National Geographic News
The Colorado River makes a  horseshoe bend around a butte in Grand Canyon National Park.

The Colorado River makes a horseshoe bend around a butte in Grand Canyon National Park. Drier conditions in the canyon may result in loss of natural springs that sustain wildlife.


Brian Clark Howard

National Geographic

Published July 3, 2014

Many national parks in the United States have already experienced "extreme" climate change over the past few decades, and the trend is likely to accelerate unless bold steps are taken, government scientists warn in a new study.

Those changes are likely to disrupt visitor experiences and damage natural and cultural resources.

"This report shows that climate change continues to be the most far-reaching and consequential challenge ever faced by our national parks," National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said in a statement.

For the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One Wednesday, National Park Service scientists studied weather records from 289 U.S. parks for the years 1901 to 2012. They then compared the historical trends for that period with the trends over the past few decades.

The results show that "many of our parks have been changing in extreme and dramatic ways over the past 10 to 30 years," says study lead author Bill Monahan, a parks service scientist based in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The study authors wrote that "parks are overwhelmingly at the extreme warm end of historical temperature distributions" for several key variables, including annual mean temperature, minimum temperature of the coldest month, and mean temperature of the warmest quarter.

Eighty-one percent of the parks studied have seen such extreme heat in the past few decades, Monahan says. Notable examples include Grand Canyon in Arizona, Sequoia and King's Canyon in California, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, and Appomattox Court House National Historical Park in Virginia.

Precipitation has been more variable across the parks over the past 112 years, although Monahan notes that 27 percent of the parks have seen extreme drought in recent decades. Mojave National Preserve in California and Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada and Arizona have been unusually dry, while Cape Lookout National Seashore in North Carolina and Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have been extremely wet.

Looking into the near future, the study suggests that "everything in the parks is affected by climate change, from glaciers melting at Glacier National Park to the lack of tree propagation at Joshua Tree National Park," says Stephanie Kodish, the clean air program director for the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association. (See "10 Most Visited National Parks.")

Parks as Climate Laboratories?

The new study "saw a strong correspondence to the results that came out in [the Obama administration's May 2014] National Climate Assessment," says Monahan. But the new study provides more granular detail of local conditions within parks than that broader report.

"What's important for us is that parks experience climate change at the local level, so managers need climate data at that scale so they can factor it into their plans," he says.

Kodish says the parks data is especially useful because it is based on a "long, unbroken chain of information." That's because parks officials have kept detailed records on what's happening on their lands for more than a century.

Kodish calls the study "another piece of information that tells the story of what things look like and how important it is to manage and mitigate climate change."

Visitor Impacts?

The study warns that future visitors to national parks may have to contend with hotter, drier weather (or in some cases wetter weather); loss of scenic glaciers; disruptions to vegetation and wildlife; and rising sea level.

For example, the report warns that rising seas and more severe storms threaten the cultural and archaeological sites in Jamestown, Virginia. At Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, increased flooding may damage historic bridges, locks, and monuments.

In the Grand Canyon, drier conditions may result in loss of natural springs that sustain wildlife.

"With an eye on the approaching National Park Service centennial in 2016, the report highlights the need to provide up-to-date scientific information to park and neighboring land managers, and for sufficient climate science to be disseminated to the general public so that parks are positioned to protect their resources for future generations," the agency said in a statement.

"The longer the delay in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate impacts, the more exacerbated the effects will be on national parks," says Kodish.

Follow Brian Clark Howard on Twitter and Google+.

Alec Sevins
Alec Sevins

Add giant wind turbines (skyscrapers by any other name) to the list of visual impacts people will see from these parks more and more. Efforts to "reduce our carbon footprint" are accelerating our landscape footprint. Almost nothing Man does is benign.

Fornik Tsai
Fornik Tsai

The living things followed greatly affected.

Gerald Wilhite
Gerald Wilhite

Dear Climate Bureaucrat or Technician, 

I guess like everyone else in the Obama Administration, you still haven't received the memo about global warming. It stopped on Planet Earth about twenty years ago. Many independent climate and environmental scientists are concerned that we're already well into a long term cooling cycle that we are ill-prepared for in all respects.  

Many of us think government climate people have taken way down a very bad trail. A lot of you knew about it and were afraid to talk or just didn't care. Either way, a lot of lives and property are probably going to be lost. 

For those government employees to whom it may apply: We need whistleblowers. You will be protected. We can use any information on past suspicious events that you have.

