Climate scientists: Bigger, harder rainfalls the new norm
July 21, 2012 at 7:12 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Climate scientists said we are seeing more storm events like the Northland’s flood of 2012, and they said it’s not just by chance. Continue Reading
The “deniers” will just say things are no different & that all these stats are just part of the plot to take away our rights.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
31
Deniers?
The headline states “Bigger, Harder rainfall the new norm”.
Am i asleep when we are getting these Big, Heavy rainfalls?
Last time i checked food prices were rising and more than half the nation was facing a severe drought.
oH, BUT WAIT…
Theres the cover our rear statement “The irony: more drought, too”.
Please forgive my ignorance if i have a hard time believing a group of people who tell me that Heavy rains are part of the MMGW model as are Droughts.
And of course when the temps got down to -60 below, that too was part of MMGW.
There appears to be no possible weather scenerio that these MMGW scientists would look at say its its normal.
Personally i think its a scam to keep the Govt funded paycheck rolling in. Thats it.
Heavy rain? We have had wet years that were multiple times worse than this.
Heat? Some of the Hottest years on record were more than 50 years ago.
Hottest day recorded? Not in the last 10 years.
Every time these guys make a statement its always proven that its happened in the past.
Climate changes, deal with it.
Quit letting these fearmongers have a platform.
Denier? No, i agree climate changes.
Man Made? try not to give man that much credit.
These “Scientists” need to follow Al Gores lead.
He made a fortune off of peoples fear and then melted away to his huge Carbon footprint home in Tennessee.
Now, please direct some of this “Heavy Rain” towards Grand Forks where we havent seen but a pittance in about a month.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
32
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
23 
33
Yes because the internet couldnt possibly tell me what the hottest day or year in history was.
I guess i would have had to have been alive in 1913 to prove that our current climate is on a cycle no different than those in the past.
Sheep.
Just follow along, no questions allowed on this ride.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
25
Your future is already planned Mr. Amerika. You needn’t worry so much.
Like or Dislike:
10 
18
as is everyones.
No need for anyone to stress over the weather.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
9
Well, Capt., you got what you asked for. (Nearly 2 inches)
Actually, Capt., I probably agree with you more on this issue than on most. I am not so certain that man is the cause of the global warming. The earth has had a long history of climate changes. I don’t think anyone in his right mind would disagree that we’re seeing abnormal weather, weather that no one alive has seen before, but is it man caused? I’m not convinced.
Like or Dislike:
17 
3
There are ideologs on either side of the political isle, but the anti-science side are on the right — and they reinforce their beliefs by supposing that the plural of anecdote is “data.”
There are very sophisticated techniques for measuring temperature change trends, but these are rarely described in the political dogma/entertainment programs that masquerade as “news” these days.
Unfortunately, it will likely take a noticable rise in sea levels before the amazing notion of thousands of climate scientists pulling off as giant conspiracy gets debunked in the minds of today’s theocons.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
27
My position on this has ZERO to do with politics.
It is about me doing research to look at the data provided by scientists on both sides and making MY own decision.
This article in and of itself is proof that people yapping about MMGW are oblivious to the facts.
First off, the writer tries to get us to look at weather patterns this year and turn it into “Climate” science.
Wether and climate are not the exact same thing, it takes generations worth of weather to give you one unit of climate to study.
Heres the bottom line, you want to go buy a Chevy Volt and pay out the nose for “Green” technology go ahead.
I’m not stopping you.
People have been going full scale “Green” for the past four years at the fear mongering the Liberals have been pushing and where are we today?
Still paying through the nose for energy and just getting new excuses from the Govt as to why.
So, go pay $40 for a 4 pack of bulbs that arent worth a crud, and i’ll keep paying .50 for the ones that work.
If you want to convince me, i will need hard cold facts that cant be disproven by just going back an extra few hundred years.
After all, i believe once the ice age ended the earth began to warm and has been doing so every since. ironically its all happened before.
When the oceans conveyer belt shuts down the planet will begin to get cold again and then in another thousand years we can listen to the MMGC people start blaming everyone for the oncoming ice age.
Information can keep you from becoming a sheep.
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
18
Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
We are currently at the end of the current ice age, this is destined to be followed by the “Greenhouse Earth” where tropical temperatures can reach to the poles. Its happened before, a few times to be exact, and then one day it will start to recede into the next Ice age.
