Seasons Springing Forward, Reports Show

Nature's Springtime Events Starting Sooner Because Of Global Warming, Scientists Say

(AP)  The capital's famous cherry trees are primed to burst out in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom till around April 5.

In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, a drab little butterfly, was fluttering about on March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged there anywhere from mid-April to mid-May.

And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia. On March 9, when allergist Dr. Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn't be measured until late April.

Pollen is bursting. Critters are stirring. Buds are swelling. Biologists are worrying.

"The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

Blame global warming.

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green-up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982 north of the Mason-Dixon line. In much of Florida and southern Texas and Louisiana, the satellites show spring coming a tad later, and bizarrely, in a complicated way, global warming can explain that too, the scientists said.

Biological timing is called phenology. Biological spring, which this year begins at 1:48 a.m. EDT Thursday, is based on the tilt of the Earth as it circles the sun. The federal government and some university scientists are so alarmed by the changes that last fall they created a National Phenology Network at the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor these changes.

The idea, said biologist and network director Jake Weltzin, is "to better understand the changes, and more important what do they mean? How does it affect humankind?"

There are winners, losers and lots of unknowns when global warming messes with natural timing. People may appreciate the smaller heating bills from shorter winters, the longer growing season and maybe even better tasting wines from some early grape harvests. But biologists also foresee big problems.

The changes could push some species to extinction. That's because certain plants and animals are dependent on each other for food and shelter. If the plants bloom or bear fruit before animals return or surface from hibernation, the critters could starve. Also, plants that bud too early can still be whacked by a late freeze.

The young of tree swallows - which in upstate New York are laying eggs nine days earlier than in the 1960s - often starve in those last gasp cold snaps because insects stop flying in the cold, ornithologists said. University of Maryland biology professor David Inouye noticed an unusually early February robin in his neighborhood this year and noted, "Sometimes the early bird is the one that's killed by the winter storm."

The checkerspot butterfly disappeared from Stanford's Jasper Ridge preserve because shifts in rainfall patterns changed the timing of plants on which it develops. When the plant dries out too early, the caterpillars die, said Notre Dame biology professor Jessica Hellmann.

"It's an early warning sign in that it's an additional onslaught that a lot of our threatened species can't handle," Hellmann said.

It's not easy on some people either. A controlled federal field study shows that warmer temperatures and increased carbon dioxide cause earlier, longer and stronger allergy seasons.

"For wind-pollinated plants, it's probably the strongest signal we have yet of climate change," said University of Massachusetts professor of aerobiology Christine Rogers. "It's a huge health impact. Seventeen percent of the American population is allergic to pollen."

While some plants and animals use the amount of sunlight to figure out when it is spring, others base it on heat building in their tissues, much like a roasting turkey with a pop-up thermometer. Around the world, those internal thermometers are going to "pop" earlier than they once did.

This past winter's weather could send a mixed message. Globally, it was the coolest December through February since 2001 and a year of heavy snowfall. Despite that, it was still warmer than average for the 20th century.

Phenology data go back to the 14th century for harvest of wine grapes in France. There is a change in the timing of fall, but the change is biggest in spring. In the 1980s there was a sudden, big leap forward in spring blooming, scientists noticed. And spring keeps coming earlier at an accelerating rate.

Unlike sea ice in the Arctic, the way climate change is tinkering with the natural timing of day-to-day life is concrete and local. People can experience it with all five senses:

You can see the trees and bushes blooming earlier. A photo of Lowell Cemetery, in Lowell, Mass., taken May 30, 1868, shows bare limbs. But the same scene photographed May 30, 2005, by Boston University biology professor Richard Primack shows them in full spring greenery.

You can smell the lilacs and honeysuckle. In the West they are coming out two to four days earlier each decade over more than half a century, according to a 2001 study.

You can hear it in the birds. Scientists in Gothic, Colo., have watched the first robin of spring arrive earlier each year in that mountain ghost town, marching forward from April 9 in 1981 to March 14 last year. This year, heavy snows may keep the birds away until April.

You can feel it in your nose from increased allergies. Spring airborne pollen is being released about 20 hours earlier every year, according to a Swiss study that looked at common allergies since 1979.

You can even taste it in the honey. Bees, which sample many plants, are producing their peak amount of honey weeks earlier. The nectar is coming from different plants now, which means noticeably different honey - at least in Highland, Md., where Wayne Esaias has been monitoring honey production since 1992. Instead of the rich, red, earthy tulip poplar honey that used to be prevalent, bees are producing lighter, fruitier black locust honey. Esaias, a NASA oceanographer as well as beekeeper, says global warming is a factor.

In Washington, seven of the last 20 Cherry Blossom Festivals have started after peak bloom. This year will be close, the National Park Service predicts. Last year, Knoxville's dogwood blooms came and went before the city's dogwood festival started. Boston's Arnold Arboretum permanently rescheduled Lilac Sunday to a May date eight days earlier than it once was.

