Q&A with meteorologist Paul Gross: The heat wave, climate change and other weather phenomena
Temperatures breaking the 100-degree mark made it hard to stay cool during the Ann Arbor Art Fair on Thursday afternoon.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
Earlier this past week on 1290 WLBY, just as the high heat began to envelope us, Dean Erskine and I talked with WDIV Local 4 meteorologist Paul Gross, author of “Extreme Michigan Weather, the Wild World of the Great Lakes State,” published by University of Michigan Press.
Lucy Ann: So how bad is this modern day heat wave compared throughout history?
Paul Gross
Lucy Ann: If they were lucky, they had ice to try to cool down from that.
Gross: You had to wait for the ice man to come.
Lucy Ann: How did they live through that, Paul?
Gross: They actually tried to employ some of the things that we tell people today. You try to limit your activity, drink a lot of water, and one thing that people tend to forget is, you have cold water that comes from the tap. If you don’t have air conditioning, you can just take a cool bath to lower your body temperature, That’s all you need to try to withstand this heat because after a while the stress does take its toll on you.
Lucy Ann: When we talk about 1936 contrasted with today, is this just the cyclical aspect of weather versus climate change or global warming?
Gross: Well, there are little cycles and things that we look for and then there are things like El Nino and La Nina that impact our weather. Now when you get into climate change, first of all the scientists on the planet agree that we’re in a period of unusual warming and it doesn’t mean, for example, that we won’t have winter. It means that we’ll have fewer cold extremes and an increase in heat extremes. So, for example, back in 2003, they had an extreme heat wave in Europe that killed 35,000 people and then we had the one in Russia three years ago and so now we’re seeing a heat wave here. Look back at this past winter and think about how harsh of a winter it was with all the snow. You know what? We did not set a single record low this winter. Not one here in the Detroit area. Now this summer, of course, we have all this heat that’s going on. We’ve had some record highs over the course of the year. A scientist told me that in about 75 years, it’s not something that happens overnight, but in about 75 years a Michigan summer is going to feel like what a Missouri summer feels like today. He said that was a conservative estimate.
Lucy Ann: How do we know, though, that this isn’t just what happens throughout history?
Gross: The reason that scientists now are getting more confident that we’re seeing this warming is in a number of statistical things. I counted, for example, the number of record highs and record lows over the decade from 1990 to 2000 and then from 2000 to 2010. In the ‘90s, record highs outnumbered record lows here in the Detroit area in a three to one ratio. And then in the next decade that number jumped to six to one record highs versus record lows. At this point in our climate record that shouldn’t be that high of a number. So we’re seeing a significant forcing on the climate by something and we pretty much know what that something is -- it’s the pollution that we’ve put into the atmosphere. We’ve actually changed the composition of our planet’s atmosphere.
Lucy Ann: What about the impact of El Nino and La Nina, which are naturally occurring climate cycles?
Dean: Paul, from what I’ve heard that contributed to all the tornadoes that were happening in the South earlier this year.
Gross: We had kind of the tailend of a La Nina. El Nino is an eastward shift in above normal Pacific Ocean surface water temperatures. In other words, the winds kind of shift and push those eastward and they cool off the West Coast of South America. La Niña is the opposite. Those warm waters shift westward towards Indonesia and that changes the jet stream configuration and the jet stream is the storm track. Now you see why that kind of plays into our weather, so, yeah, we were at the tail end of La Niña as we entered into the spring and we had a very energetic storm pattern. I’ve been emailing with all my TV meteorologist friends around the world about this. It was the most extraordinary tornado season. I was just interviewed on Czech Republic National TV about our tornado season and over there they don’t get very many tornados. They just can’t believe what happened here this spring.
Lucy Ann: Put this week’s high heat into perspective.
Gross: The last time that we had nine consecutive days over 90 was back in 1953, August 26 through September 4, and by the way that was also the heat wave that was our record for 90 degree days consecutively -- we had eleven of them actually -- so this is getting into pretty rarified air here.
