Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Daily Chat >> General Posts >> Al Gore might be right...
        
(Message started by: zwibbs/Scott on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:21am)
Title: Al Gore might be right...
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:21am
Thursday's high was 17 degrees.................Today's projected high--------68 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:28am
If Algore can please tell me what the perfect temperature of earth should be, then I can plan ahead - should I pack a sweater, trunks, a light windbreaker? In the mean time, enjoy the little blast of warmth while it lasts. It's brought to you by (fill in the blank - somebody bigger than Algore). ;)

Edited to compensate for pre-dawn fingers.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Maffumatt on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:34am
that would be the temp it was the minute before man exhaled his first breath of CO2.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:43am
Or the first cow fart.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Paul98 on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:22am
AlGore is a cow fart ;;D

He should study history and learn that Greenland used to be colonized by the Nords in AD 985 when the seas were open and you could grow crops there.  In fact the temps there are ~1 deg. C. cooler now than they were in 1940.

-P.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Redd on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:26am
Global climate change was a natural occurance long before the industrial revolution.  
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Ghost on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:28am

on 01/08/08 at 08:22:26, Paul98 wrote:
AlGore is a cow fart ;;D

He should study history and learn that Greenland used to be colonized by the Nords in AD 985 when the seas were open and you could grow crops there.  In fact the temps there are ~1 deg. C. cooler now than they were in 1940.

-P.

Dang you beat me to it!

Mike
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by phil_h on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:34am
 I thought you meant that he was right , he did invent the internet...............  Everyone can get something right sometime .... I just have not credited him with being right on much . Noble Prize ?????   Take it back........ ::)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 8th, 2008, 9:40am

on 01/08/08 at 08:22:26, Paul98 wrote:
Greenland used to be colonized by the Nords in AD 985...


They did land there in a short-lived Medieval Warm Period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record




Quote:
In fact the temps there are ~1 deg. C. cooler now than they were in 1940.


http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image1.gif

It does look close for one year, within an existing trend.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html


I'd imagine info may have been from this article, which also says Iceland was ice-locked just previous to landing on Greenland.



Quote:
The sagas tell that Norse voyagers were blown off course and reached Iceland by mistake twice in the 850s.  The first attempt at a Norse settlement there, led by a farmer, Floki Vilgerdason, took place in the 860s. He could scarcely have picked a worse time. As we now know from the record in the ice cores, Floki's band of adventurous farmers arrived in the lands of the North Atlantic at the end of a run of cold decades in the middle of the little optimum. He lost his cattle in a severe winter, and came home to Scandinavia with tales of 'a fjord filled up by ice', as the Landnam Saga records. And so, the saga continues, 'he called the country Iceland'.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517003.900-climate-and-history--the-westvikings-saga-greenland-wasonce-g...





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/180px-Satellite_Temperatures.png







From Industrial Revolution to today.  CO2 ppm from 250 to 385, the same time as the black line on the first graph.  450ppm will be kind of a crucial point to stop at.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Paul98 on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:11am
A bit long but a good read:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm

-P.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:21am
Whenever it gets hot in the summer, there are knuckleheads that see that as proof of global warming. And whenever it gets cold in winter, other knuckleheads see it as proof that there is no global warming.

We are in a la nina pattern - happens about every 7 years or so.  The last la nina was not very strong. So Canada and parts of the north US are having the coldest winter in 15 years. Which proves - nothing!
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:24am

on 01/08/08 at 10:11:29, Paul98 wrote:
A bit long but a good read:


It is Paul, but any near-term warming will simply be precipritated back onto the surface of Greenland for many years appearing as no change.  Above 450ppm and going to 500ppm will see that altered.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Paul98 on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:47am

on 01/08/08 at 10:24:15, Kevin_M wrote:
It is Paul, but any near-term warming will simply be precipritated back onto the surface of Greenland for many years appearing as no change.  Above 450ppm and going to 500ppm will see that altered.


Do you have a refrence for the ppm for the CO2?

-P.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:53am
Yes, Paul.  But a book reference, stats are kept from atop a Hawaiian mountain.  


Presently going to the dentist then work.  I'll see what I can reprint for you from notes.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 8th, 2008, 12:33pm
Out the door to work but a brief capture here.  I see from the top of my head the 250ppm from Industrial Revolution is different than quoted here, my recall error, and the 385 was as close to present day 2007 relevance as could recall.  450ppm starts to reflect a point to highly reduce and attempt to reverse.  A difficult task.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png/250px-Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/IPCC_AR4_WGIII_GHG_concentration_stabilization_levels.png/350px-IPCC_AR4_WGIII_GHG_concentration_stabilization_levels.png



Quote:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm). The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; the next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by artonio7 on Jan 8th, 2008, 3:11pm
A logical argument.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

with warm regards,
Tony
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Annette on Jan 8th, 2008, 4:11pm

on 01/08/08 at 08:26:43, Redd wrote:
Global climate change was a natural occurance long before the industrial revolution.  