Even western wildfires have a timing connection to global warming and are coming earlier. An early spring generally means the plants that fuel fires are drier, producing nastier fire seasons, said University of Arizona geology professor Steve Yool. It's such a good correlation that Weltzin, the phenology network director, is talking about using real-time lilac data to predict upcoming fire seasons. Lilacs, which are found in most parts of the country, offer some of the broadest climate overview data going back to the 1950s.

This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles. A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on Feb. 1 about the early blooming. A 2001 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.

Such changes have "implications for the animals that are dependent on this plant," Weltzin said, as he stood beneath a blooming red maple in late February. By the time the animals arrive, "the flowers may already be done for the year." The animals may have to find a new food source.

"It's all a part of life," Weltzin said. "Timing is everything."

© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

Video and Galleries from SciTech

• Video Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
• Photos Attack on Ancient Babylon
• Video Baby Skates Sensation

Latest in SciTech

Lightning Delays Space Shuttle Launch

Attack on Ancient Babylon

Microsoft's Office Head Talks Google

Add a Comment See all 36 Comments

by robstrck March 19, 2008 1:50 PM PDT

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this comment

by prairiefox1 March 19, 2008 1:54 PM PDT

AND YOU WILL FIND OUT WHY EARTH WAS REFERRED TO AS VERDEN!

Reply to this comment

by al2008-2009 March 19, 2008 2:18 PM PDT

I''m appalled at the governor''s lack of response to the global warming sniffing, sneezing, and allergies. Our honey is ruined, flowers getting destroyed, animals starving, and storms increasing. We need to get cooler at once so health can return to all of us.
.
Indeed, I%u2019m appalled at the governor%u2019s lack of response to the global warming thunderstorms and tornadoes we''ve just had as well. We have no comprehensive strategy in place whatsoever, let alone a detailed plan of action to mitigate the effects of these tornadoes, and mother earth continues to suffer while the governor%u2019s office refuses to go forward and do what%u2019s right for our mother.
.
How long must we sit idly by while our mother continues to suffer from the warming taking place at a feverish pace? How long must our mother suffer before we have proper c02 taxes put into place? How long must the destruction of mother earth take place before we finally put responsible plans into action?
.
We the people call upon the governor to implement a comprehensive antiglobal warming strategy at once and work in coordination with state and federal officials; these tornadoes and storms continue to worsen and the quicker we stop the warming the sooner we will see these storms cease. We need action now.

Reply to this comment

by singingrick March 19, 2008 3:10 PM PDT

"Global warming my big old b-u-t-t"

mocaIeo



Congratulations, you are the moron of the day.


Please stick your head back up your "big old b-u-t-t."

lol!

Reply to this comment

by dormcook March 19, 2008 3:10 PM PDT

Global warming doesn''t mean its always warmer. The process is similar to summer thunder storms. The higher temps make the weather shift more dramatically.
Global warming caused shifts in weather could just as likely cause colder than normal seasons as warmer. The point is its hard to grow crops if you can not count on the weather being somewhat predictable. If the climate changes faster than animals and plants can adapt we are in trouble. Through the bee die offs and bat starvations we have seen in the last year and things could get very harsh very fast. I don''t think we are talking in my children''s lifetime now as much as my own.

Reply to this comment

by dormcook March 19, 2008 3:11 PM PDT

Global warming doesn''t mean its always warmer. The process is similar to summer thunder storms. The higher temps make the weather shift more dramatically.
Global warming caused shifts in weather could just as likely cause colder than normal seasons as warmer. The point is its hard to grow crops if you can not count on the weather being somewhat predictable. If the climate changes faster than animals and plants can adapt we are in trouble. Throw in the bee die offs and bat starvations we have seen in the last year and things could get very harsh very fast. I don''t think we are talking in my children''s lifetime now as much as my own.

Reply to this comment

by displeased March 19, 2008 3:22 PM PDT

I live in the North Carolina mountains and weather.com
is predicting snow this Monday March 24th.
Posted by mocaIeo

Snow in the mountains in March is not unusual. It may seem unusual because it happens less frequently than in the past, but it''s not considered a bizarre event.

Reply to this comment

by rf35 March 19, 2008 3:24 PM PDT

AL2008, that comment is sarcastic, right? Just wanted to make sure.

I really wish CBS would make just one change to their global warming stories: leave the man-made part out! Global warming is real, only a fool would continue to deny that. However, I wish they would quit touting the idea that humans have had more than a minor impact on the process. I''m all for drastic carbon reduction, a petroleum-free society, and an energy infrastructure that doesn''t include coal-fired power plants. I''m sure everyone can agree that clean air is nicer to breathe! But global warming has nothing to do with the above-mentioned pollution control (don''t bother telling me that co2 is not a pollutant...that''s not the point).
Continued...

