for another ice age. If we were to be on the verge of an ice age, we may want to have more greenhouse gases. If it is more remote, we may want cooler temperatures.
However, since I lived on a cotton farm near Lubbock, Texas - I am aware of the benefits of a longer growing season. I want a few palms in DC.
I had rather we debate what to do in the event of weather changes and that includes knowing when to want warmer and when to want cooler.
The current “debate” is much like a school yard fuss.
Lots of passion yet little real facts.
The whole start to “global warming” was a political movement. They never thought it would ever get cold. So they had a one size to fit all solution. They were saying “No matter what happens, we want less greenhouse gases and a cooler Earth.”
How can that be reasonable?
Warmer may be inconvenient. But ice will kill most of us.
4. Jerry Czecha | 01.29.09
I think the fact that insurance companies are reducing home insurance in coastal areas is the best proof of global climate change we have seen yet. A major insurance company just announced they would no longer insure homes in Florida. Probably too many hurricanes and flooding
5. Brian | 01.29.09
Nice writeup. It’s no coincidence that the phrase “Global Warming” has fallen out of favor in other parts of the world, in favor of the more locally accurate “Climate Change.”
7. Mike McFadden | 01.29.09
Here in New England this winter has been unusually snowy with snowfall in December something like 4x the average. Does climate change affect amount of precipitation? Is rainfall/snowfall an indicator of climate change? If it is than, for the love of Pete, we’ve got to fix the environment because I’m sick of shoveling.
8. steve | 01.29.09
Need to check your facts–that NASA report about the 10 warmest years being since 1997? Well, they made a mistake and the coldest year on record is now in the 1930’s…Their report is different now with corrected data.
9. TA | 01.29.09
Yes, actually it does sound like a decline… “The 10 hottest yrs AFTER 1997″
Seems like it peaked in 2005 and afterwards each successive yr (06,07,08) have been cooler, THUS lower on your impressive 10 yr span.
wow.
10. Colorado | 01.29.09
Global warming was debunked years ago. Al Gore is using 30 year old science that has been disproved in order to further his political agenda. The world’s weather cycles (like everything in life). Sometimes warmer, sometimes colder.
Cold weather is not only in the U.S. The entire world is reporting record lows this winter. Global warming is merely a bunch of hot air in a cold world.
11. Kevin | 01.29.09
All of this hysteria is just an attempt by socialists who so shockingly and spectacularly failed to run governments in the 20th century to take over the economies of countries and run them as they see fit.
12. john | 01.29.09
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/08/08/climate-network-re-ranks-warmest-years/
Climate Network Re-ranks Warmest Years
Thanks to the work of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, serious anomalies were discovered in adjustments to raw climate data. The largest and most obvious were adjustments to data made starting in January of 2000. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis data is a source used by many climate researchers in doing work in the field of climate change. GISS has now re-ranked the warmest years and as a result only one year since 2000 is in the top ten warmest years.
The new top 10 warmest years are, warmest first: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939
13. Larry McAllister | 01.29.09
It always seems these “silly arguments” are made in winter. Wonder why they don’t come up in July?
14. Joanne Bigcrane | 01.29.09
I think everyone - EVERYONE - who hears about global warming are taking the words TOO literally. Global warming, a new Ice Age - what ever, is still based on a radically changing global environment. The weather is changing. Water recycling is changing. Seasons are changing. When we can expect the freezes, the typhoons, the tornadoes - once somewhat predictable - are now far out of their cycles. Listen up people - no matter what the media or science wants to call it or define it - our environment is CHANGING.
15. Mungo | 01.29.09
Fox News casters think it’s cold compared to the stone ages because that is when most of their views where formed.
16. bhallmar | 01.29.09
Good start, but you left us hanging. It is important to emphasize that it is ‘average’ temperature that is increasing, that means individual cold or hot days are all summed together and it is impossible to tell from one or two days what the average is. There is no question that the average temperature is increasing. There is also more than just the weather/climate distinction. One of the main issues is that changing temperatures, especially sea surface temperatures may change global climate patterns and make severe weather more likely. So that can literally mean hotter drier summers AND frigid, icy winters. Seems paradoxical, but the real message is that humans have changed the climate in many complex ways that require thoughtful consideration, not arm chair tomfoolery.
17. Eoin | 01.29.09
Steve, you need to check your facts. The NASA data that you’re referring to says that 1934 was the hottest year on record for the United States. We’re talking about global warming here, not just US warming. Globally, the hottest year was 1998 – followed by several years in the past decade.
18. Bob G | 01.29.09
Your own article answers the question of if this is a cycle in the normal life of the earth or is truly a man made problem. The weather statistics on record only go back about a hundered years. The earth is a we bit older. No one can say that this is not just a normal fluctuation in the earths temputures unless they have been alive for a few thousand years. Going on the sample we have the last ten years are the warmest on record. That is the problem the record is too short for statistical purposes of an enviroment that is millions of years old.
19. Patsy Bruce | 01.29.09
Many scientists are saying that we are now beginning a gradual cooling cycle that will last for a long time…
Of course that would be an inconvenient truth for AG.
Truth is, we no more control the climate here than we do on Mars, where, as of late, a plume of methane has been spotted.
Hmmm. Cows on Mars? Or just Martians eating beans.
20. Bill in NY | 01.29.09
Leave it to Fox noise to use local weather trends to refute global climate change! They are such a small-minded news organization, probably because of the agenda of the small mided leader - ruprt murdock. stupid is as stupid does! News and opinion for the stupid masses! LOL
21. jmclaughlin | 01.29.09
Silly arguments Eoin O’Carroll? Read this release from the global climate conference this month:
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Are you warming up to the idea that just maybe there alternative explanations? Or are you THAT close minded?
22. Eoin | 01.29.09
Larry McAllister, these arguments do, in fact, come up in July…in the Australian press!
23. Robert/Woodsock/GA | 01.29.09
If this Global warming keeps up … we are all going to freeze to death!
24. larry | 01.29.09
that’s the great thing about science fiction. you can make up stuff as you go along. i might have considered this tripe an interesting read had they approached it with a little more honesty. al gore is in this for money pure and simple. let’s also remember he’s a tad bitter over 2000 election results as well. global warming is at best a over hyped myth at worst a bad get rich quick sceme.
25. 1greensix | 01.29.09
Even my special ed students know that weather and climate are two different things. For those of you that slept through fifth grade science let me explain to you that weather is what you feel locally and currently, while climate is regional and long term. Global warming exists. Get used to it dummies.
26. Sally Morgan | 01.29.09
Having someone in the media ask you if you believe in Global Warming is like having a Fundalmentalist Christian ask you if you believe in God. There is only one answer they want to hear and that is yes.
How is it you can criticize someone for drawing data from one or two years and then argue your point on data from 30 years. 30 years in the life of the earth doesn’t mean a thing. It’s smaller than a drop in the bucket. The Earth is billions of years old.
The Earth’s climate is always changing, it is not a static system. The present warming has been hijacked by the high priests of hysteria, Al Gore being the leader, the MSM, the disciples.
27. Jeremiah | 01.29.09
Steve,
The world is larger than the US.
Pointing to the trend in 2% of the globe to refute the global trend only shows your prideful ignorance and belief-based denial.
28. Ecology | 01.29.09
It is widely known by scientific data (backed by abundant records in mineral records) that increasing Global temperatures (Global warming) is directly correlated with erratic weather patterns with drastic highs and lows and increasing natural disasters (tornadoes and hurricanes). This has been shown to happen in the past and is probable for the future (present).
It is also known that the earth fluctuates temperature on its own. However, the data shows indisputable evidence that global warming is being exacerbated by increased C02 emissions because of humans. If you lack confidence, look up articles on desertification of Africa and China and now the drastic increase in tree death in Western America and exponential extinction rate. All of these things are caused by global warming.
The human species will probably not die out because of Global warming; however, our Midwest crops will all die, leaving America and half the world without food. Kiss any economic superiority goodbye, let alone being able to feed 6.7 billion people.
Read the facts for yourselves. Facts do not lie in the media. Facts lie in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Try reading it. Opinions without facts are like Christians without the Bible.
29. Douglas | 01.29.09
I am no expert but I am a cynic. And that means I question anything any experts claim is fact when, in reality, it is speculation or extrapolation. You take 150 years out of a few Billion and decide we are going into a meltdown? A tiny amount of data, mostly localized, is used as proof that the sky, indeed, is falling? I am perfectly willing to accept that average global temperature is increasing. It just may be. What I am not willing to believe is that human beings are (a) responsible for it and (b) capable of doing anything significant to affect it.
30. Dave Crane | 01.29.09
What everyone leaves out of the “silly argument” is that correlation does not prove or disprove causality, in either case. The fact that warming and CO2 concentration are increasing does not, in itself, show that CO2 is responsible for the warming anymore than it shows that warming is responsible for the increase in CO2. The latter possibility is not meant to be facetious; an honest climatologist will tell you that CO2 comes out of solution in sea water as it warms. In fact, that’s how they explain away the fact that the geologic record shows warming most often precedes an increase in CO2.
31. TruthSeeker | 01.29.09
Steve said: “Need to check your facts–that NASA report about the 10 warmest years being since 1997? Well, they made a mistake and the coldest year on record is now in the 1930’s…Their report is different now with corrected data.”
Steve, I did check the facts. Here it is from a “trusted news source” FOX NEWS:
“WASHINGTON — NASA’s press office “marginalized or mischaracterized” studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency’s own internal watchdog concluded.
In a report released Monday, NASA’s inspector general office called it “inappropriate political interference” by political appointees in the press office.”
In other words, political appointees rigged it to agree with their tired, outdated, anti-science political dogma.
32. Tegiri Nenashi | 01.29.09
The temperature records at South Pole
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott.ann.trend.pdf
and Vostok
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/vostok.ann.trend.pdf
are hopelessly flat. That’s the climate! The clowns at realclimate.org sayed a year ago “We know antarctic is cold”. Then a year later they say with straight face “Antarctic is warming”.
33. Jon R. Wright | 01.29.09
Once upon a time, NOAA reported that the last 10 years were the among the hottest on record. But NOAA now admits that this calculation was due to a programming error. The corrected data are shown here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Based on this data, the hottest 10 years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1954. 2008 ranks 55th out of 129 years of records.
If Britain’s Met Office data shows something different, it’s probably because that data hasn’t been subject to the same scrutiny and NOAA’s data.
At the very least, NOAA’s data should be recognized as being quite divergent from the British data.
I expected more from the Christian Science Monitor.
What we should be doing is demanding that data and the source code that make these calculations be made public.
34. thebus8888 | 01.29.09
So if you can’t point to one year to show a cooling trend why is it Al Gore can point to 5, 10, 50 or even 100 years as proof of warming?
