Shouldn't we have seen some effects directly attributable to global warming by now?

This is an inconvenient question.

If Al Gore's claim about the level of oceans rising 20' by the end of the century was true, we would have seen approximately a rise of 11" already.

You should not ask why this is not so, please report to your nearest Al Gore re-education camp.

Some people believe global warming to be a myth as some countries such as the uk are going to get cooler. However this is due to the fact that sea levels are rising as the earth is warming up meaning the convection currents keeping the uk warm will change direction and cool the waters around it. Making the uk cooler but a lot of countries warmer. Also the earths orbital shape contributes to the heat of the earth. There are many different contributing factors saying it does exist but just as many saying it doesn't. Some are natural causes, so this is scientists saying its part of a cycle but some/lots are human/manmade factors so therefore it could be. The list goes on...

Everything is now caused by Global Warming - it's just called Climate Change now (so you know it's true).

Too hot

Too cold

Too rainy

Too dry

Hurricanes

Lack of Hurricanes

Tornadoes

Hail

All the things we've had on this earth for billions of years are all caused by Global Warming!

Exactly, the heat waves, shrinking glaciers, record high temperatures and shrinking arctic summer ice were all observed in the 30's and are no different than what was observed in the latest warming episode. If anything the 30's was a bit more severe than what was observed recently.

During the first week in April, an ice bridge supporting the Wilkins ice shelf in Antartica gave way; that ice bridge was 60 miles wide in 1950. Just three weeks later, 270 square miles more of ice had washed away from the Wilkins shelf.

Keep in mind that this is in Antartica, where ice melts have been less severe -- and that it is happening during a period when a La Nina pattern is holding global temperatures down.

I just want the name of the scientist or the paper "Starbuck" is referencing so we can all have a look at it. Or is this similar to his claim that he "..recently confronted a global warming scientist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography about a newspaper article that was done on his work referring to Lake Meade In Nevada. In the article he stated that there is a 80% chance that Lake Meade would dry up in the next 20 years due to global warming. I called the institute and got his email and debated him with a few barages (sic) of logic and in the next two weeks, another article came about revising the first presentation to the media.

This second time he stated there was a 50% chance that Lake Meade would dry up in 20 years. Well at those odds, he cannot lose and he still gets to keep his grant money as he supposedly is proving global warming caused by Man is true."

Of course Starbuck forgot the links to prove his case and the mysterious scientist he forgets to mention refutes Starbuck's wonderful fairytale.

Edit: Good point, Beren.

We have seen some effects. The glaciers and ice caps are melting. Rivers and streams are drying up. Flowers are blooming earlier. Hibernating animals are waking up earlier. Entire cosystems are moving, both laterally to different latitudes and up mountains to higher altitudes. The ocean is becoming more acidic. All of this is happening at too rapid a pace to be attributable to the normal fluctuations of "natural change" in climate.

As others have posted there have been some effects observed. Don't expect to see dramatic changes in your backyard overnight. The effects in the temperate regions will most likely be very subtle.

Starbuck does not need to post links. He is his own expert and knows more than any scientist.

You mean like the cooling upper atmosphere (the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming), the melting of glaciers and Artcic sea ice and permafrost, the rising sea level, and the increasing global temperature, to name a few?

Yeah.

Starbuck, how do you expect anyone to comment on your anecdote when you provide zero reference to it? I even did a Google search using the key terms you provided and came up with bubkus. I really can't comment on your imaginary stories.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=washington+st...

To add to the list Dana started

The increase in the number of severe hurricanes - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

The measured rise in sea levels - http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_...

The earth's energy imbalance -http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308...

Measured expansion of the tropical belts - http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/pap...

Starbuck - You really should post the link and then read up on the problem regarding permafrost and how that root would have gotten there. Here's a clue http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/19/me...

and another http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/19/me...