Reply to this comment

by rf35 March 19, 2008 3:25 PM PDT

Global warming is a naturally occurring process. Sure, our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated it a tiny bit, but it''s not the cause. If you really want to do something good for the planet, get off the global warming bandwagon and turn your attention to the real issue that humans CAN change: the sickening overpopulation of the Earth. Advocate for small families with 2 children max. Even if you really do believe man is responsible for GW, this is still the most reasonable way to deal with it. Fewer consumers = lower emissions, right? Get with the program and fight the real issue. Earth can''t sustain the current 6.5 billion people on it, let alone the 8 billion predicted in the near future. If you have 2 children, you are in sustainment mode. If you have more than 2, you are part of the problem, so quit whining. The government can''t fix this. It''s up to individuals to choose to have fewer children. That is the only way the planet and the human race will survive.

Reply to this comment

by displeased March 19, 2008 4:02 PM PDT

Earth can''''t sustain the current 6.5 billion people on it, let alone the 8 billion predicted in the near future. If you have 2 children, you are in sustainment mode. If you have more than 2, you are part of the problem, so quit whining.
Posted by rf35

I agree. I''ve always been astounded by the population growth and how people support it. I think we should tax people for having children, not reward them. And while we''re at it, force them to attend child psychology classes and perform general intelligence and parenting skills test. All for additional fees of course.

Reply to this comment

by timdgrim March 19, 2008 4:18 PM PDT

Exactly!!!Too Many People!!
That is the root of the problem and nobody wants to talk about it. Imagine what the employment, housing, food, water, traffic and pollution problems will look like in ten more years, just in this country.
2 Kids is ENOUGH! (Thanks CBS for allowing regular people to comment on the topics and stories of the day, unlike CNN or ABC where it has to be filtered through some coporate lackey to decide if he should put it on) Bite Me Jack Cafferty!!

Reply to this comment

by devipod March 19, 2008 4:39 PM PDT

If people consider population to be straining the Earth, you could easily conclude medical care has contributed to it. Nature has given millions of people diseases, disorders, and the like. But with medicine intervening with say ''natural selection'', it throws things out of balance, and you have a bloated population, desperate for resources.

Reply to this comment

by shanev137 March 19, 2008 4:50 PM PDT

I''ve been noticing it in our trees for a few years now. They use to go dormant in the wintertime....but not anymore. They''re growing faster than they use to grow.

Reply to this comment

by rheola-2009 March 19, 2008 5:42 PM PDT

Posted by singingrick at 03:10 PM : Mar 19, 2008

Exactly my sentiments also Rick.

Have a good one.

Reply to this comment

by Syndicate March 19, 2008 5:55 PM PDT

I''ve noticed this but this year seems to be a little behind previous years. I wonder if there is something to the global cooling theory. Also keep in mind that the North American Continet has shifted four feet west since 1950. Any one complaining about over population should stop being a hypocrit and slit their wrist. Personally I would like about six kids. One interesting note most plants use light timming to determine when to bloom or fruit. Just ask your resident pot head. Perhaps this problem is caused by light pollution.

Reply to this comment

by rf35 March 19, 2008 5:55 PM PDT

devipod,
IMHO, the LACK of medical care in the past is a major contributing factor. As recently as the early 1900''s, it was not uncommon for children to die before reaching reproductive age. People would often have four or five children, hoping at least a couple would survive. According to the CDC, between 1915 and 1997 there was a 90% drop in infant mortality rates in America. Even in the best of time (no war, famine, epidemic disease), the infant mortality rate was around 20%. That''s just for children 1 year old. Add the ones that died later (up to the early teen years) and you can see that a large family was not really causing significant population growth. As you go further back in history, the mortality rates were even higher. People needed several children to ensure their genes were passed on. Having several children became a sort of %u201Ctradition.%u201D People simply haven%u2019t caught on to the fact that one or two kids will fulfill the genetic imperative to pass on their genes just fine.

Reply to this comment

by wireferee March 19, 2008 5:56 PM PDT

I agree with the article. In WI, the robins arrived in April when I was a child. Now I see them in February. This year, though, with our snow, they held off until this past weekend. Also, we''re staying warmer longer into fall. This year, we still had 70 and 80 degree days in October. When I was a child, we had snow in October not the hum of the air conditioner.

Reply to this comment

by naucoming4u March 19, 2008 5:57 PM PDT

I''''ve been noticing it in our trees for a few years now. They use to go dormant in the wintertime....but not anymore. They''''re growing faster than they use to grow.

Posted by shanev137 at 04:50 PM : Mar 19, 2008
..........

On that same note, either last year or the year before (if not multiple years) the cherry blossoms bloomed about a few weeks before the "Cherry Blossom Festival" got started in Washington DC. In fact, at the time of the festival, most of the cherry blossoms had already blown/fallen off of the trees! Now if that doesn''t speak to the irony of climate change/global warming! Honestly.