We’re talking about a planet that is billions of years old, how can a 100 year sample show anything substantial???
Ice records show natural changes happen over THOUSANDS of years but al Gore and other “climate scientists” want to take 100-150 year sample and says man is having an affect great enough to tax them for carbon usage???
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Not that climate change isn’t happening, it ALWAYS has, before we were here and after we are gone.
Not that we shouldn’t be more mindful as to what we put in the air through aour cars, factories and power supplies.
BUT to have carbon taxes and all this funding that could be used to feed people or other things all in the name of “Climate Change” (the new global warming) is STUPID.
Funny thing there too, by renaming it “Climate Change” they have ensured they are now always right. If the earth cools, climate change, if it warms CLIMATE CHANGE, either way AL GORE and the people that simply want your money WINS.
I will part by asking one not so simple question, what is the “ideal” climate for earth?
35. ekyr | 01.29.09
As long as debate is ridiculed, informed arguments are labeled “silly,” and political leaders are leading the pseudo-science of global warming, it is not possible to make a rational evaluation of climate change.
Rational, scientific studies motivated by a search for accuracy rather than political gain are needed to study the climate and draw unbiased conclusions about the causes of the present climate change, if any.
Climate change happens with or without human influence.
36. psychicninja | 01.29.09
@Kevin:
Global average temperatures have risen, but that doesn’t mean that winter is going to disappear, and it doesn’t even mean that temperatures are going to rise everywhere on earth. The hardest hit areas are the polar regions, which is why you barely notice a change, yet ice that has been around for decades is disappearing like crazy.
37. Eoin | 01.29.09
Jon R. Wright, at the very top of that dataset it says:
“Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)”
That means that it’s temperatures within the lower 48 United States. We’re talking about global warming here. Not US warming.
38. jmedia | 01.29.09
One cold winter and all of a sudden global warming is “debunked”?..come on people…use some sense and not knee jerk reactions. Greenhouse gases cause warming it’s a FACT. And BTW it depends on where you live. It has been unusually warm here in Austin with reaching 80 and near record highs this winter. Believe it or not the world does not revolve around the NE U.S.
39. Jay | 01.29.09
Seriously? Like, do people realize that ‘global warming’ is a misleading term. As in, it doesn’t mean JUST the world is getting warmer. The better term is climate change. The world can get really cold and really hot–this complements the theory of climate change. Granted, that carbon dating has shown the world going through cycles of climate change; however, we are supposedly at a ‘peak point’…in other words, we have passed to higher levels of change than the past thousands of years. I speak from a person who lives in the Midwest but goes to college in Boston–the weather is messed up :)
The issue at hand should not be to just simply ignore climate change. Even if it’s wrong (which i obviously dissent towards), there is no harm in trying to preclude potential(if any) disasters.
I.e. Investing in alternative energy opens up green markets which can be a future hot spot market in the economy (green market, if you will). Creating awareness could perhaps better combat pollution leading to a healthier world(trust me when I say that countries like China and India are do not have the best air on the block). Reducing emissions could better crops from third world countries who are fighting a lost cause with agriculture (this is especially a problem in Sub-Saharan Africa where people in the academia have commented on the effects of climate change and its exacerbating impact on growing food in such harsh regions of the world). Investing in better fuel efficient cars could save the average person a lot of money, reduce oil prices, and lead to better air quality(Remember the 90’s when Hummers were so awesome?…lol).
The.End.
40. fritz | 01.29.09
for 1greensix and the rest of the brainwashed - there is no one in YOUR CIRCLE that dares say the emperor is naked. It is yet anther media hoax!
41. colin | 01.29.09
It’s amazing how reporters at some slightly less than reputable organizations (Fox News, Drudge affiliates, etc.) manage to ignore real evidence and focus on spurious occurences to push their political agendas. It makes me laugh every time they find some minor political figure or “scientist” that denies global warming; and consequently turn it into big headlines.
Unfortunately it seems like the average person is still too intellectually lazy to realize that they’re being duped.
42. left coast libertarian | 01.29.09
The commentary of denial is focused on the North East perspective (it’s cold so global warming is a farce). Here on the left coast we are experiencing unseasonably warm and dry weather. As an avid cyclist I love this weather. As a father I’m really concerned about the environment that my children will live in. Climate change models have shown that our weather is becoming more extreme - both hot, cold and precipitation.
43. Manu | 01.29.09
This logic applies both ways, if you can’t tell much about where the climate is “headed on a particularly frigid … year.” Then obviously you can’t tell where it’s headed from a hot year either. And the pattern of hot weather looks to me to be spotty and inconsistent - so the answer is no your data does not look like a decline it also does not look like an increase.
It’s fair to say that cold winters don’t necessarily debunk global warming - but couldn’t you admit the obvious that it certainly casts doubt on it? Is that a silly idea? I think that in order to discover the truth one has to be committed to let go of biases. Certainly you could not argue that you are open minded when you cannot concede the tiniest point in the face of supporting evidence.
44. mjtimber | 01.29.09
Eoin,
You know not of what you speak. If you go here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif), you will see 1934 doesn’t even make the top, what, 40 hottest years? Sorry, the reporter not surprisingly, is a little better at getting the story right. What 1934 actually has is the largest temperature anomaly (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif). While your data interpretation could be better, I’ve got to hand it to you on your hyperlink skills.
45. Lindsay | 01.29.09
As a geologist, I am constantly shocked by how many people do not “believe” in global warming. It’s not a matter of opinion but FACT. Argue about the numbers all you want, you can see it happening with your own eyes.
Secondly, more snow in certain parts of the world may actually INDICATE lie warmer times ahead. If it’s too cold, it won’t snow. It’s not a matter of whether or not it can snow - but what the overall trend in climate is - think of the stock market. Stocks fluctuate day to day but may have a larger trend one way or another. Same thing with climate. And we are warming up people! You can’t argue that the ice is physically, observably melting at both poles. Why do you think the Russians are so interested in staking a claim on subsea Arctic oil deposits?
That being said, we have additional problems other than the drowning of Miami and other southern states: collapsing fisheries, polluted groundwater, and near-empty aquifers. Combined with warming temperatures, be prepared to watch the US agricultural system encounter Dust Bowl conditions, the end of big-fish sushi, and an unhappy population!
46. David | 01.29.09
The best scams in the world are ones that cannot be proven, scare us or are unseen. I have no doubt the world is warming but dont compare 10 years of data to a world that is billions of years old.
47. Scientist | 01.29.09
It’s pretty cold and snowy in north america because of la nina. The threat of global warming isn’t exactly that it’s going to be too hot, its that the weather patterns will change and cause regions which were once arable to become drier or wetter. Also the possible rise in sea levels may dramatically change coastal settlements.
48. Jon | 01.29.09
Read what the graph that you provided actually shows. Then you won’t look like a pseudo-science guy. If, that is, you can actually interpret what it says. ANOMALY: key word.
49. Richard | 01.29.09
Mike McFadden wrote;
“Here in New England this winter has been unusually snowy with snowfall in December something like 4x the average. Does climate change affect amount of precipitation? Is rainfall/snowfall an indicator of climate change? If it is than, for the love of Pete, we’ve got to fix the environment because I’m sick of shoveling.”
I suggest you re-locate to a warmer region of the country, or quit complaining. Be happy you don’t live in Bismark, North Dakota!
50. Nathan | 01.29.09
To be fair, when the weather is hot, many 24 hour news networks carry at least one segment asking “Is this the affect of Global warming?” A rather balanced piece from the LA Times, titled Hot? “Yes. Global Warming? Maybe.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/26/science/sci-heatwave26
51. Harry | 01.29.09
The science being global warming is technically correct, but it is greatly exaggerated. The atmosphere is changing, and changing the atmosphere is pollution, so it needs to be addressed, but not in such an alarmist way, (pun intended) cooler heads need to prevail to sit and think about the problem.
That said, I honestly think the 1930’s were warmer than today and had a lot of the same fluctuations (North Dakota’s all time hi and low temps both occurred in 1936, New York City’s all-time hi temp occurred in 1936, it’s all-time low temp in 1934). But we can’t tell for sure because there are far more weather stations in the world today, many in warm Third World areas that didn’t record the weather back then. So a lot of it is overrated.
52. Lindsay | 01.29.09
In addition, yes, there are natural climate cycles - BUT we have exacerbated a warming trend to temperatures unseen in the history of our species.
Argue with that if you want, but you cannot argue that we are screwing up the planet. Look at the pollution China has to deal with, and if you don’t know about it, learn about the plastic trash heap in the South Pacific gyre. It’s a mound of trash the size of Texas. Plastic doesn’t degrade into something harmeless either. It becomes vinyl chloride, which is toxic to animals (like the ones we eat) and humans.
53. pxlmvr | 01.29.09
1850??? Wouldn’t most scientists say that 5 30 year periods are insufficient to gauge climate change for the last, say 10,000 years?? yeah, i know ice cores. i’m not convinced that this isn’t just the natural cycle that the planet undergoes. It is clear that in the not too distant past, 10,000 years ago, mammoths thrived in the *millions* in Siberia. Clearly it wasn’t as cold as it is today.
55. Science | 01.29.09
It is weather, it is not getting colder or hotter. As long as there are living things plants, humans, animals, bugs, etc roaming the earth or growning on it there will be change. Look at the landscape around the world think that was always that way? While God created it, it is supposed to change, grow and modify over time.
CO2, its not cars that produce a lot its human beings. Businesses here in the US were cleaned up during the 60’s and 70’s now if the rest of the world would do that to help with overall air quality and temperatures that would be nice.
I do not like what these people (democrats) portray as a issue, we are not going back to burning wood and not having electricity, cars, planes, trains, running water and heat in buildings. Knock it off, look at recycling look at alternative fuels like bio-diesel and alcohol from other plants than just corn. Electricity has to come from some fuel source so that is not a option for cars either the emissions from electrical production are much higher than 10,000’s of cars. Lets get back to american products made in the USA the right way. Stop importing these spewing autos from Honda, Toyota and others who claim low emissions, ever look at the exhaust from one of those cars when the start pure black from a brand new car?
56. jmedia | 01.29.09
BTW Australia and New Zealand is sweltering in record high temperatures right now.
“The heatwave is the worse since 1908 and comes on the back of a record 12 year drought.”
Ask them if it’s still getting warmer or not just because the eastern u.s is a bit colder this winter..ha.
So anyone that thinks this cold US winter is casting doubt on global warming needs to realize that until we have cooler summers it does nothing to debunk it.
57. NotSoStupid | 01.29.09
Whether or not you believe climate change is manmade is irrelevant. Yes, the earth naturally goes through climate changes. It’s readily apparent that it is changing now. Natural or not, desertification, warming of the oceans (and subsequent changes in ocean currents) and rising sea levels would cause massive shifts in the human economy. Whether or not you have your head in the sand about the cause, you should agree that the potential changes need to be addressed (and, given our relative power in the world, slowed).