Its a cycle people, we dont need to sit by while people get rich off of something that they label and scare you with.
Btw – Yellowstone is overdue an eruption, when it goes all bets are off anyway, we will be in a full blown ice age again as glaciers rapidly move towards the equator again due to the blocking out of the sun.
Then you can find a MMGW scientist and ask him if hes got a blanket.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
30
I tried to help you.
You can cherrypick what you choose but the rest of the article cdlearly stated that we are experiencing nothing different from past climate models at the exact same point in their history.
Go ahead and panic if you choose, i choose not to.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
19
Here’s what’s crazy…..I went from MI to OK and man is it dry out there. In IL there’s areas where it’s such a tinder box that if a fire started and it got windy I have little doubt it would quickly turn into the fires in CO and NM. Yet not all that far north they can’t stop getting rain
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
As the higher Arctic latitudes warm faster than lower latitudes the cold fronts have moved north causing the rainfall there & drought in the south.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
North meaning north of the US as in “its been raining in London for mths.” to the extent that they wonder if the Olympics can be held. London, latitude wise, is 250 mi. north of the US border.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
Ocean currents is why it is usually warmer in Europe. Rome, I believe is similiar lattitude to Chicago, but January temperatures are drastically different! Preceding the European mini-ice ages is gobal warming in North America. Increased rainfall in Europe disrupting the dense salt flows circulating warm water to Europe. Simply Spearman, expect a mini ice age in Europe. Swamp studies in France demonstrate these occur over several years but last for 300 years. This is a prediction we will experience. For non science presons Spearman, Atlantic Monthly has an article entitled ” The Unentended Consequesces of Global Warming, A European Ice Age”in 1997. Real Science has already predicted colder weather in Europe unlike your pseudoscience of ????!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
johnb , are you a scientist?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
It was short-sighted of scientists to use the intial term “global warming” because the nature of climate change is much more of a climate disruption or instability. What we are seeing now is this disruption of previous patterns. Some suggest we have already passed the tipping point and that as this trend continues, it will be obvious to skeptics that this change is occurring. The scary thing about the tipping point concept is the possibility of dramatic shifts of percipitation and temperature. What if we suddenly had 140 degree heat in the upper midwest? Now that’s a doomsday scenario.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
15
Ok….Some People “Dislike” what I’ve seen with my own eyes? So we’re not supposed to notice that something is askew if we see it with our own eyes? I never made a connection to global warming or anything so I guess those who reject global warming don’t want anyone to mention strange weather patterns lest people make the connection huh?
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
Tundra, those that state they do not believe in global warming actually are saying they do not believe in man made global warming ie the carbon hypothesis. Considering 10,000 years ago the Great Lakes had 5000 feet of ice covering them makes global warming obvious! We do not believe Al Gore’s or the United Nation’s Green House Gas Hypothesis, which is a corrupted science that is a religion for some. When some use expressions like “deniers” for those that disagree, this is more religion than science! I seldom agree with you but I recognise you are an intelligent person.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
The only disagreement someone could possibly have to my above comment would be that they thought I was making it up. I was just sort of blown away by dislikes over what I personally observed. Why? I guess it must be my “Anti-Fans” Who will dislike anything even if they agree with it…
I’ll tell you what though. I saw places in the middle of IL that are really troubling. They are such a tinder box that one little fire with some wind and it will spread very fast, and most likely be a repeat of CO and NM. If I owned property around there I’d get a lot of it plowed under just to be on the safe side.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Tundra, I have given you two thumbs up, but we are all conditioned to react to other’s or your’s based on prior postings. As I have stated, I seldom agree with you but believe you are sincere and intelligent, so it is hard to credit you positively with a good post. We all share this imperfection!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I very seldom click a dislike on any statement. Unless it’s really offensive I really don’t see the point. If I don’t agree then that’s no big deal….It’s just another opinion…..And after all….This is just a message board…Not to be taken too seriously……Great entertainment when I’m on the road..
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Now that’s truely funny….Dislikeing my not clicking “Dislike” Good one…
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
25
The plates have been moving for 3 billion years. How does oil regenerate other than the 100 million yr. process of fish oil & diatoms being trapped in rock on the ocean floor? You aren’t saying it percolates from the depths of the Earth in a continuous process of renewal are you devilschild?
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
like a coffee pot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
19
Who me?
I am not the one who suggested oil is just bubbling up and lubricating the continental drift action.