Reply to this comment

by naucoming4u March 19, 2008 6:00 PM PDT

Exactly!!!Too Many People!!
That is the root of the problem and nobody wants to talk about it. Imagine what the employment, housing, food, water, traffic and pollution problems will look like in ten more years, just in this country.
2 Kids is ENOUGH! (Thanks CBS for allowing regular people to comment on the topics and stories of the day, unlike CNN or ABC where it has to be filtered through some coporate lackey to decide if he should put it on) Bite Me Jack Cafferty!!

Posted by timdgrim at 04:18 PM : Mar 19, 2008
..............

I couldn''t agree more. Unfortunately, it is the religious radical wingnuts who feel otherwise. "Be fruitful and multiply" the bible says... and those folks sure follow that to the letter. Just ask Jim Bob Duggar!

www.duggarfamily.com

(It''s disgusting).

Reply to this comment

by rf35 March 19, 2008 6:06 PM PDT

cbscrash07,
Just out of curiosity, why are you in favor of runaway population growth? Are you a Mormon?
Here%u2019s a simple bit of math. Not totally accurate, but this would give you an idea of what the world would be like if everyone agreed with you:
Approx. population today: 5.5 billion
Divided by 2 = 2.75 billion couples
Multiplied by 6 kids per couple = 16.5 billion kids.
Add the parents back in = 22 billion

I%u2019m not advocating mass suicides or randomly killing 4 billion current residents, just practicing a little reproductive responsibility. What%u2019s so wrong with that? I''d really like to understand your thinking on this.

Reply to this comment

by rheola-2009 March 19, 2008 6:34 PM PDT

This situation is world wide.

Here in South west Sydney,[Australia] where I lived until 7 years ago, an outer suburb named Picton, we always got our first winter frost in the last week of may, the last winter frost in the 3rd week of September.

This progressively changed till in 2002, we were getting our first frost in early july, and the last in the 3rd week of august.

As with the experience in your country, the flowering periods have come forward, and the deciduos trees are leafing considerably earlir.

Reply to this comment

by rheola-2009 March 19, 2008 6:38 PM PDT

In my previous I should have pointed out the period was from 1970 until 2002.

Reply to this comment

by kevsan1 March 19, 2008 6:49 PM PDT

Many robins do not leave for winter. You just don''t see them. Check it out. This has been a real winter in Michigan and we are going to have snow on the first day of spring. So much for global warming.

Reply to this comment

by naucoming4u March 19, 2008 6:58 PM PDT

Many robins do not leave for winter. You just don''''t see them. Check it out. This has been a real winter in Michigan and we are going to have snow on the first day of spring. So much for global warming.

Posted by kevsan1 at 06:49 PM : Mar 19, 2008
...........

Just an FYI...

...global warming, (which many also call climate change), does not mean that it is "warm" all the time. Essentially, global warming is the term used for the changing of the climate from the normalcy that we once knew, to cycles of odd occurrences that become more and more frequent as the years go on. Tornadoes occurring in the winter in greater numbers and strength. Hurricanes occurring earlier in the spring. And yes, this also includes snow in March and 80 degree weather in November.

Taking a day (or two) snapshot of the weather in a particular part of the country and basing that on global warming, or not, is inaccurate and misleading. The climate cycles around the world is what makes the national headlines, not just snow in Michigan in March!

Reply to this comment

by beehive21-2009 March 19, 2008 9:19 PM PDT

Evolution its what you have here folks,survival of the fittest,your watching extinction of species in real time, been going on from the beginning of time.The earth cleaning its pores and soon will get rid of mankind,so enjoy.

Reply to this comment

by tonic1661 March 19, 2008 9:21 PM PDT

kevsan is a scientist who knows more than the nobel prize winning scientists who are all in a conspiracy?

I wonder if kevsan can explain why the west antarctic ice shelf and greenland are melting?

Reply to this comment

by nothappyatall March 19, 2008 10:02 PM PDT

Well thats great news then, spring coming in earlier is always welcome in the snow belt- wouldn''t mind having spring come in December, so bring it on!

Reply to this comment

by nothappyatall March 19, 2008 10:04 PM PDT

Ive been saying for months here that the root of ALL of these problems is TOO MANY PEOPLE!
The US population was 150 million in 1950, it now stands at over 305 million- more than DOUBLE in just 57 years, and this cannot continue indefinitely!

Reply to this comment

by hbevis March 19, 2008 10:24 PM PDT

cbscrash07,
Just out of curiosity, why are you in favor of runaway population growth? Are you a Mormon?
Here%u2019s a simple bit of math. Not totally accurate, but this would give you an idea of what the world would be like if everyone agreed with you:
Approx. population today: 5.5 billion
Divided by 2 = 2.75 billion couples
Multiplied by 6 kids per couple = 16.5 billion kids.
Add the parents back in = 22 billion

I%u2019m not advocating mass suicides or randomly killing 4 billion current residents, just practicing a little reproductive responsibility. What%u2019s so wrong with that? I''''d really like to understand your thinking on this.