The Boss,

Mr. U.S. Taxpayer

Earl Gray
Earl Gray

It is interesting to watch people that don't look at the actual science comment on science.   Many are so focused on findin g "something else" rather than the obvious and now clear cause that they grasp at straws without any real investigation or rigor, and in most cases without using any real logic or methodology.  This compared to decades of rigorous data collection and examination by tens of thousands of scientists as well as automous sattelites and bouys

Climate change is not only a stark reality, it's cause is perfectly clear, and it is the millions of tons of insulating gases (,ainly CO2) that we contimnue to pump into the atmosphere.  The idea that because the (comparively) low CO2 concentration percentage (as compared to thing like nirogen that are inert) somehow puts the effect in doubt is scienfically laughable.  

Imagine how much aspirin you would need to take to get rid of a headache if that were true?  Better yet, If you really think that a low percentage of something can't have a large effect on a system, try taking (assuming you weigh 150 lbs) enough cyanide to make up only 0.00037% of your weight and see what happens....

Until then, here is a summary of the real data from the folks at NASA...  along with the clear correlation and scientific connection between climate change and CO2.

Michael Busby
Michael Busby

The Ice Harvest - Cause of Global Warming?
Copyright 2014

Michael Busby

All Rights Reserved

 When scientists and others speak about global warming they always attribute the cause of the phenomena to the Industrial Age and the rise of machines resulting in humankind polluting the atmosphere, mostly with CO2. Keep in mind in current terms, we are talking about an average of 0.7 degrees F temperature increase world-wide. That minuscule rise in temperature might also be attributed to another cause - ice harvesting, or rather, the lack of ice harvesting.

Ice has long been valued as a way to cool objects, food, drinks, workspaces, and homes. It is known that in 400B.C., Persians knew how to harvest tons of ice and keep it frozen during the torrid desert summers of Arabia providing ice for royal drinks and even using it to cool palace rooms. The Persians used yakhchal (ice rooms) as large as 5,000 cubic meters with walls 6 feet thick to store huge quantities of ice for summer use. Some yakhchal were connected to malqaf (wind catchers) via qanat (slanting tunnels) in order to cool large rooms to frigid temperatures in the summer. By the time of Christ, Romans, Israelis, and many other civilizations knew how to harvest winter ice in bulk quantity and store for summer use.

As time passed, these ice harvests became more commonplace especially as cities grew in size and the economics of scale allowed the average city dweller to afford ice in their drink. The Ice Trade became big business as even city dwellers could afford to purchase at least small quantities of ice for summer usage. By the mid-18th century, virtually every household in the world had its wooden ice box which was designed to hold a block of ice - typically a ten pound block of ice - in order to chill such items as milk and other foodstuffs.

With the rise of the Industrial Revolution, the human population started it geometric rise to unheard of heights. Each of these families required their ten pound block of ice every day, seven days a week. Given that the world's population was 1,7000,000,000 in 1900, that was a lot of ice!

Let us estimate how much ice that might have been: Assume about four members per family on average for a total of 400,000,000 families. The ice consumed per day is then 4,000,000,000 pounds or 2,000,000 tons of ice. That is the amount consumed each day. If we assume a 150 day summer (mid-May through mid-September), then the total amount of ice consumed would be 300,000,000 tons of ice. But, the process was not perfect. For each pound of ice consumed in a family home, there was another pound of ice that was lost in transit and in storage. So, we can estimate that in the year 1900, 600,000,000 tons of ice melted each summer to keep family ice boxes cold enough to chill the milk and other perishables.

We can add another 100% to this amount of ice for the ice that was used to cool offices, government buildings, and other spaces. So, we have a grand total of 1.2 BILLION TONS of ice melting in offices and homes each summer.

Now, think about this. At least since 400 B.C., humans have been carving ice out of frozen bodies of water, storing that ice then letting it melt in the summer. Of course, when only one palace in Persia is doing this, there is negligible impact on the global temperature. But, when this is pretty much a universal habit of mankind which it was by 1900, then the impact to global summertime temperatures is no long negligible, but large enough to be quantifiable.

With the rise of the Industrial Age, humankind saw the advent of the refrigerator. That is, as the electrical refrigerator slowly gained in popularity, the use of ice harvesting as a means of cooling foodstuffs and living spaces became less popular. Modern refrigeration began to replace ice harvesting around 1900 with modern refrigeration pretty much completely replacing ice harvesting by the late-1960s. (I remember the old ice house and driving up to it to get blocks of ice for the ice box and for the water cans we used when working in the fields. I was very young then but the use of ice houses was still common in the mid-1960s because not everyone had a fridge.)

So, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we are melting tremendous amounts (1.2 BILLION TONS per year) of ice in the summer, essentially creating an artificial cooler summer climate, but by the end of the 1960s that practice had practically stopped and summertime temperatures began to climb to what they would have been had humans never started harvesting ice! So maybe, global warming has a more understandable cause than the human carbon footprint

You are welcome to share this, but please keep my copyright statement intact. Thank you.

John Farrell
John Farrell

As usual the data is being reported the wrong way. Exposure to long strings of hot, cold, wet, dry weather kill animals and hikers alike. What has been happening is that runs of bad luck have been getting longer. Number of consecutive days above/below life threatening levels are no respecter of calendar month.  

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

It amazes me that the most brilliant minds living today, have PROVEN and have come to the conclusion that, "Global warming" will change the world as we know it and we are witnessing the beginnings of that change today, while there still are politicians and business men, who are absolutely ignorant of the science involved, continue to deny that we are facing a crisis that will haunt us, our children, future generations and leave a legacy of Man's arrogance.

Yes, there have been several climate changes in the world over it's history, but what we are experiencing today is unprecedented and cannot be explained away as just the natural order of things.

Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 present in the atmosphere has been steadily on the rise.

Sure there are other factors involved, but may I suggest that the observation that Man has very little to do with it, are from those who have a limited, or no understanding of the proven BASIC physics involved.

A problem can not be addressed until it is recognized and ACCEPTED, a big part of the environmental issues that we are facing today.

It's not rocket science, the ever increasing CO2 in our atmosphere, mostly as a direct result of man made pollution, traps more and more heat from dissipating. The longer it goes unaddressed, (so far Band-Aids are being used to stop the bleeding of a severed limb), the more accelerated the problem will become, (as we are now witnessing) and if we, as the caretakers of our world,do not decide now that drastic measures and sacrifice are needed, we will pass the point of no return, (if not there already), and the future for our heirs looks mighty bleak indeed.

We are humans, we make mistakes ,we do not always get it right.

The World as a whole is facing an ever increasing number of crisis's, both man made and natural. It seems we, I speak of humanity, are at the crossroads of making decisions that will decide our fate and what kind of world is left for OUR future generations, if any at all.

Global Warming is just one of the issues, but a significant one because it will impact our ability to address the rest. We are at a point where we need to do something about it, instead of talking about it and pointing fingers, if there is any hope to at least mitigate the damage being done.

In the grand scope of time, we been here for what amounts to a blink of an eye. Unbelievable progress has been made in that time frame, with mistakes made along the way. Sometimes we've learned, sometimes not. We need to learn and right now,or what will, "Mankind's" legacy be? Is Humanity going to be just a, "Flash in the pan"?

There is no, "benefit" to anybody who states that there is an urgent problem and we need to do something about it, quite the contrary, sacrifice and new thinking, truly once and for all doing away with the same old, same old and working together to fix these things, if not for us for our children and theirs, is the order of the day, or there might not be any tomorrow.

The choice is very difficult, but quite simple;

Do we fight the uphill battle with ours eyes to the Summit, or do we decide its all down hill from here and the issue of Global warming is just a figment of our imagination. Look into your Son's and Daughter's eyes and open yours.

To those in denial, I suggest buying a sauna, turning the heat up to 120, and try sitting in it for several days, this is the fate we are leaving for our children's children, all for sake of driving our 400 HP car to work, what will they be saying about us?

"Hot under the collar".

Justin Smith
Justin Smith

Wow I never would have guessed this -  "everything in the parks is affected by climate change,"  boggles the mind doesn't it. 

Did you know CO2 makes up  0.039% of the Atmosphere of our planet?

Question: If the entire world was able to cut out 100% of all CO2 production would there still be climate change tomorrow, next year, next decade, next millennium?

For some reason I think there will be climate change whether were here on this planet  or not. 

Paul M.
Paul M.

News editors withhold data not the "scientists" because science has never "believed" with the same certainty that climate blamers have and only that it 'COULD" not "WILL BE" a "threat to the planet". Prove that science "believes" beyond "could be" and as much as you lazy news editors do.

Deny this;

Only science can be certain not a mob of determined "believers" and 32 more years of science's "95%" certainty was unsustainable so get up to date and stop the silly and painfully obvious exaggeration of climate change. Science is 100% certain the planet is not flat but not the worst crisis imaginable that "threatens the planet"? History will call us all neocons and witch burners for this Reefer Madness of Climate Blame.

