You have to read the fine print -- one article called the floods "historic" but then added it was the worst "in 15 years"!

For many kids, "wierd weather" would be more like the cold snap that Seattle is experiencing...did you know that we're "colder than Siberia"??

Seattle weather: Colder than Siberia!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/200447066 ...

So much for the warming...

it's like, "drought? what drought! there's water coming from this tap!"

...On March 19, 1956, Governor Ribicoff made the following statement before the United States Senate Appropriations Committee listing "what the 1955 floods cost Connecticut:"
*"91 persons dead and 12 others missing and presumed dead.
*86,000 persons unemployed.
*More than 1,100 families left homeless.
*Another 2,300 families were at least temporarily without shelter.
*Nearly 20,000 families suffered flood damage.
*Sixty-seven of our 169 towns were affected by the floods.
*The damage to individual property, to business, to industry, and to State and municipal facilities has been estimated at almost half a billion dollars."3 ... (1955 values)

Check-out: : http://www.cslib.org/flood1955.htm

What were the CO2 levels in 1955 again?

Cold waters in the Pacific are causing the severe weather, as cold fronts from the west interact with warm Gulf Of Mexico air.  

Until climatologists understand what is causing the unusually cold water in the Pacific, they should keep their mouths' closed.  They are embarrassing the entire scientific community with their absurd hysterical arm-waving.

From about 900 AD to 1,400 AD the climate got considerably cooler, eventually likely causing the destruction of the Viking Colonies on Greenland. Were that trend happening today, it would be put down to "Climate change".

Now, I am not saying that climate change isn't happening, or that we should not be concerned about it. What I am saying is it is simply not true when we report every extreme weather event to it. No honest meteorologist would ever do this.

One of the big problems for environmentalists is credbility. That's because:

a. They lie and invent scary scenarios to garner support.
b. They often have hidden agendas tied to things like a dislike of certain lifestyles - not for environmental reasons, but simply because they think people should have different values and they want to change them.

Critical in framing environmental debate is to be honest and to be realistic.

Victory in Pattani

Until climatologists understand what is causing the unusually cold water in the Pacific, they should keep their mouths' closed.

la nina

As I understand it, it was not a particularly bad hurricane; its just that there were some bad circumstances.  But what about that hurricane, 80 years ago, per Wikipedia:

In south Florida at least 2,500 were killed when storm surge from Lake Okeechobee breached the dike surrounding the lake, flooding an area covering hundreds of square miles. In total, the hurricane killed at least 4,078 people and caused around $100 million ($1 billion 2006 US dollars) in damages over the course of its path.

What were the man-made to CO2 levels in 1928?

Virtually all climatologist who have peer reviewed published findings about Anthropogenic Global Warming have said this:

"While Global Warming cannot be linked directly to an individual weather event because of other factors, the science says that extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less."

The science only talks about rates and severity over time -- NOT specific weather events.

So both sides are completely wrong in this thread unless they are using the meaning of this whole phrase.

This is the same misunderstanding that caused FOX News to misquote Al Gore's NPR interview a few weeks ago.  Gore was careful to acknowledge both sides of this understanding I have written above.

But I think Black Wallaby knows that the real science tells a more realistic truth and is pointing out more foolish statements to forward his agenda.

-Christopher S. Johnson

It has nothing to do with LA Nina.  The theory is that "CO2 forcing" is steadily increasing the heat content of the oceans, yet that does not appear to be the case.  Obviously there are other factors at work which the climate modelers do not understand.  

If they did understand, they would have predicted it - which they didn't.

If you would stay with the energy theme and how to reduce CO2 that would be nice, as you've proven a complete misunderstanding about how weather relates to climatology.

That said, the NCDC data was pretty neat, even if it proves nothing.  

Onward through the fog

I think the theory is only about ocean SURFACE temps.  ALL responsible climatologist agree that there are other major factors that influence specific events.

-Christopher S. Johnson

You guys have to take the whole pill.