Posted by rf35 at 06:06 PM : Mar 19, 2008

YOU MAY NOT BE EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT YOU SURE ARE ON TO SOMETHING. SOMEHOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Reply to this comment

by juwboy March 20, 2008 6:23 AM PDT

"BLAME global warming", it says.

I''m GRATEFUL for global warming because it''ll reduce the number of deaths caused by cold winters, which, currently, far exceed the deaths caused by hot summers.

We need more global warming, not less, and should be doing everything we can to promote and accelerate global warming until the totals for cold and hot weather deaths are comparable.

That''s when our planet will have its ideal, optimum climate.

Reply to this comment

by mcvet March 20, 2008 7:14 AM PDT

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident...."

Right there is where this report lost all credibility.


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

Posted by TheGateway1 at 05:22 AM : Mar 20, 2008
+ report abuse

Really? Can you give me a historical example as to when you conservatives have EVER been right about these things. I can''t find one. I can''t find anyone who even remembers what the Conservatives actually said about such things. Now honestly who do you believe folks? People who have NEVER been right or the Scientist who have been the vast majority of the time. If you have trouble with this question, dial up George W. Bush and his statements on Global Warming... that''ll convince you!! Sieg Heil Bush

Reply to this comment

by jeff1704 March 20, 2008 8:12 AM PDT

I wish more people would get an education and learn something from the experts about climate change and the impact of global population, instead of throwing personal opinion and rhetoric up in the air. Thers IS a serious problem and this is just the beginning. It''s not about believing, it''s about figuring out what we are going to do about it now before it''s too late!

Reply to this comment

by xlib March 20, 2008 9:15 AM PDT

jeff1704-what''s your take on the over 600 scientists from Canada that were silenced. The global warming issue, now called climate change out of convenience by the followers of the goracle, is a consensus. As for "getting the scientific knowledge" as you suggest, I guess that can go both way. Those of us doubting the alarmist want to hear both sides. We doubters are not saying that we should not take care of our planet, not at all. We just think it is a bit on the elitists side to think that we, here in the US can singlehandedly change the climate. How about looking at China and India to see what they are doing, or not doing. How about looking to your own global warming leaders and see if they are practicing what they preach (one square crow). How about looking at other years and just see that the climate is always changing. Look back on 1936. Look back at the late 70''s and remember the cry of "new ice age." Have some commom sense.

Reply to this comment

by octavianfdlr March 20, 2008 1:01 PM PDT

....It''''s not about believing, it''''s about figuring out what we are going to do about it now before it''''s too late!

Posted by Jeff1704 at 08:12 AM : Mar 20, 2008

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

That is exactly what I have been saying. Global Warming is not about whether humans are (or can) effect climate change. Global Warming is about forcing other people to "do something" which is not in their best interests.

Reply to this comment

by octavianfdlr March 20, 2008 1:11 PM PDT

...last year''s authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists.

- The Article

=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=

Right there is where this report (once more) lost all credibility. The Nobel Peace Prize is not for science, but for political activities. The recipients were not scientists, but propagandists.

Why do you think that the proponents of Global Warming were so fast to accuse any scientist who disagreed with the Global Warming hypotheses of taking bribes? Could it be that the United Nations has been paying the IPCC for more than fifteen years to conclude that humans are causing global warming? The Nobel prize committee acknowledged that the IPCC was created to provide "authoritative" data proving that human activities are the cause of a (at that time) unproven phenomenon.

Of course the "scientists" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that people who claim to be scientists can be bribed. They have first-hand experience!

Reply to this comment

by featuredplay March 21, 2008 10:28 AM PDT

Seems to me that worrying about this is awfully shortsighted. After all, if the "green-up" is coming eight hours earlier each year, everything will be back to normal in 3078. Don''t worry, be happy liberal doom and gloomist...

Reply to this comment

See all 36 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[robstrck]

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[prairiefox1]

AND YOU WILL FIND OUT WHY EARTH WAS REFERRED TO AS VERDEN!

[al2008-2009]

I''m appalled at the governor''s lack of response to the global warming sniffing, sneezing, and allergies. Our honey is ruined, flowers getting destroyed, animals starving, and storms increasing. We need to get cooler at once so health can return to all of us.
.
Indeed, I%u2019m appalled at the governor%u2019s lack of response to the global warming thunderstorms and tornadoes we''ve just had as well. We have no comprehensive strategy in place whatsoever, let alone a detailed plan of action to mitigate the effects of these tornadoes, and mother earth continues to suffer while the governor%u2019s office refuses to go forward and do what%u2019s right for our mother.
.
How long must we sit idly by while our mother continues to suffer from the warming taking place at a feverish pace? How long must our mother suffer before we have proper c02 taxes put into place? How long must the destruction of mother earth take place before we finally put responsible plans into action?
.
We the people call upon the governor to implement a comprehensive antiglobal warming strategy at once and work in coordination with state and federal officials; these tornadoes and storms continue to worsen and the quicker we stop the warming the sooner we will see these storms cease. We need action now.

