http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
But this is based on data from around the world, and not just in any single locale, which can lead to wrong conclusions. Greenland was warm 1,000 years ago and the US was warm in 1934. But the world as a whole was not that warm.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Caliserv
Do you ever offer an analysis of the taxonomy of denialist arguments. For example, when denialists talk about Al Gore or the East Anglia emails, when Sagebrush post a lot of quotations and when Madd Maxx posts questions like
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
these are all examples of the ad hominem falacy.
And calling people denialists is not an ad hominem argument. To say, "Joe is stupid, therefore Joe is wrong," is an ad hominem argument. "Joe is wrong, therefore Joe is stupid," is not.
It is necessary to mention some facts concerning the future in order to understand why the global warming can be considered a disaster for the whole planet. Certainly it is not possible to know the future climate on Earth precisely, but some data are certain: every century brings the increase of the temperature of 1-2C. It is enough for Greenland and Antarctica to start melting, thus some part of northern areas could become a farmland and Sahara might become bigger. Storms can be stronger. Some countries like Bangladesh and Netherlands are luckily to vanish because of the ocean level rise up to 5 meters.
The term "climate forcing" is often used though it is hard to give its precise definition. To define it simply - this is an event that influences global climate. At this point it is necessary to mention that the weather and climate are different things, the weather is described with the help of variations of dryness or wetness, cold and heat. They do not play a great role for the whole picture on the Earth, but climate can be influenced by forcing, like for example a volcanic eruption can cool the climate on the whole Earth. Such forcing is called a short term forcing. An example of long term forcing may be continental drift which within millions of years changes the path of ocean currents. To anthropogenic forcing belong fossil fuel burning and agriculture. Not all forcing of humans result in global warming, sulfur dioxide from coal burning produces aerosols and they result in cooling.
These were the main negative influences on the climate that cause the global warming. They are rather serious and need urgent steps taken by people in order to avoid the catastrophes in the world of nature, to which we by the way also belong.
So the climate of the Earth should be an international concern and not only of scientists and ordinary people, but also of those who hold power in their hand and are able to make the politics work not only for money, but also for the future of the whole mankind. Unfortunately, these are mostly beautiful words and promises when elections are in the future as soon as they are over the real situation changes. Not a single national leader has come out publicly and said that the recent spate of hurricanes was the result of global warming, this is a part of conventional wisdom of environmentalists that they should not frighten the public, but should focus their interest on technical solutions, like for example hybrid cars and so on.
Global warming is such a problem that it is necessary to deal with all its aspects, which includes the politics. When politicians formulate their policy they need inputs from many disciplines and from science as well. But unfortunately global warming has become an absolutely political issue and politicians do their best to influence even science.
This was not unusual when I lived in California in the 80's. In fact I have seen no significant change in weather in the last 45 years. That is living in 7 states and 2 countries. I did always hear someone claiming every single storm or season was somehow a big deal but it was always the same as some previous. Maybe not in their lifetime but the cycles are very long and varied.
It is very unusual weather, I was discussing this last night with several NWS forecasters from Southern California. Personally, I would just interpret it as odd weather unless there is evidence to support a link with climate change.
EDIT for Caliservative: Do you ever offer anything but a taxonomy of arguments that you disagree with? It seems to me that you spend more time labeling things than you do actually learning anything.
A sign of weather.
Post hoc fallacy, otherwise known as the 'flies cause garbage' argument. It is very popular with warmists. It seems that belief in global warming may be correlated with ignorance of logic.
Keep a journal of this kind of stuff and you will have the best info for your area. Write dates and years events
Poor people have suffered the most.
This will be the third time in the last 5 years that we had and I think our 5th in the past 10 years that it has occurred in the warm season. In the past, we use to see a warm season Santa Ana wind event about one or two times every 10 years.