Just not quite as fast or as extreme.

There are still arguments on both sides in the scientific community as to how serious is the change, but there is no denying that change is happening at a faster rate than mother earth can compensate.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Paul98 on Jan 8th, 2008, 4:23pm

on 01/08/08 at 16:11:20, Annette wrote:
Just not quite as fast or as extreme.

There are still arguments on both sides in the scientific community as to how serious is the change, but there is no denying that change is happening at a faster rate than mother earth can compensate.


How do you know this as fact?  

When the Verdian and Precambrian mass extinctions occured, it would seem Mother nature did a nifty job of things. ;;D

-P.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 8th, 2008, 4:48pm
Just wait until the government decides to start controlling your thermostat.

All because a small group of nincompoops have been able to scare the masses into thinking that mankind has had some dramatic effect on the global mean temperature. It's called political expediency, folks, and it's as evil as trying to meld church and state into one body. "We need to put ________ first (take your pick: Algore says Mother Earth, the Huckster says God, etc.)."
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Annette on Jan 8th, 2008, 4:49pm

I was going by the information given in the movie " An unconvenient truth " about carbon level found in the columns of ice in Antartica, ice core reading as they call it.

Apparently if you cut into a column of ice there it would show you different layers of ice that had formed and melted over the last several milllions of years, much like the tree rings that tell you about the growth of that particular tree during its lifetime.

By measuring carbon level and other chemicals in those column the scientists could calculate when was the last Ice Age and the several ones before that. Within an Ice age there are glacial and interglacial periods depending on the average temperature. We are now currently in an interglacial period where the temperature is warmer.
According to the patterns seen in the ice core, the next glacial period should not start for another 50000 years or so, if carbon level in the atmostphere was the same as before industrial revolution. However, according to the rapid raise in level of carbon produced by men, it ( in theory ) could start a lot earlier than that. This is where the biggest debates come in, some say it can start as early as 50 years and others would say more like 5000 years.

The truth is, even if it is to start 5000 years from now and that means it wont affect any of us or even our great great grandchildren, in the scale of mother earth, 5000 years is a lot shorter than 50000 years.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Melissa on Jan 8th, 2008, 5:15pm
Don't even get me started on Al Gore... :-X :-X :-X
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by kimh on Jan 8th, 2008, 5:29pm
;;DI'm getting Mel started on Al Gore:

Al Gore is a poophead
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 8th, 2008, 5:32pm
And don't even get me started on Huckabee....

Or Algore....

Or McCain....

Or Hillary....

Or.....

Don't get me started. Don't even get me started.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Melissa on Jan 8th, 2008, 5:38pm
ROTFLMAO Kim!! [smiley=laugh.gif]
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by kimh on Jan 8th, 2008, 5:44pm
;;D

Brewcrew - that's what i call a poop pile-up :D

PS:  it sure is warm here in NY ;;D
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kirk on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:11pm
  We could line up all the politicians, and shoot every third one. Say, about once a month. That should remove enough C02 and hot air from the atmosphere to slow global warming. By about 40% I figure. It's worth a try. As a public service, if nothing else.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Opus on Jan 8th, 2008, 7:19pm

on 01/08/08 at 16:49:03, Annette wrote:
I was going by the information given in the movie " An unconvenient truth " about carbon level found in the columns of ice in Antartica, ice core reading as they call it.

In the movie the graphs are shown on top of each other becouse if they are put together they clearly show that Temp. leads CO2 by 800 years, not the other way around. (http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth)

For all of you posting Temperature charts, is this the new data? Last August a Blogger found an error with NASA's Temperature data and when NASA corrected the figures 1942 is now the hottest year on record (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

Paul

The truth is out there
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by chewy on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:04pm
It was in the 50s here today.

50s, in New England, in January.

If Global Warming is on the ballot then I'm voting yes!  8)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by BlueMeanie on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:50pm

on 01/08/08 at 17:32:56, brewcrew wrote:
And don't even get me started on Huckabee....

Or Algore....

Or McCain....

Or Hillary....

Or.....

Don't get me started. Don't even get me started.


At least my guy isn't on your hate list.  ;)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by chewy on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:52pm

Quote:
At least my guy isn't on your hate list.


Romney. Please dont tell me Romney.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by BlueMeanie on Jan 8th, 2008, 8:56pm

on 01/08/08 at 20:52:43, chewy wrote:
Romney. Please dont tell me Romney.


lmao... I'll never tell.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 8th, 2008, 9:01pm

on 01/08/08 at 20:50:15, BlueMeanie wrote:
At least my guy isn't on your hate list.  ;)

It ain't a hate list, my friend. It's an "I can't believe this is all we have to pick from" list.