I understand geology as much as anyone can who doesnt actually work in that field.
And no, i dont believe oil is an endless supply and i dont believe its lubricating the continents as they shift.
If it did we could eliminate earthquakes.
Like or Dislike:
18 
5
Mr. Spearman allow me to correct you. Oil is not a fossil fuel. Oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil.
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
Spearfish you are under the assumption that you are alwayscorrect. You are not that individual.
Like or Dislike:
14 
7
The coffe pot joke was for our little friend satan jr.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
I’m amused. You are amusing. Spearfish isn’t. It’s too bad.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
I am going to stay neutral about Global Warming, but still have something to say.
When these large down pours happen ( 4+ inches, etc.) in a limited time, the “ditching” in the RRV really has caused flash flooding. When a heavy rain occurs, this ditching has water moving like flushing a toilet.
Too many ditches have been dug, larger culverts installed and former pasture land plowed up. Some of this pasture land was not meant to be farmed (poor soil type, etc.). Now those newly plowed up areas do not hold water. Heavy rains cause the countryside to turn into a waterfall, causing erosion and such.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
6
yet every storm seems to go direct east around and south of I-94.
North of that we havent gotten squat in a month.
Its just weather, the humidity the past month has been horrible, today it seems to be a bit nicer and hopefully the atmospheric conditions that caused all the moisture to stay suspended will finally allow them to fall.
Or we can blame the US Govt for heating up the atmoaphere with the HAARP project and using KC-135′s to pump chemicals on us (Chemtrails)
everyone has a theory…..
personally, i think weather is going to do what it wants to do and we are along for the ride.
(Thank goodness we dont believe in human sacrifices anymore)
Like or Dislike:
19 
8
38 states are in a drought which is unprecedented in the last 300 yrs. in the US. In the 30s there were fewer states in the drought.
Like or Dislike:
9 
18
actually, it was worse in 1988.
and also around 1956-1958 time frame.
That doesnt make right now any easier to deal with though.
What i find odd is that these droughts all seem to coincide with the peak of the Solar Maximum.
and guess where we are right now? Yep, right at the peak of the current Solar Maximum.
I wont pretend to understand why or how they may be connected just that its an odd coincidence.
Like or Dislike:
21 
7
Two or three different times we have been covered by glaciers right here in the RRV, then they melted and retreated. The weather changed, it got “warmer”, was this also global warming? What caused it then? It wasn’t man, he wasn’t here.
Did it just do it on it’s own? How is this possible?
It had to have been mans fault! Man controls everything, even millions of years ago!
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
21
Dont bother Bob.
Some people are just so fueled by the koolaid they will never bother to look back at historical charts showing that we have repeatedly cycled through Greenhouse Earth periods where the temps at the poles were tropical and then back through an ice age to a near Snowball Earth. Just to repeat the whole cycle again.
We are currently moving towards the next stage of a greenhouse earth so like it or not its gonna get hot.
Its happened before and it will happen again.
Man present or not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
Bob you nailed the ignorance of Green House Gas Religion!!Less than 10,000 years ago the great lakes had 5000 feet of ice cover. Global warming is undeniable but the disagreement is its cause. The earths axial inclination changes over an 80,000 year cycle from 22.5 to 25.4 degrees by some models. Our planet has the same wobble as you see in a spinning top which is a 20,000 year cycle. Both of these contribute to climate change. Our hottest days of the year are usually July and August not June 21 the longest day of the years. Why? It takes time to warm the thermal mass, lakes and land primarily. The last 10,000 years we have lost the North American Icle shield that reflected radiant energy and has been replaced with absorbing black dirt accelerating our planetary warming.
The Reed glacial studies (core drilling into glaciers) show that we have had multiple time periods with more carbon dioxide in our environment. I question the Green House hypothesis of global warming because it does not explain what has taken place the last 10,000 years. It has become a junk science that falsifies data with supporters who believe it is their religion to defend. I am open to this hypothesis and welcome research to prove or disprove it. This is not settled science! My personal belief is solar output is primarily responsible, followed by precision and changing axial inclination of earth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
The UN is a primary proponent of the global warming hypothesis. I wonder if they are motivated by a more equitable distribution of energy resources or perhaps they are motivated to collect a carbon tax, or is it their desire for true scientific research?? They collect much of the data and have been caught falsifying data!!
