World's Warmest Winter Ever, Report Says

Government: Global Temps From December Through February Were Highest On Record

(AP)  This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.

The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse.

Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January — the warmest January ever — but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.

The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest.

The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third-coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana, while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.

For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.

[chipper777]

One question that I have is: Do telephone waves, radio and TV waves, and other electrical waves that cause millions of webbed lines in our atmosphere cause heat?

[chipper777]

I believe most of the pollution that comes from industries comes from clean corporations selling their credits to dirty industrial corporations so they can continue polluting the atmosphere. All corporations should be made to comply with regulations of clean air acts. Also we have been getting more volcanoes spouting off last few years, and what effects is nuclear testing making to air?

[onlyfacts]

Everyone here on this site is passionate. My only concern is that political affiliation is clouding the reasoning skills of conservatives and liberals. Global Warming is happening. Period. However, it is happening, and has happened before, through natural effects.

[onlyfacts]

montraville,
The IPCC was not unanimous, and is not made of just scientists. But that is not the point of my argument. Also, I never suggested that there isn't global warming. The temperature is rising. However, my argument is that it is not caused by human actions, but rather is part of a natural reaction to solar activity and the CO2 levels are directly caused by the Earth's temperature. Not the other way round.

Explain to me how the Medieval Warming Period, which had temperatures higher than currently being experienced, occurred pre-industrial revolution and how the Little Ice Age occurred without the intervention of global warming extremists. CO2 levels rose and fell during those time periods. Well to be more precise, a little after the start of those time periods.

[onlyfacts]

Actornaught,
Each scientist has their own expertise and do not all make the claim that global warming is not anthropogenic. I fault them not because it is their lively hood and to go against the main-stream view would be detrimental to their ability to maintain and acquire grants. The "Global Warming Threat" is a tens of billions of dollars industry. Dissention is not looked upon highly, and the only way to guarantee a new grant is to be more alarmist and dramatizable. This would not happen if a scientist stated that the globe warms and cools naturally.

As far as the amount of anthropogenic CO2, there are many studies and sources to validate this. I was not aware that it was questioned as to the amount, but that that amount was potentially causing global warming. However, volcanoes alone produce more CO2 than anthropogenic sources.

[onlyfacts]

Actornaught,
Professor Carl Wunsch states that the oceans are the largest deposits of CO2 and as the oceans cool, they consume CO2 and when the oceans warm they release CO2. He also states that it takes hundreds, if not thousands of years for a change to happen to the temperature of oceans.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen and Professor Henrik Svensmark have studied the effects of Solar activity, cosmic rays, and their effect on clouds. They studied sun spots and was able to accurately track past to present global temperatures through 400 years of astrological reports. Specifically, there was little to no activity during the Little Ice Age, rose sharply leading up to 1940, which corresponds to increasing temperatures prior to WWII, a dramatic decrease in the decades following, the cooling period that led to the new ice age scare, and then a dramatic increase that has caused the current temperature increase.

However, just a side note; Professors John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Paul Reiter of the IPCC do agree that humans are not causing global warming.

[montraville]

"Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor is the most significant and has the greatest impact to temperature. CO2 is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere and has a logrithmic effect on temperature change."

Sea levels rising 20 feet isn't much when you consider that most of the ocean is thousands of feet deep, but its enough to innundate a large portion of the world's infrastructure and population. So small changes mean big problems. None of your experts would disagree with that!

The presence of anthropogenic CO2 is enough to knock everything out of balance, with serious potential consequences. Human populations and economies are fine-tuned to a nicety, and something like a stock crash or an interest hike and destroy livelihoods and futures. The non-anthropogenic factors listed in your post occur on a very slow time scale, leaving us plenty of time to adjust, but anthropogenic CO2 is causing some changes very rapidly, requiring quick, massive readjustment.

If interest rates go up a tiny bit, many people miss their mortgages and lose their homes. Such an interest rate hike is not a small thing to them.


I am confident that all those scholars you cite will agree with me. The IPCC was unanimous, after all.

[actornaught]

only', please pardon my attempt to clarify my question about sources, but i was trying to get to your conclusions...

all those people independently concluded there are only 'minute amounts' of 'Anthroprogenic CO2' and that 'Global Climate Change is not possible' from it?

and all of them conclude humans are only changing climate in urban areas?

[onlyfacts]

Very good question, Actornaught! If only a subset, but a start:

Professor Phillip Stott
Dept of Biogeography
University of London

Professor Carl Wunsch
Dept of Ocenanography
MIT

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen
Director
Danish National Space Centre

Professor Henrik Svensmark
Researcher
Danish National Space Centre

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Director,
International Arctic Research Centre

Professor Ian Clark
Dept of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa

Dr. Piers Corbyn
Climate Forecaster
Weather Action

Professor John Christy
Lead Author
IPCC

Professor Paul Reiter
IPCC & Pasteur Institute

Professor Richard Lindzen
IPCC & MIT

Patrick Moore
Co-founder Greenpeace

Dr Roy Spencer
Weather Satellite Team Leader
NASA

Nigel Calder
Former Editor
New Scientist

Professor Frederick Singer
Former Director
US National Weather Service

Professor Patrick Michaels
Dept of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

Professor Tim Ball
Dept of Climatology
University of Winnipeg

Paul Driessen
Author & Former Environmental Activist

[montraville]

" Yes capitol is mobile and when a liberal is in danger of losing his capitol is always makes me laugh at how fast they become evil capitalists. It also gives me a perverse thrill when these supposed environmentalists who ask us to eat tree bark and ride bicycles are exposed as the frauds they are."