I told you - don't get me started.  ;)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Paul98 on Jan 8th, 2008, 9:08pm

on 01/08/08 at 19:19:15, Opus wrote:
In the movie the graphs are shown on top of each other becouse if they are put together they clearly show that Temp. leads CO2 by 800 years, not the other way around. (http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth)

For all of you posting Temperature charts, is this the new data? Last August a Blogger found an error with NASA's Temperature data and when NASA corrected the figures 1942 is now the hottest year on record (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

Paul

The truth is out there

Yep!  The new thought is that the warming is the cause for the release of the CO2.  The oceans hold the bulk of disolved CO2 and a rise of 1-2 deg releases a huge amount of CO2.  Same for methane frozen off shore and the tundra.  

There are many scientists coming forward saying they do not perscribe to the mantra of the media and politicians.  They are beginning to realize that it is more to do with sun cycles and earthe rotational and orbital changes.  Hard to argue the solar component when Mars has seen a heating trend too.

Damn hydrocarbon spewing Martians!

-P.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 8th, 2008, 9:29pm

on 01/08/08 at 19:19:15, Opus wrote:
In the movie the graphs are shown on top of each other becouse if they are put together they clearly show that Temp. leads CO2 by 800 years, not the other way around. (http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth)

For all of you posting Temperature charts, is this the new data? Last August a Blogger found an error with NASA's Temperature data and when NASA corrected the figures 1942 is now the hottest year on record (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

Paul

The truth is out there


It's a cycle of positive feedback. Increasing temperatures melts permafrost and releases CO2 and methane, and the oceans can hold less of these gases as they heat up. The released gasses trap more heat in the atmosphere, which melts more permafrost and makes the oceans less able to CO2 and methane, so atmospheric levels increase.

This positive feeback cycle can be triggered naturally (orbital factors or variation in the sun's output). But the evidence suggests human activity can also get the ball rolling.  

Erosion is another positive feeback system that has been going on for millions of years without human help, but there is no denying the fact that we can make things pretty bad - the soil from midwest farms is washing into the Gulf of Mexico at a high rate simply because we are plowing so many millions of acres.  It only took us about 100 years to deplete half of the organic matter in the soil, and it should only take about 5,000 years to replenish that lost fertility.  


Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Woobie on Jan 8th, 2008, 9:41pm
Anyone ever read the book
State of Fear
by Michael Crichton?


just wondering :)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:04pm

on 01/08/08 at 09:40:35, Kevin_M wrote:
From Industrial Revolution to today.  CO2 ppm from 250 to 385, the same time as the black line on the first graph.  450ppm will be kind of a crucial point to stop at.


This is the book reference where I got 250ppm from:


Quote:
The Vostok ice core from Antarctica has yielded a very detailed record of carbon dioxide levels over thousands of years.  It shows that carbon dioxide levels varied between a miniumum of 180ppm and a maximum of 280ppm.  Thus for more than 200,000 years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels seesawed up and down and as they did, so did global temperatures.

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward.
http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/%2031134/Peter_D_Ward/index.aspx


You can see where my memory retained 250ppm, a very conservative average between the two figures above.  Wiki uses the upper figure of 280ppm only.  So for 200,000 years, and evidence going back 2 million years, the range was about 250ppm, but now 385ppm






on 01/08/08 at 16:23:16, Paul98 wrote:
When the Verdian and Precambrian mass extinctions occured, ...


The Vendian Period (600-545 million years ago) of the Proterozoic Era was the appearance of multicellular life found around the world, from molecular data.  Soft-bodied organisms without skeletons.
 Over 2000 specimens are known, usually placed in about 30-40 genera and about 50-70 species, so they were relatively diverse, along with the successful single-celled.  This is older than Early Cambrian, but not a period of extinction, actually the slow fuse on the Cambrian (explosion).  


from: "Evolution, what the fossils say and why it matters"  Donald R. Prothero
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Annette on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:06pm
This is an article submitted by the reseachers from Boston University, it has latest reports and graphs from very reliable sources.  

Global warming


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead Author: Stephen C. Nodvin (other articles)

Article Topics: Climate change, Greenhouse gases and Environmental monitoring

This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Kevin Vranes (other articles)

Last Updated: January 3, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Resources
On November 17, 2007 the Climate 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was released.

Announcing the Encyclopedia of Earth Climate Change (collection)




Introduction
The phrase global warming refers to the documented historical warming of the Earth's surface based upon worldwide temperature records that have been maintained by humans since the 1880s.  The term global warming is often used synonymously with the term climate change, but the two terms have distinct meanings.  Global warming is the combined result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and changes in solar irradiance, while climate change refers to changes caused by global warming in weather (temperatures, precipitation, frequency of heat waves, etc.) and other climate system components, such as Arctic sea ice extent.  



Global Mean Temperature over Land and Ocean (Jan-Dec). (Source: NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA)
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record. The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. WMO states that among other remarkable global climatic events recorded in 2007, a record-low Arctic sea ice extent was observed which led to first recorded opening of the Canadian Northwest Passage.