Lucy Ann Lance co-owns Lance & Erskine Communications, which produces “The Lucy Ann Lance Business Insider” (M-F, 8 a.m.-11 a.m.) and “The Lucy Ann Lance Show” (Saturdays, 9 a.m.-12 p.m.) on 1290 WLBY. The programs are live streamed at www.1290WLBY.com, and podcast on www.lucyannlance.com. The above interview is a condensed version of a longer conversation that is edited for clarity. The complete audio interview is posted online at www.lucyannlance.com.
Comments
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.
Tru2blu76, Dr Spencer U of A Huntsvilles work would disagree with your 95% claim. <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/</a> What is your source? I would like to read it.
John A2
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
I just read a study that all the planets in our solar system are heating up. They say it is because we (our solar system) are moving into the galactic plain of our galaxy. We are not there yet but on the morning of 12/21/2012, we will enter the center of it. It will take some 7 years to move threw the center of the galaxy, and we will be exposed to the black hole of our galaxy, witch will cause a new gravity source. No one knows how that gravity will effect our solar system, but we are getting closer and all the planets are experiencing warming problems.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 11:24 a.m.
This is a new low in the debate. One side says we believe it because we believe it. Attacks the messenger, cannot be ture Fox said it, 5th grade arguement. Now it is right wing killer. Actually the biggest killers in history, Stalin, Mao, Hitler were left wing, so why would we not assume this was a left wing Norweigen? I noticed w no longr talk about man made global warming. We just assume if the climate changed it must have been done by man. Climate change is real, however man made golobal warming is political position. Cap & Trade was designed to raise Billions in taxes, not solve global warming. We hear that studies by "BIG" oil are invalid, but studies by BIG government could not possible be wrong. Oh wait a minute, James Hansen got caught putting September data in as October date to scew the results. Big government $ go to those who tow the party line. The left used to be against big government, why is big intrusive government now such a great idea?
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
outdoor, first let me apologize for mistakenly saying the killer was a Swede, he was Norwegian. He is confirmed to be a right wing ideologue, however. As for Stalin, et al, you're referring to the originators of ideologies which (left or right) duped people into putting the state above all and erasing rights for individuals while creating a false "Great Enemy" requiring a military machine that was really intended for global conquest. Here, we have a different but no less hazardous conservative movement which has been hijacked by corporations using ad agencies simply to create a wealth-based aristocracy. Southern Power Company created the first anti-climate change "committee" composed of ad agencies including the one used by the tobacco industry to "debunk" scientific evidence showing cancer risk for smokers. Attacking Science, scientists & educators has been the trademark of conservatives ever since. There's NO "assumption" that human activities produce over 90% of the increased output of carbon dioxide and methane gas. It's proven conclusively. Need for government intervention is there alright, but it's the improper use of politics to "debunk" Science and dupe people into thinking that all government intervention is always wrong. That's criminal intent of the 'new conservatives.' BTW: "BIG" oil has never produced any study which disproves manmade global warming. And need we be reminded that "BIG" oil has been guilty of things like oil spills and putting lead additives in gasoline which contaminated the air we breathe? Power companies west of Lake Michigan contaminated all of Michigan's 11,000 lakes with mercury (from burning coal) to a point where eating "too much" fish causes mercury poisoning. These pollutions are manmade - they never existed before corporations created these new environmental hazards. Cap and trade: is political compromise on a scientific matt
John A2
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Why not add the USA to your list; we killed 20 million natives.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 5:56 a.m.
