Actually, if you check some of those skeptics you will find that a number of them say that while it looks like we have warmed some in the last two decades, but there is no way to be certain how much because it is still within the range of error, which means it could also be zero. The other thing you will find that they say is that it waas warmer for a period during the 1940's to 1950's. You can read this article to find that exact period of time: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

(I'd search the article and pull it out myself, but it is a pdf file and I can't search it nor pull it out.)

Another point made in the article is that warmer weather makes for more greenery because the growing period is extended. If you have more flora, you most likely have more fauna, so it is good all around. I'd like to know why you think some trees will find it stressful to have longer growing seasons Laura. Or are you only thinking that the temperature changes may mean it is too warm for some vegetation that prefers cooler temperatures? Considering the extremely small amount of change, and the fact that it has recently been warmer, I doubt it makes any difference at all.

I know you have said that you are trying to keep your opinion out of this discussion Laura, but some of the statements you make give away your bias toward global warming as being a fact. (i.e. Your acceptance of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", your interest in Mann, even though his hockey stick has been thoroughly disproven, etc.) Even so, can you acknowledge that even if the earth is warming, that it is not necessarily a problem? After all it has been through many documented warming and cooling periods. There is also the problem with your faith in the global warming models when you already know and have acknowledged on this site just how crude, poor, and inaccurate the models are for weather forcasting. Why do you think they might be better for climate modeling? You know they aren't. If anything, they aren't even as good because they don't get the kind of research funding that weather predicition gets for the big reason that our agricultural industry depends on it. (Want to find out just how important weather forcasting is? Just go check out the commodities futures markets for agricultural and farm products. Money talks. I believe more money changes hands in a single day on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange than changes hands in an entire year on the New York Stock Exchange. It's huge!)

And again, even if we are warming, why does it have to be a catastrophe? So we might be .3C warmer in 50 years, so what. It's insignificant, and even then may not be as warm as we were just 60 years ago.

I am curious as to why you attribute the unseasonable warmth in the northeast to El Nino. When I examine the Dec-Feb winter forecast map on AccuWeather, normal conditions are forecast for the northeast with slightly below normal temperatures forecast for the central east coast. A weak El Nino is discussed extensively in the text of this forecast, but the linkages are unclear to me.

I think most of what woodNfish says is right on the mark. Ona dditioanl thing - more alarm = more research $ - a lot of people are making $ of the dire hype. Thanks.

... some of the statements you make give away your bias toward global warming as being a fact.

I'm just realizing that woodNfish is ACTUALLY a comedian, he's GOT to be pulling our legs.

Only a jokester could post successive pastes from the "Frontiers of Freedom" website and then accuse Laura of bias in her posts.

You're good, woodNfish. You had me going for awhile, you really did.

WoodNfish,

You are correct. This may turn out to be a very weak ENSO event. The warm pool which developed over the Central Pacific last July is sinking southward towards the Southern Hemishpere- that is the Northwest Pacific is actually cooling as far as SSTs are concerned. There is some concern that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is going from a warm to a cold phase. The PDO was only discovered 10 years ago, and if you chart its course through the last 100 years, it suspicously mirrors the global climate in general.From 1940 to 1977, the PDO was in a cool phase. During this period, some of the coldest years of the 20th Century occured- 1962-1963 was the coldest year of the 20th Century. In 1976, it was almost like a switch was turned. Since then the PDO has been in a warm mode. It appears a warm PDO enhances ENSO, while a cold PDO supresses ENSO. The cycles are about 30-40 years on average.The PDO has been in a warm phase since 1977.

You can Google Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation to get graphs and research info on it. The PDO is the most recent of several teleconnections that have been discovered during the last 40 years.

BTW, if ENSO turns out to be weak, NAmerica could have a colder than forecasted mid to late Winter. Also, the East and West Coasts would be spared some pretty rough weather.

"In the wake of my post on trees yesterday, it seems appropriate today to post a link to the Washington Post's article this morning on climate change and trees. The National Arbor Day Foundation has just released an updated hardiness zone map - the first since 1990.

Now, even the most skeptical of the skeptics isn't questioning that the Earth is warming"

Laura-

Here are four zone maps (three USDA and one Arbor Day). The first one is the original USDA from 1960, the next the USDA 1990 update, then the USDA 2003 update (which was withdrawn), and then finally the 2006 Arbor Day map.

Im not saying global warming does not exist, but using the coldest map produced (the 1990 one as this used a data set from a very cold period) for all before and after comparisons is very misleading (which I suspect is done by design). Why does no one look at the 1960 map as a comparison? The 1960 map (which I believe showcases climate data from the 1920's through the 1950's) shows a climate that is not very far from the 2003/2006 maps.

1960
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/spockvr6/Plant_Hardiness_1960.jpg

1990
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/spockvr6/Plant_Hardiness_1990.jpg

2003
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/spockvr6/2003USDA.jpg

2006
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d88/spockvr6/2006_zones.jpg

Brookline Tom- not to expand the debate too far a field, but I was also amused by a comedian, not by choice, who went to great length and expense to tie the extremes of last years hurricane season to global warming. He even went to the extent to forecast even more dire years ahead. As we all know by now, the 2006 season was one of the calmest in history. Mr. Gore could learn something from those who continue to use fear and pure hype instead of good science to further their own personal agenda.

LB

Woodfish in my opinion is wrong. I'm thinking the exact opposite of him. But, I do see where he is getting from. That was a nice idea, but, sorry, you're WRONG.

(late posting, I know)

K.R.L...
In a debate, conversation, discussion... a point of view cannot be said with the words "you're WRONG"...

State your facts or keep off the forums... it is people who throw their two cents in without backup of opinion which has got us to the society that we live in today, where people start to bully because they think they know the facts because they have read it in 'A' newspaper or seen it on TV...

Obviously I give more notice to what woodNfish is saying regardless of which view he supports, as it seems that he has done a 'bit' of research (i.e. more than a couple of papers or TV channels) and has put foreward his view. regardless whether you think the view is wrong or not, state your argument and let others decide from fact... who knows, by reading many different views, it may change perception (!)

... you decide ...