In times of stress, leopards do change their spots. For example, I've seen Bill O'Reilly in the last year attacking the basis of capitalism, moving prices, because it has lead to higher gas prices. He was on tv attacking "speculators" and he sounded like Huey Long. It was fascinating to see him throw a large part of his franchise overboard because people can't drive their SUVs.

Liberalism and affluence go together more naturally than conservatism and affluence, because liberalism values education and adaptability, wheras conservatism values obedience and authority. Liberalism, as a result, will always be more creative, and will find hard work easier to do.

Furthermore, liberals are able to live happily with more frugal habits. Bicycles cost less than ATVs, birdwatching costs less than hunting, and vegetables cost less than beef. The money saved by living a humble life in tune with your environment is substantial.

Liberals are not forcing conservatives to eat bark, they're merely saying that, at the rate conservatives are going, they'll have nothing else to eat.

[actornaught]

onlyfacts, what is your source for this information?

[actornaught]

didntinhale, thanks for trying, even if you did veer off into more nastiness.

the point i wanted to make is that the people that sincerely want to be part of a solution are really putting themselves in a lose-lose sacrifice. because if there aren't enough climate disasters, the neocon extremists will only say that it was a waste of time. if there are disasters, the neocons will say something like they were inevitable, 'natural'.

either way, you're covered, so why are so worked up? i know, but do you?

[onlyfacts]

What makes more since? CO2 levels rising and lowering by some magical action to cause the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, or some other natural cause?

Astrological records over the past 400 years point to a single source that has direct correlation to the temperature changes. From the little Ice Age, the cooling effect after WWII, and to the recent warming. The sun is the biggest energy source in the solar system. Its activity has been carefuly scrutinzied and directly matches the rising and falling temperatures of the entire globe.

So, yes, there is a direct correlation between the temperature and CO2 levels. However, it is the temperature increases that increase CO2 levels. Anthroprogenic CO2 did not cause the Medieval Warming Period, nor did it cause the Little Ice Age. Global Warming Extremeists can not explain those two time in our history, so they gloss it over or state that they don't exist.

Is pollution bad? Yes, because of health related issues to plant, animal and humans. Are humans responsible for climate change? Yes, in only the most relative areas such as around urban metropolitan areas. However, a Global Climate Change is not possible from the minute amounts of greenhouse gases that are contributed by humans.

Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor is the most significant and has the greatest impact to temperature. CO2 is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere and has a logrithmic effect on temperature change.

[onlyfacts]

CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. CO2 increase is caused by increase in temperature.

The ice core samples that everyone loves to use actually show an 800 year lag of CO2 increase behind temperature increases or decreases.

As temperature increases the oceans release more CO2 into the atomosphere.

If CO2 has a direct causal relationship with temperature, then we would not have had a global cooling for 35 years post 1940 during the Post Economic Boom of WWII. Human production of CO2 boomed during this time, yet temperatures dropped and initiated the New Ice Age scare.

[montraville]

"Then both the coasts will flood and finally drown the endless whining of the spoiled self loathing hippy movement."

What will actually happen is that the coasts, which pretty much own the middle of the country, will simply move inland a bit. The coasts control capital, which is mobile. (And I believe this is the real reason you hate us.) For the price of a small house in a NY suburb, you can buy 640 acres in Nebraska. I kid you not. Run the numbers.

The flooding and severe weather, however, will also be extremely hard on people who work and farm in the heartland. There will be more drought, fire, and severe weather. As more and more farmers sink deeper into debt, they will wind up working for a wage on a farm they used to own.

As a coastal liberal and an environmentalist, I am not gloating, I'm stating facts. We are trying to STOP this from happening. It would be nice if we got a little help from the heartland people whose livelihoods are also at risk.

[actornaught]

By the way, i recognize your canned insults. You gotta shut off WKBN between noon & 3PM. That hate-monger will give you a stroke, he's doesn't believe his own nonesense, he's only in it for the money. Remember 'carrying the water'?

[actornaught]

Obviously you don't even take yourself seriously, or you could be less hateful.

Even though you refuse to answer me thoughtfully, here's my answer to your question: businesses will increasingly find ways to make money on what people want, including taking care of the environment. I've already addressed that, you might recognize it as Capitalism. Auto safety is a perfect example of what people will pay for.

[actornaught]

again, with such a negative opinion on this article, can you address the possibility if you're wrong?

[montraville]

...and the correct term is Global Climate Change. In any dynamic system, where you get extreme hot some places, you're gonna get some localized, less-significant cooling elsewhere, as a consequence of temperatures moving around. It's like how on a cold day it can get very hot in your window from the sun. In very large explosions, you can get ice formation.

One theory projects that the earth will become very stratified in its climate, that inter-regional air movement will stagnate, leading the poles to eventually freeze over far more than they have been, and the tropics turn into uninhabitable deserts, and very little habitable land in between. Economic and humanitarian disaster, and as a result of the mechanism of global warming in the aggregate, with local effects that are colder.

Science is weird. Have you ever seen a car/pedestrian accident, where the victim is literally knocked out of their shoes? Their shoes don't move even they're thrown 25 feet. Just because the shoes are sitting on the pavement doesn't mean the person wasn't hit.
So localized extreme cold CAN be a symptom of global warming, it's not inconsistent with the theory AT ALL.

[actornaught]

dan'o, you just wanna be one PO'ed guy, no wonder you don't hear what's being said. but it's all being said over & over.

maybe a new thought, tho, what if you're wrong?