• no specifics events
  
• long term trends look bad with more CO2

It's too bad that nobody has done a study evaluating the frequency of severe weather events and their divergence from normal weather. Then they could check them against current weather and see if Climate Change had an influence.

Until then, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned the wave of freakish tornadoes and flooding that have hit the midwest were totally because of this Global Warming stuff. That or God is totally PO'd at him and his neighbors for hitting the nudie bar last Friday night and then tossing a five instead of a twenty in the church plate.

Blame the coal companies or blame Joe's entertainment choices? You do the math. It's a little beyond rocket science but I think that the Midwest might just be taking the hint.

Put the Carbon Back

Then there's the bigger issues like rising seas, or runaway global warming.

These are valid issues, even if the latter isn't quite proveable.

Therefore it behoves us to move on this threat. But this has to be undertaken in a measured manner, less we do more damage than good in totally disrupting the global economy.

Victory in Pattani

Show me one study that claims that the areas that would benefit from a 4 degree increase in global average temperature would be anything close to equal the areas that would be negatively affected.  Human-wise, that is.

We are talking about leaving the range of climate that allowed for the Agricultural Revolution to happen 12,000 years ago.  Not a new vacation spot for you in Greenland.

-Christopher S. Johnson

"...It's a little beyond rocket science but I think that the Midwest might just be taking the hint..."

And so they should, the sinners, with the worst floods for 15 years!

On top of this, the warmer the planet gets, the more rainfall. Where it falls........ another question. But there will be more.

Lastly, did I say it would be anything close to what would negatively be affected? No, I didn't. That isn't the point. Pay attention.

Victory in Pattani

The 4 degree number from some computer models sounds very dramatic, but can't be justified based on the actual data.  Rather than panicking and throwing the  world's economy into crisis, the (ir)responsible parties should just fix the models.

This has generated a huge discussion because it involves satellites, altimetry, and heat sensors that could easily be biased ... but the general consensus is that OHC has been declining over the last several years. This is rather baffling and contradicts the ambient air data. Scientists conjecture that perhaps (a) more subtropical water is headed poleward and (b) some very cold arctic meltwater is flowing south (speaking of the N. hemisphere).

That doesn't invalidate the global warming issue, since many expected the poleward sea ice and glaciers to melt, and be swept southward on the ocean currents. What is curious is that the Gulf Current (and others) appear to be changing over time ... a fascinating research topic.  -sam

Onward through the fog

That isn't happening.

Shall we look at GLOBAL high temperature records?

State high temperature records
State    Temp    Date                            
Ala.     112   Sept. 5, 1925  
Alaska   100   June 27, 1915  
Ariz.    128   June 29, 1994  
Ark.     120   Aug. 10, 1936  
Calif.   134   July 10, 1913  
Colo.    118   July 11, 1888  
Conn.    106   July 15, 1995  
Del.     110   July 21, 1930  
Fla.     109   June 29, 1931  
Ga.      112   July 24, 1952  
Hawaii   100   April 27,1931  
Idaho    118   July 28, 1934  
Ill.     117   July 14, 1954  
Ind.     116   July 14, 1936  
Iowa     118   July 20, 1934  
Kansas   121   July 24, 1936  
Ky.      114   July 28, 1930  
La.      114   Aug. 10, 1936  
Maine    105   July 10, 1911  
Md.      109   July 10, 1936  
Mass.    107   Aug.  2, 1975  
Mich.    112   July 13, 1936  
Minn.    114   July  6, 1936  
Miss.    115   July 29, 1930  
Mo       118   July 14, 1954  
Mont.    117   July  5, 1937  
Neb.     118   July 24, 1936  
Nev.     125   June 29, 1994  
N.H.     106   July  4, 1911  
N.J.     110   July 10, 1936  
N.M.     122   June 27, 1994  
N.Y.     108   July 22, 1926  
N.C.     110   Aug. 21, 1983  
N.D.     121   July  6, 1936  
Ohio     113   July 21, 1934  
Okla.    120   June 27, 1994  
Ore.     119   Aug. 10, 1898  
Pa.      111   July 10, 1936  
R.I.     104   Aug.  2, 1975  
S.C.     111   June 28, 1954  
S.D.     120   July 15, 2006  
Tenn.    113   Aug.  9, 1930  
Texas    120   Aug. 12, 1936  
Utah     117   July  5, 1985  
Vt.      105   July  4, 1911  
Va.      110   July 15, 1954  
Wash.    118   Aug.  5, 1961      
W. Va.   112   July 10, 1936  
Wis.     114   July 13, 1936  
Wyo.     116   Aug.  8, 1983  