This conservative vs liberal stuff is pathetic, not funny. All of the evidence for the past 180 years points to massive dishonesty in political parties no matter the DETAILS they mislead us into believing are important. Anyone who argues Science or Medicine from a political foundation is a gullible moron - plain and simple. Oh wait, there is one other kind of person who does that: the neurotic who has found some mound of propaganda which supports his or her personal twitches and makes them feel they are the "superior ones." A blonde haired, blue eyed natural born Swede just methodically shot and killed eighty-seven of his fellow Swedes because he's a right wing fanatic who decided to strike a blow for his adopted right wing ideology. He took 90 minutes to accomplish this atrocity. Swedish police are calling him Sweden's Timothy McVeigh. So - there you have it, Voltaire was right when he said: Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. We have here a "debate" between two political opposites on a scientific topic (climatological in nature): they have no business IN this discussion because they have been made to believe in absurdities. It boils down to having those who believe in what strangers tell them are "important facts" engaged in deciding scientific matters which will determine the fate of the entire human species. Even more absurd: most of the right wing fanatics here have the audacity to call scientists liars. Just how likely is it that thousands of men and women who've spent their lives preparing for and performing in their scientific specialty are all liars?? Now ask, Just how likely is it that corporation funded propaganda (aka "public relations") organizations are all liars?? Climate change is real, is happening and it will deal us all a harsh lesson which we may or may not be able to cope with. I'm not ready to let political dupes determine my or my children's future.
outdoor6709
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 11:26 p.m.
Heaven forbid our opions would be influenced by facts. It might be interesting to look at temperature charts from 2500 BC to today. Sorry if it counterdicts your politically correct beliefs. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie" rel='nofollow'>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie</a> Looks like 2010 is slightly above the 4510 year average. Sorry it does not fit your theory.
Enso
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 10:30 p.m.
You know all those righties that this winter when we were getting a lot of snow were saying "Oh, where's that global warming now?" Well, now that we are breaking heat records all this summer, where are they now?
Jon Saalberg
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 9:47 p.m.
@joe.blow. Not true at all. The 97% of scientists who believe that global warming is occurring has not changed at all. What has changed is the right-wing media's relentless attack on fact-based scientific data. Apparently the right is not happy that we need to take responsibility for our contributions towards damaging our planet. A story I heard a few weeks ago said that when most Americans have the facts of global warming clearly explained to them, they believe it is, indeed, occurring. And no, they did not just ask liberals - it was a cross-section of people that were surveyed. Also, it would be great if the article referred to "global warming", not the benign "climate change", but it's hard to get even the non-FOX media to refer to it as global warming - that is a victory for the right-wing, since the term "climate change" is nothing more than a palatable term created by a right-wing operative to make our effects on the planet seem less terrible.
Cash
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
Paul Gross is GREAT!! I wish he got more air time on channel 4....an intelligent guy giving us real in-depth weather facts.....enough with trying to find beauty contestants to do the weather!!! Good article, Lucy Ann.
catfishrisin
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
Nice try Lucy in pushing your flat earth agenda...your guest didn't bite however.
outdoor6709
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
Larry J I am a "scientist". I can also read and interpurtet statistics. The 97% you quote was from a non-scientific NYT study. They sent out questionares to 1372 scientists, did not say what their backgrounds were, and 97% of those who responded, did not say how many responded 97 or 1372, believed global warming. However, it did start the accepted basis for the stastic. Great media technique, bad public policy technique. Read some of Dr. Roy Spencers work, should be required reading for anyone who wants to make an objective evaluation of the subject. Compare it to James Hansen's work. Oh by the way Mr Hansen has made millions by overstating the effects of global warming. Notice the pattern? Mr hansen recently pu in a paper, "As just pointed out by an astute and disillusioned young climate scientist, James Hansen, the high priest of the global warming religion and defender of creation has recently produced a non-peer-reviewed paper finding that the net man-made effects on climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models. Hansen claims most climate models have underestimated the cooling effect of man-made aerosols via cloud changes, although the fine print in the paper admits they really have no idea what is causing the cloud changes and resulting cooling effect.
catfishrisin
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.
I'm impressed you can "interpurtet" statistics...it's nice to know our best minds our sorting all this out.
