Imagine... a meteorologist who hasn't joined the international hysteria(!) Breath of fresh air...

...so, let's hop right in.

I've asked this before, in other places, and gotten universally mistreated, but here I go again:

Consider the hockey-stick graph. It purports to chart the global mean temp for the last 1000 years. It is of course utterly flat and unvarying until we get to the evil 20th century, when man's gluttony upsets the delicate balance and sends the planet careening off into a +1 degree Ineluctable Death Spiral.

Which "proves"-- what it's supposed to.

But. I review the social history of the last millennium and I find reports of the Vikings settling Greenland ca. AD1000 (and they have to leave ~500 years later because they're being frozen out). "Vinland", supposedly Labrador, was so named because of the wild grapes found there... along with this warm period 1000 years ago we find grapes also growing in Britain (and much of the Devon area covered in lakes).

Enter the "Little Ice Age" (when Greenland was abandoned, Europe experienced killer winters, and the Pilgrims nearly perished) about 5-600 years later. Again a sizeable piece of the Globe is affected by what HAD to be a large longterm swing of at least a couple of degrees...
...and now it seems we're "returning" to a condition that appeared "normal"-- 1000 years ago.

Question: Where is this known history reflected in the Hokey-stick graph...?
(not a typo)

Now... if Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, can gin up a committee with the marching orders "Go, and find us PROOF!" and they come back with "analyses" of oil paintings of glaciers from centuries past, documenting their shrinkage, and call that "science"; then surely actual recorded history is at least as reliable a source for climate change data...?

Yet in spite of all this the Hokey-stick graph (the Poster Child exhibit for the Global Warming crowd), is FLAT for 900 years... and referred to in the same or consecutive paragraphs as is the Little Ice Age, or the settling of Greenland when "the weather was just warmer then" or some such dismissal.

Right.

Another question as long as I'm at it-- the 2005 severe hurricane season proved "Global Warming". Ask any news ferret, any agenda-driven politician, any "green" treehugger for that answer...

...so does the calm 2006 hurricane season then refute it? Haven't heard.

Looking forward to a reply. Really.

The piece is cute, though I think there is truth to it. American obesity and American fossil fuel consumption are both manifestations of its consumer ethos. Culturally we have strong preferences for excess, we tend to choose symbolic abundance whenever possible, in our food, our houses, and our cars. At least on this level the same cultural values that lead us to over-consume calories also lead us to over-consume fossil fuels.

Additionally, the way we produce and deliver food is increasingly carbon intensive. Fossil fuels are indispensable to modern farms. Food supply networks are on national and global scales and huge amounts fossil fuels are burned to fly perishable foods around the globe.

The cause and effect here is illogical. There is a rough balance between emissions from animals, including man, and agriculture. What man exhales, the crops take in as fetilization. The possible imbalance comes from humans who consume a lot and have elevated metabolic activity. Other than humans, this not evident in the animal kingdom. Obese people and those trendng towards obesity consume too much but their metabolism does not change. That's how they become obese! Conversely, someone who regularly consumes a lot of calories ( more than necessary for normal function ) and has a regimen of excercise, exhales more co2. Therefore, it is the mesomorphs ( weight lifters ) whom are the worst offenders of co2 emission as it relates to exhalation.

I am new to site and have not read through it carefully but see little in the way of linking global warming to the still very rapid human population growth of our planet. The tripling of our species numbers in my lifetime seems to be the primary factor influencing all of our environmental problems. Given that we do know how to limit population growth in humane ways it would seem our national and world leaders would be focusing more attention and effort toward this goal. I am convinced no significant long term gains will be made in achieving sustainability without dealing with overpopulation in a constructive and logical manner.

Global warming and planting trees

Looks like somebody finally had the guts to come out and speak the truth on so called global warming. I been studying weather forecasting and climate long time. I recently picked up 2 books that go into the climate diffrences of Early american winters. They are written by David M Ludlum. Volume 1 is 1604 to 1820 and volume 2 from 1820s to 1870. After reading this material one makes you think? Like Mr.John Coleman said" trends" In the 1820s it was mild in the winter over the so called cities in the north east. Now I heard about global warming more then 5 years ago it had a differnt name called pollution. They would tell stories 30 years ago in the 1970s that by the year 2000 our atmosphere would be depleated and we couldn't breathe. At the time I was a young teenager wondering what will happen by the year 2000? now its 2007 and we branded a new name...GLOBAL WARMING..." oh my the water tables are going to flood the coastal cities in the north east and NYC will be the new VENICE....LOL. Oh yes I always had respect for Mr.VP Gore but my question is? is he a climate expert? I spoke to many weather experts about GLOBAL WARMING and they shrug it off and reply its about the Earth changing. Meaning that the Earth is a living mass and goes through changes every a few hundred thousand years.

be free to email me on your ideas
noreaster1888@yahoo.com

I do not agree that La Nina is the cause of Global cooling. It is the sun passing from the 23rd to the 24th cycle. After 2012, we are likely to return to more severe winters in most of the eastern U.S. and Maritime Canada. I have been a weather observer for over 40 years and I can tell you it is the sun. No one mentioned global warming in the snowless 50's, (less snowy than this winter in Maryland) or the tremendously awful summers of the 1930's. Now all of a sudden since 1981, we have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. And, I resent Al Gore and his film, because it does not accurately depict what is happening and he does not observe what he tells people to do himself.

I would call it Global climate change, a perfectly normal occurrence over epochs of time, even less. But as ice melts, the Atlantic grows colder and fresher, that stops the Gulf stream or starts it to change its course, and the Eastern U.S., and western Europe grow colder with severe winters, about every 8200 years. We are almost at that point since last occurrence.

The severe winters are on their way back. I believe I am right on this. Global warming does not mean global warming for the entire world. For Easterners, we will grow colder.

I thought that was the whole point of the IPCC: Convene an International group of scientists to duke it out.

If the problem is an excess of C02 why can't we just remove it from the atmosphere mechanicaly. We remove tons of O2(oxygen) every day so it must be possible to construct plant to remove C02. NASA have plant to convert C02 from the Martian atmosphere into Oxygen and Carbon to allow astronauts to breath on Mars , surly we could do something similar here. C02 is uniformly distributed so we could build the plants in uninhabitied areas and run them on solar/wind energy. Cost would be a factor but what price the survial of all life on earth?. This approach would allow us halt if not revise climate change while we mirgate to cleaner/greener technologies.

Regards C Gulliver (UK)

I am a Republican,,an environmentalist, and will vote for McCain.
I agree with Al Gore,,,but please it will take more than 10 years for his plan to happen.
And of all groups,,,his ..the Liberals will create the most stubling blocks for the process to happen

how about that huge crack in that glacier in GREENLAND half mile wide, 11 square miles of glacier chunking off?? 500 sq. miles of floating ice breaking apart. excuse me!!! not a word about that....Reply: That is next up.