Total Before 1950, 33

Here's a graph of solar cycles vs. temperature......

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifi ...

Here's a graph of CO2 vs. temperature......
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg

Which lines up better against temperature, solar or CO2?

as to the hot weather records, since more than half fell in the 1930s, this kind of thing may be relevant.

i guess that's the convenience of the solar radiance argument, too, right, you can discount the danger of messing with the thermal balance of the oceans.

The 1965 Flood of the South Platte River
http://www.littletongov.org/history/othertopics/flood.asp ...

The Mississippi Flood of 65
http://www.big-river.com/br.story.c.html

Stories Of The Deer Trail Flood June 17, 1965
http://hometown.aol.com/deertrail131/FloodStories.htm

I'd like to also mention that a one-year "global mean average" or AGW of temperatures does not indicate a signal for climate change. That is completely wrong. The correct was to do the analysis is to use statistics on departure from mean statistics using a 30-year rolling window. This will show where and how much temperatures or rainfall is trending over a longer period of time.

Onward through the fog

Beginning on Easter Sunday, March 23, 1913, torrential rains across the Midwest dropped a record three months of rainfall in four days. Floodwaters funneled down Ohio's Miami Valley into the heart of the vibrant industrial city of Dayton. Levees burst, houses were swept away, and downtown was gutted by fires blazing from broken gas mains. At the end of Easter week, nearly 100 Daytonians had perished, and tens of thousands more were left homeless and destitute--a tragedy that made banner headlines in newspapers nationwide. Out of Dayton's ashes and mud rose fierce public resolve never again to suffer such destruction. The Great Dayton Flood of 1913 reproduces some 200 astounding photographs from the collections of the Dayton Metro Library and the Miami Conservancy District and the archives of the National Cash Register Company at Dayton History. They portray the terrifying flood, monumental destruction, heroic rescues, and compassionate leadership that occurred during the disaster and its immediate aftermath, as well as the pioneering flood-control engineering that has kept Dayton safe ever since.

Oh really? Can you point me to any peer reviewed papers that say this?   I'm aware of various pronouncements of an opinionated nature, and media, but have not stumbled upon anything scientific.  I know for instance, that Chris Landsea, an eminent hurricane expert resigned from the IPCC when "that big mouth" Kevin Trenberth publicly contradicted his expertise, with crap, and the IPCC club would not support Landsea probably because of Trenberth's entrenchment in the club.   I've seen a lot of rubbish, but NO SCIENCE.  Please enlighten me.