Julie
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
Paul Gross is a world class meterologist and scientist and I am very pleased that Ann Arbor.com has selected him for this interview. Also along with being a fine meterologist he has a true talent as a news man and has won international awards including recently an Emmy from National Association of Television Arts and Sciences. I have learned much from listening to Pauls reports over the 20 years I've lived in the Detroit area. Bravo for this conversation which puts our lives in prospective to the world.
Cash
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.
I totally agree, Julie....the smartest and most interesting guy on Detroit tv!
Mike
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
Good interview Lucy. I listen to your show at times and always enjoy your interviews. Unbiased and fair. I am surprised though by the number of commentators who don't believe that global warming is real. They must be the guys I've seen around town who wear tin foil on their heads............
David Briegel
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
I am still waiting for you to post the empirical evidence that MORE man made CO2 is better for all of mankind. I must have missed that one in the Conservative Corporate owned media. Average joe, what IS the temperature at the Earth's core? It only took 20 posts before someone actually knowledgeable responded! Thank You Larry J
LarryJ
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
So far, this discussion is a bunch of largely non-scientists (correct me if I am wrong) giving their opinions about a scientific question (is the earth warming, and is human activity the cause) based on their politics or their world-view, but not on facts. To lay my cards on the table, I am a scientist, but not a climate expert. The science is unequivocal. Statistics = facts. Statistics = actual temperature recordings. The top scientists assembled by WHO to pull together data, reached the conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." These conclusions are supported by loads of ancillary observations--melting of glaciers, melting of Arctic ice sheet, early spring & later fall activities of plants and animals . . . . A survey indicates that over 97% of scientists agree with these conclusions. It is very hard to find a legitimate scientist (not a pseudo-scientist funded by energy industry) who disagrees. SO, we can bury our heads in the sand, or we can start doing something about it. The latter course would include not only public policy but also wise decisions by business, where to invest and where not to invest resources.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
Yep, 97% of pseudo-scientists funded by alarmist agencies like the UN and the federal government agree. This argument has long since become a political one, which is too bad because it's a very important question that we need to study honestly. The science is not settled by any means. Yes, we are in a warming trend. We have a lot of data that supports this. But we do not know if the trend is human-caused, or part of where we are on a natural cycle.
Z-man
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.
LarryJ, spoken like a true watermelon (green on the outside, and red on the inside). I real scientist would understand that climate is influenced by a variety of factors, only a small one being atmospheric CO2, of which less than 5% is manmade. As greenhouse gases go, water vapor is much more prevalent. As for statistical evidence, even Dr. Mann, whose now discredited "hockey stick" model admits that there is no statistical evidence of warming over the last 15 years.
Mike
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.
Would a legitimate scientist only be employed by a university? Would a legitimate scientist skew data to make their theory work and then email their colleagues to leave a paper/email trail behind? Do legitimate scientists have an economic incentive to prove that the earth is warming and then when that isn't quite true call it climate change, which encompasses any possible weather scenario that happens? How does a legitmate scientist explain the 1930's to us un-informed pin heads? The weather changes dramatically every 30 years or so as compared to the previous 30 year period, how would a legitimate scientist explain that? Public policy means tax increases, fees, and regulations that will line the pockets of "legitimate" scientists and insider politicians. Now if you want to talk about pollution and it's effects on the earth, lets talk about China................
outdoor6709
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 3:41 p.m.
Yes it is hot, howver 1988 was hotter in this area and dryer. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphre, currently about 348 parts per million. Up from 250 ppm. If you take 3 pieces of 8.5 X 11 pieces of paper, you can put about 1,000,000 1/64 X 1/64 (about 5 human hairs bundled) on them. If you color in 250 of those squares you hav amount of CO2 in 1900. Add another 98 dots to rprsnd today's levl of CO2. Please explain how this increase could plossible block anything. Please say hi to Al Gore and the Millions he has made from selling fixes to global warming fears. Maybe we should put a 100% tax on money made from swindles.
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
Nice scientific point. Here's another 5th grade-level analogy: Let's say you eat 2.5 pounds of food per day and you stay at a healthy weight. Suddenly you start eating an average of 3.48 pounds of food per day. What do you think is going to happen to you?
Townie
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
Nice 5th grade science. We're discussing college PhD science here.
Turd Ferguson
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
I got the book as a gift. Glad I didn't have to pay for it. Literally half of the book is Highs and Lows and other records that can easily be looked up... However, the first half is good for all us weather nerds.
4Reason
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
joe.blow. None of what you said is true. Do you just make stuff up? Do some real science and then get back to us.
Steve Pepple
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
A word in the headline has been corrected. Thank you to the reader who pointed out the error.
John B.
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
I see the usual level of drivel is present in the peanut gallery today.
xmo
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
So does the Ann Arbor ART Fair cause Global Warming or does Global Warming cause the Ann Arbor ART Fair? The ART Fair always seems to be held during the HOTTEST days of the summer! Perhaps if we didn't have the Art Fair we would have such hot days?
Gordon
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
It's too hot there is too much change. and too many children in Washington.
joe.blow
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
Also of note, a true scientist does not "PROVE" something. A scientist will give you a confidence interval for the likelihood of an event being more likely to occur due to a circumstance than random chance alone. So, if global warming existed (and no credible source has said it does), they would say, "There is a 95% chance that global warming is from human activity than from random chance i.e. natural cycles." Given the age of human has only lasted .00000000000000000001% of earths history, I'm assuming there is insufficient data to prove anything at this point.
Enso
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
Wow, just wow, Blow. It is truly amazing someone can speak with such confidence and be so wrong.
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.
@Mike: "By the way - I don't know anyone who says that smoking is good for you." Oooh, I do! My father says Smoking can be good for you, using the logic that regularly exposing your lungs to average amounts of smoke makes them strong and resistant to "toxins", much like exposing your muscles to hard work makes them stronger, and exposing your skin to sunlight all day makes it resistant to skin cancer. He learned this listening to Rush Limbaugh. Would you like a source?
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
Thanks for the reference Mike! I'll spend my next month reading a conservative radio talk show host's web site, instead of actually reading peer-reviewed scientific journals. That will surely enlighten me on the issue.
Mike
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
@johnnya2 - Your statement that every credible scientist shows that climate change exists shows you haven't delved very deep into the issue. I suggest you google "Frank Beckmann climate change" and take a month or so to read his website which is compiled of many scientists and experts. Heating your house could kill you too but what does that prove. CO2 is produced every time you breathe and trees and plants create oxygen from it and need it. Without CO2 there would be not planet, plants, or people. When people throw words around like EVERY, ALL, STUPID, etc I have to question if they really keep an open mind and do their research. Just my humble opinion........ By the way - I don't know anyone who says that smoking is good for you.
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.
EVERY credible scientific study doe show that climate change exists. If you really don't think man made, I suggest you close your garage door, and run your car. If you think that is GOOD for humans, than talk to me after you have been in there for a couple of hours. If any rational person thinks spewing pollution into the air is a good thing and helps the environment or the climate, then they are quite frankly stupid. There are some who will say that smoking tobacco does no harm either, because they knew a dude who smoked for 50 years and didn't get lung cancer, or they knew a guy who never smoked a day in his life and got it. Science is based on probability. The SCIENCE of climate change is clear. <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics" rel='nofollow'>http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics</a>
Silly Sally
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Wow, Mr. Gross says that the earth has become warmer during the past 20 years, so he concludes that it is due to man-made pollution. He doesn't explain why the earth cooled after the heat wave of 1936, or why it entered a mini ice age 400 years ago. Could it be something else? THe earth has had a varied temperature for millions of years, why the conclusion that it is man-caused after looking at data from only the past 20 years. COuld it be instead caused by sun spot activity? Even if it is true that the earth is warmer, he fails to provide proof that it is caused by man and not part of a much longer natural cycle that doesn't fit in his 20 year model, or even a 100 year model.
Meme Mine
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.
A FORMER CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER SPEAKS: You know it and I know it that CO2 climate crisis was an exaggeration and a comfortable lie that you and I lived with for 25 years of needless panic. Now who is the scientific illiterate and fear mongering neocon? We allowed the living lie of CO2 because how could it be wrong to be kind to the planet? Why? Because condemning our kids to a CO2 climate crisis with such flippant and childish glee is not what responsible parents do and since all the scientists had different and unique conclusions about climate change, how could it NOT be an exaggeration? One would have to hope and want and pray and wish for this misery to have been true after 25 years of wrong predictions and ever growing evidence of criminal exaggeration fueled by political correctness on steroids. Pollution is real. Death by CO2 is not and climate change FEAR is unsustainable. Get ahead of the curve now and do as many of former believers are doing as we contact prosecutors to have the leading lab coat consultants charged along with leading news editors. Meanwhile, the UN and the entire SCIENCE world had allowed carbon trading markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL instead of the obviously needed POPULATION control. Climate Change Crisis wasn't sustainability. It was a 25 year old failed CO2 death threat to billions of children.
joe.blow
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
Right, global warming exists. Except the liberal media no longer reports on it because they can no longer report lies with a straight face, such as there are now record penguins at the pole. Arctic ice thickness has increased to record levels, and global average temperatures are down. Not to mention that most of the data that global warming was based on turned out to be a lie --- didn't here about it? Guess the honest liberals just forgot to report that one. Nothing like a liberal!
Enso
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.
Sorry Blow, You're wacky right wing media are lying to you. They have been for years. I find it funny that you believe Limbaugh must be correct about global warming and 99% of scientists all over the world are wrong. Why don't you just go ahead and deify the guy all ready. Get down on your knees in front of your drug addict, philandering god and give his $2000 shoes a kiss.
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.
Indeed, you did say "the" pole, as if the earth only has one, rather than two poles. Maybe you should be more specific next time, like scientists and the "liberal media" does, instead of just assuming people know what you're talking about. Your second statement is completely incorrect, and antarctic ice has been relatively stable for millions of years, and is *THE* main source for long-term climate data, compared with the north pole's shifting ocean-borne floating ice structures.
joe.blow
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
I said penguins live at the pole, I didn't define which one. I don't think antarctic ice is as extensively studied as arctic. Try reading next time Jake.
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
Not even sure where to start with this one, or whether it's supposed to be a *really* good satire comment. Penguins do not live in the Arctic circle, but rather in Antarctica (you know, the South Pole).
Basic Bob
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.
The Republicans, Chinese government, and Arab royalty have conspired to ruin our paradise. I've seen it on my 92 inch TV and iPad 5. Things will return to normal once Asia stops reproducing and returns to the stone age.
McGiver
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 11:34 a.m.
At least in 1936 they weren't blaming Bush for it.
jns131
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
They blamed FDR.
average joe
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 11:32 a.m.
"The reason that scientists now are getting more confident that we're seeing this warming is in a number of statistical things." I'm no scientist, but my common sense tells me that shouldn't this theory of climate change be ALL about stats, & only about stats? Mr. Gross also uses stats going back only 21 years. There's research for you. I don't believe in this theory for the simple reason that the 'recorded' temperatures represent only a small percentage of the earth's existance. We do not know with certainty what the earth's temperature patterns were 1000, 2000, etc. years ago, do we?. But we do know that Mr. Gore thinks the center of the earth is 1 to 2 million degrees.....
Enso
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
oops, giving average joe's a bad name.
Jake C
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
"We do not know with certainty what the earth's temperature patterns were 1000, 2000, etc. years ago, do we?" We actually do know the earth's temperate patterns for the last several million years, with a pretty high degree of certainty. Thanks to science, and not just making stuff up.
Chip Reed
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 11:01 a.m.
So, since we've determined that fireworks and parades aren't a Republican plot, is it time for the Contributor to accept that the "energizing of our climate" is not a Democratic plot?