The United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), found that in 2006 "Globally averaged land temperatures were +0.78°C (+1.40°F) and ocean temperatures +0.45°C (+0.81°F) above average, ranking 4th and 5th warmest, respectively. The land and ocean surface temperatures for the Northern and Southern Hemisphere ranked 2nd and 6th warmest, respectively," since global temperature record monitoring began in 1880. The NCDC report states that "during the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.06°C/decade (0.11°F/decade) but this trend has increased to a rate approximately 0.18°C/decade (0.32°F/decade) during the past 25 to 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976."

The NCDC's Preliminary Annual Report on the Climate of 2007 (released December 13, 2007) states that:

"the global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces for 2007 is expected to be near 58.0°F and would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880," and that

"the year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895."


Global in Situ Temperature Anomalies and Trends, Surface and Mid Troposphere (Jan-Dec).
The NCDC 2006 report also described temperature trends aloft in the atmosphere measured over the past 50 to 60 years using balloon-borne instruments (radiosondes) and for the past 28 years using satellites. The report states that temperature data collected from approximately 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the surface indicate that 1958-2006 global temperature trends in the middle troposphere are similar to trends in surface temperature; 0.12°C/decade for surface and 0.15°C/decade for mid-troposphere.

On 2 February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Summary For Policymakers (SPM), an executive summary of the first volume of its 4th Assessment Report entitled, "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change." The IPCC Report documents that not only do the records show a warming trend during the past half century in land-based temperature data but also in global ocean temperature measurements. The increases in ocean temperatures indicate global warming trends are not an artifact of urbanization or the so-called "heat-island" effect.

U.S. Trends
The NCDC Report also documents not only a long-term warming trend for the globe as a whole but also a warming trend for the contiguous United States. The Report documents that the 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998.



National (Contiguous U.S.) Temperature (1895-2006). (Source: NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA)
Mean temperature values for the contiguous U.S. in the NCDC data set were calculated using a network of more than 1,200 U.S. Historical Climatology Network stations. These data, primarily from rural stations, have been adjusted to remove artificial effects resulting from factors such as urbanization and station and instrument changes which occurred during the period of record.

Causes of Global Warming

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report scientists conclude that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" and, furthermore, they conclude with "very high confidence (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" of the Earth's climate system.

Water in a boiling pot receives heat from an element or flame and loses heat via steam and radiative cooling.
As with every environmental variable, there are multiple factors that contribute to the "warmth" of the Earth. Humans measure warmth as temperature which is a measure of the amount of heat contained in a physical object. One can envision this concept by thinking of a pot on a stove. As heat is applied to the pot from a flame or heating element, the temperature of the pot will increase. But heat will also begin escaping the pot in the form of steam and also through radiative and convective cooling from the top and the sides of the pot. Eventually the rates of both heat loss (cooling) and heat gain (warming) may stabilize and the heat then contained within the pot at an instantaneous point of time would be reflected in an equilibrium temperature. This equilibrium temperature could be measured directly but it also could be calculated by determining all of the flux rates of heat entering (heating) and leaving (cooling) the pot.

One way that climate scientists look at the warmth of the Earth's climate system is to calculate the annual average temperature of the surface of the Earth using temperature measurements systematically collected throughout the year from thousands of land- and ocean-based weather and observation stations. The observed trends in the Earth's annual average temperature is one of the factors leading to the scientific conclusion that the Earth is now in a period of global warming.

In order to attempt to answer why the Earth is currently warming, scientists have conducted accountings of each of the fluxes of heat into (warming) and out of (cooling) the Earth's climate system. Since the measured data show that annual average temperatures of the Earth have been increasing in recent decades, the year-to-year annual flux of heat into the climate system must be greater than the annual flux of heat out of the system. By accounting for each of the fluxes of heat into and out of the system, scientists are able to assess which fluxes and processes are contributing to net annual warming of the Earth's surface. By conducting such accountings, scientists are able to quantify the influence that each natural and human factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and can calculate an index of the importance of each of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Each of the factors are called climate drivers and the relative impact or index of each factor's importance to climate change is called its radiative forcing.


Relative importance of climate drivers to current global warming as determined by the 4th Assessment of the IPCC. (Source: IPCC)

In completing such an assessment, the IPCC has concluded with very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. The scientists found that the combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is the largest climate driver and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years. Furthermore, the carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years.

The IPCC also found that anthropogenic contributions to aerosols in the atmosphere produce cooling effects, referred to as global dimming. However the cooling (global dimming) effects due to human-caused aerosols are equivalent to about half of the warming effects due to the combined radiative forcing of human-produced greenhouse gases, causing a net warming.

Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing were also found to have come from several other sources, including tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals, direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons, and changes in surface albedo, due to land-cover changes and deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow. However the impacts of each of these factors was relatively small compared to the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (each showing relative impacts of 15% or less relative to the greenhouse gas forcings).