While it would certainly be convenient for carbon dioxide emissions-control lobbyists if an unusual occurrence of floods and droughts were plaguing the globe, unfortunately (for them), this is simply not the case. While it is true that at any given time in multiple places on earth some level of drought (or precipitation surplus) is occurring, but these reflect normal patterns inherent in the earth's climate variability. That these are highlighted in the press simply plays into the media's fascination with catastrophe.
Their fascination with one particular "catastrophe," climate change, leads them to make connections where connections don't really exist. Such is the case with greenhouse warming and global precipitation, as demonstrated in a June 2004 paper appearing in Geophysical Research Letters by Nathan Gillet and three colleagues.
Global climate models have always had a difficult time simulating precipitation amounts. And for good reason: Scientists don't fully understand the process, and linking up what's happening within a cloud to the very coarse scale of a climate model is beyond our computational and, more important, scientific capabilities. Nevertheless, climate models do make projections of future precipitation patterns under input scenarios depicting various levels of human activity.
Gillett `s research team attempted to find out if the observed patterns of global precipitation over the last 50 or so years matched climate model expectations.
To examine this question, they used the National Center for Atmospheric Research Parallel Climate Model that was run with three different climate forcings: volcanic aerosols, solar radiation, and the combined effects of greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, and ozone depletion. They also ran the model for a case in which all three factors were entered simultaneously. All those forcings were allowed to change monthly based on historical observations, and the resulting modeled precipitation was compared with observed precipitation over land areas across the globe (precipitation observations of the world's oceans are quite sparse).
Figure 1 compares the observed precipitation changes with the model results. Before being plotted, the data were first smoothed to remove shorter-term variation, in this case to remove impacts of El Nino and other non-external components of natural precipitation variability. (In many cases, data are smoothed when scientists are trying to hide bad results, but in some cases, the procedure can be justified.)

Figure 1. Modeled (broken lines) and observed (solid line) global land average daily precipitation.
The quality of this simulation is in the eyes of the beholder. It's obviously not a perfect match--the model misses the precipitation peaks in the mid 1950s and the early 1970s, but some of the low precipitation periods are picked up pretty well. The model also misses the average rainfall rates because it tends to vary less than reality. Overall, the correlation between the models and observations is a statistically significant 0.45, which means that only 20%, or one-fifth, of the variation in global land precipitation can be accounted for by greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask to what extent greenhouse gases are responsible for the changes observed over the period of record. So the authors compared the observed patterns with each of the forcing responses separately. They found that only the volcanic signal was detectable. In other words, monthly changes in greenhouse gas levels from the late 1940s to 1998 had no demonstrable impact on global precipitation rates over land. According to the authors, "Overall, we thus find evidence of volcanic influence on terrestrial precipitation over the past 50 years, but no evidence of anthropogenic or solar influence using our methodology." Other modeling work has suggested that the rainfall minimum in the early 1990s was linked to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. And the previous minimum in the mid-1980s followed on the heels of the eruption of El Chichon in 1982.
The theory here is that changes in shorter wavelengths of radiation (the heat coming from the sun) are more important than variations in long-wave radiation (the radiation emitted by the earth that is absorbed by greenhouse gases). There is also evidence that planet cools following volcanic eruptions, so a cool planet is apparently less rainy than a warm planet.
So the rainfall problem continues. It's hard to blame human activities on precipitation changes unless by burning fossil fuels we are provoking the wrath of the volcano gods.
Reference:
Gillett, N.P, A. et al., 2004. Detection of volcanic influence on global precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L12217, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020044, 2004.

Wisconsin had its 33 coldest winter on record, nearby Iowa its 19th coldest in 114 years. The cool weather continued into the spring with the 22nd coldest spring on record in Wisconsin and 24th in Iowa.
The severe weather and heavy rainfall has been the result of rapid COOLING in the northern tier of the United States and Canada not global warming. The flooding exceeded the floods of 1993 when rapid cooling following the eruption of Pinatubo produced a similar kind of cooling with a strong suppressed jet stream that brought a steady stream of storms and flooding.
Rapid warming as took place in the 1930s and again around 1980 leads to drought and record heat. The alarmist movement is reeling after the warming stopped in 1998 and cooling began in 2002, accelerating in the last year. Their claims have now morphed from warming to focusing on the extremes typical of La Nina and the colder decades.

Are you aware that most of the world does not watch/listen/read FOX news?   What is it?  Should I in the antipodes understand what you are saying?