[singingrick]

"Global warming my big old b-u-t-t"

mocaIeo



Congratulations, you are the moron of the day.


Please stick your head back up your "big old b-u-t-t."

lol!

[dormcook]

Global warming doesn''t mean its always warmer. The process is similar to summer thunder storms. The higher temps make the weather shift more dramatically.
Global warming caused shifts in weather could just as likely cause colder than normal seasons as warmer. The point is its hard to grow crops if you can not count on the weather being somewhat predictable. If the climate changes faster than animals and plants can adapt we are in trouble. Through the bee die offs and bat starvations we have seen in the last year and things could get very harsh very fast. I don''t think we are talking in my children''s lifetime now as much as my own.

[dormcook]

Global warming doesn''t mean its always warmer. The process is similar to summer thunder storms. The higher temps make the weather shift more dramatically.
Global warming caused shifts in weather could just as likely cause colder than normal seasons as warmer. The point is its hard to grow crops if you can not count on the weather being somewhat predictable. If the climate changes faster than animals and plants can adapt we are in trouble. Throw in the bee die offs and bat starvations we have seen in the last year and things could get very harsh very fast. I don''t think we are talking in my children''s lifetime now as much as my own.

[displeased]

I live in the North Carolina mountains and weather.com
is predicting snow this Monday March 24th.
Posted by mocaIeo

Snow in the mountains in March is not unusual. It may seem unusual because it happens less frequently than in the past, but it''s not considered a bizarre event.

[rf35]

AL2008, that comment is sarcastic, right? Just wanted to make sure.

I really wish CBS would make just one change to their global warming stories: leave the man-made part out! Global warming is real, only a fool would continue to deny that. However, I wish they would quit touting the idea that humans have had more than a minor impact on the process. I''m all for drastic carbon reduction, a petroleum-free society, and an energy infrastructure that doesn''t include coal-fired power plants. I''m sure everyone can agree that clean air is nicer to breathe! But global warming has nothing to do with the above-mentioned pollution control (don''t bother telling me that co2 is not a pollutant...that''s not the point).
Continued...

[rf35]

Global warming is a naturally occurring process. Sure, our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated it a tiny bit, but it''s not the cause. If you really want to do something good for the planet, get off the global warming bandwagon and turn your attention to the real issue that humans CAN change: the sickening overpopulation of the Earth. Advocate for small families with 2 children max. Even if you really do believe man is responsible for GW, this is still the most reasonable way to deal with it. Fewer consumers = lower emissions, right? Get with the program and fight the real issue. Earth can''t sustain the current 6.5 billion people on it, let alone the 8 billion predicted in the near future. If you have 2 children, you are in sustainment mode. If you have more than 2, you are part of the problem, so quit whining. The government can''t fix this. It''s up to individuals to choose to have fewer children. That is the only way the planet and the human race will survive.

[displeased]

Earth can''''t sustain the current 6.5 billion people on it, let alone the 8 billion predicted in the near future. If you have 2 children, you are in sustainment mode. If you have more than 2, you are part of the problem, so quit whining.
Posted by rf35

I agree. I''ve always been astounded by the population growth and how people support it. I think we should tax people for having children, not reward them. And while we''re at it, force them to attend child psychology classes and perform general intelligence and parenting skills test. All for additional fees of course.

[timdgrim]

Exactly!!!Too Many People!!
That is the root of the problem and nobody wants to talk about it. Imagine what the employment, housing, food, water, traffic and pollution problems will look like in ten more years, just in this country.
2 Kids is ENOUGH! (Thanks CBS for allowing regular people to comment on the topics and stories of the day, unlike CNN or ABC where it has to be filtered through some coporate lackey to decide if he should put it on) Bite Me Jack Cafferty!!

[devipod]

If people consider population to be straining the Earth, you could easily conclude medical care has contributed to it. Nature has given millions of people diseases, disorders, and the like. But with medicine intervening with say ''natural selection'', it throws things out of balance, and you have a bloated population, desperate for resources.

[shanev137]

I''ve been noticing it in our trees for a few years now. They use to go dormant in the wintertime....but not anymore. They''re growing faster than they use to grow.

[rheola-2009]

Posted by singingrick at 03:10 PM : Mar 19, 2008

Exactly my sentiments also Rick.

Have a good one.