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

*Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). And what did YOU do about it?

Deny that.

Alec Sevins
Alec Sevins

@Gerald Wilhite How about you just stop lying? Fair enough? No amount of evidence will convince your tiny-minded Creationist ilk.

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Gerald Wilhite Wrong. AGW did not stop 20 years ago, or 17 years ago, or 15 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Your mistake is that  you're thinking only about AIR temperatures. You probably don't know that 99% of the earth's surface heat is held by the oceans and only 1% is held by the air. The oceans have been absorbing all the excess heat for the last 15 years or so, and the continuing rise in sea level, is partly attributable to increases in ocean temperatures. The fact that sea level is rising shows that the oceans are warming. Of course, you didn't know that.

"Many independent climate and environmental scientists are concerned that we're already well into a long term cooling cycle"

Wrong. The vast majority of climate scientists -- roughly 97% -- endorse AGW. There are a handful of cranks who reject the majority opinion, but that's always the case with science.

"Many of us think..." 

Well, certainly you deniers think that. But most of the people who know the science, and most CEOs of large corporations, and the US military, don't have the luxury of allowing political ideology intrude into their serious deliberations. They all know that AGW is a serious threat to our future, and they are taking action to prepare. 

As far as whistleblowers go, in raising them, you reveal just how much of a conspiracy theorist you are. Maybe you'd better double the thickness of your tin hat. And be sure to check in the closet and under the bed before you go to sleep tonight. 

I'm sure glad that you AREN'T the boss!

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@Michael Busby  Certainly, "Out of the Box" thinking, (no pun intended), but the science and math just doesn't support your theory.

Firstly a .7 degree rise in temp world wide is not miniscule as you suggest. Actually, considering the volume of atmosphere and Earth surface it is quite a large rise in Temp. and enough to cause some drastic climate changes in areas of the world.

For one, the ice caps and glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, since man's existence anyway. Far more ice is melting over the same amount of time currently than when, "Ice harvesting" was the norm. So that being said, according to your theory we should be experiencing a drop in average temp, not and increase.

Your theory does not take into account the deterioration of the ozone layer, which is known to be caused by manmade influences, such as the refrigerants used 'till recently, which contained fluorocarbons, known to deteriorate the ozone layer. Then there is the CO2 which is being pumped into the atmosphere, billions of tons since the industrial revolution. This dramatically effects the planet's ability to regulate it's temperature. The deteriorated ozone allows more ultraviolet rays, "short wave" through to the atmosphere, and the CO2 allows these rays through, when these rays hit the ground it increases the heat being radiated. The big problem is the heat being radiated is "long wave radiation" which the blanket of CO2 does not allow through and traps the heat in the atmosphere and in the ground. This is why the average Temp. is increasing steadily and natural ice formations are melting at an ever increasing rate. Still, there is far more ice formation present than all the ice used during the era of, "Ice harvesting", so therefore, according to your thinking, it should be a sufficient amount of ice to keep the earth cool. Actually there is SIGNIFICANTLY more ice melting over the same given amount of time currently than at the peak of ice harvesting, so according to your observation and theory we should be getting cooler not warmer.

So without going on and on, your theory just doesn't hold up to the basic physics involved and the scientific observations that are currently available.

Throughout the World's history there have been several, "Climate changes". All until presently, have, "Natural" explanations, such as Volcanic activity or asteroid hits, all have effected the ability of the Earth to regulate it's temperature therefore changes to the atmosphere occur. The same holds true for today, the difference being the cause is manmade, science has looked, but there is no, "natural' cause that can be identified this time around. Physics totally supports the Theory, (frankly we are beyond theory on this, it is scientific fact), that the combination of the deteriorating Ozone and the manmade CO2 are the culprits. Math, for the most part, is an exact science, (with the ultra rare case, such as the square root of 1, which could be -1 or +1) and in the case of determining the current cause of, "Global warming" the Math does not lie.

The problem is known, it's time to stop speculating and time to start doing something about it.

Respectfully, J

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@John Farrell  Whole species around the world are facing extinction due to the changing environment and warming. This is not a, "string of bad luck" as you suggest. Observations of, "Global warming" are not made on a daily, weekly, or yearly basis. The average Temp has been on the rise over decades. Global warming and the changes it brings do not happen overnight, but does accelerate left unaddressed, and we are experiencing that acceleration today. For example the melting of icecaps, the more they melt, the faster they melt, just as what is going on presently.