Christopphersj also wrote in part:
"...But I think Black Wallaby knows that the real science tells a more realistic truth and is pointing out more foolish statements to forward his agenda..."
(My emphasis added)

There are actually several aspects in the AGW (Armageddon Grievous Weather) debate, of which ONE of the commonest is media reporting of the most recent worst-ever disastrous bit of weather which is obviously caused by AGW.   Thus, in this aspect alone, I cannot see why you think it is foolish to point out that the recent worst-ever weather has been exceeded by even much worse ever events in the past.

Please explain the logic of your criticism.
Please also explain: what is my agenda in your eyes

Scientists noted several volcanoes and the advent of the Industrial Age (with black carbon coal aerosol). The question since the Industrial Age is whether mankind's air pollution levels are a signal of causation in the grand scheme of things. I think so, at least as a catalyzing mechanism.

Onward through the fog

Respectfully, the debate surrounds Carbon Dioxide which is what the United Nations and Al Gore are attempting to regulate. Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You,(and I), are producing Carbon Dioxide every second of everyday. CO2 is NOT pollution.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/surprise- ...

Now, if you'd like to discuss reducing POLLUTION, I'm all for it.

Connecting CO2 emissions with "catastrophic environmental events" is the Mother of all taxation excuses. Imagine government control of every enterprise that is connected to energy consumption......a tax and spend politician's dream come true.

So the question becomes whether mankind, with is huge air and water emissions, has tilted things enough to be considered as pollution even if it is CO2, oxygen, nitrogen compounds, sulfur, or whatever.  Remember, even clean water can kill you - it's called drowning!  Darn pollution ...

Onward through the fog

If you'd like to control the weather.....excuse me....... "climate", you should try to figure out a way to regulate the MASSIVE NUCLEAR FURNACE AT THE MIDDLE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.

Shouldn't take too long............

Commercial Greenhouse Tomato Production: Tomato Plant Propagation
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/ ...

"Once the plants are placed on the final growing media, the air temperatures are maintained at 20°C day and night, with a relative humidity of 75% (VPD of 3.5 to 5 g/m3) and liquid CO2 supplementation to 800 to 1000 ppm."

Also, this.....................

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

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

Fortunately this attitude will go the way of the dinosaurs soon, along with you and your whole sickly political species, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

If you are really that concerned about it, you should pack up all of your dope smoking, Birkenstock wearing friends, along with their peace signs and love beads and set up shop in India and China. Try convincing them that they need to ride bicycles and live in the dark. Test your form of "activism" over there......see how things work out.........The eco-chondriacs have been beating this drum for close to 40 years and despite the hand wringing and doomsday predictions, industry has boomed during this period......your alarmism isn't working....... oil, gas and coal consumption is skyrocketing.

Maybe you should write a petition to the head of the Chinese and Indian equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency and ask them to stop building a coal fired plant every week......whoops, no such agency exists........China and India must have many "dinosaurs" within their populations and governments.

Ford Motor on China, India Car Sales Growth (F)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/6046-ford-motor-on-china- ...

Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/business/14oil.html?par ...

It's hooey like you spew everyday that is ruining the dimbulb limboob right.  Hehey.  Keep it up,  good work.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Environmentalists' Wacky Predictions            
Written by Walter Williams
Wednesday, 07 May 2008

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The world as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

As you can see, your kooky environmentalists don't have a very good record predicting anything.

Ethically, if we knew we (as mankind) were really introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then we should take measure to limit and reduce those emissions should there be prevailing science that indicates things could get worse, and rapidly - regardless if mankind's contribution is marginal. To do otherwise is not ethical and verges on hypocracy.

This is a strange manifestation by more of a small but vocal libertarian camp I suspect, as even mainstream Republican "technology delayers" like Bush and McCain agree that climate change and global warming are clear and present dangers. So my recommendation is to pay no mind, and work on those "technology delayers" for faster action.  -sammie

Onward through the fog

BTW, most of us rationalists have no objection to more efficient or different (eg renewable) energy use, but we do object to unnecessary expenditures and scaring the pants off little kids with all the Gorey garbage.

the magic word "troll" appears.