58. Joe | 01.29.09
Wow, Kevin. Did you actually read the article or just scan the title and then post your comment? It really allows your keen logic and intelligence to shine. Nicely done.
59. Mike Meade | 01.29.09
This is truly simple. Look at the melting of the polar icecaps. The earth is warming. To deny this for petty politics is more than criminal, unless you want to plead an insanity defense, or the tried and true “It’s OK if you are a Republican”.
60. Rev. Joel Miller | 01.29.09
All the comments on the article that deny the science of climate-change suggest either a coordinated effort to have politics dictate the results of science… or that a lot of human beings are too stupid to effectively debate any science at all.
61. Eric | 01.29.09
I’m telling you…I know what has happened over the past decade. Good Ole Gore and the Dems found a new way to raise taxes on the energy corporations…and guess who will end up paying for those increases in new restrictions that the energy companies will have to endure…you… the energy customer. The Dems are preparing to place new Nox/emissions controls of energy companies. Your power plant down the road from your house will have to place all kinds of new emissions controls on their stacks. But what you didn’t know is that the power plant emissions is currently at an all time low right now. Most power companies have been controling emessions for years. …so why the new controls….nothing more than government propaganda to raise new income for the government. The more they can put resrtictions on these utility companies, the more the utility companies have to shell out…both in fees and fines paid to the government if these companies don’t conform, and more tax dollars for additional useless expenditures. And again…the customer is gonna get stuck with it all. Gore has been playing his propaganda like a fine chess match, moving at just the right times. I’m glad the sucker didn’t make into the presidency. You would have seen new bills on Global Warming many years ago. Also- these scientist that are reporting these increases in temperature around the earth are getting paid a pretty penny to report this data to your government officials. Do the study on your own folks. This past ten years has been just as cool as ever…and certainly not warmer. Everybody knows that our weather is cyclical. Why do you think they call it the 50 year flood….because it’s gonna come around again. Same thing with cool weather….it’s gonna be cold and warm at various times. If you want to make a difference, get a hold of your elected officials and let them know you don’t believe all the Gore BS.
62. Zach | 01.29.09
I’m amazed that some people still think that global warming is a myth. Oh well, I suppose some people have always been slow to learn.
Most skeptics don’t really understand how climatology works so they just debunk it out of their own confusion. Here’s a hint: read a peer reviewed scientific journal if you want to learn about how scientists have come to the conclusion that GW is man made. I think you’ll find out that there is actually consensus in the scientific community regarding this subject.
63. Eoin | 01.29.09
mjtimber, I’m starting to sound like a broken record here, but the first graph you provide is for global temperatures. The second graph is for US temperatures. They’re different things.
But thanks for the props on my hyperlinking skills.
64. Heather | 01.29.09
I find two things to be rather odd. First, we have been told that climate change is “done” science. But as a science major, I was always told that no science is “done”. That a scientist is always trying to disprove a theory. How odd then that those who disagree with climate change theory have been locked out of any goverment funding.
The other odd thing is that, if this science is done as we are told, we do we see the same scientist getting large grants each year to study it?
Isn’t it a little odd that those who promote global climate change and the pending dooom of the planet, always hold their meetings in far off exotic locations and fly to and from these meetings by jet airliner? If they were so worried about greenhouse gas emmissions, wouldn’t they stay home and video conference instead?
There are many ideas on how to deal with climate change. But people like Al Gore and UN only seem interested in the solutions that also lead to global wealth redistribution and a liberal control of world economies by the UN.
How odd that the only exceptable solutions all happen to mirror the traditional agenda of people like Al Gore.
65. Anthony Lee | 01.29.09
Are you serious? How do you determine the impact of environment by merely looking at the snow fall? Ever ask yourself why is there extreme weather on both end? Colder winter and hotter summer? The whole complex weather system is much more than just snowing 4x the norm. Stop looking at the obvious and actually do something actual thinking and educate yourself. Silly arguements!!!
Mike McFadden wrote;
“Here in New England this winter has been unusually snowy with snowfall in December something like 4x the average. Does climate change affect amount of precipitation? Is rainfall/snowfall an indicator of climate change? If it is than, for the love of Pete, we’ve got to fix the environment because I’m sick of shoveling.”
Regarding the smart guy why don’t you move to the equator or something. It suppose to snow in New England.
66. Non-believer | 01.29.09
Scientists come down on both sides of the Global Warming debate yet the media at large seems confounded that people are drawing their own conclusions based upon different data sets and their own experience. This is a derisive article designed to quash intelligent discussion of an important issue.
67. jeff | 01.29.09
CS Monitor should look into the large number of comments being posted denying global warming. I suspect they are all coming from the same small group of people who refuse to acknowledge any scientific evidence in favor of their blind allegiance to fossil fuels. Can CS Monitor track the IP addresses and location of all these comments?
69. gh0st | 01.29.09
Stupid people tick me off. Its one thing to disagree, but as Dilbert put it so well, when did ignorance become an opinion???!?
“650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
Wow…smoking gun. Yowza. Woosh. Call up Rush. Because that is the only place that something like this will be seen as a meaningful argument. People with more than 2 IQ points could point out a few simple things…
What PERCENTAGE of world scientsists is this?
I could find 650 experts that deny the Holocaust. That means it didn’t exist!
650 versus 52 authors…the entire body of the disenting population versus the authors of a single report. What flavor of stupid is this? I mean, seriously. How in the world is this a point. I have 2 people that disagreed with 1 author. That means that 100% of the population of experts disagrees with the…I can’t even get my brain to pretend to be that stupid.
Here is a BIG hint for you guys…over here on this side of the aisle, we like common sense and research. When you get those (making a claim is not research, but I am not getting into that here as it would be an even greater waste of my time) come back so that we can have a grown up talk. Until then, take you third grade level “650 experts” insanity and call up Rush and you can all cirlej3rk around how informed you are.
70. SteveR | 01.29.09
Who is to say what the “correct” global temperature is anyway? Is there some magic number from a certain spring day in 1820 that is the number we should be shooting for? And are we so arrogant as to believe that humans could possibly regulate the world’s climate to get to and maintain that perfect number? I say, no way. The data show only one thing for certain: Earth’s climate has never be in stasis. It has always been (even long before man’s appearance)a very dynamic thing. Earth has experienced warming periods and cooling periods–without any help or influence from mankind’s activities.
71. geoff | 01.29.09
You quote from Fox News as if it came from their hard news division. It is a personal blog. You should report the source correctly.
72. Bill in NY | 01.29.09
Good link Chicken little. A good analysis with many good points and obvious comments that are overlooked by the fear-mongers, but not without it’s own agenda or bias. I would suggest that the most important aspects to be aware of are the ones that make us more efficient. People act in their own best self interest first, and then respond to global “threats” second. I see no problem with governmant mandating more fuel-efficient cars or that businesses reduce pollution. In the end, these things are both better for business and for individual self-interest. Efficiency is what it’s all about and Americans for the most part, revel in their excess, (yours truly not excepted!). I don’t for a minute believe that my house on the shore will be under water in 20 years, but I am a believer in the climate-change cause in as much as it promotes efficiency. By the way, in the computer models, do they account for the fact that water in the solid state has a greater volume than liquid water? I wonder. In the end, it’s a good discussion to have with equal time for both sides.
73. JP | 01.29.09
It’s a shame that some people in the U.S. fall prey so easily to the distortions, obfuscations, and fallacies of logic offered up daily by the right-wing noise machine who, for some reason, are scared of society accepting the reality of human influence on global warming. This is obvious in reading some of the comments here. I see a bunch of tired old debunked “arguments” from people who cannot parse facts from conjecture or do not bother to look deeper into the disinformation they read in their favorite media source or partisan hack website.
74. Dennis | 01.29.09
After reading “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton I started to ask the same question he posed in the novel. Who benefits from the global warming phenomenon? It seems to me the people who benefit from hyping global warming are the same people who rely on federal grants as a way make the necessary funds to live off of. Every year these same people need to give speeches and lobby activist organizations in order to not work 9 to 5 and collect a $60,000 to $80,000 grant to survive until next season when they start the process over again. They also produce little to no evidence to prove the existence of global warming. A nice job if you can get it.
P.S. Al Gore also relies on the popularity of global warming in order to be invited (and handsomely paid) to speak to various colleges and universities on the subject.
75. nate | 01.29.09
i just think that our earth is too large and too complicated for anyone to actually figure out and get a pattern from. i just over heard two old gentlemen talking the other day how they remember in the 60’s when people were talking about another ice age. So “In other words, you can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even.” What about 10 years? 100 year? 1000 years? this planet has been around for a while.
76. Eoin | 01.29.09
SteveR, the temperature is not “supposed” to be any particular figure. The problem with manmade global warming is that it is changing the temperature so quickly that nobody – not animals, plants, nor humanity – is really able to keep up with it.
For instance, a three-foot rise in sea levels is not at all a problem if it takes place over 50,000 years. If it happens in 50 years, though, we’ve got the potential for a major humanitarian crisis.
77. Kylrathin | 01.29.09
Hilarious. Most of the “Global warming is a myth” comments are backed up by facts, whereas most of the “Global warming is real” comments are backed up by “dummies”, “morons”, or “Fox Noise is for the masses”. If debate is going to be irrevocably silenced, you liberals are going to have to do better than that. You cannot prove your hypothesis (it’s not even a theory at this point) that any climate change that may be happening is caused by man. To do that, you’d need a control. Does anyone happen to have a spare habitable planet lying around in our orbit but with no people on it?
78. Patrick | 01.29.09
Ice caps & glaciers are shrinking. They will continue to shrink as temperatures rise. The hotter it gets, the faster they shrink. The faster they shrink, the less sun-reflecting snow & ice there is. The more sunlight absorbed, the hotter it gets. Make sense now?
79. Bob Mack | 01.29.09
Science observes, collects data, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, revises them as required, collects data, tests hypotheses, etc. etc.
There is scientific attribution of climate change to humans without Al Gore ever being mentioned in a paper written by two PhDs in climate science at:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
Here are some global warming myths and facts:
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
While the earth has been in existence for billions of years, and there have been ice ages and big climate changes over time, the periods between eras lasted tens of thousands of years. Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, things have begun accelerating. Geologists spend their careers looking in rocks for trends over millions of years. A period of one hundred or so years is not worth discussing, to them. However, as the data points out to those researchers who have focused intently on annual data, we humans have changed the planet, and in a way that threatens our ability to survive as we have.
You can choose your religious faith. You don’t get to choose facts and data.
80. JB | 01.29.09
See, the comment by Fox News is a classic example of ignorance and poor education.