Like or Dislike:
18 
5
I’ve stated my opinions on here plenty of times – but it is a pet peeve of mine when other scientists pick out individual events such as the Duluth flood or the current and directly blame anthropogenic climate change. As I’ll reiterate, I think there is ample evidence that we ARE influencing the climate through GHGs, land use change, etc. Blaming individual events on climate change is extremely risky, however. If you think of extreme floods for example, the return time may be ~50, 100, whatever number of years. Now lets say the planet has warmed X amount and we have more water vapor present in the atmosphere. This will increase the amount of water available to thunderstorms and thus increase the amount of rain possible. We are talking small increases, however, so perhaps that will change the return period to 40 or 90 years instead of the previous 50/100.
With regards to the current drought, this is largely dependent on the large-scale pattern. The realistic studies I have read have estimated that only a percentage of the drought (in terms of it’s warmth) can be explained due to the warming climate.
Like or Dislike:
20 
7
Why does the fix for every “green” or “ecological” crisis involve the transfer of money and power from the middle class to the Government or to Big Business?
Years ago, ordinary citizens were squeezed between The Church (organized religion of any kind) and The King (Government intrusion of any kind). If the church and the king battled each other, the common citizen could eek out a reasonable life while the two evil forces were distracted.
Since WWII, a third evil force has risen to take away people’s rights and property (money). Now we have to contend with organized religion, Government, AND Big Business. Organized religion is failing to stand against allied Government and Corporate interests. The citizens are getting screwed again.
Like or Dislike:
18 
7
Does make one ask that question doesnt it.
Kind of like how an incadescent bulb can cost 50 cents and have zero harmful materials, yet the govt wants you to buy the fluorescent culy bulbs which cost a fortune and contain hazardous materials (mercury)
Google the clean up procedure as outlined by the EPA for one of those curly bulbs in the event you break one.
Hope you have a truckload of cash.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
20
Please watch what you say about Mr. Amerika. He is not ignorant. I have seen no sign of ignorance when conversing with him. Now apologize and use better manners in the future.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
I’m pretty sure i pointed out quite explicitly that current weather had absolutely ZERO to do with Climate change.
JohnB nailed it in a response above.
I believe these things happen in cycles and we just happen to be at the edge of the next cycle leading up to a full on Greenhouse Earth. If people think its bad now, wait until its 80 degrees at the North Pole.
however, i also believe that there are ways mother nature can offset these changes and unfortunatley for us none of them are good for humanity.
If Yellowstone were to erupt today it would set the oncoming Greenhouse earth scenerio back a long long time due to the sun being blocked for several years.
Glaciers would advance towards the equator and all will be normal again.
except the little problem that humanity may not be around due to the eruption.
But either way, buying LED bulbs isnt going to save the planet.
So enjoy each day as if its your last.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
ron, the first ignorant poster is not, NOT Captan America, it is actually you! Chicken Little, you should go in your back yard, put your feet up and enjoy your remaining time on this planet! Devilschild, good call, although agnostic I do not fear your devil, very much!!
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Speerman, 600,000 years?? Where do real scientists claim carbon dioxide research can collect data that old, must be very, very, very old glaciers? I just pray you are not teaching in a high school somewhere but it would explain our world science ranking!
Like or Dislike:
17 
3
Thank you johnb. I may be a pain but I don’t call people names. This is a conversation not an argument.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Anon, research from geological sediments from the ocean floor and sedimentary deposits on land. They’ve been doing that for about 100 yrs. They’re very good @ determining atmospheric conditions from biological organisms that are that old in these sediments. Do you actually think I would make comments that I haven’t vetted from legitimate sources considering I am not a physical scientist.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
19
Ron,
I actually dont have any more love for the right than i do the left.
I vote both sides of the aisle.
I read a lot about things that interest me and i make my own decision based on what i see as evidence provided by both sides.
On many topics i fing neither side to be 100% convincing so i look at all the info as a whole and i read it as i see fit.
I do believe in Global Warming, I believe the overpopulation of the planet is a very small part of the issue.
But from what i have seen from many many sources, this is nothing new.
Its new to you and I because as Humans our existence individually is only about 100 years if we are lucky yet cycles of climate can range from 300 – 3 million years.
There have been several points made on this page that are very well laid out.
One of my favorites was when Glenn said “I don’t think anyone in his right mind would disagree that we’re seeing abnormal weather, weather that no one alive has seen before”
I believe this was the spot on statement of the day, because it illustrates WHY people are so wrapped up in trying to blame the weather on something tangible.
