Warm trend expected to continue into winter in the Northland
September 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Despite the coolest week since April and first fall frosts arriving right on time up north, the long-range forecast for the Northland’s autumn and winter is warmer than normal.
Continue Reading
As long as it’s safe to go ice fishing. And we have enough snow for snowmobiling.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
16
…and cross-country skiing.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Well I know this is not pleasant news. But at some point you will have to ask if there is anything we can/should do about climate change. And also keep in mind the deniers friction to responsible education about the science.
The latest of a long string of reports that only point in one direction………
Updating a 2007 position statement, the American Meteorological Society released an updated Statement on Climate Change Aug. 27. In addition to providing background and a brief overview on how and why the global climate has changed in recent decades, the statement names human activities as the main cause of atmospheric and oceanic warming.
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean and land surface warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking,” the statement concludes. “The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
41 
36
Why is the prospect of a mild winter not pleasant news?
And you begin your post talking about what we can do about it, drop that immediately and go on to the more fun and always enjoyable bashing of anyone who isn’t on your band wagon.
In fact there is no good science that says turning over our lives over to UN bureaucrats and impoverishing ourselves will have any effect on the climate.
Just the opposite. When people become poor the environment suffers.
Hot debate. What do you think?
36 
38
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
When the environment suffers people become poor. Talk to those living downstream from the chemical plant, or the coal plant. Talk to those losing farmland to drought.
The UN? Really? It is amazing what distractions and excuses are used to avoid taking responsibility and at least saying “I was apparently wrong, lets get together and do something about this” But that seems to require more courage than what is available.
The sad lesson will be in learning how long the anti-science crowd was able to stall proactive work. I hope their grandchildren remember who they were.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
22
Ahhh–I knew the alarmists would love this story. I’m not against doing all we can for a cleaner, greener Earth, but the number of things blamed on Global Warming is simply ridiculous: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html.
Don’t forget to add “fewer hummingbirds at some people’s feeders” and “road crew paints line over dead animal.” ;}
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
I knew that poor raccoon didn’t die of natural causes. Global warming…well what do you know?
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
26
Here’s a word not found in the Alarmists’ vocabulary. Well, actually there are a lot of word not found in their vocabulary, but this one is center to their fallacious beliefs. The word is “Cyclical” , as in the climate is subject to cyclical fluctuations. Other terms include, “common sense” , “real science” and “political agenda”. Duluth just broke a record for the total number of days with temps of 70 or above in a single summer. The previous record was set 57 years ago. I wonder why there’s no record of global warming or its hysteria back in ’55? Maybe because they practiced “common sense” a little more frequently back then? By the mid 70′s, all we heard about from “climate scientists” was the coming ice age. Which goes to prove how fallible our alleged climate scientists really are….’cept back in the 70′s, the looming ice age didn’t have a political agenda associated with it.
Fewer people stand to die as a result of a warming climate as opposed to a cooling one. Only the dimmest of folk actually believe that we have the ability to control our climate. There are greater powers afoot, my friends. We delude ourselves if we think that we’re so powerful or intelligent as to control the weather.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
Climate scientists in the 1970s did not have a consensus on global climate change. The peer-reviewed literature, however, predominately predicted warming (over 60%). Nearly 30% were non-committal. Only about 10% predicted cooling (articles in Time and Newsweek notwithstanding). The scientific consensus in 1975 (as stated by National Academy of Science) was “insufficient knowledge and understanding.” The scientific consensus today, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is that the climate is warming and it is substantially due to human causes.
P.S. Those who study climate are well aware of natural climate cycles. They have been studied for decades and are discussed in the IPCC reports.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
You’re right except that the idea that cooling might happen is related to the understanding that an ice age is due to return & that global warming will now delay its onslaught. The problem though is that the warming is so extreme it will cause as many problems for man as a new ice age would.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
You 3 naysayers need to more reading outside your comfort zone.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
When you say the atmosphere has warmed in the past 10,000 and in the past 150 years man’s activities have had some effect you are standing on firm scientific ground.
When you leave that perch and start forecasting future hell on Earth you have entered the realm of speculative science fiction supported by nothing but hot air.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not once in any of these alleged “climate scientist’s” reports has there been any explanation as to what has caused the five to six warming periods we’ve experienced in the last 2000 years. All were catastrophic in that they upset agricultural practices and the the social orders of the day. REAL scientists don’t ignore things that don’t fit neatly into their presuppositions. They don’t dismiss things they’re unable to understand or explain. But this is exactly what we see among ipso’s “climate scientists” what, if anything, we can do to mitigate its effects.