Because there is global warming does not mean that it will be warm year round. It means the average temperature of the earth has gone up. This has severe consequences for all seasons, as summer can become hotter and winter becomes colder. In essence, weather becomes more erratic. For those of us in the mid-west, we’ve seen winter beginning in October/November and lasting well into May. The south is seeing severe ice-storms, which they are poorly equipped to handle because it is abnormal.
As for the 10 hottest years list, looking at data year to year will give you unreliable statistics. Weather change is over the course of decades and centuries. Take a look at weather estimates a couple of centuries prior to the industrial revolution and those afterwards. These geological changes are more indicative than a year by year comparison. Compare the last 25 years to the 25 years before that. Anything less is too small a sample size to make any reliable determinations.
“Global warming” is misused by people who don’t particularly understand the why it is happening. As someone said earlier, it is better to refer to it as global climate change.
81. afpjr | 01.29.09
Climate Change (being the umbrella term) includes warming trends (i.e. Global Warming). Yes, there is indisputable, scientific evidence that our planet is warming.
As for cold winters, that is in fact part of the process. As summers warm up, polar ice melts, adding fresh water to salty seas. This literally dilutes the Gulf Stream (and other planetary ocean currents) due to relative water densities approaching an equilibrium. As the moon pulls the oceans into tides, so do tidal currents cause atmopheric changes. A totally inert Gulf Stream would mean cold air would simply sit over polar regions. Much of the northern U.S. and Canada would experience a cooling effect, ironically, due to the warming trend.
But, what bugs me is the fact that all this blame game amounts to crying over spilt milk. Whether it’s “human caused”, “human enhanced” or a purely natural phenomenon, the fact is that a warmer planet will force mass extinctions and human migrations, changing the world as we currently know it. Who or what’s to blame is not the appropriate question, but rather how we should react to this change on a large scale.
82. CommanderBill | 01.29.09
Politicalized inexact science has a history of making statements that their conclusions are “fact” and anyone who says different is a dinosaur. The nature / nurture debate of the 70-90s where it was “fact” that heredity had no influence on behavior was proven not to be ‘fact.” The gender / behavior debate of the same time frame declared it was “fact” that gender and behavior had no innate relationship. This concept was soundly debunked. That there is no hereditary link to intelligence was also scientific “fact” with no basis in reality.
Now we have the religion of Man-made Global Warming that we are suppose to accept as “fact” because science says so. The Scientists that say so are largely the ones that their jobs depend on their conclusions. No one is going to fund solar spot cycle caused global climate change research. Believing scientists that job’s depend on sky-is-falling predictions is as foolish as believing politicians will do what they promise when what they promise is whatever is required to get elected.
83. Lindsay | 01.29.09
There is no magic temperature - in the Ordivician, there is a hypothesis Earth was basically a snowball. But it’s a matter of what HUMANS can live with while maintaining our precious Western “way of life”. Global warming is a problem because it will harm agriculture (the foundation of civilization), harm wildlife, harm the oceans, and cause mass human migrations.
If you don’t believe, just wait until Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world. And maybe consider a permanent move to the Maldives - I dare you to cling to your thesis once the water rises!
84. Allen | 01.29.09
Leadership from the top !
If climate change is an importamt issue, I would expect to see that Mr Gore has taken great strides to shrink his enormous carbon footprint.
I fly coach, drive a minicooper and live in a 1200 sq foot home.
Step up to the plate Mr. Gore, and put your lifestyle where your mouth is.
That kind of leadership I respect. If it is not important enough for you to make sacrifices it is not important enough for me.
85. GMNightmare@hotmail.com | 01.29.09
“1998 were, in order, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, and 1995″
Let me ask you, does that order look like “increasing” at all? **** no, it’s jumping around. And, you just agreed, that every year after 1998 has not been hotter. So, temperatures HAVEN’T been rising SINCE 1998. Guess what that means? Temperatures have been DROPPING. 2008 is fairly far down on that list isn’t it?
How about some real proof of global warming instead of BS?
86. Jim | 01.29.09
I believe in Global Warming … Half the globe warms for about 12 hours… and then it cools again for another 12. It’s called the SUN you idiots.
87. Tyler | 01.29.09
I think the important thing to consider here is not whether the *theory* is real or not, but to consider the implications the theory my cause. Instead of complaining, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility of Global Warming, consider taking strides to partake in programs that can improve the Earth. In either case the Earth is deteriorating, and some of its natural resources are diminishing, and we as the dominant species need to prolong Gaia as long as possible instead of taking the side of “it won’t die while I am here.” Think about the posterity of Earth.
88. JC | 01.29.09
Would someone please answer one question that has been screaming in my head since this whole debate began: Is temperature data since 1850–a total of 159 years–a large enough sample to arrive at the conclusion that humans are causing global warming, or that the global warming over the past 30 years or so is noteworthy? I have never heard or read any explanation whatsover how anyone could conclude anything about humanity’s contribution to global warming based on such a limited span of time. 159 years amounts to a grain of sand when considering the age of Earth. If there are resources that are available that tackle this topic, I’d would greatly appreciate it if someone would post them. If such info is available, I’m amazed it isn’t published frequently to rebut nay-sayers.
89. Martin Hansen | 01.29.09
I think the whole debate over global warming is taking up too much money and time from other worthwhile projects. While Al Gore goes on and on and on, deforestation gets little to no press. As for global warming, this planet has gone through many global warming and cooling trends in the past, during times that scientists say humans didn’t even exist. Remember hearing about the Ice Age?! Or the fact that Antarctica used to be a tropical paradise? Seems like a little history would serve as a refreshing knock on the head.
90. Cullen | 01.29.09
“This is nonsense. According to Britain’s Met Office, which has been recording temperature data since 1850″…..
Wait, since 1850… I’m not really sure how great of a scientist you are if your taking data from some farmer in the 1800’s out in a field somewhere at face value. And let’s assume the farmer data was of the standards of accuracy that we have today- this was still before any viable means to share data on a global capacity; he just somehow had other people placed strategically over the planet, even underdeveloped parts. I always wonder when I hear people say it’s warmed up over the past hundreds or thousands of years; how could anyone even know that, lol? Tell ya what, if a scientist has a contraption that can tell us what the temp was on any given day, then they have a time machine… At that point, who cares about global warming… We have a freakin time machine.
Listen, I’m not saying global warming isn’t real, I’m saying it’s a theory and by the definition of climate change being over a really long period of time, we’re gonna have to wait another century or so before we call it fact.
91. john | 01.29.09
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/
Russian Scientists Say Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years…
92. LA | 01.29.09
While the author tries to put the so called “climate deniers” in their place, by puzzling inconsistency. The author claims that the “hottest years on record” have occured since 1998. Small problem with that. If that is the data you are relying on for your junk climate science, may I point out that is far less than the “minimum 30 years” NOAA says is needed to proclaim a “climate trend?” Just saying.
Next.
93. pavel | 01.29.09
I live in Vilnius, Lithuania. Winter here fell in late december, after which there was a huge spike to -20oC for, a week, and now for almost a month in 0oC and most of the snow has melted. A decade ago winter started in November and the average temperature in the middle of January was -25oC.
BUT THERE’S STILL SNOW ON THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, THEREFORE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIBRUL TERRIST MARXIST MYTH DESIGNED TO DESTROY AMERICUH.
94. Kitt | 01.29.09
Seriously? The climate isn’t changing because it’s winter? The Earth’s axis points AWAY from the sun in the winter season. That’s why it gets colder. That’s something that people should have learned in grade school, but apparently it didn’t stick. I understand people not being able to fully comprehend the science of climatology, but this is really basic stuff, people. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we’re stupid.
95. Tim In Portland | 01.29.09
CO2 is off the charts, the facts are that global warming is real. As the planet heats up, more moisture will be put into the atmosphere during normal climate cycles, but the additional heat will also cause warmer temperatures over a decade, despite the daily or annual climate experience in your region as the article describes.
If you look at the CO2 chart, you see a cooling period after the heat spikes that happen over roughly 100,000 year period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
One problem we face is that the earth cools off much more quickly than it takes to warm up, it may take 100,000 years to get to a normal peak high temperature and only 5,000 to 10,000 years to be in an ice age with an almost unlivable planet.
Human made warming of the earth may very well cause us to move into an ice age at an increased rate or it may just cause the planet to burn up into a dust bowl, except that we are 75% water and history tells us that ice ages are more common.
Earth will remain hotter than ever in our life times, however it is likely that the planet will be looking for a way to quench the heat with an earlier than normal ice age because increased heat creates more water vapor, more water colliding with the very cold temperatures of space as it cools us will result in more precipitation.
96. Babbalon | 01.29.09
Anyone who does not beleive in global warming is an idiot. Anyone who tries to keep people in the dark about climate change is baiscally like Hitler. If more people in the world were like you, then bye-bye world. You guys need education, intelligence, and common sense. Global warming is real, unlike your fake diploma for high school.
idiots
97. pavel | 01.29.09
I live in Vilnius, Lithuania. Winter here fell in late december, after which there was a huge spike to -20oC for, a week, and now for almost a month it’s 0oC and most of the snow has melted. A decade ago winter started in November and the average temperature in the middle of January was -25oC.
BUT THERE’S STILL SNOW ON THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, THEREFORE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIBRUL TERRIST MARXIST MYTH DESIGNED TO DESTROY AMERICUH.
98. Randi Kennerud | 01.29.09
Warming or not, big problems are developing NOW. Acidity in the Oceans is rising quickly. Bass in the West Coast lakes, are now inedible because of mercury content. And the rate of glacier melt has increased. While global warming is a gradual event; global cooling is instantaneous. How else would you find fossilized footprints? Think comets and volcanoes. They will cool us down. Pollution is going to kill us first.
99. Mike McFadden | 01.29.09
Dear Richard and Anthony Lee, I apologize for offending your obviously sensitive natures. It would seem the art of snow removal is one that is cherished in both of your households to such a degree that I caused this mental anguish. Perhaps there are generations of richard’s and Mr. Lee’s family members who have made their living in this honored manner. Do you have a favorite brand of shovel you could recommend to me? or do you whittle your own shovels as part of some coming of age trial that they don’t teach in New England? I’m also sorry that your senses of humor were destroyed in some horrific plowing accident. Where do I send flowers? As for the possibility of relocating I’m better off staying where I am, which is hopefully not near either of you.
100. Globie | 01.29.09
Why not let a scientist inform people on Global warming? John Coleman is the meteorologist who founded the Weather Channel. Here’s everything you need to know about Global Warming from an actual scientist *gasp*…not a politician or blogger:
http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf
101. Mike | 01.29.09
“I just wonder if we want it to be warmer of colder.”
We don’t want climate to change at all; people have settled where it makes sense weather-wise.
