I heard that 95% of global warming comes from volcano`s, so why don`t these people run`n around say`n the sky is falling let the non-paranoid public alone...and cut back on the whacky weed?

HELLO!!! Watch Al Gore's video.....

I'm just curious..Accuweather develops a global warming center, and then puts someone in charge of it that doesn't seem to believe that there is such a thing as global warming. How did this come to be?

Iris -
The purpose of the Global Warming Center is to provide a clearinghouse of information on all sides of the issue. As such, my opinion - which I have never given - doesn't matter. I've had emails and comments which accuse me of being a "believer" or a "denier". People see me as they want to.

I'm thankful that AccuWeather has a number of mostly sane meteorologists that aren't totally influenced by the media's wild accusations. They look at science and historical trends and realize that 10 or 15 years of "warming" over the 100 or so years we've been able to accurately determine temperature, is not statistically significant for millions of years of the earths existence.

I'm happy to find a site that allows discussionof the issue and doesn't censor criticism the way the weather channels global warming site does.

Science is not about belief or opinion. A good scientist pursues the results of his or her investigation, whereever they lead.

I have no idea whether or not Laura is a "good scientist" (by this definition).

I do know, as I have posted on another thread, that:

• There is no dispute within the scientific community as to the existence or human causality of Global Warming. It exists and humans have caused it.
• Accuweather, for whatever reasons, has historically taken a skeptical view towards this question. Accuweather is a commercial organization, not a research institute.
• To the extent that this forum does "provide a clearinghouse of information", it does the web community a service.

Having said that, I would now like to direct a rather pointed question towards Ms. Hannon: Please offer even one recent peer-reviewed scientific publication that disputes the existence or human causality of Global Warming.

With all due respect towards establishing a "clearinghouse of information", I would like to ask whether ANY useful purpose is served by perpetuating the idea that these fundamental questions are in dispute -- when they are not.

The scientific community is in consensus about Global Warming, just as it is in consensus about evolution, the fossil record, and -- for that matter -- the shape of the earth. While there may be various lay organizations that attempt to create the appearance of controversy, those attempts have far more in common with the self-serving goals of the tobacco industry in the sixties and seventies then any sincere public purpose.

The existence and causality of Global Warming is no longer in doubt. The question on the table NOW is what -- if anything -- we will DO about it.

I'm thankful that AccuWeather has a number of mostly sane meteorologists that aren't totally influenced by the media's wild accusations. They look at science and historical trends and realize that 10 or 15 years of "warming" over the 100 or so years we've been able to accurately determine temperature, is not statistically significant for millions of years of the earths existence.

Tom A. sets up a strawman to knock it down.

The compelling evidence in support of dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and the correspondingly dramatic increase in atmospheric temperature is derived from, for example, thousands of years of ice-core data from Antarctica -- NOT, as Tom inaccurately portrays, "10 or 15 years of 'warming'".

A second source is from the sedimentary and fossil record, as sketched in brief summary in two parts, part 1 and part 2.

It seems to me that Tom's apparent focus on "mostly sane meterologists", in false dichotomy with the "media's wild accusations", risks distracting us into an ad-hominem discussion when we are better served, I think, by looking at the actual facts at hand.

It is fortunate that we face this crisis at a time when we have unprecedented scientific and technological resources available to us that allow us to gather and communicate both relevant data and also the results of our best efforts to understand it.

This is a real issue that will be THE issue faced by our children and grandchildren.

Our job, now, is to face it -- full on -- rather than bury our heads in the sands of opinion, prejudice, and plain old hysteria.

The article you reference commits the classic mistake that I have noticed is most often committed by meteorologists. Just because a single weather event can be attributed to the proximate causes that meteorologists are most familiar with (such as the jet stream location), this does not prove (or disprove) that the event is not related to man-made global warming. Long term jet stream patterns are most certainly influenced by heat-transport in the oceans and other phenomena tied to anthropogenic warming. Trying to attribute single weather events in a specific location to climate change is rather silly and wholly beside the point anyway.

A better way to view this would be the analogy of a pair of loaded dice on a craps table, where each is modified to roll a six twice as often as fair dice. No one can show a single roll that produced a pair of sixes was due to the dice being loaded, this may happen with fair dice too. But, the pattern only becomes obvious when one looks at the table statistics at the end of the evening among all players at the table. Similarly, you cannot look at a single weather event or weather patterns in a single location and learn anything useful about global warming, but looking at global patterns over time, the trend is quite clear.

Humans are like volcanos! More specifcally, shield volcanos which are highly gaseous and don't blast particulate high into the atmosphere.

Humans are global warmers and that would be true even if the planet were to cool. How could it cool? The sun, of course.

I love that numbers site! thank you Laura. I looked around a little more and read this: "There is a growing band of people whose livelihoods depend on creating and maintaining panic. There are also some who are trying to keep numbers away from your notice and others who hope that you will not make comparisons. Their stock in trade is the gratuitous lie." They put it so much more elegantly than I could.

The article about the local weather was good until the end, then this came up: "At least people are aware of global warming, he said, and that's a positive. "It's nice people are thinking about it," he said, "because then they'll take action." "

Of course my question is, "take action against what?"

The Drudge Report has posted a link to an article about this year being the mildest on record for hurricanes in a decade. Things brings back my point that there is no reason to listen to any of these chicken littles. Even if the earth is warming, and there is no concrete proof that it is, that isn't necesarily a bad thing.

oh, and there is NO CONSENSUS among scientists that global warming is real. And evolution is still an unproven theory. And, no I'm not a theist, but how come that missing link is still missing? Could it be that there is no link? Why yes it could - in fact my theory that there is no link is as good as your theory that there is. After all, you can't prove what isn't there.

Would all the environmentalist please hold their breath for 10 minutes to promote global health? Please! Gaia needs you.

It appears the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) may be slowly going from positive to negative. (Warm to Cold). Since late summer the West Coast has seen a lowering of the freezing level. East Asia has had a very cold year, and much of that cold air is poised to move into NAmerica soon.

The PDO is a 30-40 year Oscillation, and so far corresponds to to the 30 year hot/cold cycles we've seen affect NAmerica during the 20th Century. From 1945-1975 most of NAmerica had below normal temperatures. Since 1977, NAmerica has warmed. The last 2 ENSO (El Nino) events lacked the drama of the 1983,1992,1998 ENSO events. The PDO may well supress the effects of ENSO. This year's El Nino event only began in late summer, yet the Northwest and N. California will be under the influence of Continental Polar air from Sibera, and not the Maritime Polar air of the Pacific. It could be a very interesting Autumn and Winter.

So glad that I could spark some discussion. I also agree with woodNfish regarding consensus among the scientific community (along with his other observations about science in general).

As to the "actual facts at hand" as stated by BrooklineTom, the only real facts are that the earth is warming. The conclusions that he and so many others try to draw is that a) the earth is warming and b) there are more humans and they have emitted more "stuff" over this same time period so therefore our conclusion is that "a" MUST be directly related to "b".

These are the common mistakes of first year logic students and statistics students. One that is so well proliferated by our media frenzy that it becomes as ingrained in us as the bad science of "the greenhouse effect".

I'm still looking for that "missing link" and that other "scientific proof" that supports Evolution with a capital "E".

Theories do not science make.