For several years now I have asked ipso and his cabal of alarmists what caused all those previous warming episodes. And not one of these alleged Einsteins has offered up a single theory, just going to prove that they also ignore what they don’t understand.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
The studies are in fact extensive that show the warming for the last 50 yrs. is much more pronounced than any in the last 2000 yrs. CO2 levels are higher than any time in the last 600,000 yrs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
First, they aren’t “my scientists.” They are 97% of those specializing in the field. If you bothered to read the reports (as I have given links to you in past) you would find that ALL of your critiques were already addressed before you even raised them. Since you continue to spout the same denials, I can only assume that you have not read the scientific reports or simply don’t care.
Climate has indeed changed in the past. Scientists know that. It proves that climate reacts to the forces put upon it. It supports the scientific consensus that human activities currently are causing global warming. Your disparaging remarks and name-calling won’t change that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
“…First, they aren’t “my scientists.” They are 97% of those specializing in the field….” But you never cite any scientist’s work that doesn’t agree with your preconclusions. And for the record, this cabal of climate scientists numbers only a few thousand out of several hundred thousand, and of those few thousand, only a small percentage are actually involved with climate studies. So you 97% claim is totally worthless. But any real scientist would know that, right?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Your characterization of the 97% is objectively false. Ignore this link (like all the others I’ve spoon fed you) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
I do not cite to scientific publications that dispute the consensus position because…. wait for it…. there are no peer-reviewed publications by climatologists which dispute the consensus position.
FoxNews has a policy requiring its news division to include reference to deniers in every article that discusses global warming. This policy – much like your comments – is not based on science or journalistic integrity.
There once was a man who had a fever. Being skeptical of physicians, he went to 100 general practitioners. 80 concurred on a diagnosis and prescribed a pill. 15 said they weren’t sure, but taking the pill would help some other things anyway. 5 said – don’t worry about it, its a scheme by the pill makers to take your money. Unconvinced, the feverish patient decided to go to specialists in fever diagnosis, doctors who devoted their careers to the subject. 97 of the specialists concurred with the diagnosis and prescribed the pill. Of the other 3, one denied the patient even had a fever, one agreed he had a fever but said it was a normal thing and he’d get over it without treatment, one said the pill maker was engaged in a world-wide conspiracy involving the entire medical community.
What does your “common sense” tell you, Hugh?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I don’t expect you to read this, but it is a well written piece published by a world recognized climate scientist. I put it out there for those who haven’t yet closed their minds to the truth about the fraud called global warming. It should only take a few minutes to read.
http://hendrawanm.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/global-warming-the-cold-hard-facts-man-made-global-warming-debunking-news-and-links/
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
More factual reading for those so inclined.
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/the-global-warming-myth-debunking-global-warmings-5-commandments/
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
You can’t use local records when you’re talking about worldwide climate change. Planet wide records are showing the Earth as a whole is warmer than it has been in the last 600,000 yrs. accd. to Antarctic ice records, sedimentary deposits etc. The evidence is overwhelming for MMGW due to the industrial revolution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Things warmed up without the benefit of internal combustion engines, smokestack industries, etc And they cooled back down on their own. Coincidentally, the Solar maxes and earths orbit also were primed for such an event. One can be shoooor that if Al “I invented the Internet” Gore was around at that time, that he’d have found a bunch of easily influenced stooges from whom he could make a buck, just like today. Question, If he really believed his bs, why does he burn $30K worth of utilities every year to run a house that he’s rarely at? And why does he run a private Ozone Killing jet when commercial jets are available? Maybe he’s gotten too big to even fit in a first class seat?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
What does Gore have to do with MMGW? He isn’t a scientist. As a politician it was his duty to report what the scientific community was discovering. He didn’t mean he invented the internet but that he was in on the legislation that funded its development.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
What’s that? Al Gore isn’t a scientists? Could you say that again, but louder for all the alarmists out there? I’m glad someone on the left has the cajones to speak out against this bloated fraud. Thanks you!!!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Hugh, In your world that means the scientists he reports on are wrong?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Keep trying, Hugh. Solar forces are believed to account for about 14% of the observed warming over the first half of the last century. Solar forces, for the past 30 years, are actually moving in the direction of cooling, and thus are contrary to your argument. Let’s hear about Pluto warming next… or urban heat islands… or other denials that already have been debunked.