If temperatures increase, the deserts that are found around the equator are going to get bigger and bigger and move into our most productive agricultural areas. We can’t just pick up and move north; there’s less land up there and what there is isn’t ready to be used for agriculture.
102. jay | 01.29.09
I’ll believe scientists about global warming, or lack there of, when they can accurately predict the weather ten years in advance, heck even a year in advance.
103. richard | 01.29.09
Sir Karl Popper and Arthur Kuhn noted scientists.. commented that any time a non-scientist takes up a scientific “cause” BEWARE. The argument about global warming and global cooling should not be an argument but a scientific debate. “Pope” Gore of the new religion of global warming is using the precautionary principle to justify sweeping economic changes..
EVERYONE should watch this Candian Broadcasting Company documentary on the science of global warming .. it is based on science and not a lot of emotion.. We must cointinue to try to “falsify” both points of view as is done in all valid science theories.. otherwise we are destined to another iteration of the “Earth is flat”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
104. Andy | 01.29.09
This debate over climate change remains me the one in the 60’s about cigarette and cancer. You won’t believe how many respectable doctors dismiss it, how many more disagree with it and how big the circus (media-circus) was. Even today, there are so many smocking dummies regardless the consequences that whatever problem climate change bring us, will be dismiss too. The good thing for all these skeptics is to keep themselves ignorant, so they have no reason to be worried. For the rest of us, keeping down our footprint is something good, even without climate change. Please, forget my English; it’s as bad as my Portuguese and Italian.
105. Erin | 01.29.09
My previous comment stands. Just look at all the debate over a single article; much like the scientific community, we are divided. This is not a closed debate and neither side should be casting aspersions about the other, the data are clearly subject to interpretation.
That being said, the assertions made by the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd seem as spurious as the wintertime scoffing and decidedly alarmist. Obviously post-industrial age humans have made an impact on the environment but accepting that fact is not defacto capitulation to GW/CC views.
The sad fact is the environment is a serious concern which is being undermined by the propagandist tendencies of those who ‘advocate’ the loudest. GW/CC is being used as a club to bully industrialized nations into a global collective.
106. lucas bishop | 01.29.09
remember with global warming it throws of a more average cycle so you get extremes. so you get extreme colds and extreme warms. also ive noticed is that my winter in the midwest has not been normal. one day its 10 degrees the next day is 60 degrees. this fluctuation is one of the worst parts. a few years ago we had toranadoes in December. in December? that isn’t normal
107. robert | 01.29.09
Global warming is the cause.
Global climate change is the effect.
Some places will get hotter.
Some places will get colder.
Some places will get wetter.
Some places will get drier.
Is mankind causing global warming or is it just a natural cycle? Who can say for a certainty. But, we can only affect our contribution to global warming. We can’t affect nature’s. So why play you bet your planet? Affect what is in our control and that is our impact on the environment.
108. Brian M | 01.29.09
The climate changes. It always has and always will. It did before man was on the earth and it will after. It will get warmer and it will get colder. The concept of anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing climate change will turn out to be another in a long line of mass hyeterias (tulip mania, south sea bubble). The so called “climatologists” are right, but they are wrong regarding the planet. They are right based on the wrong data, incomplete data, and misinterpreting their incomplete and inappropriate data. As a result we have an entire technology we don’t need for a problem that doesn’t exist.
109. MJ | 01.29.09
Debating whether climate change is actually occurring already is missing the point.
The point is that humans are emitting huge amounts of CO2 that was previously buried. We don’t know what the effect of that is going to be, but there’s a good chance that it’s going to be bad.
Therefore, the CONSERVATIVE thing to do is to stop emitting as much CO2 until we know that it’s safe.
I find it bizarre that many of the same people that say we should continue to emit CO2 with impunity think that we should spend trillions of dollars to combat terrorism, a threat that’s negligible.
110. Eoin | 01.29.09
Richard, I think it’s a stretch to call Popper a scientist. He was a philosopher. I’m not familiar with Arthur Kuhn… are you sure you don’t mean Thomas Kuhn? Thomas Kuhn had a doctorate in Physics, but I wouldn’t really call him a scientist. Philosopher of science would be a far better description.
111. Vance Simpson III | 01.29.09
Gore believes that man can change a planet. I vote we send him to Mars to start Global Warming and Terraform Mars into Earth II. Anyone else that wants to charge me more for what I need to live now can go with him. I’m not being selfish. I just think we need our greatest minds on ground zero in this Mars Terraforming project.
112. Ray | 01.29.09
I thought that NASA’s hottest year on record is 1934. I remember reading an article at the following link:
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
It says that “5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.”
I also understand that Global Warming zealots typically cite changes in Polar ice as there call to arms, but I also understand that there are theories regarding Polar drift/shift and theories regarding variable tilt of the Earth axis. Why do we not hear more discussion about natural contributions to climate change? Why don’t we spend some money on studying and analyzing all possible causes? Why should we assume that Al Gore has the 1 and only cause and solution?
One more note: Before anyone decides to move away from carbon emissions and toward “clean” H2O (water vapor) emissions, you should consider the fact that the number 1 contributor to the “Green house” effect is Water Vapor — not CO2. If we conclude that Global warming is happening, then wouldn’t we be making the problem even worse by switching to “clean” H20 emmisions?
At some point: Science, Reasoning, and Common Sense are going to need to be a part of the equation.
113. Dan | 01.29.09
I love the way you lefties argue! Anyone who disagrees with you is either a.) stupid, or b.) close minded. The truth is that there no more stupid or close minded animal on this planet than a liberal! You can’t discuss facts, and logic baffles you, so you assume you are just better than the rest of us. Try making an argument that contains some hard facts for once instead of your smug assertions of superiority. Global warming is proven? Please show me your facts that prove it.
114. Eoin | 01.29.09
Ray, I’m getting tired of saying this because I’ve said it three times already in the comments. That NASA data is for the United States only, not for the whole globe.
115. wake up | 01.29.09
Climate change has nothing to do with CO gases from automobiles. The automobiles and factories of the world produce only a fraction. Volcanoes produce a majority. Climate change is directly related to the solar cycles of the sun. You know the big bright disk in the sky. The sun has just gone through one of it hottest cycles in a century, and now the trend is a less turbulent solar cycle. The polar ice caps are becoming larger not smaller. It’s all a ploy bring in a global carbon tax. Just another form of control. If your on the far right, the left, or somewhere in the middle you have to see a tax is not the answer. WAKE UP!!!!!!!
116. JC | 01.29.09
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question listed above. Regardless, yes, I believe we should do our part to be good stewards of what we have, including leaving the planet in better shape than it was when we came. I recycle, drive a low emissions car, etc. While name-calling is great for attracting attention–and ire–it’s much better to actually add something to this discussion.
Again, if someone would direct me to authoritative evidence for the question I posed above, I’d greatly appreciate it.
117. Carlton | 01.29.09
Yes, global warming is happening and it is bad for you. Think of the difference between weather and climate as this. Warming really means more energy in the atmosphere overall. This means all kinds of resulting extremes are more likely to convert that energy, not certain or predictable, but energy will result in hotter summers and colder winters, bigger storms, more earthquakes, floods, and rising sea levels. It takes real wisdom to act for the benefit of future generations, I hope we find some.
118. Jesse | 01.29.09
I wish global warming would give us warmer winters, i’m tired of riding my motorcycle to work in the snow every day. a couple years ago it was 70 in january, i wish it would be like that every year!
119. Ben | 01.29.09
Reading these comments I am dismayed as a science teacher. I can see just how much work I have to do and just how little scientific literacy exists in the public.
120. Peter | 01.29.09
Nasa adjusted their data. You are using old articles for reference. You need to run a correction.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
(I wonder how Nasa is so precise about the 1880s at any rate, given the technology and lack of urban density then.)
Keep living on faith Gorites, but it would be better for everyone if you would try to be more intellectually curious - please.
121. Ted | 01.29.09
Alarm over climate change?
Exactly what time in the earth’s history was there NOT climate change? Never.
How assinine: “scientists” (translation: socialists) cant’ figure out what man is doing to the environment (Cooling? Warming? Who cares!) but whatever is happening, it proves that we need to implement worldwide socialism and kneecap any successful capitalist societies (though the world’s biggest polluter, China, is exempt, of course, because it’s already a socialist shangri-la).
As for one post that called the term “Climate Change” a more accurate substitute for the defunct term “Global Warming,” you’re right. The earth is cooling, and you’re losing the game, so it’s time to redefine the rules.
Amazing…
122. mrrgl | 01.29.09
This is an obscenely complex system that we simply do not understand.
We cannot even exactly predict what the weather is going to be tomorrow.
To my knowledge, humanity has never made enormous changes in direction due to the results of computer modeling and the advice of scientists in the absence of repeatable experiments. If human-induced global warming is real, we’re going to live through it, very likely in our lifetimes.
123. Eoin | 01.29.09
Peter, you may notice that, at the top of the dataset you linked to, it says: “Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly.”
By “Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature,” they mean temperatures within the lower 48 US states.
We’re talking here about global warming. Not US warming. Global. As in worldwide, planetary, pertaining to the entire earth.
124. Phil | 01.29.09
The majority of you are ignorant and will wonder what happened and why nothing was done when these CHANGEs become irreversible. You say, “well gee uhhh its been real cold this winter, so Al Gore is therefore an idiot”. That seriously is the substance of your argument. Wow. The evidence is in the glaciers and ice shelves that our melting at unprecedented rates. Glaciers that have been around for 10,000 years are disappearing in a matter of decades… The problem for AL is that human science and math cannot accurately predict what will happen with some type of conceptual model. But, what is apparent is that that temperatures are rising, albeit slowly, but still rising… These same people who like to poke fun at Gore are ignorant whelps who probably only get their news from this often horribly biased periodical. Boo to the CSMONITOR for promoting this often sarcastic tone and BOO to you ignorant idiots—who might not see the full effects in their lifetime, but surely your kids will and their kids will definitely bear witness to the effects. I’m done ranting.
125. doug | 01.29.09
Global warming, global cooling - WHO CARES? Really, there’s not a whole lot we, as humans, can do about it. The earth has been going in cycles for millions of years without human interference. Why waste the money to correct something we cannot do???
126. Erik Kunz | 01.29.09
Global Climate change, global cooling and warming at the same time. That is the reality.
127. AaronD | 01.29.09
Haven’t you heard it’s not ‘global warming’ anymore. It is now ‘climate change’. Doesn’t it sound better? It is politically correct to say ‘climate change’.
Keyword political. Think people PLEASE!!!
I encourage alternative energy, but don’t flatter yourself into thinking you change the global climate.