Finally, an increase in solar irradiance since 1750 was estimated to have caused a forcing that contributed to the recent warming of the Earth. However, the impact of the increase in the amount of sunlight striking the Earth each year during this ~250 year time span was estimated to be only about 1/20th of the warming impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Further Reading

2006 Annual Report of the United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Climate 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Preliminary 2007 Annual Report of the United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
World Meteorological Organization. December 13, 2007 Press Release.


This is the link to the full article with graphs

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming

PS: edited to highlight some areas
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Annette on Jan 8th, 2008, 10:11pm

2007 Preliminary Annual Report
National Climatic Data Center
13 December 2007



Major Highlights

NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S. and Globe


The year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to preliminary data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year was marked by exceptional drought in the U.S. Southeast and the West, which helped fuel another extremely active wildfire season. The year also brought outbreaks of cold air, and killer heat waves and floods. Meanwhile, the global surface temperature for 2007 is expected to be fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Preliminary data will be updated in early January to reflect the final three weeks of December and is not considered final until a full analysis is complete next spring.

U.S. Temperatures
The preliminary annual average temperature for 2007 across the contiguous United States will likely be near 54.3°F, 1.5°F (0.8°C) above the twentieth century mean of 52.8°F. This currently establishes 2007 as the eight warmest on record. Only February and April were cooler-than-average, while March and August were second warmest in the 113-year record.

The warmer-than-average conditions in 2007 influenced residential energy demand in opposing ways, as measured by the nation's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. Using this index, NOAA scientists determined that the U.S. residential energy demand was approximately three percent less during the winter and eight percent higher during the summer than what would have occurred under average climate conditions.

Exceptional warmth in late March was followed by a record cold outbreak from the central Plains to the Southeast in early April. The combination of premature growth from the March warmth and the record-breaking freeze behind it caused more than an estimated $1 billion in losses to agricultural and horticultural crops.

A severe heat wave affected large parts of the central and southeastern U.S. in August, setting more than 2,500 new daily record highs.

Global Temperatures
The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces for 2007 is expected to be near 58.0°F and would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.

Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.

The greatest warming has taken place in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Anomalous warmth in 2007 contributed to the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979, surpassing the previous record low set in 2005 by a remarkable 23 percent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, this is part of a continuing trend in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent reductions of approximately 10 percent per decade since 1979.

U.S. Precipitation and Drought Highlights
Severe to exceptional drought affected the Southeast and western U.S. More than three-quarters of the Southeast was in drought from mid-summer into December. Increased evaporation from anomalously warm temperatures, combined with a lack of precipitation, exacerbated drought conditions. Drought conditions also affected large parts of the Upper Midwest and areas of the Northeast.

Water conservation measures and drought disasters, or states of emergency, were declared by governors in five southeastern states, along with California, Oregon, Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware at some point during the year.

A series of storms brought flooding, millions of dollars in damages and loss of life from Texas to Kansas and Missouri in June and July. Making matters worse were the remnants of Tropical Storm Erin, which produced heavy rainfall in the same region in August.

Drought and unusual warmth contributed to another extremely active wildfire season. Approximately nine million acres burned through early December, most of it in the contiguous U.S., according to preliminary estimates by the National Interagency Fire Center.

There were 15 named storms in the Atlantic Basin in 2007, four more than the long-term average. Six storms developed into hurricanes, including Hurricanes Dean and Felix, two category 5 storms that struck Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and Nicaragua, respectively (the first recorded occurrence of two category 5 landfalls in the Atlantic Basin in the same year). No major hurricanes made landfall in the U.S., but three tropical depressions, one tropical storm and one Category 1 Hurricane made landfall along the Southeast and Gulf coasts.

La Niña conditions developed during the latter half of 2007, and by the end of November, sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific were more than 3.6°F (2°C) below average. This La Niña event is likely to persist into early 2008, according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.

Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Opus on Jan 8th, 2008, 11:16pm

on 01/08/08 at 21:29:57, monty wrote:
It's a cycle of positive feedback. Increasing temperatures melts permafrost and releases CO2 and methane, and the oceans can hold less of these gases as they heat up. The released gasses trap more heat in the atmosphere, which melts more permafrost and makes the oceans less able to CO2 and methane, so atmospheric levels increase.



That is not how it was shown in the movie, it was shown as bad carbon ( too bad we couldn't remove all carbon from Al Gore) officially known as CO2 causing global temperature rise, case closed.

If global temperatures are going up ( NASA now says that 1942 was the hottest year) it is probably caused by.....

Heat!

Everything we do pumps heat into the atmosphere. Non CO2 producing nuclear power plants do the most damage,  they heat the land because they put heat into water sources as well as the heat the final use of electricity produces.