[Syndicate]

I''ve noticed this but this year seems to be a little behind previous years. I wonder if there is something to the global cooling theory. Also keep in mind that the North American Continet has shifted four feet west since 1950. Any one complaining about over population should stop being a hypocrit and slit their wrist. Personally I would like about six kids. One interesting note most plants use light timming to determine when to bloom or fruit. Just ask your resident pot head. Perhaps this problem is caused by light pollution.

[rf35]

devipod,
IMHO, the LACK of medical care in the past is a major contributing factor. As recently as the early 1900''s, it was not uncommon for children to die before reaching reproductive age. People would often have four or five children, hoping at least a couple would survive. According to the CDC, between 1915 and 1997 there was a 90% drop in infant mortality rates in America. Even in the best of time (no war, famine, epidemic disease), the infant mortality rate was around 20%. That''s just for children 1 year old. Add the ones that died later (up to the early teen years) and you can see that a large family was not really causing significant population growth. As you go further back in history, the mortality rates were even higher. People needed several children to ensure their genes were passed on. Having several children became a sort of %u201Ctradition.%u201D People simply haven%u2019t caught on to the fact that one or two kids will fulfill the genetic imperative to pass on their genes just fine.

[wireferee]

I agree with the article. In WI, the robins arrived in April when I was a child. Now I see them in February. This year, though, with our snow, they held off until this past weekend. Also, we''re staying warmer longer into fall. This year, we still had 70 and 80 degree days in October. When I was a child, we had snow in October not the hum of the air conditioner.

[naucoming4u]

I''''ve been noticing it in our trees for a few years now. They use to go dormant in the wintertime....but not anymore. They''''re growing faster than they use to grow.

Posted by shanev137 at 04:50 PM : Mar 19, 2008
..........

On that same note, either last year or the year before (if not multiple years) the cherry blossoms bloomed about a few weeks before the "Cherry Blossom Festival" got started in Washington DC. In fact, at the time of the festival, most of the cherry blossoms had already blown/fallen off of the trees! Now if that doesn''t speak to the irony of climate change/global warming! Honestly.

[naucoming4u]

Exactly!!!Too Many People!!
That is the root of the problem and nobody wants to talk about it. Imagine what the employment, housing, food, water, traffic and pollution problems will look like in ten more years, just in this country.
2 Kids is ENOUGH! (Thanks CBS for allowing regular people to comment on the topics and stories of the day, unlike CNN or ABC where it has to be filtered through some coporate lackey to decide if he should put it on) Bite Me Jack Cafferty!!

Posted by timdgrim at 04:18 PM : Mar 19, 2008
..............

I couldn''t agree more. Unfortunately, it is the religious radical wingnuts who feel otherwise. "Be fruitful and multiply" the bible says... and those folks sure follow that to the letter. Just ask Jim Bob Duggar!

www.duggarfamily.com

(It''s disgusting).

[rf35]

cbscrash07,
Just out of curiosity, why are you in favor of runaway population growth? Are you a Mormon?
Here%u2019s a simple bit of math. Not totally accurate, but this would give you an idea of what the world would be like if everyone agreed with you:
Approx. population today: 5.5 billion
Divided by 2 = 2.75 billion couples
Multiplied by 6 kids per couple = 16.5 billion kids.
Add the parents back in = 22 billion

I%u2019m not advocating mass suicides or randomly killing 4 billion current residents, just practicing a little reproductive responsibility. What%u2019s so wrong with that? I''d really like to understand your thinking on this.

[rheola-2009]

This situation is world wide.

Here in South west Sydney,[Australia] where I lived until 7 years ago, an outer suburb named Picton, we always got our first winter frost in the last week of may, the last winter frost in the 3rd week of September.

This progressively changed till in 2002, we were getting our first frost in early july, and the last in the 3rd week of august.

As with the experience in your country, the flowering periods have come forward, and the deciduos trees are leafing considerably earlir.

[rheola-2009]

In my previous I should have pointed out the period was from 1970 until 2002.

[kevsan1]

Many robins do not leave for winter. You just don''t see them. Check it out. This has been a real winter in Michigan and we are going to have snow on the first day of spring. So much for global warming.

[naucoming4u]

Many robins do not leave for winter. You just don''''t see them. Check it out. This has been a real winter in Michigan and we are going to have snow on the first day of spring. So much for global warming.

Posted by kevsan1 at 06:49 PM : Mar 19, 2008
...........

Just an FYI...

...global warming, (which many also call climate change), does not mean that it is "warm" all the time. Essentially, global warming is the term used for the changing of the climate from the normalcy that we once knew, to cycles of odd occurrences that become more and more frequent as the years go on. Tornadoes occurring in the winter in greater numbers and strength. Hurricanes occurring earlier in the spring. And yes, this also includes snow in March and 80 degree weather in November.

Taking a day (or two) snapshot of the weather in a particular part of the country and basing that on global warming, or not, is inaccurate and misleading. The climate cycles around the world is what makes the national headlines, not just snow in Michigan in March!

