Another wonderful AGW theory from the NYT, without the author bothering to check if temperatures have actually been warming in Pennsylvania.

According to NOAA records, temperatures in Pennsylvania have been declining since 1930.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Jul1308:32:044992675781.gif

If you want to generate the graph yourself - go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/pa.html
Select Period - annual. First year to display 1930

But why let those little details get in the way of another great AGW scare? Any warming that occurred in Pennsylvania was prior to 1930, and according to the IPCC - that was due to changes in solar radiation

Yep, let's just keep adding all sorts of things going bad and blame it on AGW. Keep beating the populace over the head with it.
Fortunately this will backfire as most will tune out and the rest will actually look into it more and find out what a crock it is.

Anthracnose has also been stressing ash trees. We've been seeing ash dying off before the beetle. However, the beetle is pretty efficient at killing all the ash, with exception of blue ash.

There are a lot of other things that stress trees besides climate conditions. Stand density and site are two things that will have a direct impact on any tree.

I think I read somewhere that Babe Ruth used a hickory bat. That would be a real brute of a bat if you had the strength to swing it.

Whether or not GW has anything to do with the beetle is beyond me. But I suspect that since it could survive cold temperatures, it won't make any difference anyway.

I do know that government is much better at destroying the ash trees than the beetle could ever hope to be. You see, here in Ohio, the government's decision has been to eradicate all ash trees within a 1 mile radius of the location of just a single beetle. I guess this is because no one has figured out how to kill the beetle. So, we have one beetle sighting, the solution is to kill off hundreds of trees around it. If there was any chance that a natural immunity would be found, we pretty much just eliminated it. Yet, even with this "solution" the beetle spreads.

Though it may take a long time for a single Ash to croak from beetle damage, we just whiz through, chainsaw the tree down, and burn it up. You see, you can't use the wood since it would be transported to a "clean" area, possibly spreading the beetle.

Fortunately, the State has run out of money for this "environment saving program". I would be willing to place a bet that the "disease" will be determined to be not that bad, and the trees, along with local habitat, will develop a resistance of some sort or other.

Another fine example of how the "solution" may be as bad as the "problem".

Patrick Henry,

You have one basic flaw in your analysis, you have forgotten to pick the proper start date. You should be starting at 1975, not 1930. Everyone knows that only the last 30 years can be used for analysis of global warming. Sheesh!!

Paul,

"Everyone knows that only the last 30 years can be used for analysis of global warming. Sheesh!!"

Interesting that much AGW theory uses a cool baseline time period corresponding to the "consensus" that we were plunging in to an ice age.

We can safely conclude that this beetle does better in warm weather coincident with a warming nation. AGW is partly responsible here

Thor,

"We can safely conclude that this beetle does better in warm weather coincident with a warming nation. AGW is partly responsible here"

If we ignore the fact that the NOAA data says it is not warming in Pennsylvania (or most of the other states.) And then assume that AGW is causing a problem based on no other evidence.

Thor:

Not sure how you can safely assume that the beetle does better in warm weather. I know that would be the common sense opinion, but I believe part of the problem is no one knows the beetle's turn ons and offs.

On another similar note, we have been told for years that mosquitos would be a major problem as the planet warmed. This would then of course lead to massive disease and death from malaria et al. According to the resident AGWers, and I concur, we had a warm winter here in the midwest. This was followed by a wet spring which, as I recall, would create the prime breeding situation. Funny thing though, this is the first year in ten, in which I can stand outside and not be mauled by the little buggers at dusk. In years past, if you walked outside unprotected, you would be actively bleeding in minutes. This year, I have barely even seen a mosquito let along being harrassed. In the past, when we had a winter with prolonged periods of below freezing temps, the bloodsucker's population was much greater. This too, goes against the standard ideas.

In my everpresent rant against government waste, I do know that the state and city have spent a boatload of money telling us to "fight the bite". Genius of a slogan ain't it? Anyway, the point is that sometimes our best ideas are completely out of tune with reality.

Are you sure it's not warming in most states, Patrick? Courtesy of another fellow poster here:

http://www.trainweather.com/48states-tempavg1895-2006.html

35 states getting warmer, 9 states getting cooler, 4 with no change.

Of course, this is using the entire data set. If you cherry-pick an arbitrary date like, say, 1930, your results may change.

I guess deniers have a way to "massage" the data to fit their arguments.

In the last 5 years there have been swings in the summer temps of roughly 2F above mean and 2F below the last century's mean. If the trend of past summers holds true we're in a downward siwng so the next two summers will be even cooler.

