Britain may have the most extensive historical record of temperatures of any nation, but they don't have 347 years of records because the mercury thermometer was not even invented until 1714 by Daniel Fahrenheit, and people didn't start to get serious about them for measuring weather until about 1800. sources: wikipedia and brannon.co.uk

The source of the article, the UK Met Office, is obviously a group of enviro-wackos, as you can discover for yourself by reading about them on their site, who have no problem pulling numbers out of parts unknown and publishing them as if they are fact. They aren't.

Also, here in New England we had one of the more mild Summer and Fall seasons than we've had in a while. We hardly ran our air conditioners at all this year.

But, they had a tornado hit North London today. You know what that means, more global warming claims!!

woodNfish,

Where did you get temp data compiled for the six state region? In Salem MA the average monthly temps for June and July were appreciably above the long-term average. Aug may have been slightly below average after a hot start ( still waiting for my weather correspondent to provide ) September was cooler than average while october was above and Novemebr was well above. I believe the six state region did not differ much these departures. Granted the summer was not as torrid as last year's but this hardly dispels the theory of greenhouse warming.

A UK meteorologist ( forgot his name ) recently posted his 06-07 winter forecast online. He mentioned how ghgs are insolation dependent, meaning that if the solar rays are not absorbed at the surface, warming at high latitudes is largely of natural origin in winter and that more artificial warming occurs at lower latitudes. He also stated that greenhouse could be strengthening the polar jet stream and as the cryosphere of wintry inevitable grows, the jetstream is more prone to amplitude. This was not some "enviro-wacko". Speaking of wacko, if you don't have the data to back your claim of a cool summer and fall, you might be labeled one.

woodNfish,

Galileo invented the first thermoscope in 1593. So, it would seem that the UK could have temperature readings going back 347 years.

Hi Tom,

My comment about the New England temps is purely subjective - I live here. By a mild Fall I mean that the temperatures were shirt-sleeve comfortable rather than so cold we had to wear coats as in some previous Falls when we'd had our first blizzard by Thanksgiving.

I know we had a couple of record days, but for the most part July did not, overall, seem as hot as last year.

I don't think I can be labeled a whacko for commenting on the weather since I am not shouting, carrying signs, broadcasting, or publishing that we are all going to die if something isn't done about it.

I'm sure the UK meteorologist is right about the weather, but that's all it is - weather. And tomorrow it will change. You know how fast it can do that here in New England, Tom; it's a standing joke.

I'd just like to hear one time from the enviro-whackos how ell we are doing in this country. New cars are over 98% clean running, and our air is much cleaner now because with every year that goes by, more older cars are taken off the road. The Nashua River used to run red and green and neon blue. You could tell what color paper was being produced by the color of the river, but today it runs clean. I fish it and swim in it, and it just keeps getting better.

There's plenty more to be happy about as well, but we never get to hear about it. It is just one doomsday scenario after another. I think most people simply look at how poor they are at predicting the weather and tune them out.

Hi Glenn,

Yes you are correct about Galileo, but the instruments did not have any accuracy until Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer, and even then, there was no accurate scale. So no, the UK does not have accurate temperature readings that far back, and even into the 1800's what they do have are a few local temperatures taken here and there, but not everywhere. (I don't know when thermometers became inexpensive and widespread - perhaps you can research that, but it certainly didn't happen before 1850. Instruments we take for granted - thermometers, compasses, etc cost a lot of money back then.) The most accurate temperature data we have is from the last 20 - 30 years of satelite readings and even that varies in quality. And 20 -30 years in terms of climate is meaningless.

This is just more of trying to prop up a big lie (global warming) with more lies.

Ouch...looks like our resident right-wing zealot, woodNFish, was shown to be a fool in this debate. Bring some facts next time.

I've noticed that the corporate apologists now have two arguments to cover all their bases. First, they said everything was a cycle. But now...they say that even if it's not a cycle, then hey, global warming is still a GOOD thing. I mean, you gotta love how they cover all their bases so that, in their universe, they're never wrong. Fortunately, most people don't live with such a narrow mindset that they do.

WoodNfish,

Again, you see only that which fits with your own exceptional bias and ignore completely that which does not.

The trends on this planet (America is only one country with only 4-5% of Earth's population) are scary indeed because they point to a species that is killing it's home. Millions of species facing extinction; the ocean's dying; wild lands being paved over... could go on and on and on. Picking one river in your back yard to prove that "enviro-whackos" should not be listened to is absurd to the point of being funny. You are clearly allowing your bias to rule your intellect and your pride to rule your common sense.

Mark - you're an idiot. You didn't respond to a single thing I wrote; you can only try and paste labels on me.

Kevbo, my "bias" is based on information. I posted the thermometer links in a seperate post, go find them yourself since you're obviously too lazy to do any real research. Here is an easy one to find right on this site:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2006/11/here_comes_the_sun_1.html#comments

And now to pick you apart:

"Millions of species facing extinction" Prove it.

"the ocean's dying" Which ocean? Where is your evidence? My main pastime is fishing and I'm beginning to think you're an idiot too.

"wild lands being paved over" Really, where? The Great Northeastern Forest is larger and healthier today than it was in 1800. (I'm sure you probably don't even know what the Great Northeastern Forest is.) Most of the western US is unpopulated as is most of northern Canada. You'll find this is true in many countries in this hemisphere, north and south.