The sad thing is this "scientific" presentation of AGW has been done entirely through bullying with words.

Those who simply ask questions are labeled "deniers".

Someone who presents an alternative viewpoint a "troll".

Those who weight economic consequences are pegged as "delayers".

The people who present really strong scientific data, or question conclusions are said to be "working for tobacco companies".

For something that supposedly involves intelligent "scientists", the whole thing seems really 4th grade to me.

I think that when the full extent of the charade is exposed, those involved in bilking the public, such as Gore, are going to be tarred and feathered and run out of the "globe" on a rail...

Like perhaps Brute, Jabailo and me are all one and the same person but under a range of ID's.

It reminds me of the last part of the movie Animal House where D-Day, Bluto, etc are in the Lincoln from hell about to ram the grandstand and the one ROTC dude is screaming "All is well. All is well". It didn't much matter whether anyone believed him or not, the end result was pretty much inevitable at that point.

Oh, and to all those people who point out that the climate of the Earth was much more rich in CO2 millions of years ago: there weren't any people on the planet then were there? I suppose that perhaps that is an inevitable cycle too, as the CO2 levels rise the humans disappear.

Another analogy would be to a group of people in a stalled vehicle on a set of railroad tracks. Half of the people in the vehicle think they ought to just let the engine cool a bit and the car will start ok. The other half think that they should push the car off the tracks to avoid being hit by a train.

The first group counters that the tracks may be abandoned and no train may even come. Also they point out, trains have used that set of tracks many times in the past and there has never been a car/train collision before.

Soon the whole group is so embroiled in their argument that they don't see the lights of the speeding train as it comes around the bend toward them going much too fast to even slow down...


Mike Johnston

To me, I think the naysayers are truly worried, as climate change bills are considered with more seriousness in the Capitol. It is, pun intended, their "Siberian Moment."  That's when a fisherman falls through the ice in a Siberian lake:  you can get out of the water and freeze instantly, or paddle in the water and slowly drown.  

No wonder they are shouting so loud, and may I add backed by some serious money and redneck NAASCAR appeal.

Just put on your headphones and carry on.  -sammie

Onward through the fog

That said...

A meteorologist -- as in a professional researcher -- interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio described the current flooding as a result of La Nina, not necessarily global climate change. See  the following website, which shows current La Nina data:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso ...

Basically, according to the meteorologist, the La Nina phenomenon in the Pacific has led to the stalling of the Jet Stream over the midwest, as opposed to it migrating further north as summer arrives. Cold upper air that should have moved north by now is colliding with warm moist air out of the Gulf of Mexico, giving us unusual amounts of precipitation. Furthermore, there are currently stationary waves in the Jet Stream that result in storms moving along the same tracks over and over and over. I'm pretty sure this is how the guy explained it. Our enormous amount of snow day after day after day last winter was also the result of La Nina.

If you go to the NOAA website, you'll notice that this will likely happen again next year.

I think it is important to recognize what is the result of global climate change and what is not if a person wants to convince others that it is really happening. Every extreme weather phenomenon is not the result of global climate change.

The REAL missing connection...

Should  those folks rescuing victims of the flooding have to use decommissioned WWII DUKWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW) that otherwise serve to cart tourists around???!!!

Where's the National Guard? Where are their helicopters? Where are their boats? Where are the troops? Where is all their heavy equipment that might be used for reducing the harm due to flooding and/or deploying temporary bridges?

It is in IRAQ... thanks to George W. Bush, his Republican lap dogs, and everyone who voted them into office.

According to Jeff Masters, the ENSO is going rather neutral only recently but the subtropical jet did pump up a bunch of moisture from Tropical Storm Alma/Arthur, so there is much truth to what you say. Persistent high pressure over the GOMEX also figures in keeping the main jet stream to the north.  