Earl Gray
Earl Gray

@Jim Steele Climate change doesn't mean that eveything gets warmer or dryer all the time.  Only that the overall temperature of the Earths surface gets warmer.  In reality, some places get wetter, while the variations (between hot and cold, wet and dry) for others get wider....

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@Jim Steele  Overall the average Temp. in the world is on the rise, not declining. "Global warming" does not mean that the temp everywhere on earth will rise, in fact some areas will be getting colder, left unaddressed, MUCH colder.

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Jeffrey S. Actually, most businesspeople with something at stake have already begun making preparations for climate change. Insurance companies are especially concerned. Recently a collection of CEOs of big corporations signed a public appeal to politicians to get off their duffs and start doing something about climate change. Even the fossil fuel companies know that climate change is real, and are making plans for it, even while they are spending millions to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about it. We know that they hire "astroturfers" to post denier talking points on blogs like this. 

It's the political ideologues who are obstructing progress in this.

Earl Gray
Earl Gray

@Justin Smith

What does the .039% concentration have to do with anything?

Did you know that taking 0.00037% of your weight (based on weight of 150 lbs) or 0.25 grams of Cyanide will absolutely kill you?

"Question: If the entire world was able to cut out 100% of all CO2 production would there still be climate change tomorrow, next year, next decade, next millennium?"

Though nobody knows for sure, The answer is  yes to tomorrow, next year, and next decade, and likely no to the next millenium, with the following simple logic...

We have been pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for over a century, and the amount has been steadily increasing.  At the same time, we have been reducing the ability of the system to remove the CO2 we have been injecting into the atmosphere (deforestation) and the the amount of CO2 disolved in the oceans has increased, limiting the ability of these bodies to absorb more (ocean acidifcation).  If we stopped pouring CO2 into the atmosphere today, it  would likely take many decades for the system to reach the equilibrium that it was at before we introduced these changes, and it could take more than the century it took to effect the change, to reverse it completely, but the effects on each extreme (on both ends) are muted.

In my opinion, the question is akin to asking oneself how long it will take to riod oneself of a poison if you stopped right now, with the implication that because it will take time, and you will get sicker before you get better, that you shouldn't stop taking the poison.  The logical answer however is to stop as soon as you can, and hope it is soon enough that you don't die before yopur "system" can begoin to move toward being normal.

The technical remedy is no different in this case, though implementation is much trickier, since not only does much of  the world human population rely on many kinds of fossil fuels to exist, there is alsoa great deal of money involved, which makes the obvious technical remedy "political" since the politics is largely run by large money groups working to influence the political outcomes.

This may slow the changes necessary to create the enrgy the worlds human population now uses without injection the CO2 in the atmosphere that is changing the climate, but the technical climate change will march on.  Hopefully.... we as a species will be more intelligent with our closed environment than fruit flies are when they are put in an enclosed beaker with some food....  They just eat everything and continue to procreate without any thought or understanding until nothing is left, and they all die...

While we (humans) undoubtedly have produced many incredibly intelligent individuals (Socrates, Galileo, Einstein, Planck, etc.) , as a group, we often act MUCH more like fruit flies.  Time will tell if our "collective" intelligence is enough for the group to deal with the reality of climate change before we all die in our beaker.

Earl Gray
Earl Gray

@Paul M.

Deny this...

Question 1:  When was the last time the CO2 levels in the atmosphere of Earth were as high as they are now?

Question 2:  What was the average surface temperature of the Earth (as compared to preindustrial surface temerature) when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high as it is now?

Extra Credit Question:  What was the sea level (as compared to preindustrial sea level) at that time....

Here is your study material....

Alec Sevins
Alec Sevins

@Chris Crawford @Gerald Wilhite It's not a matter of presenting more evidence to these pathological liars. Their brains are stuck on right-wing authoritarianism, a physical/mental condition for which there may be no cure.

Gerald Wilhite
Gerald Wilhite

@Chris Crawford @Gerald Wilhite

Why aren't you counting the changes in heat of the Earth's magma? It varies, too.

The 18 year pause is based on the way the IPCC has been indexing global temperature for 20 years. Why are you moving the goalposts?

Tell me why doctors don't measure your child's total body heat when they take his temperature?

Tell me, exactly how would you "take the Earth's temperature" if the heat is somehow going into the ocean? We do not have the technology to reliable do that, and won't have for 10-20 years.

What is the indicator of global warming under your scenario? Shall we entrust that to NOAA? Fat chance. 

