PORTLAND, Maine — A national study released today argues that climate change, if left unaddressed, will have “severe negative impacts” on winter tourism economies, including Maine’s.
But some winter tourism experts in Maine question the conclusions of the study.
The study — titled “Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism Economy in the United States” — claims that without steps to slow climate change, “winter temperatures are projected to warm an additional 4 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with subsequent decreases in snow cover area, snowfall, and shorter snow season.” It predicts that “the length of the snow season in the northeast will be cut in half.”
Elizabeth Burakowski and Matthew Magnusson, both Ph.D. candidates at the University of New Hampshire, authored the study, which was commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council and a California-based group called Protect Our Winters.
As for the economic impact of climate change on winter tourism, a press release claims the study shows that the nation’s $12.2 billion winter tourism industry “has experienced an estimated $1 billion loss and up to 27,000 fewer jobs over the last decade due to diminished snowfall patterns and the resulting changes in the outdoor habits of Americans.”
In a conference call with journalists on Thursday, Chris Steinkamp, executive director of Protect Our Winters, called for stricter climate change legislation, which he said wasn’t the “job killer.” “As you see in this report, climate change is a job killer,” he said.
However, the study’s analysis actually shows the difference between revenue and employment in the ski and snowmobile industries during winter seasons with the highest snowfall and those with the lowest snowfall. It does not necessarily show those losses over time.
Temperatures have been rising, though, according to the study. Winter temperatures have already warmed 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1895, and last winter was the fourth warmest winter on record since 1896, the study says.
“In the many U.S. states that rely on winter tourism, climate change is expected to contribute to warmer winters, reduced snowfall and shorter snow seasons,” Burakowski said in a statement. “This spells significant economic uncertainty for a winter sports industry deeply dependent upon predictable, heavy snowfall.”
However, Maine’s snowfall has never been predictable, according to Greg Sweetser, executive director of the Maine Ski Association, who questioned the political nature of the study.
As an example, Sweetser recalls the birth of the modern ski industry in Maine, which is considered to be in 1936 when Maine’s first mechanical ski lift was built at Jockey Cap, a long-forgotten ski hill in Fryeburg.
“The winter of 1937 it never snowed,” he said. “We have dealt with the vagaries of snow for all these years and in some ways that formula hasn’t changed.”
Bob Meyers, executive director of the Maine Snowmobile Association, admits warm weather has a negative impact on Maine’s snowmobile industry, which pumps an estimated $350 million into the state’s economy. In fact, last winter’s warmer temperatures led to a 30 percent decrease in the number of snowmobile licenses issued in Maine, he said.
But he does question studies such as this one.
“I’m always a little skeptical when these groups come out and make sweeping generalizations about this,” Meyers said. “Obviously they have an agenda and this is one of the ways they advance it. There’s not too many times I see them concerned about the business community.”
He’s also not sold on the causal relationship that the study makes between “so-called climate change” and warm winters.
“As far as pointing the finger and saying it’s climate change,” he said. “For every group that says that’s what it is, there’s a group out there that says there’s no such thing.”
Antonia Herzog, assistant director of the NRDC’s Climate and Clean Air Program, addressed opinions such as Meyers’ in the conference call with journalists.
“Denial is easy,” she said. “But the trend is clear for the longer term. Less snow, shorter seasons.”
Sweetser said Maine’s ski areas “are conscious of climate change.”
He said advances in snow making technology mean ski resorts are able to produce more faux snow while also reducing energy usage. In fact, Maine’s ski seasons have grown longer over the past decade rather than shorter, he said, due to advances in snow making.
On the snowmobiling front, Meyers said he is “cautiously optimistic” that the snowmobile industry’s estimated $350 million economic impact would be preserved for at least another winter. Attendance at the organization’s annual snowmobile show in October was up 19 percent, he said.
“People were buying,” he said. “There’s some optimism out there.”



“Global Warming”…. just a figment of the imagination… Just sayin’
Denialists are the ones with imaginations–and heads in the sand (or is it in the dwindling snow?).
