How much do we really understand climate change?

based upon the last few summers, i'm glad we have the honkin 5 ton heat pump! that's all i'm understanding this blistering hellhole of a weekend!

And Bob it's only early June, the best is yet to come. Passing on the summer trip to your area this year and coming in October.

I don't think we will ever fully understand it, but it doesn't change the fact that we need to be better stewards of the world and do what we can to reduce our overall impact.

based upon the last few summers, i'm glad we have the honkin 5 ton heat pump! that's all i'm understanding this blistering hellhole of a weekend!

here here! thank slbj for the a/c.

based upon my little hermit crabs out on the porch in their 20 gal tank, in the shade, the temp gauge is already up where it is in a typical august. I have an ice pack on the top screen today. never have needed to do this until late summer. what's the dealio? maybe my thermometer is off.

little lucky, daisy mae and bo have hibernated all winter in the boring house, so they are ready for summer time when they come out at night and party to the moon while eating massive piles of popcorn. during the day, they are active too but not today. having to burrow in the sand to find a cool spot. hope they don't expire out there. :roll:

I know. call me the hermit crab lady.

I'm with OM - take care of earth now because its the right thing to do for the best future for all living creatures.

Interesting article comparing historical and record temperature analysis done by NASA, UAH and the weather service..

It uses the heretical approach of applying scientific analysis to an apparently religious or political issue (ie: global warming) and highlights the fact that we really ought to understand what the disease is before we choose the cure.

hi fbb. it is an interesting article, about controlling/comparing the data, etc. I am sure scientists are struggling with this issue even more as they use more sophisticated technology and discover more facts, etc. I am happy they are doing the hard work. It is going to be many years before answers and solutions are fully realized. meanwhile, we can make some educated guesses about our own impact on earth and change our ways accordingly.

the comments by readers were enlightening. funny how global warming is just so damn political like anything else.

here are a few comments that struck me as balanced and/or making sense...

It's all crap

By Solomon Grundy
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 15:47 GMT
Both sides of this "debate" are full of crap. For some reason that I don't understand people will argue something, even if they have no real stake in it, and have no real knowledge about the issue at hand. If you read the posts above their "scientific explanations" are just as crappy as both sides of the climate change debate.
Now for unscientific news. Plants that previously would not grow in areas north of central Virginia (U.S.) are now routinely found in southern New England and have been spreading steadily northward since the early 80's. The past six years have seen an explosion in farming of certain types of tomatoes and greens that wouldn't even grow here (D.C. area) 10 years ago. The birds migrate sooner and trees are blooming sooner.
Regardless of what the humans think something warmer is happening. While nature is adapting to the warmer temperatures man is sitting around arguing about if it's happening or not. Silly humans.
I don't know if this warming of the climate is a natural cycle or a man made event - but I don't, nor do the plants and animals need, satellite data to see that it's happening.

science

By Kurt Guntheroth
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 17:22 GMT
It can be simultaneously true that the world is warming, and that the world is in a 20 year cooling trend. There are several cyclic temperature fluctuations that have to be factored into analysis of the long-term trends. Scientists know this. The global warming deniers hope you don't.
Raw measurements often have to be corrected for measurement biases, like local conditions (is the thermometer in a city, which creates a heat island around itself), or intermediate-term trends (see above). Fiddling the raw data is a part of both good science and bad. And the really tricky part is that what you fiddle depends on what you expect. If a scientist believes warming is occurring, they're going to look for biases that make the real temperature higher than the measured temperature. If the underlying assumption is valid, then the fiddle gives a better, more predictive result. If the underlying assumption is wrong, or the scientist has a political agenda, then the fiddle mucks things up. Both pro- and anti- warming scientists do this fiddling. Then they call each other names for it. The point of peer review is to vet the fiddling.
Of course scientists want to get funding. They say "OMG it's warming!" to get funding from some sources, and they say "It's all nonsense" to get funding from other sources. The point is to keep the lab running and the staff paid. Science is a business too, and all scientists are about equally culpable for wanting to get paid.

Interesting article comparing historical and record temperature analysis done by NASA, UAH and the weather service..

It uses the heretical approach of applying scientific analysis to an apparently religious or political issue (ie: global warming) and highlights the fact that we really ought to understand what the disease is before we choose the cure.

All I can say is that article was very poorly presented. That before/after thing was a bunch of crap. Was the average person actually supposed to understand that?