We havent seen weather like this before because we are at a place in the cycle that no one alive for a very very long time has experienced.
So for us it becomes an Emergency.
Yet, for some reason, the Emergency has only one fix and that fix is for Americans to spend more of their money.
I am all for the green movement, i just feel that the fearmongering is becoming a roadblock to what it should be which is a choice to improve our existence.
There is nothing we can do about the climate, its going to go on as scheduled until something greater, much greater, than Man acts upon it.
Enjoy your weekends, the weather is going to be beautiful.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Mr. Amerika is an intelligent human being with his own beliefs. Now do the right thing and apologize to him for the slanderess names you have called him.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
While you guys argue about the causes, it makes no sense to keep on this course of adding fuel to the fire. If we can mitigate the effects of climate disruption, why wouldn’t we want to do that? If using less fossil fuel is a way to reduce climate disruption, isn’t that a no brainer? Why would be want to just lie down on the road and let this run over us if we can actually do something to slow the process. Isn’t that a good thing regardless of what we individually believe is the cause of these changes?
Like or Dislike:
6 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
16
Well, that’s the dilemma, isn’t it? I would hope that as the ice sheet melts in the Arctic and starts to flood coastal areas, even the deniers would realize that some action was required. Unfortunately, by that time it may be too late to do anything.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
OMG. Greenland is melting. Seriously. I was shocked when I looked at the map this morning. The ice sheet is melting just like the scientists who speculated about a tipping point said it might. On the positive side, this will open up new areas for intensive agriculture, right, deniers?
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Agreeing with Realist makes me queasy. Although I am an adamant supporter of personal choice and limited government regulation, this is one of the instances where government has a significant role to play. While we can debate the extent to which fossil fuels negatively impact the environment, it is clear that that they are not beneficial. Fossil fuels should no longer be subsidized. A realistic conversion to domestic non-fossil fuel energy production should be implemented. There is likely to be an initial increase in cost in utility prices, but that is preferable to increasing the rate of climate change.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
Don’t be queasy, Joe. I have been known to make sense on occasion!
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
realist,
I agree with your premise, but i disagree with your thought process that “Deniers” wont do anything to help.
I for one would love to see us end our dependence on foreign oil.
The waste of money that is the Dept of Energy was created in the 70′s to do just that.
How are they doing?
Why is the Govt spending billions of dollars on companies that use that money to pay their executives outrageous cash payments then fail? (Solyndra)
Or how about when your govt invests heavily in Nissan to gbuild the “Leaf” then markets it everywhere except the USA?
Or when the Govt bails out GM and then they make the Volt and sell it for over $40,000?
If Saving energy is of such monumental importance, why doesnt the govt let companies develop stuff that works and then reward those companies AFTER they succeed with contracts?
Why doesnt the Govt reward companies with tax breaks when they create Green technology and offer it at prices everyone can afford.
Here is what i see, Everyone is screaming that the planet will die if we dont all do our part.
Our part equals buying things that are 10-20 times more expensive than its counterpart,
Our part is paying taxes to watch the govt toss the money at companies who dont even have a product yet that works.
I would believe all the screaming a bit more if the DOE was reslly doing something about fossil fuels and if the prices of green items didnt cost so much.
Seems like a money grab to me.
ANd go to the Chevy dealership and have 40k in your pocket and see if you walk away with the Volt or the Camaro Convertible. (Same cost)
If the planet was truly in dire straights the options to save it wouldnt always be predicated on our spending money.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Just bought up some land by the Pembina Escarpment.
You can all get back to me when you need some beachfront property.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
I call it like I see it devils child. You either have to be lost in space or ignorant to not understand the science behind global warming.
Like or Dislike:
6 
13
Lost in space or ignorant are words I would use to describe someone else but due to the restrictions on this site I am unable to.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Good job devil, this hot weather is bringing out the best in you! Ron you have no facts to support your global warming hypothesis, excuse me, your MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS! If you do, I am easy to convince but you have no facts with the goofy Gore movie do you?
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Gore isn’t a scientist. He got his info. from the 1000s of scientists (99.9% of them) that believe climate change is caused by Human activity. As a Vice-President he was responsible for passing on the research as best as he understood it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
Spearfish move on. Scram.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
You are a child aren’t you devilschild.