How is it that now with all the emission controls and over sight that the warming has begun? What about during the 60’s and 70’s when there were industrial smokestacks billowing and no catalytic converters? The 40’s during WWII when the majority of Europe was exploding and Atomic Bombs were tested and used? Some people will believe anything!!
Cat converters remove carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides but in the process add to CO2 emissions. WW II probably didn’t enhance CO2 emissions. A bombs don’t either (they’re nuclear, not oxidative chemical reactions). Research before expounding.
Population today is 4X what it was back then. Everyone has two cars, more electricity being used, more industry. You can’t reduce overall emissions with scrubbers and efficiency if you defeat them by having dozens of times more sources.
The World Meteorological Organization has plentiful data on the existence of global climate change: http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html
Well, at one point the sun revolving around the earth, or the earth being round, or that germs caused infection, were all laughed at as figments of the imagination.
Fifty years ago, when I was a kid, we had 3 feet of snow in 1962. In 1998 we had the ice-storm, I know we have trended into milder winters overall, ice in some ponds is only there for 60 or 70 days. Snowmobiles in the 70’s, the old ski-doo’s with the rotex engine were fun, the snowmobiles of today are far too fast and are dangerous, I do not support them, they should have a limit on speed at some point. Ice fishing is still a number one sport to me, but the ice can be dangerous.
Remember skating on the ponds (in another part of New England) when growing up.The ice was thick. I would not do that today, or not as readily. The winters recently have been very mild for the most part. We might have some cold days, but then they are succeeded by some mild ones. It doesn’t seem like we have those long cold stretches as in the past.
Just have to continue to make man made snow.. not a big deal
Please review NASA’s discussion of what’s happening–it’s a VERY big deal: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Tough to make snow when its 50 and raining
True… ski areas were lucky enough last year to be able to make snow in March
We’ll adjust, I bet more people come to our beautiful state because of our mild winters.
Think of all the emissions that will cease due to Global Warming….No longer will one have to go to Florida to get warm so Flights to Florida will be nonexistant, No burning of fuel to keep our homes warm, We won’t have to warm our cars up for an extra ten minutes. Global Warming is a GREAT thing. Bring it on!! I want to go swimming in the lake on Christmas Day!! Long Live Global Warming!! I feel like having an ice cream cone!!
HA, HA, Yes, I live in Florida, and it is getting colder here,, big frosts now happening every year. Time to look back to northern Maine, stay awhile, and keep my beloved farm, for my grandchildren.
Our new slogan will be “COME ON UP”.
Myopic Greenies like Steinkamp always think they live in the worst times of human history, as though no one else ever went through challenges. It’s all political, and has nothing to do with science. They have been indoctrinated and have limited capacity to be open-minded.
Denialist responses are the ones that have nothing to do with science.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/
or google: climategate
You do realize that for every denier site there are 5 sites
that will espouse the truth of AGW.
Better yet, come up with original peer reviewed papers regarding global warming, see what direction they lead you in.
How about professional organizations, 20 to 1 now believe we’re
affecting the climate. But never mind the professionals with doctorates, listen to what the Murdock info-tainment group
says about climategate.
Yup – just like ..
Heavy ice could delay start of Shell Alaska’s Arctic drilling
The Kansas City Star
May. 26, 2012
SEATTLE — The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.
Silly Frank…didn’t you know that doesn’t fit the template, so that’s just a “local weather fluctuation”?
Yeh, your heads been the sand a long time
The kansas city star is a 1. peer reviewed professional study? 2. A professional org whose members study the climate? 3. a private, for profit infotainment corp.?
Come on, try just a little next time.
NASA is 1. pure as the wind-driven snow without a hint of bias (notice that they address arctic sea ice and no mention of antarctic) ? 2. a group of government paid scientists who have an interest in maintaining the hoax of AGW because manufactured crises mean $$$.
There…that was easy.
So, your wrong, but its because there’s a conspiracy among 95% of the world’s climate scientist. Now you’re wrong and sound nutty.
ps. not every scientific article will cover every aspect of agw.
you going to provide wsj opinion piece stating more Antarctic ice, that really has no scientific basis and i’ll provide scientific based study showing greater melting. i’ve played this game with you ostriches before.