128. Morell E. Mullins | 01.29.09
It is unfortunate that there is so much oversimplification, misinformation, and outright propagandistic disinformation, about climate change. Global warming does not necessarily mean that Maine or Canada will become warmer, although they may. Global warming is a matter of average higher temperatures and CHANGE. Weather patterns may shift regionally. Areas of substantial rainfall in the past may suffer drought. Arid regions might get more rain. A relatively minor shift in ocean currents could radically change the climate of the Pacific Northwest, or Great Britain.
129. Kevin | 01.29.09
Remember that in the 70’s “global cooling” was a big fear of that time. Time & politics seem to slide on by from fad to fad.
130. kenneth | 01.29.09
i don’t see how people can refute climate change from any direction other than a scientific one. blaming the reason for the promotion of climate change on socialist agendas, get rich schemes regarding carbon taxes, or whatever are irrelevant. if you have a problem with a scientific theory you must refute it scientifically. you must prove that the theory has exceptions that render it as not a valid theory. but how can you do this is you don’t understand the underlying mathematical model that the theory is based on. sorry but if you don’t understand second order linear differential equations, and similar types of mathematics, and all the underlying assumptions that the model is based on, you don’t have a clue as to the global warming/climate change argument. you are just repeating or parroting the same nonsense coming form others who don’t understand. by the way newton’s theory of relativity, is coming under fire from scientist who believe that it may not explain phenomenon at the quantum level, any ideas on that? i understand mathematics, but i am not a climate scientist. so for the sake of future generations i would rather err on the side of caution.
131. Marcos El Malo | 01.29.09
Personally, I’d rather ignore the science than have to alter my lifestyle or inconvenience myself in any way. I’d rather mischaracterize this crisis as a liberal plot than question the viability of my lifestyle.
132. Offsuit | 01.29.09
Comment 96 from Babbalon says: “Anyone who does not beleive in global warming is an idiot. Anyone who tries to keep people in the dark about climate change is baiscally like Hitler. If more people in the world were like you, then bye-bye world. You guys need education, intelligence, and common sense. Global warming is real, unlike your fake diploma for high school.
idiots”.
This is what passes for scientific discussion and debate these days. One might try to say that this is just the rantings of an illiterate blog commenter, but one gets the same kind of “anthropocentric global warming denial is equivalent to holocaust denial” line from the luminaries of the environmentalist movements. People who refuse to drink the koolaid are clearly in need of (forcible) re-education until they conform to the proper opinions.
This tells me everything I need to know about the so-called “man made global warming” movement. Valid scientific theories do not need to resort to such tactics, and in the face of them, the proponents of such theories would renounce those tactics vigorously. That isn’t what’s happening though. Color me not surprised.
133. Lindsay | 01.29.09
Hey! I am liberal (in some, not all, regards), but come from southern Ohio, was raised as a Christian and lived in one of the biggest Republican communities in the US. My family is largely conservative and we manage to get along.
Liberals are NOT “out to get you”. There have been some derogatory comments made, which is unfair (but the other side has done it as well). I think liberals/climate-change believers are just frustrated because many people don’t see this threat as a real threat. And that is scary because we, all people, must ALL act on it as climate change will affect Everyone.
Now, people could make that argument without slinging around the word “stupid”.
The truth is scientific education is lacking in the US. It’s a matter of ignorance, not stupidity. It’s also a matter of national security and wellbeing.
More than a few climate change-doubters on this post have a misguided conception of what the terms fact, theory, and scientific observation methods actually mean/entail within the scientific community. It’s like the difference between a doctor calling someone insane and me calling someone crazy. The first is a professional term, judged by standard criteria and the second is me shooting my mouth off.
134. Brenda | 01.29.09
Well it may be cold for most of the country but here in Reno Nevada it’s been warmer and very dry, it sure is nice but it doesn’t mean it’s all right there’s lots of concern about our water supply. Do you people honestly think that what we do and how we live has no impact on this planet?.
135. chris | 01.29.09
my thoughts: Global warming is happening….but is perfectly natural. If the earth wasn’t warming up, those of us in the midwest wouldn’t be here, because there would still be glaciers from Canada to Arkansas. So, after all the ice melts, the ocean levels will rise….what’s new about this…remember learning about the land bridge that used to go from Alaska to Russia? How do you think it isn’t there anymore? (besides it perhaps falling down) So with all the additonal water, the ocean currents will change, which will result in a change in wind currents. When that happens, expect the air to the north to get colder and when it snows, it won’t all melt. Thus a new ice age (major ice age #4) will start. All the previous ice ages happened before industry…or humans in our current evolutionary state. So, is the earth’s cycles something we can control…no. But we will worry about things that are proven (in theory and no facts) that may or may not hurt the earth. Like CO2. Let’s worry about what we emit in our cars at ground level, not worry about the shuttle directly depositing tons of it into the atmosphere. We will worry about CO2 emmissions from animal ****, trying to tax the amount of animals a farm can have, without worrying about the flatulence or the respiration rate of people. We will worry about CO2 emmissions from our power plants, but never worry about the CO2 produced by fermenting yeast for products like beer, or those companies that solely produce CO2 for use in soft drinks or kegs of alcohol.
At best, the CO2 arguement is hypocritical, short sighted, and a farce. Environmentalism is a big business right now, and they are acting like it…they do all this to make money, and only to make money. If the earth was their true concern, they would be finding solutions (like how to pipe the emmissions from electric plants to a building where the emissions then be used for a separate purpose or perhaps going back into the landfills and finding anything that can be recycled or finding ways to recycle materials that currently can not be recycled), not trying to fund more studies.
136. Ron | 01.29.09
I’m so tired of this shrinking polar ice argument. See this University of Illinois study:
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
When polar ice last August was very low (which it was), it was reported as the second-lowest ever in news reports, or the second-lowest in history, when “ever” meant since 1979 when satellite observations of the ice began. So now can I say it’s at the highest level “ever”? I have more integrity than that.
I haven’t seen this reported in my newspaper, although the paper was all over the “second lowest” report last August… Just as when the Great Lakes are low you hear all about it, and of course the comparison is with the record-high levels in the 70’s (but they don’t say that it was a record period), but now that the lake levels are significantly higher the last couple of years you just don’t read about it at all–same with the ozone hole. Or when the NASA correction was buried on page 32 of my paper three weeks after it was reported, when the record US temperatures were previously printed on the front page. So there is a conscious bias in newspaper reporting that is evident to anyone who really follows this topic. And that’s why there’s not much credibility in all of this and there is reason to be at least somewhat skeptical of it.
137. S. Spurgeon | 01.29.09
We are in the fifth year of a major drought here in West Texas, but that doesn’t mean it’s never rained in five years. It means the AVERAGE rainfall has been extrememly low for five years. In fact, last spring we had what locals called “the flood of a century,” but you can ask any farmer–just because we had one good rainstorm doesn’t mean there’s no more drought. Just because we’ve had one cold winter in one part of the globe doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as global warming–as the article suggests, you have to study the averages. Nor does global warming mean that things will be great for cotton farmers in West Texas or for folks who would like to see palm trees in DC. When the global climate changes it isn’t just temperatures that change, it’s also rainfall (when the rains come as well as how much rain falls), storm patterns and intensity, the routes of ocean currents that determine whether fish have food available when they need it (or not), the time of year when crops bloom and newly hatched bugs are developed enough to pollinate them (or not), and a million other variables we haven’t even thought of yet. It might sound nice for farmers to have a longer growing season in West Texas, but not if the five year drought turns into a 50 year drought.
138. denny | 01.29.09
What this article does is help us distinguish between weather and climate. Individual weather events and even single seasons don’t really matter in the larger consideration of global warming. I’m fine with poeple debating the question of whether we have real global warming and serious climate change happening. What really annoys me is the attention brought (ususally by Drudge or Fox) to a single storm or season (always cold) as though it tells us anything about the truth of climate change. That goes for others who put too much stock in a heat wave. In fact, the scientists are telling us that an unseasonably hot or cold event could be telling us the same thing - they both could be symptoms of broader climate change. The fact there’s aberrant weather is more relavent than whether it’s hot or cold. Let’s have the dialogue focus on what’s relavent.
139. Android | 01.29.09
We have a cultural epidemic in this country. Somewhere, somehow, the idea became pervasive that everyone is entititled to an opion on everything, regardless their level of knowledge about the subject. In a country where half of the population rejects evolution, it should not be surprising that so many fail to trust science as it pertains to climate change. Indeed, many of the prevailing arguments against each are remarkably similary and stem from the same basic scientific illiteracy that is so pervasive in our culture.
Arguements like “Who benefits from the global warming phenomenon?” and “i just think that our earth is too large and too complicated for anyone to actually figure out and get a pattern from.” aren’t arguments at all. They are poorly reasoned rationalizations from people who don’t understand the first thing about climate science, and all too frequently science in general. People who think that by posting a link to some obscure table of U.S. climate data somehow debunks the massive and ever-growing evidence of human induced climate change are acting out of ignorance. But perhaps worse, they are acting out of ignorance of their own ignorance.
So I’m sorry, but your distrust of the “liberal media”, Al Gore, or anything scientific does not outweigh the consensus of thousands of career scientists who live and breath these phenomena. So if you don’t believe in human induced climate change, ask yourself how much of the science you really understand. If you don’t, make an honest effort, with an open mind, to learn about it. Once your have wrapped your head around the science, go back and see if any of your old arguments hold up. If they do, then post them from a position of knowledge and understanding. If not, or if you are not willing or able to understand the science, don’t shamelessly display your ignorance by posting your half-baked ideas.
140. Pawadee | 01.29.09
The people saying cold weather refutes the global warming myth are not “all curiously located in the northern hemisphere” as this article claims. Last month two people froze to death in Thsiland. When people are freezing in the tropics, it’s hard to buy into Al Gore’s panic.
141. Snowpeace | 01.29.09
For Tegiri Nenashi,
Put a basin of ice and water in a room whose temperature is rising. If you measure the temperature of water, it will rain at 0 celsius degree for a long time.
142. Canada | 01.29.09
“Remember that in the 70’s “global cooling” was a big fear of that time. Time & politics seem to slide on by from fad to fad.”
Pretty sure they were actually still talking about global WARMING in the 1970’s. I think the main issue here is that some extremely simple-minded people (ahem…conservative Americans) can’t get over the “warming” aspect of climate change. Here, this may help: Stop thinking of it as global warming and start thinking of it as “global weirding”. Global weirding accounts for all those little things we see happening that confuse the non-believers; stupid things like chilly summers and freezing winters, but also serious things like stronger hurricane seasons, incurable diseases, and widespread droughts. When we screw with what’s in our atmosphere, we’re playing Russian roulette with the extremely precarious balance of nature that’s keeping us all alive. Think Al Gore is just annoying? How bout this for an annoyance?: It only takes a few extra degrees to force the ocean to stop turning over. If that happens there will be nothing in nature on this planet working to cool the atmosphere. What does that mean? The oceans start boiling and our planet turns into Venus. Geez that’ll be inconvenient…
143. kenneth | 01.29.09
android post #139
i couldn’t have said it better. people with no knowledge of how science works voicing their opinions on a topic that people trained in the area are struggling with. i wonder how many people even know what a theory is?