If tomorrow we find a clean, safe energy source, global warming will become a real threat as we will dump tons of heat into the earth.

Cities are also heat source and sink that change the weather patterns in the area's around them.

Paul

Believe the lie
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Charlie on Jan 9th, 2008, 1:04am
I wasn't all that excited about global warming until I was inundated with reams of so-called "arguments," mostly "gathered up" and encouraged by energy companies and dozen of other industries that just don't like their boats rocked.

It's similar to seat belts and air bags.

Charlie
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 9th, 2008, 7:42am
NATURE

(subscription required to view article)




Quote:
Sun not to blame for global warming.

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

The findings, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, ...

comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate, were it not for the strong warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore -- it is deliberate disinformation.



This is why it is usually not mentioned for more than one sentence in global warming, it contradicts itself, and has been known for many years.


Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 9th, 2008, 1:28pm

on 01/08/08 at 23:16:01, Opus wrote:
That is not how it was shown in the movie, it was shown as bad carbon ( too bad we couldn't remove all carbon from Al Gore) officially known as CO2 causing global temperature rise, case closed.

If global temperatures are going up ( NASA now says that 1942 was the hottest year) it is probably caused by.....

Heat!

Everything we do pumps heat into the atmosphere. Non CO2 producing nuclear power plants do the most damage,  they heat the land because they put heat into water sources as well as the heat the final use of electricity produces.

If tomorrow we find a clean, safe energy source, global warming will become a real threat as we will dump tons of heat into the earth.

Cities are also heat source and sink that change the weather patterns in the area's around them.

Paul

Believe the lie


Any one or two hour presentation is going to have simplifications - there is no way to present the whole shebang in such a small time. The popular media is always going to be less accurate than the science journals.

There is no doubt that cities affect the temperature around them (as does deforestation and other land changes). That calls into question weather station readings, which are often surrounded by areas that become built-up.

Not familiar with the revised NASA dataset you mentioned, will check it out.  What is it based on?

The glaciers of the world are a distributed temperature sensor, and there is pretty good evidence that they are retreating over most of the world.


Quote:
Most of Earth's 160,000 glaciers have been slowly shrinking and thinning for more than a century as the climate warms up from both natural causes and human activity.

But scientists say the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s, which was the hottest decade in a thousand years, according to data from ancient ice cores and tree rings.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html


And the shrinking polar sea ice is a good indicator that the northern hemisphere is heating up. It is also an example of another positive feedback cycle - warmer temperatures melt the ice; with less ice, less summer sun is reflected into space (more is absorbed to heat the ocean); this further reduces polar sea ice, which leads to more heat being absorbed.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Groov on Jan 9th, 2008, 5:36pm
But what about cow farts!?!?

Says here that cow farts & cow poo cause 30% of the worlds methane gas.
http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=705&catID=2

  Who knows Al may be 100% right...he's still a dork  [smiley=laugh.gif]
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Melissa on Jan 9th, 2008, 5:49pm
Don't forget about the aerosols in inhalers. ::)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Opus on Jan 9th, 2008, 8:08pm

on 01/09/08 at 13:28:41, monty wrote:
Not familiar with the revised NASA dataset you mentioned, will check it out.  What is it based on?


I posted a link about it in  a previous post in this thread but I will repeat it for you. (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

Basically a Blogger discovered that NASA's data of mean temperatures for the USA had a Y2K error. The Blogger told NASA about it and they silently corrected the data. Now 1942 is the hottest year on record, not 1998. As my link says this was ignored by the media, even though it was all over the geek news sites. Here (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20070822130511.aspx) and Here (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/did-nasa-cover-.html) are more stories about it, and you can find thousands of the same on line.

Paul
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 10th, 2008, 1:18pm
Ok, I went to that link, and followed their link to the corrected data at NASA.

1934 is tied with 1998 for the single warmest year, but looking at other measures of trends (5 year average), the end of the curve (around 2000) is in fact the warmest.