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
Yes. I can read though.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
John, I knew the facts on global warming before al gores little movie came out. I was very skeptical of what global warming was about and how it is measured and effects us until i looked into it. There are thousands of articles published in scientific journals that support the global warming hypothesis. You can go look a few up with a simple web search and don’t worry I have read my fare share for and against global warming. Remeber stick to published articles.
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
Ron any idiot can publish an article. Look at the stupid journalists, who publish in areas they are stupid! Too bad for the ignorant who repeat ignorance. MY undergraduate degree was in mathematics, A field I worked in for three years supplying statistical analysis of data collection for scientists. My mathematics background experience and my postgraduate studies in an unrelated field, although hard science, make me intollerent to the BS often repeated as accepted science!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Ron any “mentally compromised” can publish an article. Look at the stupid journalists, who publish in areas they are stupid! Too bad for the ignorant who repeat ignorance. MY undergraduate degree was in mathematics, A field I worked in for three years supplying statistical analysis of data collection for scientists. My mathematics background experience and my postgraduate studies in an unrelated field, although hard science, make me intollerent to the BS often repeated as accepted science!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I have a comment under moderation, so if is printed note WHY!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Climate change has always pointed out a shift in temperatures over a long period of time. The past 100 years has seen an increase in global temperatures at a rate never before seen in our plantes history. This shift coorelates directly with the increased co2 emmisions from the industrial revolution until present day. Climate change also means a weakening of ocean currents which in turns creates more severe and longer lasting weather patterns. This means longer more severe droughts in one area and wetter more severe preciptiation in another area. There also has been specualation and shifts of the current weather patterns so oklahoma and kansas would be more like texas and the dakotas would experience weather more common to kansas and nebraska.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
So if I’m reading this correctly, there could be tropical vegetation and a salt water sea in North Dakota? France could be covered by ice?
No way. Never happened and never will.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Ron, I also believe our planet is warming at a faster rate! Imagine all the radiant energy reflected by the north american ice shield 10,000 years ago. What forces melted all that ice? Now that it has melted exposing the great lakes and million of square miles of black dirt, more radiant energy is being abosorbed. We should not be surprised by accelerating temperature elevation?
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
The United Nations funds global waring research and collects much of the worlds data. Is their motive equitable energy distribution, a carbon tax, or their disire to advance science to save the world? Good science does not falsify data nor does it fund only scientists who promise to produce results supporting the UN hypothesis. The UN is guilty on both counts! I see millions of tons of US coal being shipped to china so they can have cheap energy! Our future economic development, our children and grand children future may be damaged by decisions we make today. Ron, you and I need to keep searching for truth!
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
“…a rate never before seen in our plantes (sic) history.” Really? You have climate information that covers the past four billion years?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Yes Dan H., the ice @ the deeper layers of Antarctica & Greenland ice go back about a billion yrs.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
What about the other three billion years?
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Apparently ice ages didn’t recur on a regular basis like the last billion yrs. accd. to the art. below.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
Spearman, show me any evidence of what you said!! The bulk of land mass was near the Equator a few hundred million years ago. It was part of what was know as “pangea” excuse my spelling if incorrect. You can BS some of the people sometimes but never all the people. You can not keep a serious face when you talk about Anartica or Greenland 1 billion years ago and have any credibility! You really make be laugh! I had to change this because of moderation!!!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
So if I have a similiar post, me bad!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Johnb, See art. below
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
That should read 1 million yrs. of ice to the bottom of the Antarctic glacier.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Way to spin it fox news! I mean dan when did nebraska start having tropical forests?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
I am stating the general findings on climate change from factual sources in peer reviewed scientific journals! Not u.n. published data. 1 guy pads his data and the 100s of people working on the same topic using research methods and collecting real data are discredited also? Like I said john there is plenty of information from credible sources that wasn’t skewed. Go find it yourself I am not your teacher. I have already done my research andi don’t need to hold your hand through it now.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
There wasn’t even one guy that faked data.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Instead of questioning the un you should question the right wing and their researchers! What does the right wing have to win by discrediting climate change? Elimination of carbon taxes, increased use of fossil fuels, and oh yeah billions of dollars of oil production. Now look at who funds anti global warming research and you will almost always find big buisness be it oil, agriculture chemical companies, or coal miners. It is easy to buy someone in this world even a professor.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
And of course you’re including Al Gore when you demonize “big oil” since the oil industry is where the Gore family made its fortune. Right?
