It's 30F in South Texas.... an incredibly rare event for a locale so close to the equator... I have a very hard time supporting any global warming theory when two years ago it snowed here in great quantities, and now, it's freezing for the second or third time this winter. It's easy to call it global warming in the NorthEast - try explaining the theories to the folks around here...

It's 30F in South Texas.... an incredibly rare event for a locale so close to the equator... I have a very hard time supporting any global warming theory when two years ago it snowed here in great quantities, and now, it's freezing for the second or third time this winter. It's easy to call it global warming in the NorthEast - try explaining the theories to the folks around here...

Laura, I wonder if you might contemplate adding some sort of FAQ to your blog in order to address posts like this. J's comment is, at first blush, perfectly logical to those who aren't familiar with the dynamics of weather systems and how they are affected by changes in heat content.

You (or we) might be in a position to post an appropriately objective explanation, indexed and labeled in a way that any of us might be able to reference it in response to comments like this.

J, I am *not* a meteorologist, but I think I can still take a swing at this. Global warming drives changes in circulation patterns. It doesn't mean that worldwide temperatures get uniformly warmer, across the board. It does mean that places that used to be arid become wet, and places that used to be wet become arid. For example, a relatively minor shift in the position of the jet stream can bring about HUGE differences in precipitation patterns, especially when rain versus snow is considered. An area that depends on snowmass in adjacent mountain regions for its summertime drinking water supply will be devastated by a minor shift that causes precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow.

The anomalous sequence of blizzards in Denver is consistent with the global warming hypothesis, just as the anomalous warmth in northern New England. I think your 30F temperatures in South Texas fall in the same category.

Thanks,
Tom

"many environmentalists are equally quick to believe the worst in order to press for their own agenda."

I don't think they believe what they are saying, they are just fear mongers looking for funding or some way to damage us economically because, to paraphrase, "the US uses more resources than any other country." So, yes, from a conservative standpoint, part of my objection is economic. You can dismiss that as such if you like, but that doesn't make it any less factual.

It was Gorbachev himself who said, "Man has exceeded nature�s allowable limits," the former Soviet president told Time magazine last year. "Civilization must adjust to the laws of the biosphere. We have little room for maneuver--and little time." That may have been lost on you, but it wasn't lost on anyone who despises communism and socialism. And most environmental activists are socialists, if they are not communists or outright anarchist like the Earth First terrorists. These include the ones in NASA, the EPA, the NOAA and other parts of our government.

"This is a grassroots effort to push global warming as a major issue in the 2008 presidential primaries." I'm sure that if you look at who is funding this you'll find that there is nothing grass roots about it. The environmentalists would like people to believe it is grass roots and our lap-dog liberal press will report it that way, but that is a lie.

J: We've been having a very mild winter this year, but it is just weather. Today we had our first ice storm and it has taken down power in quite a few places across southern New England. However, this is from the April/May 2006 issue of Wave Length Magazine, a kayaking magazine, in an article called Cape Cod Ice-Out!: "The winter of 2004 had been an unusually cold one and there was thick sea ice along the New England coastline in places where it hadn't been seen in recent memory. Most of the harbors in Cape Cod Bay were choked with ice and Buzzards Bay was was frozen solid most of the winter. Icebreakers were plying Boston Harbor and Buzzards Bay. The ferries to Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket were shut down, waiting for icebreakers to arrive."

Maybe the earth is warming, maybe not, no one knows for sure, but what you and I are are experiencing is just weather. BTW, J, even if the earth is warming, there is nothing we can do about it, and we have evidence that it has been warmer in the last century, and a lot warmer much farther in the past. It has also been much colder. It seems to go in cycles. We can no more change that fact than we can change the orbit of the moon.

God Bless Texas! (My oldest boy was born there.)

One more thing. Anyone who thinks that this global warming hysteria is not about economics should read the cost analysis of implementing the Kyoto treaty. It would be a disaster for the US economy, and most of the countries that did ratify it have not met their goals because those costs are so high.

