Past year among warmest of all time
June 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Duluthians are about to complete a remarkable journey marking the warmest 12 months in 134 years, and maybe in recorded history. Continue Reading
Past year among warmest of all time
45 Comments
Call Al Gore! Call Al Gore!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
29 
52
Relax. Nothing predicted by the alarmists have come true. This is proof positive they have no idea what they are talking about.
James Lovelock agrees:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
27
It is hard to believe Duluth may have been under more than a mile of ice 9500 years ago. Global warming is and has taken place. That is undeniable!!! But to suggest mankind has any control over planetary. solar, and ocean currents is absurd. They “assume” that we have control over changes to our environment. Perhaps temperature increases are accelerating and that is their justification to thinking it is man made but they probably can not explain why June 21 is not the warmest day of the year or can they??? As more exposed land is exposed to solar enargy, anyone with a basic scientific would believe accelerating temperature should be expected. As the thermal heat mass of our planet increases our temperatures will increase more rapidly if we have constant solar output. The tilt of our plantet changes on a 80,000 cycle approximately so that may explain some of our previous change. 22.5 degrees to 25.4 degress tilt over this time period!! How much do we know about solar output? Less than 1% or less than .01%?? We do not know much do we and those that support the c/o2 hypothesis are not very educated when it comes to science?? Just my humble oppinion but science does not rely on journalists doing decetive documenaries and scientist that falsify information funded by the socialist UN do they??????????
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Ranger….I’m probably beating a dead horse here, but I’ve more or less posted this same comment a few other times and nobody seems to explain this to me in a logical manner and really address the issue head on. Yes, we’ve been hearing about global warming for a couple decades now and doubters are being told the are living in denial and/or just flat out stupid for not being believers, but for a couple decades prior that that, scientists were telling us the Earth was entering a cooling period and another ice age was coming. I’m quite sure they felt just as “sure” and confident in their predictions using their than state of the art methods of predicting such things as we are now.
So, after hearing about global cooling for a couple decades, then hearing about global warming for a couple decades, now a new word has entered the lexicon…..”global climate change”, which can mean you’re pretty much right no matter what happens.
So, my question is, were we supposed to believe the scientists of the 50′s and 60′s who confidently predicted global cooling and another ice age, or the more current theory of global warming, or the latest theory of global climate change which seems to me could mean about anything and they can claim to be correct.
When we look at history, it’s full of major dire predictions of disaster (remember, we used to think the world was flat….stupid huh ?” which we now in modern society look back and laugh at and wonder how people could ever be so backward and wrong about what now are sometimes simple things to understand. How are we do know when scientists will finally get it all right and we’ll have our final and definative answer that will be the “final answer”.
As I’ve said many times, even if global warming is a crock…..that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have goals of burning less fossil fuels and thereby emitting less carbon dioxide, this is just being good stewards of our natural resources and a great and worthy goal and we obviously should embrace such goals…..but all the fear that goes along with the global warming/climate change/global cooling crowd is what “scares” me…..if you’ll pardon the pun….since throughout history we’ve found that the absolutely best way to control people is to make them scared and put lots of fear into their hearts.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
26
Stewardship is the responsible USE of available resources. It is not good stewardship to bury your assets in a can in the back yard.
There is no reason not to use fossil fuels – responsibly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
37
You are assuming increased CO2 is a 100% bad thing.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been much higher in the past. These have been phenomenal periods of plenty for life on Earth.
There have been periods where CO2 was much less. This has led to ice ages and hard times for life.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
36
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
35
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
34
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
35
It is so hard to keep up with the memes being thrown about by alarmists.
Only a few years ago a Hollywood propaganda film called “The Day After” was pushing it. Based on the theory that runaway heating melts the Greenland glaciers, stops the Atlantic global circulator and disaster ensues. Is this alarmist meme no longer a meme that you all are pushing?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
14
You are using a movie as an example? Wow, that is a new one to show intellectual debate. Next you ought to try Noah’s Ark.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
17
‘Climate is what you expect, the weather is what you get’ Robert Heinlien.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
14
Awful hot in 1878 too. Musta been a lot of buffalo farting going on.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
20
I like that, and it brings a question which I am too lazy to look up, but did the millions of Buffalo that formerly roamed the prairies produce methane like the cattle getting blamed today…?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Well DNT, proof positive of the ability to manipulate the old thumbs device. If you had a time lapse of how those ‘votes’ came in it would be pretty clear. But the sad point is that anyone viewing this city from the rest of the world does use electronic media to gather info. You allow your commentators to provide a very clear message to the rest of the world about the sophistication and intellect of NE MN. I know change is hard and maybe you can keep new people with new ideas at bay for a long time, but just please recognize the role you play in advertising the city through this system. Next to the Unfair Billboard you might as well be sending the message “Science not Required Here” the majority here have spoken.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
24
I agree with you on that point. The “thumbs” feature is asinine.