[beehive21-2009]

Evolution its what you have here folks,survival of the fittest,your watching extinction of species in real time, been going on from the beginning of time.The earth cleaning its pores and soon will get rid of mankind,so enjoy.

[tonic1661]

kevsan is a scientist who knows more than the nobel prize winning scientists who are all in a conspiracy?

I wonder if kevsan can explain why the west antarctic ice shelf and greenland are melting?

[nothappyatall]

Well thats great news then, spring coming in earlier is always welcome in the snow belt- wouldn''t mind having spring come in December, so bring it on!

[nothappyatall]

Ive been saying for months here that the root of ALL of these problems is TOO MANY PEOPLE!
The US population was 150 million in 1950, it now stands at over 305 million- more than DOUBLE in just 57 years, and this cannot continue indefinitely!

[hbevis]

cbscrash07,
Just out of curiosity, why are you in favor of runaway population growth? Are you a Mormon?
Here%u2019s a simple bit of math. Not totally accurate, but this would give you an idea of what the world would be like if everyone agreed with you:
Approx. population today: 5.5 billion
Divided by 2 = 2.75 billion couples
Multiplied by 6 kids per couple = 16.5 billion kids.
Add the parents back in = 22 billion

I%u2019m not advocating mass suicides or randomly killing 4 billion current residents, just practicing a little reproductive responsibility. What%u2019s so wrong with that? I''''d really like to understand your thinking on this.

Posted by rf35 at 06:06 PM : Mar 19, 2008

YOU MAY NOT BE EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT YOU SURE ARE ON TO SOMETHING. SOMEHOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

[juwboy]

"BLAME global warming", it says.

I''m GRATEFUL for global warming because it''ll reduce the number of deaths caused by cold winters, which, currently, far exceed the deaths caused by hot summers.

We need more global warming, not less, and should be doing everything we can to promote and accelerate global warming until the totals for cold and hot weather deaths are comparable.

That''s when our planet will have its ideal, optimum climate.

[mcvet]

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident...."

Right there is where this report lost all credibility.


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

Posted by TheGateway1 at 05:22 AM : Mar 20, 2008
+ report abuse

Really? Can you give me a historical example as to when you conservatives have EVER been right about these things. I can''t find one. I can''t find anyone who even remembers what the Conservatives actually said about such things. Now honestly who do you believe folks? People who have NEVER been right or the Scientist who have been the vast majority of the time. If you have trouble with this question, dial up George W. Bush and his statements on Global Warming... that''ll convince you!! Sieg Heil Bush

[jeff1704]

I wish more people would get an education and learn something from the experts about climate change and the impact of global population, instead of throwing personal opinion and rhetoric up in the air. Thers IS a serious problem and this is just the beginning. It''s not about believing, it''s about figuring out what we are going to do about it now before it''s too late!

[xlib]

jeff1704-what''s your take on the over 600 scientists from Canada that were silenced. The global warming issue, now called climate change out of convenience by the followers of the goracle, is a consensus. As for "getting the scientific knowledge" as you suggest, I guess that can go both way. Those of us doubting the alarmist want to hear both sides. We doubters are not saying that we should not take care of our planet, not at all. We just think it is a bit on the elitists side to think that we, here in the US can singlehandedly change the climate. How about looking at China and India to see what they are doing, or not doing. How about looking to your own global warming leaders and see if they are practicing what they preach (one square crow). How about looking at other years and just see that the climate is always changing. Look back on 1936. Look back at the late 70''s and remember the cry of "new ice age." Have some commom sense.

[octavianfdlr]

....It''''s not about believing, it''''s about figuring out what we are going to do about it now before it''''s too late!

Posted by Jeff1704 at 08:12 AM : Mar 20, 2008

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

That is exactly what I have been saying. Global Warming is not about whether humans are (or can) effect climate change. Global Warming is about forcing other people to "do something" which is not in their best interests.

[octavianfdlr]

...last year''s authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists.

- The Article

=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=

Right there is where this report (once more) lost all credibility. The Nobel Peace Prize is not for science, but for political activities. The recipients were not scientists, but propagandists.

Why do you think that the proponents of Global Warming were so fast to accuse any scientist who disagreed with the Global Warming hypotheses of taking bribes? Could it be that the United Nations has been paying the IPCC for more than fifteen years to conclude that humans are causing global warming? The Nobel prize committee acknowledged that the IPCC was created to provide "authoritative" data proving that human activities are the cause of a (at that time) unproven phenomenon.

Of course the "scientists" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that people who claim to be scientists can be bribed. They have first-hand experience!

[featuredplay]

Seems to me that worrying about this is awfully shortsighted. After all, if the "green-up" is coming eight hours earlier each year, everything will be back to normal in 3078. Don''t worry, be happy liberal doom and gloomist...