144. ItsAboutTheMoney | 01.29.09
I had to look for the “650 scientists”. They exist and have credentials…
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
Here are a couple samples from the above link:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
It’s about money…
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Be skeptical.
145. P | 01.29.09
It stinks that everyone is paid by someone. You can’t really believe anyone 100% on either side of the argument. I’d like to think that the source of the paycheck doesn’t influence the research, but I’m a cynic, so I just don’t believe that. On the argument itself, I think I’d agree that it’s probably not a good thing to artificially increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
146. Snowpeace | 01.29.09
For Tegiri Nenashi,
Put a basin of ice and water in a room whose temperature is rising. If you measure the temperature of water, it will remain at 0 celsius degree for a long time.
147. kenneth | 01.29.09
canada
a lot of these same people believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. it might be a lot to ask them to understand the north atlantic innversion process.
148. Tom | 01.29.09
Gullible warming is the biggest scam in history. The fact there is almost nobody in the media that can even recognize there is a difference between warming and what caused the warming should be a clue. The fact they don’t bother proving their case but instead vilify anybody not in agreement should be a clue. The fact they have portrayed one of the most essential ingredients to good science - skepticism - as being comparable to thinking the Earth is flat or denying the holocaust should be a red flag the size of a continent. How many years do we need to be cooling before the gullible warming crowd will admit we are not warming????
149. Georgia | 01.29.09
It’s really great that people can use the “drastic climate shifts happen naturally” argument. Scientists will not disagree and nor will I, but you fail to realize that those natural climate shifts that have been happening for millions of years are also the reason that 99.99999% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Unfortunately for those religious types, humans are a species, just like polar bears and honey bees. If we’re capable evolving to become the leaders of our ecosystem, we’re capable of finally growing up and realizing that, if we want to exist on this planet, we need to make sure the climate can sustain us.
150. P. Arrington | 01.29.09
Oh, Canada, I love your post!
The first I heard about Global Climate Crisis was in an astronomy course circa 1970′ish. Good ole’ Venus was causing quite a stir. Let’s see, the atmosphere of Venus is 100% greenhouse gases? The mean surface temperature is what? 500 degrees Fahrenheit? Or is it Celsius?
Thanks so much for your comments!
151. P | 01.29.09
kenneth - that’s sort of typical of Internet arguments, I guess…stereotyping everyone who doesn’t believe in what you do. Are there not people like that on the other side of the argument? People who talk about more frequent hurricanes as a sure-fire sign of global warming while maybe never having heard of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation?
Let’s just keep it to the topic rather than railing against the posters. And please note my above paragraph is not meant to in any way say the AMO defeats the global warming argument.
152. Surfer Dude | 01.29.09
Surfers live very much in touch with weather and trends and currents, etc. After the El Nino year, there comes a La Nina year. We are in a La Nina year, characterized by extra cold winter for the mainland US. These phenomena occur on a regular cycle. As the names indicate, they speak of currents of Pacific ocean that flow north along the coast. Sometimes, as the fishermen can tell you, They bring tropical warm water fish to the California waters, not native to the area. While many may have read about El Nino,I for one, have never seen the media report about its flip side, the La Nina. Ocean currents have everything to do with the weather. Inlanders may not have as much knowledge about the sea. Bundle up, it’ll pass. for a few years.
153. John | 01.29.09
What an interesting debate! And thank you to the Christian Science Monitor for hosting it. There are many intelligent comments, but I tend to agree with Kilrathin’s sociological observation:
“Hilarious. Most of the “Global warming is a myth” comments are backed up by facts, whereas most of the “Global warming is real” comments are backed up by “dummies”, “morons”, or “Fox Noise is for the masses”.”
How true. Even the pro-warming links that come after Kilrathin’s comment seem only to appeal to authority, as in edf.org’s main point (which is also untrue): “FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.”
I think we should have a betting market that allows global warmers to prove, over the next few years, the long-vaunted predictive power of their complex and proprietary climate models.
In the meantime, let’s keep listening to the voices that have interesting points to make. And let’s not get side-tracked by voices that are menacing, dismissive, or contemptuous: “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light”.
154. kenneth | 01.29.09
android post #139
i couldn’t have said it better. people with no knowledge of how science works voicing their opinions on a topic that people trained in the area are struggling with. i wonder how many people even know what a theory is?
155. Ray | 01.29.09
Honestly, I think the idea of Global “Climate change” does help the economy because it helps generate an industry that sells T-shirts, paper-back suspense novels, and Sunday night television specials (aka Nostradamus says the world is about to end… again… because it didn’t end last time). But I think there is a danger in the ideas of Global “Climate change” evolving into some New-world religion with Al Gore as the pontiff. So much passion and devotion, about a topic that should involve science, with a political leader at the helm instead of a scientist, seems dangerous to me.
Global “Climate change” may or may not be influenced by man. But if we take intentional action to change it, we might actually make it worse. And with so much passion and devotion behind this movement, we might not be able to stop it if the holy church of Al Gore is actually taking us in the wrong direction.
156. nbitting | 01.29.09
Has anyone read State of Fear? I think Michael Crichton (RIP) had it right on the money. AG is the leader of his cult following and says the world is getting hotter because of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and yet he flies on his private jet contributing more CO2 per year than the average person. And Carbon Credits? Are you kidding me? AG actually owns one of the companies who offer Carbon Credits for those seeking to lower their carbon footprint. And AG even buys his carbon credits from his own company! It’s all a joke. In the 70’s we were on the verge of the next Ice Age…scientists come up with new areas of research to give themselves jobs for the next 20 years.
157. Joe Duh Plummah | 01.29.09
It’s OBVIOUS that there is extreme global warming. Here in Miami, the temperature today was 80 degrees. And I remember that 25 years ago, when I lived in Chicago, the temperature in January was 10 degrees below zero! Now if that isn’t evidence of global warming, I don’t know what is!
158. Metman | 01.29.09
In answer to the title of this article, “It’s cold. Does that debunk global warming?”
In a word, yes.
Especially if it continues to trend colder.
We’ll talk about this again in 30 years.
159. Oscar Smith | 01.29.09
Ok people, global warming doesn’t necessary mean it’s gonna be warm…. because it’s so warm in the poles, the ice is melting, which slows down the warm water currents in the ocean, creating colder weather…
160. Chris | 01.29.09
So yeah…
Global Warming is in a state of scientific consensus…not by scientists who were bribed by the government, just scientists who make standard PHD salaries and do legitamate research regardless of political agendas. You have to understand that it takes a **** of a lot more for a scientist to “fudge data” than it does a politician. You would have to slip past both peer review and editorial review. And I’m talking editorial review of a journal that prides itself on factual information, and is not willing to risk ruining their reputation.
I just love how people who have never done a literature search, and have never heard the global warming argument from a scientifically rigorous standpoint dismiss it instantly without a thought beyond their hatred of the political figures who actively address the issue (who are basically jokes in themselves).
Lastly, to those non-believers…All I have to say is “what if Global warming is true”…What if there is even a small percentage of a chance that it is both true and that it would be severly detrimental as the scientific community seems to thing. Shouldn’t we like…not dissmiss it for the sake of “making sure we are not going to die?” If someone pulls the fire alarm and you see a whisp of smoke down the hall, are you going to at least CONSIDER evacuating, or are you going to wait until you know for sure - meaning the building is engulfed in flames and you are going to die?!?!?!
161. Dante | 01.29.09
Haven’t you people seen the movie THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW? Dennis Quaid explains it all!
162. Ron | 01.30.09
Why would scientific evidence mean anything when we are still living in the dark ages of religious fundamentalism?
163. Bob Mack | 01.30.09
I had a similar debate with a fellow engineer I hadn’t spoken to in a while. He had pointed me to the “scientists’ petition” to the government that global warming was a hoax. That movement’s entire position was based on a paper that was published in a medical journal, not a geologists or climatologists’ scientific journal.. That paper used some data and some correlations to make the claim that the phenomenon of global warming was a fraud. In science, correlations of events and data are “interesting” and merit further analysis.
I obtained another paper that reviewed the first section by section, and pointed out where conclusions were drawn on incomplete data. Global assumptions cannot be made on regional data. Just like the pravda article above, wherein a Russian “scientist” claims we’re heading into an ice age any day now simply based on data derived from one glacier or region.
The Petition Project’s original paper can be found here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
It has lots of graphs and data and makes its case. However, several of its claims about the global climate are made based on regional data, for example, the Medieval Warm Period (of Europe in the Middle Ages).
It cites sunspot activity and one period of increased sunspots and a spike in temperatures. From this a conclusion is drawn and never again tested. We’ve had a similar period of sunspot activity since, with no increase in temperatures. Climate scientists have concluded sunspot activity is not causal, based on the data gathered from analyzing another series of events.
There is a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the science and the scientific claims of that climate paper here:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf
One interesting comment I’ll quote from the Background section of this reference: “While it remains surprising to me that so much attention and confidence could be put into the claims of these authors versus the
authoritativeness of the IPCC findings, I did agree to participate. This note describes the many problems with the science that I identified while preparing for that presentation and in listening to the presentations of the Robinsons at the conference. I am devoting time to preparing this compilation of scientific criticisms because this has apparently not been systematically done, presumably because the views seem so out of the mainstream that no attention will be paid to them. I only wish that were the case, for those attending the Telecosm conference seemed to give
them significant credence.”
For the one poster who actually seemed to have read the edf.org papers I linked to above, all scientists trained in the field of climate science agree. Would you have your Family Medicine doctor perform a knee replacement surgery? No? Why not? He/she is a doctor? Oh, you’d want a specialist in the field of joint replacement…. Believe it or not, I understand.
Here’s a very interesting blog discussion amongst geologists, all with PhDs, in which they ponder why there are so many Global Warming deniers in the field of geology:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/langswitch_lang/in#more-590
You should really read the first 120 or so posts. From one of the comments: “The past helps us understand the future, but only if the same physical and chemical processes are operating.” The same physical and chemical processes that operate today did not operate 500 years ago, let alone thousands and millions of years ago. We burn trillions of gallons of gasoline. One gallon of gasoline burned completely (chemical reaction with oxygen) produces 19.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. Diesel results in 22 pounds of CO2.