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
Ranger, rather than regurgitate Gore’s propaganda, do the math. Sea levels have risen at a steady and consistent rate, about 7″ per century, since 1860. Independent of our fossil fuel consumption. I say this because Gore’s prediction of a 20ft rise in sea levels is behind all of this hysteria.
Now look at the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and how much we contribute to it. Only about 0.03 percent, 3 one hundreths of 1 persent, of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively), and only 14%comes from the burning of fossil fuels. So, only .0042%, about 4 one thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere, the killer gas, CO2, it from burning fossil fuel. CO2 is not a toxin like cyanide or mercury where parts per million MIGHT cause problems. On the contrary,. without it, we can’t exist.
You complain about manipulated data, so start complaining about Al Gore’s manipulations. His sole reason for doing so is, you guessed it, MONEY. He has parlayed this alarmism into millions. Do you think that if he really believed this cr ap he’d be spending $30k per year on utilities for his home? He depends on the ignorance of people to line his pockets the same way a shady tel-evangelist shakes down his viewers, or god will call him home. The only thing needed to stop globull warming is education.An educated population will refute AL Gore and expose him for the huckster he is. DO I believe that we are currently experiencing a warmer than usual trend? Yes. But there is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that man’s activities have anything to do with it. In the past two millenia, we have had at least 3 similar warming periods that have been documents by historians, and confirmed by ice core and tree ring studies. If we didn’t have fossil fuels during those events, why are you so certain that we caused them this time around? And what of our observed temp rises? Are you familiar with the urban heat island phenomenon? Well those sampling sites that were once deeply rural settings, surrounded by countryside, are now smack dab in the middle of metropolitan areas. NOAA’s own satellite observations and measurements show no significant increase in temps, so where is the heat coming from? I suspect that it comes from the ink of the authors who write globull warming hysteria. Again, I encourage you to do the math. If you do so with an open mind, I’m convinced you’ll discover the truth.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
The climate has never been stagnant on this planet. Given the fact that one volcanic eruption can emit more greenhouse gases than mankind has ever produced, I’m inclined to believe that we have very little impact on the world’s climate. It is extremely egotistical to think that we have both the ability and duty to control global climates.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
11
“It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine”
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
got that volcano excuse from Rush eh? If not, provide some sort of real science about it,,,,,,please.
or at least show where this is wrong.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
You can see that the source for the volcano info came from the US Geological Society.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
19
I don’t click on links posted in forums, much like I don’t open emails from people I don’t know.
Google “volcanic eruptions, carbon dioxide, American thinker”. Good article on the severe flaws in CO2 data measurement.
Like or Dislike:
18 
6
Your scientific source is Youtube. LOL.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
No Mr Anderson, Youtube is a piece of media, the actual source is given below in the notes. I understand it would take a little bit of extra effort to actually look closely, but the sources are noted. And in this case you will see a source from the US Geological Society.
It takes effort to work on this subject intellectually, but apparently all you can do is shoot from the hip and ask questions afterward. Sorry to make you work a little to make a credible argument.
Like or Dislike:
14 
15
The US geological society is NOT to be confused with the US geological Survey. The society was complicit in the climate gate coverup and scam. Any organization that hides data has no credibility when arguing for a cause in which they hid, doctored, or deleted data that refuted their suppositions.
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
My question is if you are going to be wrong, in which direction do you wish to err? If the denialists are wrong the planet is greatly damaged for the next generations due to their decisions. If the alarmists are wrong a few may lose some sweet subsidies and those in the developed world may experience some slight discomfort during periods of change. The planet can only benefit and we will have shown respect for future generations.
Could I take door number two, please?
Like or Dislike:
15 
14
You have no idea how radical the demands of the alarmists are. Or how destructive they would be.