Here are some things to think about: If you stop paying your electric and gas bill do you think you will be able to come home to a nice warm house and turn the lights on after work? Are third world countries less well off because they are economically poor? Are we better off because we are a wealthy country? Which countries, besides China and India do not have to abide by the Kyoto treaty? (Answer - third world countries because they could not afford it.) Sure their rhetorical questions, but that does not change the fact that everything is about economics regardless of what stupid reporters think.

Brookline Tom, there is no such thing!...And if there is, it is a natural occurance....These "progressive thinkers" in New Hampsire will be wasting their time voting on this nonsense....And knowing their liberal track record, they will vote for more controls that will put people out of work!.....Again, WE CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATHER...No matter how many florocarbons we spray our hair with!

Ms. Young's conclusion actually makes me a little nervous. In the context of addressing the impacts of climate change, an operational knowledge of some of the basics is needed, and many journalists are not bad at this.

Let's take two issues: 1) serious economic problems faced by Native peoples in the Arctic due to thawing; 2) exacerbation of complex emergencies in the Horn of Africa by climate change. These issues may well be happening now and their humanitarian impacts on real people might be extremely significant. Climate scientists, and policy makers, humanitarian orgs, communities, emergency mangers, NGOs, national/local govts, and int'l relations/development specialists need to be at the table together. Journalists do too.

At its most extreme--look at Darfur. If climate change is in any way playing an exacerbating role in this conflict, journalists need to write about it. NGO's need to know. The international community needs to know. Operational climate change basics then must factor into the situational awareness of those on the ground and in the ministries of the int'l community.

I don't like hyper-politicization of climate change either, but this issue is also one of transnational public policy. Accordingly, the media and politics are going to play a role. It's not always pretty, but ultimately it's healthy and necessary.

In the 60s and 70s the experts predicted that underground water tables in the US, Africa and USSR would be used up (with no natural replenishment). There would have been droughts, wars and mass migration into western Europe. It's always something, and those who don't agree are marginalized and not counted as "credible". Average world temps are not rising, and Laura should know that. Sea levels are not rising, and coastal authorities are not reporting that. But it "WILL HAPPEN". The reports about Indian Ocean island residents relocating to higher ground - sounds like exactly what they decided to do after the tsunami. Any honest checking of that, or would dissenters "not count"? New England is completely wasting its time, but that's because liberals are not competent at science. What a terrible waste it would be to even spend ONE DOLLAR to reduce CO2.

The US should be building commercial nuclear power plants for a variety of reasons, the least of which IMHO is GW. Concommitant with the new construction of NPP should be a huge emphasis on Ecars. The technology exists and the US owns most of it. Debating the issue of GW without identifying a solution that makes the US energy independent is akin to an old socratic discussion regarding angels and pinheads.

Probably only in America would so many people be so hostile to the idea of global warming. Read today's New York Times, and a few real science articles about ice shelves falling into the sea in a matter of hours. It's no longer a matter of academic debate, but a fight between those who cherish gratuitous consumption over the health and lives of everyone else on Earth.

And here come the 2008 Elections...

Of course, you still have to wait almost 2 years (sorry, I'm not a US citizen, so I don't know the exact date).

Anyways, it is clear from my point of view, that many politicians will support their policies by making reference to Climate Change. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

What I expect, though, is that no one gets fooled with this misleading speech politicians are about to give. We all know Bush is not going to change his environmental policy; we all know Al Gore or any of his friends will come up with an alarming idea (which I think, it's not a crazy scenario actually).

Whatever the case, we know what to expect from politicians in the following elections.

If some people are really concerned about the cost of a "green and environmentally friendly" policy and the "disastrous" impact it may have in the US economy, I'd say that might happen... but in the short term. In the long term, however, I believe being green will bring about loads of benefits. And, again, if you are so worried about money: Think of all the many spent annually by governments all around the world on help for victims of natural disasters. Wouldn't it be better to spend it on preventing these catastrophes from happening???