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@Chris Crawford @Jeffrey S.  Hey fella, to be honest I have very little, to no faith in politics. You are absolutely correct, it's been said, "Money is the root of all evil", I think it's politics.  I'm dating myself, but I can remember the initial rumblings of all of this back in the early to mid 60's. It's like everything else, "Wait 'till the 11th hour". Frankly it  looks like we have, to a significant degree, missed the boat. Now it's a matter of mitigating it as best as possible and considering the enormity of it, if we put it in gear today, (not), we are way behind.

I'm old enough that I will probably not be around for the brunt of it,but I hate to think of what the coming generations will have to deal with.

I have lived in the Northeast my whole life, (NY, PA, NJ) and in the last 10 years I have never seen anything like the weather we have been experiencing. We get tornadoes on a regular basis and Ice storms to start out the winters, usually early, Sandy was just unbelievable,in my lifetime never anything even close.

I do not need anybody to tell me something is going on with the climate, I just have to look out my door, I truly do not get it, the naysayers of Global warming, to me, are just deaf, dumb and blind.

Be well.

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Gerald Wilhite The only addition I'll make to Jeffrey S. response is a question: are you one of the many astroturfers paid to post denier talking points on websites such as this?

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@Gerald Wilhite  First, there are several reliable means to calculate the changes in ocean temp following is a link to just 1 example and also gives a brief explanation of the oceans and large water masses function as being a, "heat battery".

Second, if we are in a cooling trend then why are Ice formations all around the world melting at an unprecedented rate?

Third, why do a vast majority of environmental scientist from around the world, both independent and otherwise agree that,"Global warming" is indeed fact and have shown the physics and math to back it up?

Fourth, average temp. is on the rise, not falling. The changes are not linear, which is why an average temp. over decades is used as a primary indicator.

Fifth, CO2 is a known and proven heat insulator, there is no doubt that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily on the rise since the industrial revolution.

Sixth, It is known that the ozone layer is an insulating factor that blocks UV rays and that there are now measurable holes in the ozone layer which are getting larger, allowing more UV rays through, thus greater warming.

Seventh, It is known that weather patterns are changing around the world, which is directly attributable to the slowly rising temperatures, (slowly by man's perception of time, rapidly based on the age of our planet).

Eighth,measuring a persons body temp. is a far cry different than measuring the temp of the world, a ludicrous argumentwhich has no basis and immaterial.

Could go on and on, but some just do not want to see the writing on the wall.

One can ALWAYS find an argument for or against any given question.When it comes to the matter of, "Global warming" the overwhelming consensus, by people far better versed than you or I, is that it is taking place as we speak,and the physics and observations bear that out.

Might I suggest you do a bit more homework, you base your conclusions on far too limited data relative to the information that is now available.

Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford

@Jeffrey S. @Chris Crawford @Gerald Wilhite "a case of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous": that's certainly true in your case, but the scientists have amassed mountains and mountains of evidence. They have explored all sorts of ramifications of AGW and so far everything lines up neatly. There are always, of course, finer and finer details to be worked out, but all the basics have been figured out and everything fits together. 

It's obvious that you know very little about this. The fact that you reject the findings of thousands of scientists and every relevant scientific organization on the planet demonstrates that you are not evaluating this based on reason and logic, but on political prejudice.

Jeffrey S.
Jeffrey S.

@Chris Crawford @Jeffrey S. @Gerald Wilhite  Sounds like you are directing your response to me, if so you misunderstood me completely, I was refferring to Mr.Wilhite. I am in agreement with you and your views. Sorry for the misunderstanding fella.


Popular Stories

  • Lost City Found in Honduras

    Lost City Found in Honduras

    A joint Honduran-American expedition has confirmed the presence of extensive pre-Columbian ruins in Mosquitia in eastern Honduras, a region rumored to contain ruins of a lost "White City" or "City of the Monkey God."

  • Astronomers Find a Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist

    Astronomers Find a Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist

    Small, young galaxies should be free of interstellar dust, but an object called A1689-zD1 is breaking all the rules.

  • Cool Polar Bear Pictures

    Cool Polar Bear Pictures

    Take a peek at polar bears playing, swimming, and sleeping in their changing habitat.

The Future of Food

  • Why Food Matters

    Why Food Matters

    How do we feed nine billion people by 2050, and how do we do so sustainably?

  • Download: Free iPad App

    Download: Free iPad App

    We've made our magazine's best stories about the future of food available in a free iPad app.

See more food news, photos, and videos »