Take away all the economic means of producing energy and you destroy the world’s economy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
18
Then the economy needs to change as well. Let’s start by taking all the oil and ethanol subsidies and using them for renewable energy. We do have a lot of coal. Let’s subsidize the gasification of it so we can use it more responsibly. Picture clean coal juice speeding through power-lines to the plugs of scores of electric vehicles. No foreign countries involved. Almost no pollution. AND now we would have time to come up with better long term solutions.
What gets in the way of this? Ignorance, politics and greed.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Ok, that right there was pretty funny. David Anderson, who hates alarmists, claims that listening to dissenting views on global warming would bring”destroy” world economies! Now who’s the alarmaist? LOL!!!
Like or Dislike:
19 
9
Back in March, after the back to back snowstorms that hit the Duluth area, I’m pretty sure I saw some of the same people commenting here claim that it was proof positive that “global warming/climate change” were myths.
Now those very same people are claiming that the string of high temps can’t possibly be used to justify “global warming/climate change”. . .
So, as long as a single weather event lends credence to your belief, it can be excepted as evidence, but as soon as another weather event occurs which contradicts your belief it can easily be dismissed. . .
This logic confuses me.
The fact of the matter is this: The climate is changing. The climate on this planet has been changing for millions of years, and it will continue to change regardless of the influence of man.
The only real questions are: Is man responsible? Which at this point is so clouded in rhetoric on both sides that the only possible answer anyone can say with any truth is “We just don’t know”
And,
What can we do now to mitigate potential effects? Which, as we just witnessed in Duluth is very little. When Mother Nature decides to throw a tizzy, all you can really do hold on to your hat, and hope that there is still something left for you to rebuild.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
The shallow 35,000 ‘ (7 miles) Troposphere is the only place for the CO2 to go & it is filling up fast @ 400 ppm & headed for 450 ppm soon if present rates of CO2 deposition continue. This is a higher level of CO2 concentration than @ any time in the last 600,000 yrs.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
“among warmest of all time”, I wonder who was recording the temperature before people showed up on the scene?
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Measurable time didn’t start until Humans invented it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Then it would be wrong to say the world existed before humans as the time frame previous to human existence would be pure speculation as it didn’t previously exist.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
So that is the extent of your knowledge and opinion on this topic.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Have you ever taken a geology course?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I have a self-proclaimed phd in geology.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
So that is the extent of your knowledge and opinion on this topic.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
It is no less than any armchair expert posting here.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Who needs Geology, or even a simple understanding of basic Science, when all the news and information you’ll ever need is broadcast to you twenty four hours a day?
Who needs books and facts and data sets, when you can just find someone’s anonymous Blog on teh internets and claim it as Proof and Evidence?
Why bother learning anything? Reading’s hard, and it forces you to think critically. Americans are much to busy doing Patriotic things like shopping, and eating, and shooting things to be bothered with actual thinking.
It’s so much easier to be force fed the propaganda, and political interests of one of the major news networks, or to take the word of any of the numerous overtly-biased political pundits as gospel truth.
They have couple words to describe these people, all of them rather pejorative.
There’s quite a few that post here with regular occurrence.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Here is a simple way to look at the issue of human contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Google atmospheric CO2 concentration and you will see that all historic tables show CO2 concentration was fairly level since the last ice age (10,000 years ago) at 280 ppm. CO2 concentration started to increase when humans began to use fossil fuels in the mid 1800′s and is now at 396 ppm and rising. It is this “rate of change” and its effect on climate that is of issue. I don’t understand why some people believe that humans have not had an impact on CO2 concentration when looking at historical data.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Whether or not Global Warming is true, our government is spending billions of dollars on it. And where does this money come from? Us. I think those who believe in GW should be taxed and those who don’t shouldn’t be responsible for paying for the hysteria.
One of the scariest articles I read suggested that Man might seed the heavens with chemicals in order to reflect heat into space, thus decreasing earthly temps. That’s like sending the fox back into the chicken coop to pick up his mess.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
It is naive to believe that we do not have an affect on the climate of this planet. You honestly have to be either delusional or a little dim to think otherwise.
The real question is “How much does our presence affect the planet’s climate, and how our influence can be compounded by the natural cycle of the planet?”.
Before you go denying that we have any affect on this planet, you should probably think about the potential consequences. If you are wrong, the result could be catastrophic. If you are right, then you are just right.
If I had to wager the future of our race, I would not wager it on anything but a sure thing.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2