No wonder neanderthal man had it so good: he never fertilized the veranda outside his cave.......but curses... That AGW was just as bad in his time as now.

It will be interesting how this plays out:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ssless_days.pdf

2008 is presently #3 and rapidly approaching #2, check out the temperatures of 1911, 12, 13......

likely we will know come spring....,

One of the comments has a link to a list of things caused by global warming. My personal favorite is the like death of the Loch Ness monster because of global warming.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Wellllllllllll .......if threatening that AGW will destroy the earth and mankind along with it doesn't work, might as well scare us with that dreaded crabgrass.

And if that doesn't get our attention, maybe next they'll threaten us next with Santa Claus' loss of his head office at the north pole!

Will this mania ever end? ........the imagined disasters(?) are getting more and more pitiful ...... though comical!

LOL

If floods, increased hurricane intensity, droughts, starvation, and disease are insufficient to convince doubters of the need to address the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, this latest finding should do it.

The debate is finally over.

A healthy lawn has fewer weeds (including crabgrass) because the weeds will only grows in places where the grass is thin.

Anyhoo, the obvious answer is to ban all fertilizer and herbicide use. Later, we'll ban the lawn altogether and require that space be used as a common vegetable garden with the produce being shared equally by everyone, according to their needs.

Never really did like crabgrass; now there's another reason too!

OK, so once again this apparently important study of lawn N2O emissions proves my point exactly. It took these researchers a year to figure out what any of us in REAL America already know, crabgrass does well in the heat and is prolific.

I mean jeez, I've been doing this type of research for years. Maybe our newly elected adminstration can give us all grants to save ourselves from the dreaded CO2. It is a plank of his platform and all.

Well, anyway, that certainly needed a grant to solve. So, let me guess, the conclusion is that in order to save the planet, we should immediately kill the grasslands. I mean think of it, N2O is 300 times more powerful than the ALL IMPORTANT CO2. So, even if we plant grass to use up CO2 and create O2, we get N2O that is 300 times better than at trapping heat. Essentially, we're killing the planet by saving it right?

If I had only known that all of the crabgrass I spent all summer digging up and spraying was helping to warm us up, I would have helped it along.

We're gonna need it. Now I feel guilty.

Gee, any landscaper worth his weight in grass seed knows that crabgrass proliferates along the warmer asphalt pavement adjacent to a lawn. It would also be their observation that this scenario has little to do with irrigation or fertilizer since crabgrass will thrive in all but the severest of droughts. This post would argue for fertilizing your lawn grasses and seeding on a regular basis to minimize crabgrass infiltration, assuming lawn grasses emit less nitrous oxide. All of this concern, assumes that global warming exists.
Wallace

Every time you post a blog your premise is that global warming exists and is being caused by human activity.

Reply: Yes, many of my posts are based on the premise that global warming exists. A fairamount of the studies I link to also assume man is responsible, but a large percentage of these posts say nothing about whether man is responsible or not.

How about if you have a blog where you talk about all of the evidence that points out that the earth is cooling and that global warming is far from conclusive?

Reply: The globe has seen a slight cooling over the past couple of years, but to say that the earth is cooling (longer term trends are still positive) based on that short of an interval is premature. Could this brief cooling be the start of a longer term cooling? Perhaps. We will just have to wait and see. Remember, this is the global warming blog.

A previous study found that poison ivy will do better as well.

Brett, this Spiegel article discussing recent work on the apparent shifting climate pattern in the Arctic would make for a good post. The "coolers" here might wonder how much the temperature trend of the last couple of years has been influenced by advection of heat into polar regions where temperature is much harder to measure.

The "coolers" might also want to answer the question of how many other times in the recent past thirty years there's been a similar "cooling" trend and what happened subsequently. Greenfyre observes:

"As any fool can see climate change ended at least 15 times in the last 150 years, even before it started. I just don't understand why the Deniers only point to the most recent ending -- they like 'global warming has ended' so much you'd think they'd want everyone to know about all of them."

You owe it to yourself to go to the web site called "ice age now" or www.iceagenow.com.
Get the counterpoint.