Quote:
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880      -.24         *
1881       .29         *
1882       .06      -.25
1883      -.73      -.33
1884      -.63      -.47
1885      -.65      -.53
1886      -.42      -.47
1887      -.25      -.30
1888      -.42      -.15
1889       .23      -.12
1890       .10      -.19
1891      -.25      -.27
1892      -.62      -.29
1893      -.81      -.45
1894       .13      -.37
1895      -.69      -.27
1896       .14      -.14
1897      -.12      -.25
1898      -.17      -.01
1899      -.43      -.04
1900       .52      -.05
1901       .00      -.15
1902      -.18      -.17
1903      -.66      -.37
1904      -.52      -.38
1905      -.49      -.39
1906      -.03      -.23
1907      -.26      -.19
1908       .13      -.04
1909      -.30       .00
1910       .26      -.13
1911       .15      -.17
1912      -.90      -.09
1913      -.04      -.17
1914       .09      -.31
1915      -.16      -.34
1916      -.52      -.32
1917     -1.07      -.37
1918       .05      -.42
1919      -.13      -.09
1920      -.43       .16
1921      1.13       .13
1922       .16       .00
1923      -.09       .16
1924      -.76      -.07
1925       .34      -.07
1926       .02      -.04
1927       .14      -.01
1928       .06      -.05
1929      -.60       .17
1930       .15       .14
1931      1.08       .26
1932      -.01       .63
1933       .67       .60
1934      1.24       .42
1935       .03       .40
1936       .19       .44
1937      -.15       .35
1938       .85       .35
1939       .84       .44
1940       .03       .48
1941       .61       .34
1942       .08       .20
1943       .16       .18
1944       .12       .20
1945      -.05       .20
1946       .71       .15
1947       .09       .17
1948      -.09       .12
1949       .19      -.11
1950      -.29      -.06
1951      -.43       .14
1952       .31       .27
1953       .90       .32
1954       .84       .46
1955      -.04       .42
1956       .28       .25
1957       .13       .12
1958       .05       .08
1959       .17       .02
1960      -.24      -.01
1961      -.02       .01
1962      -.02      -.04
1963       .18      -.01
1964      -.08      -.05
1965      -.11      -.07
1966      -.24      -.16
1967      -.10      -.19
1968      -.28      -.19
1969      -.23      -.16
1970      -.11      -.21
1971      -.10      -.11
1972      -.35      -.03
1973       .25      -.05
1974       .16      -.08
1975      -.19       .07
1976      -.24      -.08
1977       .37      -.23
1978      -.51      -.15
1979      -.59       .03
1980       .22      -.12
1981       .65      -.01
1982      -.35       .11
1983       .00      -.02
1984       .01       .00
1985      -.41       .24
1986       .74       .30
1987       .84       .27
1988       .33       .52
1989      -.17       .52
1990       .88       .41
1991       .70       .26
1992       .31       .39
1993      -.43       .28
1994       .47       .11
1995       .36       .06
1996      -.16       .39
1997       .04       .48
1998      1.24       .52
1999       .94       .71
2000       .54       .81
2001       .78       .67
2002       .55       .57
2003       .53       .61
2004       .46       .68
2005       .71         *
2006      1.15         *
---------------------------------

source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
linked to as 'corrected data' by http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 10th, 2008, 1:27pm

Quote:
Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Opus on Jan 10th, 2008, 4:54pm
Monty, thanks for the link. I found this little tidbit:


Quote:
Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html


So basically they are saying that the highest mean temperature record For the United States was basically unchanged for 64 years or so. I know this has nothing to do with global temperatures but in the US Cumulative CO2 emissions have had zero effect overall.

Don't worry, I know I will never change anyones mind, but I like a good debate. If you remember the big hype in the 70's was about the coming ice age. I give it 10 years before everyone finds something else to be scared of.

Paul [smiley=smokin.gif]
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by monty on Jan 10th, 2008, 5:57pm

on 01/10/08 at 16:54:19, Opus wrote:
So basically they are saying that the highest mean temperature record For the United States was basically unchanged for 64 years or so.

Yes. And it happened during the massive drought called the dust bowl.  But the hottest decade on record is clearly the period from 1996-2006. When dealing with climate, longer term trends are more important than individual readings.  


on 01/10/08 at 16:54:19, Opus wrote:
I know this has nothing to do with global temperatures but in the US Cumulative CO2 emissions have had zero effect overall.

If you look only at the record for hottest recorded year in the US, yes.  If you look at things like melting glaciers around the world,  then maybe not.



on 01/10/08 at 16:54:19, Opus wrote:
Don't worry, I know I will never change anyones mind, but I like a good debate. If you remember the big hype in the 70's was about the coming ice age. I give it 10 years before everyone finds something else to be scared of.

The ice-age hype of the 1970's was from one or two loose cannons that learned how to bend the media's ear. Concern over human contributions global warming has a much broader level of support from the scientific community.


Quote:
Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling

Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers go, there were very little on the subject:

   * One study by JD Hays published in Science predicted the climate would cool over 20,000 years due to variations in the earth's orbit. Notably, it predicts cooling "in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system".
   * The only study that refers to an ice age is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). It states if aerosol levels increase 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm


In the early 1980's, concern over a possible 'nuclear winter' induced ice age became common - as far as I know, the studies that modeled the effect of tens of thousands of hydrogen bombs are still accepted - in addition to all the radiation, they would put so much soot and dust in the air that the planet's temperature would dip sharply.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Jonny on Jan 10th, 2008, 6:08pm
Fuck the globe, if you guys want to worry about something try worrying about what is said in this interview.

We have bigger problems in this country than Al Gores bull shit!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1200000370
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 10th, 2008, 6:27pm

on 01/10/08 at 18:08:47, Jonny wrote:
Fuck the globe, if you guys want to worry about something try worrying about what is said in this interview.