About thirld-world countries... well, I live in Argentina, which may be included in that group. Unfortunately, the Government cannot INVEST the advisable amount of money in environmental issues. But I can assure that we're well aware of the problem because some recent unsual weather events have had some pretty bad consequences on our lives.

Emiliano

Laura, nuclear power plants are very expensive and take a long time to plan and build. I've noticed that advocates for nuclear don't like to mention the various efficiency and conservation steps ("negawatts") that can be taken, and that would have very large effects much sooner at far lower cost. Two examples that come to mind that are conversion of light bulbs to CFLs and increased appliance efficiency standards (in particular air conditioners). Are you unaware of the immediate benefits of policies to bring about such changes?

In when I was first learning about the environment and climate change (decades ago!), scientists I asked said that while it was not clear how "global warming" might work out, they agreed that we would see more extreme weather. Unless you regard weather as an illusion, this conclusion has been confirmed by wind, water, drought, cold, hot, etc. That's why I prefer to call it "climate change" since global warming implies heat and actual cold conditions are VERY confusing!

People influenced by slanted news may prefer not to heed the movement towards accepting climate science, but they must be able to see the weather and social consequences of that weather with their own eyes. The poorest people of the world are stuck in places from which they can't escape, like Darfur, Bangladesh, coastal Alaska, slums all over the world, or even here in mainland US. Since I understand doubters largely regard themselves as Christians, I suggest rereading the Gospels and particularly the Sermon on the Mount (starting at Matthew 5:3). Nowhere does Jesus recommend hatred and killing, neglect of the poor and suffering, and aggrandizement of the well off and comfortable.

It's also curious that people who care about families won't concern themselves about the future, when it's their children and grandchildren who will pay our climate debts.

There IS a worldwide water crisis, though it's not so bad in much of Europe and the United States. Here's a picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_world_water_crisis/html/1.stm

If you want to see the article from which this graphic was taken:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3747724.stm

There's lots more good stuff on the BBC, but thought I'd stick with the water issue since it was mentioned above.

Dear Laura:

There are probably far more credible skeptics regarding climate change than currently presented to the general public by the news media. Unfortunately, the general news media is driven on this issue by the prodigious press releases from organizations, including the IPCC, that advance their specific agendas for energy policy changes via the perceived threats of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. Deliberately, climate change proponents can successfully block dissension within the greater scientific community, particularly through the manipulation of peer review journals and conferences, thereby preventing the objective, truthful, scientific assessment of climate change for reporting to the news media and general public.

Climate change dissenters know their work will be held to a higher standard of accountability than the supporters of the negative impacts of climate change. Professors intent on permanent tenure and job security are unlikely to challenge the status quo regarding climate change, creating the unfortunate, perceived imbalance in 'credibility' you discuss in your essay. Consequently, viewpoints contrary to the mainstream are largely disguised as non-conclusive studies of climate change, with researchers calling for more public monies to study atmospheric carbon dioxide, paleo-climate, and global warming. Like goldfish at mealtime, climate studies have become a feeding frenzy for federal dollars by scientists and institutions.

Historically, billions of dollars have been spent by governments to study global warming, with favorable studies used to dramatically support the IPCC's and the United Nations' very subjective, non-scientific expectations about climate change. Meanwhile, other more objective analyses of climate are ignored, disregarded, and not reported. With its collective mind emphatically supporting the purported negative consequences of global warming, the IPCC and its public relations specialists are willfully participating in the manipulation of the general news media by selectively feeding press releases favorable to their positions, particularly to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the planet's most influential English language news organization. Consequently, hardly a day passes without the BBC World News theatrically announcing the results of another study of atmospheric carbon dioxide and its alleged impact on global warming, although many such studies are little more than the hypothetical results of poorly calibrated mathematical models of the ocean and its chemistry by atmospheric oceanographers.