Climate change exists, doesn't take a rocket scientist there. While as Brett noted, long term warming is still positive, there is nothing to suggest that it is caused by humans, and it is simply natural climate change.

As I noted above, sunspot activity has been noted to be at near record quiet so it may be that we will see if sunspot activity actually does have something to do with cooling. I believe sunspot activity Does have a significant effect towards cooling and hopefully this will be borne out.

Meanwhile the Hysterics led by Hansen are business as usual, too much money at stake where they have their mouths.

Dennis Hlinka:(a scientist)Thanks for this site.

Skeptics: What good is your Science. You go to Icecap, Roger Peike Sr., or less credible sites to quote your objections. They are based on the Politics of Global Warming and not the science itself. When topics Brett brings to consider both sides, he is doing so in an effort to be fair. You take what topics Brett finds and either don't understand what they mean, distort the implications, or denounce them because of what Al Gore or Dr. James Hansen did. The only problem I have about Dr. Hansen is that he did not win the noble prize first. If you want some real scientific answers what is wrong with the IPCC. There conservative nature, unbiased honesty, and there willingness to be open,as well as scrutinized by their peers, was a remarkable international endeavour. There are a list of at least one hundred groups throughout the world, that have backed the reality of AGW. Here is one from The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
"AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal".
If you are not part of the solution, then you are the problem. Imagine if Americans could mobilize in every way to find better and less costly ways to feed our need for energy. They can now make plastics without OIL. Your unwillingness to find solutions, and your mean spirited posts, do nothing to help out the Country that you hold so high. What about a little personal conservation. In my neighborhood, we all try to find better ways to save energy, because we realize that we are doing it for our children.
They just banned plastic bags in our nearest town Westport. You have to start somewhere. I know what many people think, doesn't make it right.
Please know the Science you reject.KIPP

Here is a list of groups that support Man Made Global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Visit the web site "ice age now" www.iceagenow.com

I compared sea ice images on Dec 2 this year and last. I was a little surprised to see Hudson bay lagging in area. This global cooling is a little caprice. Overall, the pattern shaping up in the US appears one of classic baroclinicity. Cold in the interior and milder on the east coast, like the winter 00-01. We shall see. This is how early global cooling should proceed. The extra warmth in the ocean takes a while to dissipate.

"2008 is presently #3 and rapidly approaching #2, check out the temperatures of 1911, 12, 13......"

Yes, 2008 is tied with 1954, in regards to number of spotless days. But guess what? The solar cycle which followed 1954 -- solar cycle 19 -- was the MOST active solar cycle in the past 400 years! Using your flawed premise, the next solar cycle should be very active.

The other year which was compared with 2008 was 1933, and yet, the 1930s were a warm decade.

Even the anecdotal evidence of the winter of 1911-12 being cold is terribly weak, considering that the winter of 1912-1913 was one of the warmest winters on record for the East Coast and still is the benchmark for the warmest winter in some parts of New England.

As we can see, there's a reason why Joe D'Aleo has gone into retirement.

"How about if you have a blog where you talk about all of the evidence that points out that the earth is cooling and that global warming is far from conclusive?"

Charles, there are websites out there catered for the anti-science, anti-environment crowd. Check out junkscience.com. It's a haven for AGW deniers and the rest of their ilk whose political philosophy has been soundly rejected by the American People over the past few years.

I wonder if Al Gore is going to green up his green lawns on his estates?

This is yet another meaningless study. First, we're not going to warm by anything near 6 degrees absent a lot more solar energy somehow reaching the Earth. Second, climate warming tends to be seen in the coldest and driest air masses, and at night, in particular if you assert that the warming is greenhouse gas induced. Increasing night and winter temps is hardly going to dramatically effect plants (including crops), and the effects that will occur will be positive (less frost kill at the beginning/end of the growing season). Weeds may do better with more atmospheric CO2, but so will all other plants generally - just ask someone who runs a greenhouse. It's really annoying that our tax dollars are being used to support this kind of needless crap.