We have bigger problems in this country than Al Gores bull shit!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1200000370

The problem is that he and his minions are trying to make it important. And I see that as a pretty big problem. When the government starts passing laws, imposing penalties, and wresting control over decisions that should be made by individuals, then I have a problem with it.

But you knew that already. ;)
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 10th, 2008, 7:58pm

on 01/10/08 at 17:57:49, monty wrote:
the hottest decade on record is clearly the period from 1996-2006. When dealing with climate, longer term trends are more important than individual readings.



Thank you, monty.  
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 10th, 2008, 8:47pm
Longer term trends? 10 years?

10 years is NOTHING in geologic time. It's like less than one second in an adult's life.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 10th, 2008, 8:53pm

on 01/10/08 at 20:47:39, brewcrew wrote:
Longer term trends? 10 years?

10 years is NOTHING in geologic time. It's like less than one second in an adult's life.


That data posted was from 1880 to 2006.  The trend for that period.  If we go back to when the Earth was forming, sure, it was hotter.   ;;D

It doesn't take many degrees to disrupt the stability we have now.  
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 10th, 2008, 9:24pm
So, nobody's answered my question: What temperature should the earth be?
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Melissa on Jan 10th, 2008, 9:37pm
http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/fffmain/smilies/doomed.gif
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Kevin_M on Jan 10th, 2008, 10:00pm

on 01/10/08 at 21:24:42, brewcrew wrote:
What temperature should the earth be?





Quote:
...the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate,...


Reading this thread, this statement appears not happening.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Charlie on Jan 11th, 2008, 1:14am
It's wild reading this stuff. That every western...and not so western country accepts that things are not going our way; seems to make no difference. This idea that if it doesn't originate here, it ain't so, is stunning.

Charlie
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Gena on Jan 11th, 2008, 3:45pm
Less Pirates = Global Warming

" You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

http://www.venganza.org/images/store/pirategraph_hiqual2.jpg

Skeptics say it's not good science to assume a causal relationship, but it's common in research.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 11th, 2008, 3:58pm
Avast, ye wench! That's some solid science I can glom onto! Arrrrr!
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Melissa on Jan 11th, 2008, 4:21pm
I'll betcha them pirates are also the reason for high taxes, Lily's crappy grades and this pregnancy!!! >:(
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Gena on Jan 11th, 2008, 4:32pm

on 01/11/08 at 16:21:19, Melissa wrote:
I'll betcha them pirates are also the reason for high taxes, Lily's crappy grades and this pregnancy!!! >:(


Only if you can provide a graph to prove it :P
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 11th, 2008, 4:37pm
Remember, there are:

1. Lies

2. Damned Lies

3. Statistics
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Jonny on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:32pm

on 01/11/08 at 16:37:01, brewcrew wrote:
Remember, there are:

1. Lies

2. Damned Lies

3. Statistics


;;D

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb0_1200093952
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:40pm

on 01/11/08 at 15:45:25, Gena wrote:
Less Pirates = Global Warming

http://www.venganza.org/images/store/pirategraph_hiqual2.jpg

According to this graph, Jonny did it.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...onny
Post by Gena on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:44pm
I was thinking that as well.

7 degrees of separation, we could blame everything on Jonny

[smiley=laugh.gif]
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by brewcrew on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:47pm
According to that graph, the closest Jonny came to doing it was Venezuela in 1880.

Now we're getting somewhere.
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:48pm
These mild winters are GREAT...THANKS JONNY! Go Global warming!
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Jonny on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:54pm
LMAO ;;D

This year we had more snow by mid December than we had all last year.

Two days ago it was 67 degrees....LOL

Thats fucked up!
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by BlueMeanie on Jan 11th, 2008, 9:44pm

on 01/11/08 at 20:47:54, brewcrew wrote:
According to that graph, the closest Jonny came to doing it was Venezuela in 1880.

Now we're getting somewhere.


lmao.. good one brew
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Charlie on Jan 12th, 2008, 12:19am
The noon ABC radio news said that it snowed in Baghdad yesterday. It's never happened before, they say. I find this hard to believe but I hope it's true. Probably scared the shit out of them.

Charlie
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Jan 12th, 2008, 9:27am
This past week the temperatures were ridiculously high. Today is going to be 55------Then the intellectually challenged weathermen are calling for "possible" significant snowfall Monday ?!?!  
Title: Re: Al Gore might be right...
Post by Opus on Jan 12th, 2008, 4:48pm

on 01/12/08 at 09:27:15, zwibbs/Scott wrote:
This past week the temperatures were ridiculously high. Today is going to be 55------Then the intellectually challenged weathermen are calling for "possible" significant snowfall Monday ?!?!  



Where I come from that is the January thaw. It happens almost every year. It is a bref respite before January dips to below zero. Ussually the next time it is this warm is late April.

Paul


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.