Don’t believe me? Go here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml
If you don’t think that makes a difference in the atmosphere, I challenge you to sit in your car in a closed garage and idle through exactly one gallon of gas. It’s not even the CO2 that you have to worry about! There will only be one measly pound of CO emitted from the imperfect combustion of a gallon of gas, and what in heaven’s name is one little pound of anything in the atmosphere of your closed garage going to do to you?
To the science teacher, it’s not just science, but logic and reasoning that must be reinforced. I couldn’t understand why I had to take the requirement “Logic for Undergraduates” when I went to school. Now, I can spot an “argument from irrelevant extremes” from a mile away.
For all the people “screaming” that this person or that is making money from the phenomenon of Global Warming, hundreds of thousands of people are making money from our existing fossil fuel industries. In its 2008 annual report ExxonMobil even stated they were no longer going to fund groups whose sole purpose was to inject doubt into the “debate” about global warming. Google it. And, this is the same company that gave its retiring CEO a $450million dollar golden parachute. Google that too.
Finally, the earth’s average temperature is increasing at a non-linear, i.e. accelerating rate. As of this point, it’s only fractions of degrees. But it is increasing. That is why it is called “global warming.” All the exact effects this will have on the overall climate of the planet are not necessarily known, but a lot of observations lead us to the conclusion that the climate changes and possible ocean level rises are really NOT aligned with us all blissfully living “life as we know it” for another 100 years.
165. Hurf | 01.30.09
It’s a good thing conservatives are in the doghouse, let them stew in their own bitterness. Rush Limbaugh can tuck them in at night, Hannity can sing them to sleep, and they can dream of Palin while the rest of the world get’s **** done.
166. Jan | 01.30.09
Sure this is a cold winter, actually about the coldest of this century. However, compared to the 20th century, this is a rather normal winter. We just forgot how cold it used to be.
CO2 keeps our planet warm. By burning fossil fuels and destroying forests we went from 280 ppm to 385 ppm CO2. It’s simple physics known for over a century that this will cause global warming. Something like changing from double paned to triple paned windows.
Even if the models are not perfect, they all agree on temperature increases that will be extremely disruptive (ecology, food production, health, water availability, sea-level).
Dennis Quaid is an actor, and just speaks the lines of the script. Please listen to scientists, who have a consensus on global warming: even if not all the details are clear the risks of not acting are simply enormous (and the insurance companies know by now).
167. Marc Mauss | 01.30.09
Most of this discussion centers on only one of the two main questions here. The focus seems to be on whether the mean global temperature is rising or not. Let’s assume that it is. Now for the more important question: Are we causing it? Let’s not forget that, geologically speaking, we’re still exiting from the tail end of an ice age. Let’s not forget that temperature measurements on other planets show changes similar to what we see here.
We assume that the homeostatic temperature on earth is where WE want it to be. In reality, our comfort level may be at one end of the “normal” temperature range.
168. David | 01.30.09
The biosphere is the only place that we know of where there is life and it is vary delicate balance between too hot and too cold and too much light and too little light too much water too little water etc. etc. In all of the observations made by all men thru all of time everything is changing all the time. Why suddenly do people think that our climate will remain the same from decade to decade. It is we people who have to adapt to the changing climate we cannot addapt the climate to our prefferences. AlGore is a hipocrit, he has produced more carbon in the last year than I have produced in my lifetime. In the 1970’s the buzz on the networks was a fear we were entering a ice age, at that time here in Oregon there was a 7 day week where the temperature never rose above freezing which is vary unusual. I have also seen winters where there was not frost at night one time. Scientists studing the sun have estimated that we are entering into a time in the suns cycle which will likely produce global cooling for several years and history shows the level of carbondioxide in the atmosphere trails the global temperature rise which is not indicitive of the cause of it. My personal fear is tax increase and regulation of fossil fuels just as we enter into a time of global cooling. David in Orygun
169. Pata | 01.30.09
Data compiled by NASA indicates that 2008 was the coldest year by global measures since 2000. The Arctic ice expanse was greater than the previous year. Does this mean Global Warming theories are wrong?
No.
Climate study concerns long-term trends, so this one data point, or a few dozen data points, tell us nothing about climate.
Looked at a different way, It’s true that 2008 was likely the coldest year since 2000, if the same temperatures had prevailed in the 1990s, it would have been the warmest year on record.
The global graphs are particularly vivid in support of the need to sharply reduce our reliance on fossil fuel burning. They show a steady increase in both temperature and CO2 levels within an envelope of “noise”, minor upticks and downticks from the trend-line.
The great majority of us cannot make our own measurements and come to our own valid conclusions. But, I do know, in an intensely personal way, that “my” electric energy provider has done nothing whatsoever to help us improve our energy efficiency and thereby save our own money. We all can save hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars each year by improving the integrity of our houses, caulking air leaks, adding insulation, upgrading windows. These actions help everyone, and are not fostered or promoted in any manner or degree by the local electric utility profit giant that transmits energy to my house. I hope you have better luck with yours.
170. Duke | 01.30.09
Whether or not the last 10 years have seen flat or falling global temperatures may be arguable. What is inarguable is that the climate models and projections from the UN group projected a continued rise in temperature, which has not come to pass. We would be fools to enter into a series of costly measures based upon scary projections from computer models that have demonstrably failed. I use computer models myself, but whether you look at global warming or finance, their limitations must be understood, ESPECIALLY by advocates masquerading as journalists.
171. NewSkeptic | 01.30.09
I don’t think there was ever a scientific consensus on global warming. There was political pressure to conform, as we are seeing in this discussion. And there was suppression of dissenting views. But, this seems to becoming to an end. Legitimate scientists are speaking out against the global warming orthodoxy more and more.
Here are two recent examples:
wattsupwiththat.com has a lot of great information — certainly far better than this article (and many of the comments). I highly recommend it.
The best weapons against the Chicken Little’s of the world are facts.
172. NewSkeptic | 01.30.09
It is now well established that studies of ice cores (such as the Vostok and Taylor Dome) show that CO2 concentrations lag temperature by about 800 years. That is the opposite of what you would expect if atmospheric CO2 were driving climate change — because causation cannot work backwards in time.
This is obviously causing problems for global warming theorists, and there have been some far fetched attempts to explain this away — Hansen, in particular. It reminds me of the use of epicycles to try to reconcile geocentric theories of the solar system with actual observations. Eventually the fall of their own weight. Ptolemaic theories actually were much better than today’s global warming theories — because they actually predicted accurately. There were just much simpler explanations available.
In the case of the observed lag between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores, the simplest explanation is that the earth warms, the oceans react very slowly to that warming, and over time the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Fortunately, global warming theory is starting to fall apart.
173. Bill Haase | 01.30.09
You, (CSM), cover issues better than any other news media!
Nature has one heck of a number of variables. That is why scientist have so much problem modeling nature. To be any where near accurate they must put bounds & limits on their evaluations. Our planet is very old and constantly changing. I am more worried about the weakening of our magnetic field, which can be more easily measured than the climate, and a possible switch of poles.
On climate change there are many variables; what we do physically to our planet; the number of BTUs we create, i.e. changing energy forms, solid, liquid, gas, radiation; the laws of thermodynamics still work.
Finally how do we pick the one variable that is responsible? It might just be the old adage follow the money or those in power choose others to pay the bill and do the work.
Thanks for reporting news rather than promoting news.
174. Danny | 01.30.09
You imbeciles.
It’s not about Al Gore. It’s not about Al Gore. It’s not about Al Gore. It’s not about Al Gore. It’s not about Al Gore.
It’s NOT ABOUT AL GORE.
175. Peeko Sanchez | 01.30.09
I love how the article points out the difference between weather and climate, and then a bunch of folks leave comments reporting the weather in their area…reading comprehension is still tragically low in this country.
The most disturbing part of climate change to me is that in the face of predictions, we start arguing instead of acting. Would it be so terrible to have free energy and clean air? Would it be stupid to plan how we’d “weather” climater changes, HOT OR COLD, just in case thousands of scientists are right?
Seriously, what is so wrong with being careful about how we treat our planet and thinking about how to deal with the possible consequences of our actions? If climate change proponents are right, and we take action, billions of lives could be saved. If the climate change naysayers are right, and we take no action, we will only continue to suffer from the other effects of relying on polluting sources of energy, let alone the wars that accompany our dependance on finite resources from foreign lands. How many trillions have been spent on preserving our access to middle eastern oil? How many trillions have been spent on treating disease from pollution?
Whether climate change will be as dramatic as predicted is unknown but whether we decide to take better care of the planet god gave us is completely in our hands.
176. Ray | 01.30.09
Again, I just want to restate: taking action needs to be done with some intelligence. We want to reduce CO2 emissions, but we need to be careful about how we choose to do that. If we follow suggestions of some GW zealots, and change to fuels that emit H2O vapor, in place of CO2, we may actually accelerate the Global Warming phenomenon.
Please review a couple of these links if you wish:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warming/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/
Please don’t hate me just because I don’t hate CO2. Honestly I would rather live in a world without smog too. But please don’t blindly embrace fuels that emit H2O vapor solution that would make the condition worse.
177. Earl_E | 04.08.09
I awoke this morning and noticed it was exceptionally bright. I looked out and saw the sun shing down and realized that we had global warming. The Wilkins Ice Shelf, 25 miles long, broke free and the winter ice extent was getting smaller overnight.
But as the sun set, it cooled off, and I knew then we were starting another ice age. The snow fell deeper in the Bering region due to a Pacific current slowdown. Snow fell and bitter cold lashed the mid-west…
Of course a Pacific slowdown means the onset of El Nino. Let’s hope Texas gets some rain so GW Bush has tomatoes this year. Palmoil trading spiked on the possibility of shortages.
178. Earl_E | 04.08.09
Newskeptic relates that CO2 lags warming by 800 years.
So what does it mean when CO2 preceeds warming like it is now?
What do you mean “you have no geologic evidence on that ever happening?”
Oh no, you mean it is like a science experiment that we are in and can’t stop?
Did anyone sign up to be part of this test?
You mean to tell me you are introducing particulate substances into the atmosphere, soil and water BEFORE you have any idea what is going happen?
What if CO2 actually assists in warming, or even worse, what if any excessive CO2 flips the ability of the planet to consume it?
Its called The Venus Effect.
Let’s speculate that this year we see a record low sea ice extent in September and the worst wildfire season in recorded history. Assuming drought conditions persist, crops not being planted, that the arid land percentage spikes, anyone want to bet on how much one of GW’s tomatoes will cost?
180. Ivan | 06.16.09
“10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997″
And it turns out that NASA’s data was wrong yet you still keep believing.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Kevin | 01.29.09
Why doesn’t Gore drop the global warming notion already.
I wish to God there was global warming. I’m tired of 8 months of cold winters here in Midwest
I wish he would go back to improving the Internet he was responsible for creating.
What a Joke!