Just remember, just cooling of the northern tier of states is predicted in the short term for the US, and does not conflict with Climate Change theory in the least. The tropical belt does seem to be expanding northward at the same time, at least in the atmosphere. With respect to hurricanes we are 2-3 degrees cool for sea temperatures than the last several years (SST and OHC). Again, this apparent conflict doesn't disprove Climate Change theory in the least.  

Onward through the fog

Doesn't the issue at large boil down to two things:

The temperature change coupled with "humanity's" drive for progress puts the rest of the species we share this earth with at risk, therefore putting our food supply and ecosystems at risk.

The displacement of populations as a result of extreme weather puts further strain on already stressed economies.

Yes, extreme weather has a history on our planet albiet the documentation has been shoddy, but that should not discount the the aforementioned matters at hand. Do I think that there is a link between the frequency and power of these storms all over the world? Yes, but I know that is just a hunch and I do not study weather systems so I could very well be wrong. I also know that the weather is something that seems to escape our predictions, even though we have been in practice for hundreds of years.

Also, I don't think that "fear mongering," as some have called it, regarding weather and pollution is any worse than war AND fear mongering which we are all experiencing now. I would much prefer to be afraid of the weather and nature's "bad temper" than be afraid of "terrorists."

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened,  Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end,  amphibians breeding earlier (or not),  anaphylactic reactions to bee stings,  ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk,   anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty,   atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,  Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water,  bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000,  better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened,  building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks,  butterflies move north, camel deaths,  cancer deaths in England, cannibalism,  cataracts, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened,  childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping,   cockroach migration,  coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia,  consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight,  cost of trillions, cougar attacks,  cradle of civilisation threatened, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change,  cyclones (Australia),   danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague,  death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance,  desert retreat,  destruction of the environment,  disappearance of coastal cities,  diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought,   ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season,  Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down,  Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down,  Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing,  eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation,  logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds,  pikas, polar bears,  gorillas,   walrus, whales, frogs, toads,  plants, salmon, trout,  wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species,  not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting,  famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost,  fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish downsize,  fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods,  floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA),  footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased,  frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade,  giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat,  glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop,  great tits cope, greening of the North,  Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,  harmful algae,  harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected,   hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes,  hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not,  hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf collapse, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada),  industry threatened, infectious diseases,  inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats,  invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of midges,  island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful,  lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!),  lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, lush growth in rain forests,   Malaria,   mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days,   more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking,  mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains melting,  mountains taller, mortality lower,  Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters  quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying,  oaks move north,  ocean acidification, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened,   ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts,  plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north,  polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic,  polar bears drowning, polar bears starve,  polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness,   puffin decline,  railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees,  release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash,  rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war,   river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant,   rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease,  ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase,  Salmonella,  satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered,  shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction,  soaring food prices, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams,  transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK),   tree growth slowed,, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful,  trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage,  turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions,  walrus pups orphaned,  walrus stampede, war, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out,  West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia,  wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced,  wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California),  wine industry disaster (US),  wine - more English, wine -  England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French ,  wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.
and all on 0.006 deg C per year!  
Advice of any omissions (with sources) or broken links is welcome at warmlist@numberwatch.co.uk
Note: All links were live at time of posting. Inevitably some will disappear, particularly from Yahoo News.
Thanks to correspondents for additional entries; especially, as always, Our Man in Puerto Rico. Also, thanks to "Scraperguy" for the script to form the following:
The dead link collection
Africa hit hardest, anxiety,  asthma, atmospheric defiance, bananas destroyed,  boredom, cardiac arrest,  challenges and opportunities, cod go south, cold spells, cremation to end, damages equivalent to $200 billion, dermatitis,  desert life threatened, diarrhoea, drowning people, Earth spinning out of control, extinctions (bats, pandas, pigmy possums, koalas, turtles, orang-utan,  elephants, tigers,) god melts, hazardous waste sites breached, human health improvement, lightning related insurance claims, little respo