Lets see, who might provide better, more accurate scientific
information- NASA or the Kansas City Star.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Do you not know the difference between a scientific journal and
a newspaper article
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012EO480012.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012EO470001.shtml
published in widely recognized scientific journal
It’s definitely political–Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles have funneled more than $61 million into climate-denial front groups that delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming. They’ve made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America–and has a lousy environmental record.
They’re just keeping up with the Jones’s, or in this case, the Soros’s.
In any event; to the degree this was a Business article, the only thing that’s “constant” in business is “change”. If any owner can’t keep up with change, one way or another, they’ll surely fall by the wayside.
We must understand that they fed this crap to our kids in the public indoctorination schools.. It’s hard to explain to the young people they were used and lied to by people in athority.
Speaking of indoctrination …
I know – we must go back to teaching that the earth is 6000 years old, flat, and that the sun revolves around it too.
Wait a minute….The Repuglicans say there is no such thing as climate change so why bother talking about it?
Oh gee the money trail leads to enviromental groups with agendas huh magine that
The money trails lead to corporations that want to avoid any sort of regulations against polluting. This has been spearheaded by the billionaire Koch brothers, at least until recently.
Liz , Al Gore, along with many corporations, have become multi billionaires off of global warming. I believe in global climate change, however there are a lot of scams under the name of “global warming”.
And there are even more scams denying AGW, well funded (and ill-informed).
Al Gore has written popular books and is a public speaker about this very real and vital issue. I don’t begrudge him any earnings from it. He is describing statistics developed by credible scientists.
Are you truly serious? Did I just read you to say that Gore can make his millions any way he chooses, even supporting energy scams that take money from hard-working taxpayers… as long as he spouts Green?
No wonder America’s in a crisis!
And the oil companies have nothing to earn by keeping global warming a hoax or at the very least, not man made? You think AL GORE has more power than the oil companies lol? Hey, I have a bridge to sell you…..
Was hoping to come up home for Christmas and to do some snowmobiling/ice fishing around the Bingham/Jackman area. No snow yet. I sure miss snowmobiling. Two inches of snow here where I’m temporarily living and they shut this city down. Was 71 degrees yesterday…made me want to barf. Only good thing about southwestern Ohio is I feel my vote counts counts. ;) I’m a Dem in a Repub section of town. I love my neighbors. *laughing* Hey, anyone up in the Bingham area who has an “in law” apartment they want to rent out for the winter let me know.
“For every group that says that’s what it is, there’s a group out there that says there’s no such thing.” No, actually. For every 100 or even 1000 groups that are patiently explaining that man-made climate change is happening, there’s one or two corporate funded fake studies saying it’s not. Because corporations think ONLY in the short-term, and efforts to combat climate change would cost them money.
Am I to believe that Hurricane Sandy which occurred during Hurricane Season is a direct result of Global Warming?? I would think that Global Warming will be a good thing for all the homeless people, at least they won’t freeze to death anymore
OK snarky, Sandy may or may not be a direct result of Global Warming (although it may have contributed), but it is indicative of what could be happening in the near to mid future even with smaller storms.
There’s some confidence in AGW…
“may or may not”
“may have contributed”
“what could be happening”
After Katrina, you alarmists said that storms like Sandy would be the norm EVERY year, not every 7 years. This is the reason why your Chicken Little prognostications fall on deaf ears.
It’s global climate change–more extremes of heat, cold, flood, and drought. A general warming of the earth causes these wild fluctuations. They are not good for anyone.
Umm – arctic sea ice loss – due to anthropogenic global warming – has changed atmospheric circulation patterns and increased extreme weather events at mid-latitudes…
Francis, J.A., and S.J. Vavrus (2012), “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,”accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, 21 February, 2012.