Most bugs can take a heck of alot more differential than that and 2F isn't going to change the Flora in one summer. Net Result: Bugs are happy and growing because there are Ash trees; global warming means squat in this case.

Darren,

...we have been told for years that mosquitos would be a major problem as the planet warmed.

That must be why Alaska is swarming with mosquitos and the mosquito is the State Bird.

Mark,

Can you point out on those graphs where the accelerating temperatures are and how CO2 concentrations correlate with the ups and downs of said swings? Of course, we don't know how many of these stations are located next to air conditioner exhausts and parking lots, do we?

Mark/Patrick:

OK, you two have been actively engaged in a battle over whose temps show the states are cooling and or warming. I have not followed any of either of your links as I find poring over temp links outstandingly ardous. Besides that, have either of you really considered the fact that the temps are probably completely based in minimal fact and have been "massaged" to fit some realm of the intent of the agency submitting the data?

I mean seriously, the temp data means squat. We ALL know that the data is massaged and cherry picked depending upon the intent of the individual. That is the crux of this entire issue, nobody has reliable data. Whereas in the past the unreliability was due to inconsistencies in equipment and reporting method, now it is more likely due to the bias of the individual or agency reporting the data. There is no conspiracy here, it is just the way things are. And no, I do not know how to "fix" it other than to just use raw data, un massaged, reported from as many locations as possible.

Does anyone know if there have ever been correlations done between satellite temps and temps taken at the same altitude with accurate gauges? Or are we just assuming that the science behind taking sat measurements is peer reviewed and therefore unerringly correct?

Mark,

I have explained quite carefully that there was warming prior to 1930 due to (as the IPCC stated) changes in solar radiation.

So 1930 is an obvious start date for measuring global warming. The fact that most states are down since 1930 is catastrophic for the AGW theory, which is supposed to look like a hockey stick since then.

I'm not wasting my time on this with you anymore, because you aren't interested in the data anyway.

Darren,

Mosquitos flourish in wet weather; it can be cool to warm but hot dry dry summers are the bane of mosquitos. Since many locales have had a spate of hot dry summers on the east coast; mosquitos have not been prolific. The notably milder falls have tended to increase their seasonal breeding and consequently the risk of infectious disease to humans. I'm ambivalent about global warming no matter what the primary cause.

"So 1930 is an obvious start date for measuring global warming. The fact that most states are down since 1930 is catastrophic for the AGW theory, which is supposed to look like a hockey stick since then."

I believe the IPCC said before 1940, not 1930. Link? Use 1940.

"Of course, we don't know how many of these stations are located next to air conditioner exhausts and parking lots, do we?"

Yes, Paul, I'm sure all of those thermometers in Siberia, northern Canada, Alaska, etc -- places that have warmed as much as seven degrees over the past thirty years -- are located near air conditioner exhausts. How many air conditioners are in Northern Canada, anyway? How many parking lots are in Siberia?

Deniers haven't been able to express how potential 'bias' in the data occurs in remote areas around the Arctic Circle, where 1) there is very little concrete or air conditioners and 2) even if there was a potential 'bias' in the data, it would not be a bias of seven degrees. For that type of bias to occur, every single thermometer up there would have to be located next to a furnace. That's quite a stretch of the imagination. Although, since AGW deniers do have quite an imagination, it wouldn't surprise me if they believe in those conspiracies.

Paul, I'm sure all of those thermometers in Siberia, northern Canada, Alaska, etc -- places that have warmed as much as seven degrees over the past thirty years -- are located near air conditioner exhausts.

This place, picked randomly from the GISS database, has only warmed about 6 degrees C in the last 30 years. However, in the last 70 years or so, the temperature has declined 0.012 deg C per annum.

Gmo Im.E.K. F, 77.7 N 104.3 E 222202920005 rural area 1932 - 2007

The first entry above was picked by picking a point on the station map in northern Siberia and clicking. It was the first entry. The one below is the second entry on the page.

This place, picked randomly from the GISS database, has only warmed about 3 degrees C in the last 30 years. However, in the last 70 years or so, the temperature has had not trend, whatsoever.

Hatanga, 72.0 N 102.5 E 222208910006 rural area 1929 - 2007

Pick a point in Siberia off this page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and go down the page and check out the graphs. What you will find is that most of them, especially the ones with a long record, show similar trends; warming up through the 30's, followed by cooling through the 60's, and finally, the present warming trend. Hardly the model for CO2 induced warming. But then, Mark, I would hardly expect you to actually look at the data. It's much easier to sit in the peanut gallery and yell at the players. So, you sit in your little elevated seat and fill your little mind full of mush with what the MSM feeds you. I, myself, tend to be skeptical of anything the MSM is a cheerleader to.