Nuclear power is anything but easy. It is exorbitantly expensive and cost prohibitive. Your sentiments about nuclear power reveal just how effectively public relations specialists have manipulated atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming for the benefit of the nuclear power industry. In the Letters section of its August 2006 issue, National Geographic Magazine reported more than seventy percent of those responding to an earlier April 2006 article, entitled Nuclear Power, "felt the benefits of nuclear energy outweighed its costs." Undoubtedly, this directly reflects the very effective manipulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming since the 1980's to gainfully benefit the nuclear power lobby. Additionally, it demonstrates the general public's increasing willingness to open public treasuries and budget enormous subsidies for costly nuclear power plant design and construction. Oh, how quickly we forget!

Actually, repeated construction cost overruns, such as those of the South Texas Nuclear Project, and the cost ineffectiveness of future projects, very effectively killed the nuclear power industry in the United States, not dramatic disasters. Responsibly, the Cities of Austin and San Antonio discontinued their financial support for the South Texas Nuclear Project located on the western Gulf Coast near Bay City, but not before spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on this cost ineffective project and its continuously delayed construction during the 1980's and early 1990's. Fiscally, money wasted for no gain. There are those counting on opinions such as yours and the specter of global warming to renew this cycle of wasteful spending.

Nuclear power stations are exotic, exorbitantly expensive ways to boil water for steam generation. Unequivocally, each facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, if applicable, or state and federal air discharge permits, verifies its abundant production of heated wastewater. Very visibly, steam is discharged to the atmosphere from the huge, squatly concave, concrete towers often associated with nuclear power stations. Those photographed at the Three Mile Island power station, built in the middle of the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, are prime examples. Consequently, steam discharged from nuclear power plants can increase atmospheric water vapor, absolute humidity, precipitation, and very likely, average nocturnal temperatures.

Nationally, does the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center's location at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Knoxville, Tennessee, represent an academic and professional conflict of interest, accounting for their website's occasional lack of objectivity regarding the impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate? Now charged with maintaining our nation's databases on carbon dioxide, historically, this august institution has been associated with the development of atomic energy, initiated during the 1950's by President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. Visit their site at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ to decide for yourself. As outlined previously, solar power is the easiest and the most ethical way to reduce atmospheric emissions, but the subsidies necessary for its development by the Department of Energy have been usurped for decades by nuclear programs.

Truthfully, a website presented by the Natural Environment Research Council of the United Kingdom discusses the a priori, real-time, radiative importance of planetary water vapor. In a section entitled, Science Programmes - Clouds, Water Vapour, and Climate, its presenters write, "Water vapour has by far the greatest impact of any gaseous constituent on the radiation balance of the atmosphere with absorption features from visible wavelengths to the far infra-red. It is thus of fundamental importance to our understanding of climate and climate change". "By far", they said. By far, they're right. Amen. You can visit the NERC at http://www.nerc.ac.uk.

Humanly exhausted, atmospheric carbon dioxide is NOT the cause of global warming. Casually disregarded in scientific explanations of this planetary phenomenon, water vapor industrially discharged to the atmosphere is very likely the major contributing factor to the average increases in nighttime temperatures measured at many weather stations, especially at urban reporting sites. Dramatically, atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are publicly exploited to influence international energy policies. Such promotion is politically manipulative, since all synthetic energy technologies, including hydrogen fuel cells, produce steam or water, the most radiatively important atmospheric substance by far.

Scientists must judiciously guard and responsibly advance the truth. Ultimately, scientific perversion, negligence, and misconduct can have dire consequences for the Human Ecosystem ... especially the unsuspecting and the innocent. Too frequently, scientific understanding is not comprehensive, presenting paradoxical conclusions, with unforeseen circumstances. Often, the implications of scientifically based policy are not carefully elaborated and considered before direct actions are taken. Necessarily, this unfortunate behavior must change, so politicians and public administrators can be advised correctly and accurately before planning and promulgating public policy.