Jaiser, R., K. Dethloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, J. Cohen (2012), Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation, Tellus A 2012, 64, 11595, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595
Liu et al. (2012), “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Published online before print February 27, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114910109
Those changes produced the blocking Greenland High responsible for the unusual and unprecedented inverted trough that brought Sandy westward to NJ rather than out to sea,
That and the fact the Atlantic ocean sea surface temperatures were several degrees above normal – thanks again to anthropogenic global warming.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
Even the few scientists who had believed corporate hype and doubted climate change have been facing reality recently–
“CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
“My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases..”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all]
don’t forget at one time the world was flat
Right on…and that was the consensus of scientists back in the day…
Sure hope all those Chinese coal-fired power plants are paying close attention as America shuts our power sources: Coat, Nuclear, Hydro-electric… down!
These carbon sins can all be forgiven if you donate your tithes to The Almighty Algorian Church Of The Everlasting Carbon Credit.
Come after dark.
Bring cash.
10,000 scientists can all speak in unison, but somehow some people only listen to the half-wits from groups like the Heritage Foundation.
In the 70’s all these brilliant scientists told us all about Global Cooling and we were entering another Ice Age!!
That’s one of the great things about science. We study things, and come up with a possible answer (look up “hypothesis”). Then we keep checking, and sometimes we learn new stuff. When that happens, we go back and revise the hypothesis to account for our improved understanding. Unlike those who believe things based on blind faith in unquestionable (and unfounded) nonscientific tenets.
Like macroevolution, for example. There, I finished it off for you because I knew where you were going with that…
Yeah- when they weren’t sure that increasing pollution would cause warming or cooling – that was FORTY years ago. The brilliant scientists of the 1970’s couldn’t have comprehended the ipad either, but oops, here it is.
Can’t you Marxist debate an issue without name-calling? (hyperbole intended).
For thousands of years people have adjusted to climate change. Those who know more than most of your neighbors about how and why the temperature of the planet is continually going up and down have read Curt Stager’s book Deep Future.
The humble Farmer
Or “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”
Trillions of dollars spent on reducing fossil fuel use would have no effect on today’s rising temperatures. The public policy key, Singer and Avery propose, is adaptation, not fruitless attempts at prevention. Further, they offer convincing evidence that civilization’s most successful eras have coincided with the cycle’s warmest peaks. With the added benefit of modern technology, humanity can not only survive global climate change, but thrive.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245
Although I was very supportive of addressing coal burning industries in the mid-west.. but then, I recall, Bill Clinton got paid off and all of a sudden it was OK !!
Its all about government control.
Yeah, but can all of the low coastal population adjust to this change?
Dumbest comment yet.
Yessah
Oooops moonpie, Skoglund is a premier MPBN liberal writer !
Ooops – he is wrong on this .
Yessah
So what is the ‘agenda’ of the study’s authors? Dealing with reality is now an ‘agenda’? Do the authors want to shut down winter sports? Is that their ‘agenda’? I don’t get that statement made by Mr. Meyers. Climate change is real and is affecting Maine. Time to plan for it instead of denying reality. In Greenland they are growing broccoli – something not done since the days of the Vikings.
Really? Broccoli grown in Greenland by the Vikings? Must have been all those dirty, coal-fired Viking warships and cars that caused the earth to heat up back then. The dragons probably didn’t help much either…
The reality is that climate changes. The reality is also that mankind has little to nothing to do with it. As evidence, I submit to you…your own statement…about broccoli …grown in Greenland.
The author’s agenda? You really have to ask that question? Follow the money. These guys are PhD candidates, whose very livelihood exists on the manufacture and maintenance of environmental crises so that they can secure funding to “study” it ad nauseum.
Who’s the person with the most credibility in the article? Sweetser, whose livelihood depends upon cold temps and snowfall – and he’s questioning the conclusions drawn by the authors because they’re approaching the data with a set of pre-conceived notions.
You should try skepticism every now and then when it comes to the scientific community. Consensus “science” has never really worked out. Ask Galileo about that…
Climate does have cycles. That’s known. Greenland really was green and able to produce vegetables such as broccoli. We as humans are increasing the carbon. That is another ‘known’. What that extra carbon we are now melting the permafrosts which has never happened in humans’ time which is throwing an enormous amount of carbon and methane gasses into the atmosphere creating the feedback loop.