Just curious, Hugh, when scientific consensus attributed ozone depletion to human causes (CFCs, primarily), did you consider that “fake science?” Imagine the agenda of the non-aerosol deoderant industry!
On Gore: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Some comments have been removed because they were off-topic or uncivil.
Please keep it civil on this controversial topic, so that everyone has a chance to speak!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
come back to me in february and tell me about how warm this winter will be…
…brrrr
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
“dust bowl”, another term not found in the liberal lexicon.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Let me get this straight – you call me a name for linking to an abstract from the National Academy of Science (which had a link to the full article if you bothered to look), saying it isn’t peer-reviewed (when it is), and then – to support your position, link to blog posts from Timothy Ball and Richard Lindzen (which are not peer-reviewed or even published in scientific journals). I’m not going to take the time refuting Ball and Lindzen – the scientific community has already done it numerous times.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
A guy who is only a candidate for his PhD is supposed to present a paper. His defense appears to rather weak. A doctoral dissertation isn’t exactly what you call peer reviewed. But nice try, and apologize for calling you a dufus. Now, if you would actually read the journal articles isntead of immediately dissing them because you’ve already made up your mind…….Now, Tell me, Where does this open-mindedness you exhibit fit into that liberal tolerance I’ve heard so much about? You’ve been presented with historical facts, yet you dismiss the real science in favor of a politically driven myth. Show us where the facts cited by my previous posts are in error. Show us how your postulations are proven out. You can’t and you know you can’t so you attact the messengers. Over, and over, and over again. Guess what? Facts don’t change. That’s why they’re call facts. The stuff you put forward are statistics designed to lead/mislead, but are unsupported by any underlying facts. Therefore that are little more than theory. And what happens to your theories when confronted by facts? They are discredited. Which is why you continue to ignore them….or risk discrediting yourself, ooops! Too late.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“…to support your position, link to blog posts from Timothy Ball and Richard Lindzen (which are not peer-reviewed or even published in scientific journals…”
Tell me, if a well documented historical event happened, did it really happen if it wasn’t peer reviewed? Ball’s and Linden’s facts don’t need to be peer reviewed because they are part of the historical record. They don’t attempt to mislead people by connecting dots that don’t connect. They just leave it out where everyone can see it. No interpretation required. This event happened here. Period. Now you want to sweep that event under the rug and deny that it ever happened because it threatens to collapse your house of cards. Real scientists don’t do that. But apparently YOUR climate scientists do. Give it up junior. You can’t fight the facts with myth and expect to prevail. This yarn the alarmists have spun is coming unraveled. That you refuse to see this undermines you own credibility.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Hugh, why is CO2 different than other atmospheric gasses & therefore a problem?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
This will be my last comment – I read both of the articles you linked to. Ball’s blog was not a statement of facts, or even a discussion of his theories. It was a “woe is me, I am a victim” diatribe about how the overwhelming majority of climate scientists don’t accept his contrarian view. Lindzen’s blog contained some factual assertions – many of which no one disputes. His opinions and conclusions from those facts, however, have been thouroughly shown to be incorrect in numerous meetings of academies and societies, including those in which he is a member and was given the podium. Indeed, Lindzen even stated that his own study which underpinns his conclusions and opinions, was “embarrassing” and contained “stupid mistakes.” Yet, he continues to advocate his outlier hypotheses in the face of near universal consensus. Seems that he is guilty of the thing you are accusing everyone else of… maintaining an ideology in the face of proof to the contrary.
There is a reason that every national academy or society of science, and every major scientific organization that has taken a position, has concurred with the consensus. But, there will always be the outliers who concoct conspiracy theories. Common sense would lead one to … ?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Ipsofacto, I agree with you. @ the same time though there is a conspiracy propagated by the deniers to seed doubt among the public about MMGW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
If you’re referring to the study in his dissertation of Hudson Bay weather records then sure the central Canada events “happened” but they have little to do with climate change on a world wide scale. His PHD was in geography with a focus on climatology because his dissertation was about historical Hudson Bay records. He was never a prof. of climatology @ U. of Winnipeg but an assoc. prof in geography since U.W. had no degrees in meteorology or climatology much less graduate degrees in any sciences. The U.W. is barely the equivalent of a minor state college in N.Dak. The full blown research univ. is the U. of Manitoba also in Winnipeg. Its standards are more like the U. of Mn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0