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Tobacco I believe.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
I have never taken my information from al gore. The information existed long before al gore made his little movie.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Ron, a good hypothesis has predictive cabability. Green House Gas proponents do not explain what has happened since the last North American Ice Age nor do they predict our future. Too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet are all adapted into their new model climate change, a bad religion in my oppinion. BS is simply BS and does not convince any educated person! Please tell us how your hypothesis explains the last 10,000 years in North America as a starter!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
30 yr. old MMGW predictions have been coming true on a regular basis.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Ron, you realize the Green House Gas belief is a hypothesis? Right?? Or is it Gores Law the new religion of the Left?? I want to KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS SERIOUS MATTER!
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Not. It is accepted as scientific fact by 99.9% of climatologists.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
spearman, scientists look at data but are very skeptical of ” facts”! Facts do not exist in science! We attempt to prove or disprove our our hypothesis! Cutting and pasting paragraphs from a magazine may make you feel intelligent, but really does not make me believe you know much on the subject. Please explain what has happened the last 10,000 years in North America in your own words so a simple person like myself can understand. Thank You.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
That seems to be your problem Johnb, you don’t read much & when I give you some expert evidence you accuse me of being the problem. What’s it like to be so illogical.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
900,000 yrs. of ice.
ScienceDaily (June 11, 2004) — Secrets of the Earth’s past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica’s plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.
The ice has been collected in an eight year project by scientists and engineers from 10 European countries. Analysis of ice cores shows how temperature changed in the past, but also how the concentrations of gases and particles in the atmosphere varied.
The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth’s climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials). In the last 400,000 years the warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer.
By comparing the pattern of this past climate with global environmental conditions today the scientists conclude that, without human influence, we could expect the present warm period to last at least another 15 000 years.
Dr Eric Wolff, from British Antarctic Survey says: “It’s very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-quarters of a million years ago. These results tell us that we won’t have an ice age any time soon. However, we may have a heat wave if we are unable to control CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Our next step is to investigate CO2 in the ice cores and by understanding what has driven the natural changes seen in the ice record, we will create better models to predict how climate might change in the future.”
The next step in the research is to extract air from tiny bubbles in the ice, and to find out how the atmosphere’s composition has varied. Preliminary analyses show that the present carbon dioxide concentration is the highest level seen in the last 440,000 years. By understanding what drove past changes in climate, the scientists expect to improve predictions about future climate.
The Dome C drilling is part of the ‘European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica’ (EPICA). The team at Dome C endured summer temperatures as low as minus 40ºC at the remote drilling site over a thousand kilometres from the nearest research station. The consortium will continue to drill at the site from December 2004, and hopes to reach the rocks at the base of the ice sheet. There are just 100 metres still to drill, and if all goes well, the team will reach ice over 900,000 years old at the base.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Your’re my hero, Spearman. I would have given up many posts ago, but not you! Keep the facts coming.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
I also love the facts Spearman has presented, they prove man is not involved with global warming or the ice ages, as they occur independently of man. Thank You Realist for your hero!!! Science should have no hidden agenda, and if the carbon model picks up scientific support< I will be its' biggest supporter!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Spearman’s Science Daily post “The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth’s climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials). In the last 400,000 years the warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer.” Your post seems to imply that ice ages and global warming happen independently from man. I agree!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Johnb, of course ice ages happen due to nature & without man’s input. Humans though are a natural part of the ecology so anything natural can effect the climate if overdone as our over consumption is. We can consume too much and overheat the planet just like we destroyed the ozone layer. Snow Geese can destroy their habitat on the Arctic tundra by becoming over populated so my son & I help kill a few 1000 every year to try & effect their well being as a species. He is a guide so he does a much better job than I @ helping control them.