Yes, climate changes. We are increasing the rate of our current climate change. Lots of luck to your great grand-children.
So let’s follow your logic…if green vegetation is exposed from the permafrost, that vegetation will do what? Oh yeah…remove carbon dioxide from the air, which will help return us to our much colder state.
We aren’t increasing the rate of climate change. The mean temps across the planet have been static for the past 15 years or so.
Meanwhile, how about that ice in the Southern Hemisphere? Record amounts…how come nobody’s talking about that?
Hmmmm…doesn’t fit the template, so that must be a “local weather fluctuation”…
No, actually it dries out with the higher Arctic temps and burns throwing huge amounts of carbon into the air. I know it occurred in 2011 but I do not think it happened in 2012. Climate scientists, those dreadful money-making machines, had not even put that factor into their computer models. It totally caught them off-guard. Huge pools of methane appeared that had never been active.
We are changing the planet’s atmosphere faster than the planet would change it if we were not here. It’s not an evil plan. It’s fact.
So you’re saying that it’s dogma. Thank you.
That makes it unscientific.
What I’m saying is that those who deny facts – such as the Arctic tundra burning and what means – will slow down any change for the better. Actually, I’m of the mind that humanity is past a tipping point as I see no Western Democracy government taking any true lead to either mitigate the affects or slow down the affects. That’s why I try to enjoy each day as it comes. You have a good one, too. I have to go to work.
These are the folks that will squeal the loudest that “the government should do something!!!” when their snow machines are rusting in their dooryards.
Yessah
I don’t understand why they are fighting the science on this. Whether it’s man-made or not, the permafrost is melting and that is a big deal. It’s not happened in human history. It’s happening now. Last year there was a story in NY Times about the tundra burning and throwing huge amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. It was unprecedented and the scientists had not even put that factor into their computer models, not imagining that it would happen. As far as I know, that did not happen this past summer. After the moss and lichens thaw, high temps and drought conditions can cause the burning. And as we know, drought is becoming a major factor in food production across the globe.
Island nations are moving away from their homes, not able to deal with the rising sea. It is happening right now, now in some nebulous future. The US Military says climate change is a huge deal and they are planning for the problems that will be caused by a warming planet. I mean, if these non-believers don’t believe the CIA and US Military, I don’t think they’ll believe me!
Oh no….I hope we don’t over correct too much and cause an ice-age!!!!!! That would really suck….Of course two winters ago we got so much snow in Bath that I couldn’t see my neighbors cars in their driveways. But we really ought to start taking “steps” to “correct” this weather…………
Not to worry.
You’re confusing local weather fluctuations with global climate changes.
LOL…uhhh….that’s what the story is about, genius. Local weather fluctuations being propped up as evidence of global warming.
Why is it when evidence to the contrary exists, it’s dismissed as “local weather fluctuations” but when it appears to support “global warming” you embrace it as the gospel?
Try embracing logical consistency and then you’ll enjoy something people in the real world call credibility.
You’re talking about what you saw in local driveways. That’s one or two data points describing entirely local weather. Climatologists gather hundreds of thousands of data points from around the world. That’s climate.
I’m trying to help you out, Liz, so that you don’t embarrass yourself further. The story is about the lack of snow in Maine and the rest of the Northeast last year and the projections of future years. According to you, that’s evidence of global warming.
But cold temps and record snowfalls alllll across the state (not just in local driveways) two years ago is a “local weather fluctuation”?
Think it through, Liz…
In general, the temperatures recorded around the globe are indeed warming. The result is increasingly severe changes in local weather, sometimes drought or flood, sometimes a heat wave or extra cold conditions, sometimes a lot more or a lot less snow.
Weather is the specific condition of the atmosphere at any particular place at any moment in time, described in terms of temperature, cloudiness, sunshine, fog, frost, precipitation, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, and so on. In most places, weather can change from hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season.
Climate is the average of the weather—and any patterns in the weather—for a particular region over a long time period, measured in multiple decades.
In the context of the globe, not only your neighbor’s driveway but also the state of Maine’s weather for 2 years are relatively small data points.