Professionally, scientists ... like lawyers, doctors, engineers, and architects ... may someday be held accountable and responsible, criminally and civilly, for physical harm inflicted on society through our negligence, naive or deliberate. Very likely, such legal accountability by scientists is long overdue.

Laura, if you like a good fictional thriller, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's 2004 novel, State of Fear. It directly addresses the manipulation of scientific facts about climate for personal and private gain by various organizations. An outstanding scientist and researcher, Crichton thoroughly researched his topic before writing his fictional tale. His book is full of published citations regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. An epilog by Crichton details his educated beliefs that global warming is a measurable phenomenon, but its negative impacts are largely subjective and contrived for economic reasons.

Hayes Galitski
Claremont, CA

Hello,

I read an op-ed article in my local paper. The editor compared global warming to lung cancer, asking if you have been diagnosed with lung cancer, how will continuing to smoke help? The same can be said with global warming and burning fossil fuels, releasing all of that carbon gas into the atmosphere. However, here is the problem in relation to his story. Lung cancer (global warming in this case) is to be fatal, the end. The earth however, will not end, certainly not by man. If you detonated every atomic bomb and obliterated the face of the earth, a few thousand years from now, guess what, the scorched earth will have become green and lush with life, again.

There in lies the flaw in the global warming belief. The earth is not fragile. It will continue to revolve long after you and I are gone. As far as fossil fuels goes, 100 years from now, gas burning vehicles will be a thing of the past, phased out by new technology. The earth, as it has before, will correct the balance. So between now and then, I think that the earth will most definitely survive the next 100 years, seeing that it has been through 5 billion and will go through 5 billion more. The climate will change, that�s what it does.

Thank you,

- An opinionated realist.

Steve - I wrote an entry on the use of CFLs in my first week writing this blog. It becomes a little bit of a balancing act...do I repeat information for newbies to the blog? Or do I keep pressing onward with new information? Boosting efficiency is certainly an important step we can all take to reduce our personal "carbon footprint."

I'm living in Northern Europe and in my travels the sight of windmills is common throughout Germany and somewhat so in France and Italy and the use of nuclear power is providing much of the electricity used here and is considered very safe by the population given the high cost of(and high taxes on) oil for use in homes and petrol and diesel in cars. Diesel fuel is most prevalent in cars because I'm told its a cleaner type, and its taxed less and gets much better kilometers per litre and gasoline. Europeans I speak with about windmills say that the alarm about the birds flying into them are funny since the blades themselves really don't cycle very fast even on very windy days, and most birds would know better than fly near them when they are turning (like most animals stay away from humans even when the humans are standing still go figure that).

Related to the argument on politicizing what people are observing in nature, I think we Americans need to quit picking sides so quickly and choosing solutions on what the political left and right and the special interest groups are saying too. This is a scientific question that needs scientific data to establish the extent of the problem and offer scientific solutions to solve if deemed a very serious one. I'm amazed at the numbers of special interests who are using the "issue" to push their own agendas into the analysis and the debate around solutions. I'm now afraid we will end up with infeasible solutions and more of the same "mush" we now have or solutions that produce more unintended consequences for everyone.

Unfortunately the media are stoking the debate when news reports and talking heads push their own agendas into their discussion of facts by continually slanting their presentation of facts into a discussion of opinions based on emotion.

I'm thinking we form a group of non-political scientists who don't work for a "think-tank" or other organization with a stake in the outcome, and get some real facts and ideas on how best to solve the problems that are truly there, though I doubt this will ever happen the way things now work in America.

P.S. In Belgium it rains most of the winter months anyway and the locals call it the rainy season and its always been like that since weather patterns are directed by the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic too but local museums have pictures of the progress of many famous Alpine glaciers over 100 years and its clear they are retreating from the pictures!