If you'd stop reading Earth First brochures and do a little looking on your own you might have an original thought, but I won't hold my breath waiting. There are plenty of people being led around by the nose by the overly shrill global warmers. You both are obviously two of them. Moo.

woodNfish,

The context of your "subjectivity" was an effort to counter claims of global warming. That post can't be interpreted differently. You may counter claims of a coming catastrophe but you can't refute the climate data over the last few decades. The trend is unmistakeable!
I would remind you that 4% of U.S. land surface has been developed and that figure rises all the time. Here in MA, current land loss is 15,000 acres annually with 44% of land consumed ( pavement and building ) The figures for fragmentation ( i.e degradation of ecology ) run much higher. Air quality has not markedly improved because there are too many vehicles. As vehicles age off, old vehicles with compromised emission replace them. There is no improvement. I suspect state ( MA ) emission testing for diesel will be sham.

In this thread, WoodNFish wrote:
Mark - you're an idiot. You didn't respond to a single thing I wrote; you can only try and paste labels on me...I'm beginning to think you're an idiot too...overly shrill global warmers

On another, WoodNFish wrote:
...the dumbocrats control congress, but most of them know they got elected because people were tired of the republicrats spending like dumbocrats. If they pass legislation aimed at putting us more in line with Kyoto the economy will take a dive and lots of people will lose their jobs. Dumbocrats may have never met a communist they didn't love and want to emulate, but they aren't completely stupid. They know that if they tank the economy they can kiss their majority goodbye in two years. So ask this question again in two years and you'll probably get a less shade-of-grey answer.

While this last comment is so asinine that it doesn't merit further response, the irony of WoodNFish accusing somebody else of pasting labels is hilarious.

Do you not see "dumbocrat", "idiot", and "global warmers" as labels, or do you -- like Foley and the rest of the corrupt GOP ex-majority -- feel that standards you apply to others need not apply to you?

Meanwhile, you flamed:
"Millions of species facing extinction" Prove it.

Try reading these, for a starter:

• http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2006/11/biology14.html
  
• http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/red_list_2004/Extinction_media_brief_2004.pdf
  
• http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-10-06-wilson-warning_x.htm
  

"the ocean's dying" Which ocean? Where is your evidence? My main pastime is fishing and I'm beginning to think you're an idiot too.

Well, here's what NASA -- a known liberal extremist organization -- offered in 1995:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_overfishing.html

A more current -- and more devastating -- piece appeared in Science a few weeks ago. Here's the abstract:

Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences. We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, I think the outcome is reasonably obvious. Perhaps WoodNFish might do a little less fishing and little more research.

WoodNfish,

You see only the information that fits in with your very narrow world view as the information as to all I claimed in my previous posting is very much availible. I've read many, many articles in such publications as Scientific American, Nature, etc. all reflecting an alarm coming from the community of scientists than humanity is detroying our planet. You prove with your own diatribe that you in fact pay attention only to that which fits your view of the world as seen through a straw: You ignore all that does not fit your self contructed reality. The right wing does this constantly and very effectivy. Just look at Iraq. Humans are killing the Earth with the proverbial death of a thousands cuts. You are living in a world of utter fantasy, ignoring the reams and reams of imperical data, not to mention just plain common sense, that completely destroys your nonsense of an argument. I must say I'm very much believing you folks on the right are completely insane.

Earth Firsters talk about the thousands of acres lost annually to development every year. They've long have gotten my attention. Perhaps it's a matter of a perspective as in the big picture. If it was woodNfish's fishing hole; believe me, he'd give a hoot!

I live in England and I know the CET well. There is plenty of evidence that the UK has warmed significantly since the CET series began, regardless of centigrade/ fahrenheit anomalies, urban warming islands or other proposed effects. For example, the Thames regularly froze thick enough for "Frost fairs" until 1814. As recently as 1987 temperatures of -10 to -20c (about 0F) would be recorded in rural parts of England in most winters. These rarely (never!) happen now, and certainly not for any prolonged period.
The CET does show us, however, that a gradual warming began around 1840 (in other words before any possible emmissions effect), that 1900 - 1920 were nearly as warm as the last 15 years have been, and that the 40's, 60's and part of the 80's showed a cooling out of line with increases in emmissions.
You can't debate the fact that England has been getting warmer, but you can debate what has caused it.

So, boys (and girls).

How about some direct evidence that the unprecedented warming over the last few decades is the result of increasing CO2 concentrations?

Have you any evidence other than 100's of scientists say so, or, my favorite, modeling results show a correlation?

Come on, post some links, citations, your grandmother's anecdotal evidence, whatever. It shouldn't be hard.

> You can't debate the fact that England has been > getting warmer, but you can debate what has
> caused it.

And even that's becoming less of a debate with time.

Have you any evidence other than 100's of scientists say so, or, my favorite, modeling results show a correlation?

The fact that hundreds of scientists say so in peer-reviewed publications, supported by modeling results that compellingly demonstrated the theoretical basis for the correlation, is good enough for me.

wow! you people are really posting a lot recently on these blogs. i greatly appreciate the exchange of ideas and views from different sides. and i have noticed some people are subjective and some of them are objective in stating their comments. but i think as an observer (which i consider myself to be sometimes) i know that you people who agree on global warming is caused by humans have posted several links and researches done to prove your claim. but i want to ask a question though; we all know that we have a limited knowledge on the weather even with these hi-tech instruments that we have. we know not much about cloud formation and its complexities that we could only predict the weather (and predictions are sometimes inaccurate)how can these smart people be sure that theres something wrong with the global temperature? locally, we can hardly predict the weather how can we be sure of a change on something climactic globally?