“In the context of the globe, not only your neighbor’s driveway but also the state of Maine’s weather for 2 years are relatively small data points.”
Which means, Liz, that the whole premise of their paper is a crock, because it is based on “local weather fluctuations,” according to you. But because it supports your and their pre-conceived notion, it’s evidence of AGW.
Have you brought your tithes and offerings of carbon credits to the altar, Liz?
You’re having difficulty distinguishing between 2 years of local weather fluctuations in one state vs hundreds of thousands of data points (local weather fluctuations) collected over several decades around the world.
The second of these provides statistical significance. The first does not.
“In the context of the globe, not only your neighbor’s driveway but also the state of Maine’s weather for 2 years are relatively small data points.”
Exactly, which is why this is a non-story, an alarmist crock fabricated as “proof” of AGW by the writers of the study.
Your inability to comprehend statistics has no bearing on global climate change.
Its no use – Liz also thinks that Al Gore make his near billion by writing a book instead of being part of a world-wide carbon selling scam. (sorta like Bernie Madoff LOL )
It is not about “local weather” – Maine’s climate is warming and it is due to human activity.
Here is a review of historical ice-out dates for Maine lakes – read it and weep if you enjoy Maine winter sports…
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
On the flat part of Earth, global warming is a hoax perpetrated by people who have been deceived by scientists. On the spherical part of Earth, global warming is the consequence of increasing CO2 production since the early industrial revolution, at the turn of the 19th century. We are just now feeling the consequences of the cumulative effects of burning, in 200 years, the stored Carbon of 200 million years.
Did not get to use the snowmobile ONE minute last winter, for lack of snow…
Bring on “Global Warming” in Maine please. If it exists, the impact will be beneficial overall to the whole Maine economy.
I would rather spend my heating money on something else!
Would you rather spend your money on hauling in water, if a warming trend produces a widespread drought? I suspect you’d vote against any sort of help if hurricanes or floods devastate any part of the state beyond your own property lines, but there’s a good chance that could happen.
No it would not.
$350 million snowmoblie industry – gone
$300 million ski industry – gone.
Ice fishing – gone
Maple syrup production – gone.
Cold fresh water and marine fisheries – gone.
WInter forestry harvest – dependent on frozen ground – gone.
Moose and loons – gone.
Apple, cranberry and wild blueberry production – severely impacted.
Try again.
Yessah
Back in the 1970’s “science” was firm-the earth was undergoing climate change.
The world was definitely getting colder, growing seasons were getting
shorter, the cost of heating was getting more expensive- in short we
were doomed.
Indeed, according to Newsweek:
“The evidence in support of these predictions has now
begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to
keep up with it.”
Sounds like a crazed Al Gore in reverse.
What some initially saw as a cooling trend turned out to be part of a pattern of widespread fluctuations, increasing in severity, that can include unusual heat, cold, flood, drought, and violent weather.
Imagine 30-40 years from now when scientists have even more refined instruments to measure and weigh data.
“What some initially saw as a WARMING trend turned out to be part of a pattern of widespread fluctuations, increasing in severity, that can include unusual heat, cold, flood, drought, and violent weather.”
In other words, it’s called climate and we have very little to do with it!
We have everything to do with current and future global warming.
The geochemical data clearing indicates that increase CO2 concentrations are due to the combustion of fossil fuels – not “volcanoes” or Charlie Summers.
The physical data clearing indicates that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have measurably increased the amount of solar energy trapped in Earth’s climate system.
The data from terrestrial and balloon-borne thermometers, ocean temperature CTD profiles, borehole temperature profiles, 18O/16O and D/H ratios of gases trapped in glacial ice, calcite deposits, corals, tree rings and marine sediments, clearly indicate the Earth is warming and at a rate well beyond that can be explained by natural forcing.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
It’s not clear to me how you drew the notion that “we have very little to do with it!” from the words you quoted. At any rate, NASA scientists state that humans are causing global climate change. See, for example; http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
No it was not – a recent review of peer reviewed climate science publications from the 1970’s reported that the majority of papers predicted warming – not cooling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
That Newsweek article was wrong.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah