OMG, on Tuesday the Fargo-Moorhead area was the most humid place on the planet!

[Odin2005]

Dew point of 88F!!! :wow:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/125847178.html

No climate change my ass!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That just isn't right.

[Evasporque]

94. Margo-Forehead....nt

[rug]

2. I hope there are no elevators in Fargo.

[uppityperson]

4. Do you mean elevators that go up into buildings or elevators that hold grain?

There are the first in town and the second outside F/M. Why?

[rug]

9. Elevators filled with humid humans.

[uppityperson]

10. You got me curious. Far from the days of the Black Building being the tallest building, now there is

from wiki
The tallest buildings in Fargo are the:<18>
1: Radisson Hotel (Height: 206 ft 8 in; 63 m, built 1985, 18 floors)
2: Lashkowitz High Rise (Height: 203 ft 4 in; 62 m, built 1970, 22 floors)

Dang, I forgot the high rise for the elderly.

[rug]

12. Heh, I live in a small town. Only two elevators.

The tallest goes from the basement of the county administration building to the second floor. Whenever I get on I say, "Three, please." i get many dirty looks.

[unapatriciated]

62. Sounds like where I used to live.

Mammoth Lakes, California, but our county and city offices did have a third flour.

[uppityperson]

3. So glad to not be there any more. Wait 5 months. Whew.

[Odin2005]

6. LOL, I live in Moorhead. This heat wave has been truly insane.

[stevedeshazer]

5. And here in the Pacific Northwet, it's raining and 65-70 F.

Every damn day.

Something ain't right here, no doubt.

[uppityperson]

7. I am happy to see another Pacific Northwet person

We had sun this afternoon here in the NW of the NW. Makes a nice break. I keep saying at least I don't have to water the garden but dang not much but weeds be growing

[stevedeshazer]

11. I was in Astoria today, a rare dry one.

66 and partly cloudy.

I'm a truck driver. My route is mostly in southwet Washington and northwet Oregon.

:)

I've lived here all my life and I can't remember a weather year even close to this one.

At least we won't get skin cancer, but I'd better stock up on Vitamin D.

[surforegon]

26. Whats odd is down here on the Southern Coast...

We have had a nice summer, a real one. Very little wind and above average temps. Some rain here and there but our gardens are producing. Yesterday was the first day of our usual hard north winds but it still hit 71. Last year, we tilled everything in the garden under in late July, nothing fruited for us, this year? Corn!

[customerserviceguy]

17. Yes, my mother in the Portland area

was lording it over me about what a pleasant autumn she and Pop are having. They've only had to turn on the A/C once this year, and if it weren't for Pop's declining health, they wouldn't have even done it then.

[provis99]

8. good lord. And Fargo is dry prairie.

my brother in Winnipeg says it's foggy all the time there, its so humid. And Winnipeg is bald prairie, too.

[u4ic]

15. Winnipeg is near Lake Winnipeg, though, and that's a huge one

a couple of massive lakes in central Manitoba, and lots of smaller ones all over the province. Humidity is common there.

[Zebedeo]

13. lol

Again?? Again, a temporary local weather event is used as evidence for or against the theory of "global climate change"? This is getting embarrassing. When it's cold this winter, will you view that as evidence against global climate change? Or is there no weather event that would count as evidence against global climate change?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. 20 states wide of 100+ index.. you call that local?!

fail

[Zebedeo]

19. Yup

It is local when you are talking about the global climate or "global warming" as it used to be called before that became too laughable.

[Zebedeo]

20. It is late July, you know.

Kinda normal to be hot in late July in the Midwest and East Coast areas of the U.S.

In January, it will be cold again. Bet on it.

[Odin2005]

21. A dew point of 88F is NOT NORMAL.

[EOTE]

28. Wow, I've heard a lot of ignorant things from climate change deniers.

But that might be near the top of the heap. You do know that "global warming" is called "global warming" because the overall trend is that the globe is warming, IE getting hotter? Perhaps the change to "global climate change" is to appeal to people like you who step out side in January and say "Well gosh! If there's global warming, why's it so darn cold outside?" Science contains a lot of nuance. Some people don't get nuance.

[snooper2]

34. Did Noah have woodpeckers on the ark? If he did, where did he keep them?

[KamaAina]

69. Oh SNAP!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

35. kinda normal for it to be hot in the PNW in July too, except it's the coldest, wettest spring

on record for the entire west coast. while the east steam broils. the historic flooding in Canada. that's just on this continent.

Now, here comes a big 'sciency' word... don't be scared.. ready?

AGGREGATE
ag·gre·gate
Noun: A whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements.
Adjective: Formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or items; total: "the aggregate amount of grants made"

As in "The aggregate amount of local weather anomalies leads us to logically conclude that Global Warming is now manifesting itself as Global Climate Change."

[Zebedeo]

39. Please specify what local weather events would constitute

evidence against Global Warming.

Or admit that it is non-falsifiable and therefore nonscientific.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. I don't have to. You are the denier, everyone else agrees with the reality.

none are so blind as the man who will not see.

[Zebedeo]

92. argumentum ad populum

another fallacy. Try again.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

93. Ignorantio Elenchi

SCIENTISTS Agree

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

and
Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
and
Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

and, just for fun...
The Truth About Denial
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

[Zebedeo]

95. Scientists once agreed

that the human body was composed of four kinds of fluid: phlegm, blood, choler or yellow bile, and melancholy or black bile. Physical and mental characteristics were explained by different proportions of humours in individuals.

The fact that most scientists agree on a theory does not by any means prove that it is correct.

And BTW, it's "ignoratio," not "ignorantio." Just for future reference. :)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

98. I see you had to go back to the Dark Ages to come up with a response

and no, I meant Ignorantio

ignorantio
ignorantionis, ignorantio
noun
feminine

ignorance
lack of knowledge
absence of data on which to make judgment

Declension: 3rd
Age: Medieval (11th-15th centuries)
Subject: All or none
Region: All or none
Frequency: Common (top 10,000 words)
Source: L.F.Stelten, Dictionary of Eccles. Latin, 1995 (Ecc)

[Zebedeo]

100. No, I didn't have to go back that far

How about Spontaneous generation? It was all the rage more recently than the Dark Ages.

Or how about the Martian Canals, Fleishman/Pons cold fusion, or the static universe? How about the theory that the expansion of the universe is slowing down, and will eventually end in contraction and a Big Crunch? Turns out that the expansion is accellerating, not decellerating. Gee, I only had to go back to 1998 for that one. Or do you classify 1998 as the "Dark Ages"?

I could go on. The point is that the fact that a "majority of scientists" think some theory is true is not proof that it is true. Could be true; could be false.


And it's Ignoratio elenchi

[Viva_La_Revolution]

102. all of which were tested and proven wrong by science

just as MODERN science now shows us that the climate is changing drastically and rapidly.
Our entire planet is dying off right in front of us and your god will be returning to smite you all to hell for not obeying his law to protect and steward the earth. Lev. 25:23-24




and for fuck's sake, Latin is a whole fricking language that I can use to say exactly what I mean. And I did.

[Zebedeo]

103. Don't forget the context in which this came up

You said in post #93 that a majority of scientists believe in GW. I pointed out in post #95 that the fact that a majority of scientists believe in a theory does not mean that it is true. I gave an example of a theory that was once accepted by a majority of scientists, that proved to be bullshit.

You then said that I "had to" reach back to the Dark Ages to find such an example. I then responded with a slew of more recent examples, including one as recent as 1998.

Now you are saying that with respect to each of these examples in which a majority of scientists believed in a false theory, the false theory was "proven wrong by science." No kidding! That was my point in the first place! That GW could be wrong and that the fact that a majority of scientists currently believe in it is not proof that it is true. So your point that these fallacious scientific theories were eventually proved false by science does not in any way refute my point. In fact it is my point.

[Odin2005]

16. Wow, I didn't know the resident Creationist is a Denier, too!

:banghead:

[Zebedeo]

18. Haha

Let's play "Bash the Christian!" Please go ahead and specify the weather that would falsify the theory of global climate change. Or admit that it is not falsifiable.

[EOTE]

30. There's nothing wrong with being a Christian.

There is something wrong with being completely ignorant of science. Most Christians I know of believe in science. If you don't, you're not being bashed for being a Christian, you're being bashed for being ignorant.

[Zebedeo]

41. Since you are so knowledgeable in science,

it is surprising that you are not familiar with the concept of variability. The weather is not always average.

[EOTE]

48. You really have no idea of which you speak.

I'm quite familiar with variability, I assume you're specifically speaking of climate variability? As it is, it seems like you're throwing it out there because you believe it bolsters your opinion. The reason GLOBAL climate change is called GLOBAL is because it effects the entire earth. As for "the weather is not always average", well, that means absolutely fucking nothing. Global warming is about a trend in temperatures. Global warming isn't even up for discussion. There is no doubt that the earth is trending warmer, that's what global warming is. Unless you're incapable of reading a very simple graph, it's not up for discussion. Now, if you're trying to say that global warming isn't man-made, that's a whole other discussion. You could at least put up an argument regarding that one, although it would be an extremely naive and ignorant one.

[Zebedeo]

56. My point is that the theory of "global climate change"

is neither proved nor disproved by local, temporary weather events such as the current hot temperatures in the Eastern and Midwestern United States. It is you and your ilk (and the OP to which I responded) who are promoting such nonsense.

As for graphs, are you referring to the Hockey Stick?

There will always be extreme weather somewhere on the globe. There will always be average or mild weather somewhere. You just notice the "abnormal" weather more than the "normal" weather, so it reinforces your prejudice toward the theory to which you have become attached. You have what is known as confirmation bias.

[EOTE]

61. Global warming is not a theory. It's proven. Do you understand that?

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.<2><3> This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.<4><5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Can we at least get this through your head before we continue? You are aware this isn't just some scientific hunch, it's a proven fact. Are you aware of this? If you'd at least concede this, we could get somewhere.

[Zebedeo]

68. And no dissent from the orthodox view is permitted, right?

Science is supposed to be an open and flexible search for the truth. In the case of Global Warming, it has become a matter of Holy Writ as to which questioning is treated as heresy, with the heretics suffering serious adverse consequences imposed by the clergy of the cult. It is positively Orwellian.

[EOTE]

70. So once again I'll ask you.

Has the earth been getting warmer over the past 100 years? Questioning orthodoxy is always permitted, but denying facts is always shunned upon. Simply because you don't understand science does not make the work of the world's scientists any less accurate. You telling me that if you drop an apple enough times, eventually it will fall upward does not negate gravity. Global warming has had many, many years to be peer reviewed. Occasionally, some nutjobs will try to disprove MAN MADE global warming, but they're always eviscerated by their peers. However, not even nutjobs will attempt to discredit global warming because it's simply a fact. It's literally akin to trying to deny gravity. It's insane. And very stupid.

[LanternWaste]

72. Not heresy so much as simply lack of knowledge...

"questioning is treated as heresy..."

Not heresy so much as simply lack of knowledge... :shrug:

Additionally, it appears you've conflated "Orwellian" with "people who disagree with me" of which, there is a relevant difference between the two.

[EOTE]

73. And an aside.

I think that you comparing science to a cult is pretty damned precious.

[thereismore]

87. Indeed. nt

[EOTE]

79. Anything?

I'm still waiting for any bit of evidence which contradicts the fact that the Earth's temps have been steadily increasing this past century. I'm sure you'll have this any minute now.

[Zebedeo]

81. Any rise is a gradual, natural correction from the Little Ice Age, and

any "greenhouse" effect is caused almost entirely by water vapor, including natural evaporation from oceans, seas, lakes, rivers and streams.

In the 1970's, you were probably sounding the alarm about global cooling.

The fact is that climate does change naturally over the years. Wisconsin was once covered by glaciers. Previously it was tropical. Now it is temperate. The belief that mankind is responsible for these changes is pure hubris.

[EOTE]

88. Wow, now you've moved to deflection. And way to move the goalposts there.

So now you've gone from saying that the earth isn't getting warmer, to saying "Well, maybe it's getting warmer, but it's just because of water vapor". Once again, in the face of all scientific evidence. And by the way, in the 70s, I wasn't alive, so nice try. And, no shit, of course climate changes naturally, that's obviously not what I'm referring to. And what you describe above is called a positive feedback loop. If water evaporation from oceans contributed in any significant way to global warming, water levels would be going down very quickly. They're not. You clearly don't understand this issue at all and it's scary how quickly you swallow propaganda from oil companies as gospel.

I would say you need an intense scientific education, but at this point I see that's beyond impossible. So I'm going to ask you one last time, to see if you're capable of absorbing any information and recognizing definitive truths. Has the earth been getting warmer over the past 100 years? Are you capable of recognizing objective truth? This is not anything faith based here, it's objective fact.

[Zebedeo]

96. Oh, you're a young person.

That explains a lot. Well, by the time you are my age, you will probably have gone through more of these hysterical scares. I have lived through the overpopulation scare, the DDT scare, the global cooling scare, the nuclear war scare, the nuclear plant meltdown scare (think "China Syndrome"), the aerosol chlorofluorocarbon scare, the global warming scare and now the "Global Climate Change" scare. There will be many more throughout your life, and as you see them fail to materialize and then fade into history, you will become more skeptical and less prone to fall for the scare tactics.

And to answer your question: Depending on what years you use as starting point and ending point, some parts of the Earth have had slightly warmer average temperatures over the last 100 years, and some parts have had slightly cooler temperatures over that same period. For example, some ice in Antarctica is melting, but in other parts of Antarctica, the ice is building up even faster than the melting. In any event, the effects of mankind's activity on the average global temperature is negligible. If you really wanted to cool the Earth's temperature, you would be proposing releasing gases into the atmosphere that would filter the sunlight, such as sulfur dioxide. Of course, that would be folly, but then again, so is GW.

[EOTE]

97. Once again, you're not a scientist.

And apparently, your age has only served to solidify your ignorance and naivete. Let me explain a few things, the "chloroflourocarbon scare" was not a "scare" at all. That's a good reason as to why they are hardly being used anymore. Or is that just a big brouhaha by the liberal media? And I'm guessing you think that nuclear power is all just fine and dandy, right? I'm sure the people of Japan would agree with you. To be fair, I support nuclear power, with far greater regulations than are used now. but to think that the dangers of nuclear power is just media hysteria is absolutely insane. And once again, "global warming" and "global climate change" are the same thing and both are irrefutable fact. The only reason the term has changed is because of incredibly ignorant people like you who'll step outside on a January day and say "Geez, if global warming is so real, how come it's so durn cold outside?"

And no, you haven't answered my question at all, either you're too uninformed to, or you just like to provide ridiculous wiggle room. I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT SOME PARTS OF THE EARTH. I'm talking about aggregate temperature, do you understand that? And it's scientifically proven to have risen by about 1.33 degrees F during this time period. Now, I'm sure you'll look at a figure like that and say "Hey, what's the big deal." Of course, that's because you have no idea that a few degrees aggregate change in temperature is the difference between beachfront property and a watery death. I'm sorry I need to bring this up, but it's quite clear that you're completely incapable of accepting objective truth. This is not at all surprising from someone who could look at millions of years of evidence, millions of man-hours of research which prove something like evolution and then turn around and say "Nah, god did it." You are wrong on this. If there's one thing you are very good at, it's being wrong.

[Zebedeo]

99. Argumentum ad hominem

"This is not at all surprising from someone who could look at millions of years of evidence, millions of man-hours of research which prove something like evolution and then turn around and say 'Nah, god did it.'"

You are engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You attack my religious beliefs and hope thereby to discredit my stated position on global warming. It is a truly revealing example of religious bias on your part, as well as being a pathetically poor argument.

Try to keep your religious bigotry in check and just address the issue at hand.

[EOTE]

101. Not your religious beliefs, your scientific beliefs.

Which are thoroughly ludicrous. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but don't expect us to ignore mountains of scientific evidence to appease you. I notice that you also, like every other one of your posts in this discussion, failed to address every other one of my points.

Let's keep your scientific bigotry at hand. I, like others here, have a respect for science and facts. Don't persecute me because I believe in science rather than religion. Bigot.

[Zebedeo]

104. You are locked in the orthodoxy of your position and your eyes

and mind are closed to any possibility of it being wrong. Temperature and weather are highly variable. Depending on what places on the planet you measure, and what methods you use, and what methodological biases infect your measurements, you can draw the conclusion that the "average" temperature of the Earth has increased or decreased or stayed the same. In the 1970s, the general consensus was that it was decreasing. Now the general consensus is that it has increased. Maybe it decreased for 40 years between the 1930s and the 1970s and then it increased from the 1970s until now. But if that is true, it is not cause for alarm or radical action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is consistent with the general variability of temperatures. How do you reconcile your belief that human activity is responsible for GW with the fact that average global temperatures declined for the decades leading up to the 1970s. Was there not the same kind of human activity during those 40 years that there was before and since that period? Or is there some alternative explanation? Having your mind closed to such possibilities because of blind allegiance to an orthodoxy makes it impossible for you to even address such questions. You fancy yourself a scientist, but in fact you are a closed-minded adherent to a cult which allows no heretical questioning of the holy writ of GW.

[EOTE]

89. And by the way, if you'd like to know how man's involvement works in conjunction with water vapor...

to further anthropogenic global warming, you can read this here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/

But then again, this is a moot point, right? As global temperatures aren't rising, right? Is it time to move those goalposts again?

[uppityperson]

83. Does this work?

Science is supposed to be an open and flexible search for the truth. In the case of Gravity, it has become a matter of Holy Writ as to which questioning is treated as heresy, with the heretics suffering serious adverse consequences imposed by the clergy of the cult. It is positively Orwellian.

[thereismore]

33. Please go ahead and specify what would falsify your belief in God.

I know it's a tangent, but think hard and tell me: what would it have to be to convince you there is no God.

[Zebedeo]

44. attempted threadjack

and ad hominem fallacy. Please stick to the topic of the OP. Address the issue under discussion, rather than attempt to discredit my position based on your prejudice against my religion.

[EOTE]

47. No one is trying to discredit your position based upon your religion.

They're attempting to discredit your position due to your absolute disdain for science.

[thereismore]

71. You are insinuating that climate change cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.

That is nonsense. On the other hand, I AM insinuating that your religion can never be proven wrong to you, because you choose to believe in spite of any facts. Yet you accuse others of using the same faith-based method to science. That is just moranic. You correctly felt that I was mocking you for it. So next time stop assuming that science is a belief system based on faith. OK?

[EOTE]

74. GMTA

See my post 73. I'm sure the irony is lost on this particular poster.

[Zebedeo]

77. No

I am saying that GW can be proved or disproved. But not if the cultists continue to insist that no evidence counts as evidence against GW. GW cultists claim that any weather event counts as evidence for GW, and they are unable to specify a weather event that would count as evidence against it.

The attack on my religion is classic ad hominem, and it is sad.

[EOTE]

80. You can't disprove something that's a fact.

here's what would disprove global warming, a prolonged period of sustained temperatures or cooling. Easy enough, right? But global warming is not simply a suggestion. It's as real as gravity. Would you say that gravity can't be disproved, so isn't a science?

[meow mix]

29. shocked, shocked i say...

:rofl:

[trotsky]

58. No surprise here. n/t

[EOTE]

27. The average temp of the earth is increasing.

You are seeing that reflected by incredibly hot summers. Yes, Winters are getting colder as well (again, related to climate change), but the overall temperature is creeping upward. This is not a "temporary local weather event", this is systemic.

[Zebedeo]

42. So a mild Summer

or a mild Winter would be evidence against "Global Climate Change"?

[EOTE]

46. No, a lack of steadily increasing world-wide temperatures would be.

And by the way, when was the last time you noticed a mild winter or mild summer? They just haven't been there. For fuck's sake, I know you think you've got things figured out, but people far, far smarter than you have put thousands of man-years of work into this. But you just keep on believing that everything is hunky-dory. The Dunning-Kruger effect is very strong with you.

[Zebedeo]

53. You said that "incredibly hot summers"

and cold winters were evidence in favor of the theory of global climate change. So, it would stand to reason that the opposites of those - mild summers and mild winters - would be evidence AGAINST the theory. But no, it turns out that no weather event counts as evidence against it. Everything is evidence for it. That means that it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific.

And yes, there have been mild summers and winters. Somewhere in the world it is always mild. Somewhere else in the world it is always extreme. Weather is a highly variable phenomenon.

[EOTE]

54. Wow, you are really slow to get things, aren't you?

Do you have any idea what a trend is? We are talking about decades worth of data and research in terms of near term and CENTURIES of data overall. This is DATA and it's undeniable. That's like saying that information pertaining to world population data can't be scientific because it can't be falsified. You really need to get the slightest grasp as to what science is before you start talking about it. Once again, you're the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[EOTE]

55. Let me ask you a few questions. I'm interested in seeing any answers you provide.

#1) Do you believe that the overall trending of the Earth's temperatures has been consistently trending upward over the past 100 years?

#2) Do you believe that man has had anything to do with that upward trend?

Take your time.

[Zebedeo]

60. Answers

1. No. Also irrelevant, as 100 years is the blink of an eye and variability over that period is to be expected.

2. Not applicable, since the answer to No. 1 was no.

[EOTE]

63. Nice non answer there. I'll ask again.

#1) I wasn't asking for the relevance of such a figure, but you provided an answer anyway. So you don't believe that global temperature has been increasing over the past 100 years.

This little bit of information is not up for debate. It is as evident as grass being green. That you can continue to deny an absolute scientific fact shows you how insanely ignorant (to be kind) you are on this subject. Try dealing with reality and maybe get back to me. It's not that you're religious that people pick on your views, it's your incredible ignorance.

[EOTE]

65. Here's a little graph for your education.

Let me guess, this graph was manipulated by that big ol' liberal media, right? Or perhaps satan put this disinformation out here to fool the secular masses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif

Somehow you think this graph is bullshit, right?

[uppityperson]

84. the overall trending of the Earth's temperatures hasn't been consistently trending upward over past?

seriously? Do you believe in gravity or that the earth sucks us down?

[Ikonoklast]

49. You cannot extrapolate a trend from one data point.

You arguments are ludicrous.

Must be ""Faith Based".

[Zebedeo]

51. The OP is such an extrapolation,

which makes your argument ludicrous.

[EOTE]

52. So you believe in global warming, but just think the OP is a poor example of it?

It's anecdotal to be sure, but if you look at the totality of the evidence and still deny it, you're none too bright.

[Zebedeo]

64. More personal insults?

Boring. So extrapolation from single data points (like mild weather) to refute a theory of global climate change is clearly invalid, but extrapolation from single data points (like extreme weather) to support a theory of global climate change is perfectly valid, because the data points count as "anecdotal" evidence. Got it. ROFLMAO.

[EOTE]

66. You're avoiding anything substantial once again.

You just said that you don't believe the earth has been getting warmer over the past 100 years. This is a scientific fact. Please show some scientific data which does NOT show that the earth has been warming over the past 100 years. I'll be waiting...

[Zebedeo]

75. Here you go. Happy reading.

global warming

[EOTE]

76. The very link you provide shows that overall earth temps have been rising the past 100 years.

Did you even read this? Surely you can't miss something so simple.

[EOTE]

67. And by the way, I did not insult anyone.

I simply said that if you look at the totality of the evidence and still deny global warming, you're a certified moron. But certainly you wouldn't deny a scientific fact, would you?

[Odin2005]

86. Fargo's weather has been very odd for almost 5 years now.

That ain't no "single data point".

[Odin2005]

85. Don't expect logic from Creationists.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. What is getting embarrassing is all you global climate change deniers. Way past embarrassing...

for all of you. :dunce:

[Zebedeo]

45. "The ice age is coming"

Strummer/Jones - The Clash, "London Calling" 1979.

[EOTE]

50. Wow, that's some brilliant reasoning there. Let me see if I can come up with a retort.

"Short people got no reason to live" - Randy Newman.

[Honeycombe8]

22. That doesn't sound correct. More humid than the Amazon jungle? Anyway, humidity...

is good for the skin. It'll keep you looking young & purty!

[Greybnk48]

32. Minneapolis had the same dew point as the Amazon on

tues. I believe. Unreal.

[trotsky]

57. It was correct, as shocking as it sounds.

The ground is very wet up here on the northern plains with all the rain we've gotten, couple that with a giant hot air mass to heat the ground and evaporate all that water... ta da, 80+ degree dew points. Much better here today.

[Withywindle]

23. Right up there with Chicago right now.

That's just nasty. And I've been in Bangkok in April!

[MineralMan]

24. It was only a little lower down here in the Twin Cities.

I live in a 1950s house, and our big picture window in the living room has a second, separate pane of glass on the outside. Not sealed perfectly. We've had condensation on the inside of the main glass for four days. Not a thing to do about it, either.

[cali]

25. aaargh. can we not do what the climate change deniers do? Weather snapshots are

not indicators of climate change.

[meow mix]

31. so there will be no noticeable changes or local events during the process.

how does that make any sense? please

[EOTE]

37. This is not a snapshot.

This extremely hot summer will most likely lead to one of the highest average annual temperatures the world has ever seen.

[trotsky]

59. An extremely hot summer that is following an extremely wet spring here on the northern plains.

One hot spell is weather. Two extreme seasons next to each other is a significant data point.

[Ikonoklast]

91. Average temp of the Gulf of Mexico is climbing.

Water staying warmer through the winter, more evaporation being picked up by prevailing winds in the spring, more rainfall throughout the Midwest.

Last three years here in Ohio have had the wettest springs recorded.


Following the model for global warming trends exactly.

[hifiguy]

36. Yikes!

Down here in the Twin Cities the heat index was 120+ on Tuesday, but I think you did have the higher humidity. Cripes, that's an Amazon jungle number.

[kentauros]

38. Cool!

My kind of weather! :hi:

[geardaddy]

43. Yeah, I heard that.

It's crazy.

It was definitely steamy down here in MPLS, too.

[kdmorris]

78. never mind

self delete

[vanbean]

90. I have a friend who lives very close to Lake Huron. She said the

humidity on Tuesday was 112%. How can that be? She said she couldn't see the lake which is less than a 100 yards from her house, because the air was so thick with water. But how can it be 112%? When I asked her that she said she didn't know either but that is what they said on the local news.