BTW, would you suggest we go back to using the refrigerants that depleted the ozone?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
I am glad you provided data supporting my hypothesis! Global warming and ice ages occur in spite of man! We are a very insignificant species. Hell, a meterior has a 3 in 1000 chance of destroying us in 2029, a very serious event! When you cut and paste data YOU do not understand to enhance your intellect, sometimes the result is an unintended consequence exposing your limited understanding of the subject.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
So the scientists that do the research that I quote are wrong accd. to you. Whether I write what I know or not doesn’t change their research. Are you dense or what?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Even going out on a limb and giving these people the benefit of the doubt and saying they’ll come up with 900,000 years of climate history in their ice cores, that leaves 4.53 billion years of climate history they don’t have. For those who like percentages, that’s .0002% of the Earth’s history. That might be enough for some people, but two ten-thousandths of a percent of anything isn’t exactly definitive. I think I’ll wait before I panic over anything related to the weather.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Typical cognitive dissonance on your part DanH. If 900,000 yrs. isn’t enough atmospheric evidence then you are beyond hope.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
And if a sample size of .0002% of something is enough to convince you, then you’re a fool.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
It’s not a sample size of .0002 since the atmosphere didn’t come into being for a long time after the Earth began 4.5 billion years ago. In terms of glacial history based on the dynamics of the last 4 or 5 glaciations it represents 100% of the evidence.
How desperate you are to now say that 900,000 years of records isn’t good enough when all along deniers like you say 150 yrs. of records isn’t enough as if you imply 10,000 yrs. would be.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
DanH, there were no walking land animals until 350 million yrs. ago so to ask for data about an atmosphere that didn’t exist for most of the planets history is irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
What do walking land animals have to do with the existence of an atmosphere? And the atmosphere is close to three billion years old, if not older. There wasn’t much of anything living back then.
I’m not the one claiming that modern weather patterns are the worst ever seen in the history of the planet. I’m saying if people like you are going to make that claim, back it up with something. Show me weather patterns for the past 4.5 billion years. Or keep making the claim and looking like a fool. Your choice.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Dan “The Desperate” H. The 1st 4 billion yrs. were to inhospitable for land animals since there wasn’t enough oxygen until plants used up the excess co2 from all the volcanoes & then grew to cover the planet & produce enough oxygen to create a hospitable atmosphere for land animals. Did you ever take a geology course after HS or pay attention to your HS Earth science teacher? Obviously not.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
What’s your hang-up with land animals? We’re talking about weather patterns.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
You need to think in more complex ways about issues.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Dan H this is a reply to Spearman, “You need to think in more complex ways about issues.” You really do not know what you are talking about Spearman! You must teach a social science at a school! Or physical education?? You really show you have a limited science background. Lets get serious about the UN hoax of global warming! It is robbing our children’s, and grandchildren’s future and giving it to China. Cheap energy will determine the future leader! I respect the chinese people , but have no respect for envirowacos like you, who will destroy our future. Americans, please be critical of stupid, unsubstantuated claims by some who make posts on these web sites! Please, please!!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
This really determines the future of the United States!!!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Johnb , see my response above to your 7:36 am post from today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
BTW, johnb, the Chinese are leaving us in the dust economically because they are taking over the creation & production of green tech like solar panels etc. Your type keeps electing politicians that are cowards about doing what is right for future generations when it concerns the environment.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Spearman’s death to US economy “Coal imports by China almost doubled in April from a year earlier, according to the China Coal Transport and Distribution Asshttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/china-coal-imports-rise-90-in-april-coal-association-says-1-.htmlociation”
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
News from China the green giant of the coal industry! “The nation’s purchases of the power-station and steelmaking fuel including lignite, or brown coal, from overseas rose 90 percent to 25.1 million metric tons, the association said in a statement on its website today, citing customs data.
3:39 May 17 (Bloomberg) — Michael Lawn, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, talks about the outlook for the renewable energy industry. He speaks from New York with Manus Cranny on Bloomberg Television’s “Last Word.” (Source: Bloomberg)
.Imports will accelerate in coming months as demand for power generation increases and international prices remain lower than domestic costs, according to Jeffrey Landsberg, president of Commodore Research & Consultancy in New York. China is the world’s biggest coal user. “http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/china-coal-imports-rise-90-in-april-coal-association-says-1-.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
1.3 billion people use coal too but their investment in alternative energy is outpacing us. Imagine having 4 times the people of the US.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Spearman, responding to your intellectual dificit has hurt my +/- rating. = , this is NOT THE COMPARISON I want with YOU!!! This is my last response on this blog!!!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Good for you Mr. B. Those two are just in it for the argument.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
John I stated look for articles published in scientific journals. There is a huge difference between those and something published in the washington post. An article has to be peer reviewed andselected. It is a huge honor to have an article published in these journals. I have provided information I have learned from these articles. You have provided information you heard on fox news, the glen beck program, and any general magazine or newspaper. Your continued attempts to discredit anything spearman or I say continue to show your lack of science.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3