Click here to view Winona Area Weather
Home > Jerome > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS


Published - Tuesday, February 06, 2007
POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (22 comment(s))

Glad global warming left us for a while

.
It’s cold.

That’s good.
All right, that thought does come easier on the last day of January than it would have on the first of December n but after two months of fearing my home state somehow slipped to the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line, the familiar tingle of ears turning to ice is as reassuring as it is painful. Minnesota still has a winter and all is — or at least might be — right with the world.

It wasn’t that long ago, I never would have said that.

This surge of cryophilia is a fairly new experience for me. Pretty much from the time I could first tell July from December, the days on my calendar between Thanksgiving and the vernal equinox were bordered in black. Five months out of the year I’d huddle in the library stacks, paging through back issues of National Geographic, envying the native boys prancing naked in the Amazonian jungle, swearing to myself I could get used to eating broiled grubs and bat meat if I never had to put on a pair of galoshes again. I grew up hating the cold, but I was colder then.

I know Al Gore has charts, graphs, statistics and interminable PowerPoint presentations that prove it’s warmer now than it was then, but when you start with winter in Minnesota, a couple of degrees does not Miami make. Besides, it wasn’t so much that the weather was colder — it was me being colder that’s made the difference.

Why was I colder? Simple. I spent more time — a lot more time — out where the cold was.

And I had to be cool while doing it.

It’s hard to think of anyone more doomed to misery than a Minnesota teenager in the days before progressive parenting. Our folks figured that since the Lord gave us feet, and they bought us shoes, the least we could do to show our gratitude was to use them. The idea that Dad would give up 20 minutes of Jackie Gleason to chauffeur his offspring anywhere but the emergency room was as inconceivable as the thought of a kid having a TV and telephone in his own bedroom — some things just weren’t going to happen on this planet in our lifetimes.

So we walked — in the summer when it was hot and in the winter when it was not. As small and medium sized children this wasn’t all that awful — we had moms to dress us funny. From the four-buckle galoshes on our feet to the quilted hood tied tight over the felt-and-flannel ear-flap cap on our heads, every 8-year-old was insulated from the cold like chubby little arctic seals. With nothing but eyes and steam visible to the outside world, we were like little woolen greenhouses — snowy on the outside, moist and tropical underneath. Winter, summer, it was all the same to us.

Then in seventh grade we discovered girls — and winter.

There’s a reason when I see a pretty girl I feel an involuntary shiver. It was to impress a pretty girl — any pretty girl, heck, any girl period — that I gave up my scarf and my parka, mukluks and mittens, hat, long johns, thick gray wool socks and fuzzy flannel shirts. By 13, the Inuit-look was out no matter how deep the drifts or how arctic the wind chill. We trudged across town hatless, gloveless, in penny-loafers and Sears-Roebuck slacks, while our no-brighter distaff counterparts risked frostbite in parts we guys barely dared imagine as the demands of fashion sent micro-mini’s a-flutter in the cold northwest wind.

We had the California look down pat. It was the California climate we were sorely in need of. We were so cool we risked hypothermia going between home and high school, but we were slow learners. Year after year we were seemingly taken by surprise when it turned cold in January, though our parents and younger siblings seemed to have a solid mittened-grasp on that reality. But on the other hand, they just weren’t cool.

Which may be why my winters are so much warmer of late. There’s a point — about the time a man’s age and waist size intersect —that cool begins to take a distinct second, then third and fourth place to comfort, convenience and common sense. When discussions of “hip” begin to feature words like “replacement,” “ceramic” and “stainless steel,” the social stigma of appearing in public in a parka also begins to dissipate. I don’t need Mom to dress me funny, now I do it myself and when I do it right, that Minnesota cold actually feels kind of good. Makes me feel a bit like a kid again.

That’s always good.

Contact Jerome Christenson at jchristenson@winonadailynews.com or 453-3522.
.



Advertisement
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Al Gore? wrote on Feb 6, 2007 9:35 PM:

" Please let's get real. Algore, is a glory seeking miscreant who wouldn't lift a finger to expose any truth. Especially if it doesn't jive with his worldly view, which is base on pure speculations and guess work. Now, maybe if Michael Moore could shred some cash out of calamity or maybe Pee Wee Herman opened his global hot house we could take it "seriously" but not Algore. "

ethical matter wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:56 PM:

" changing out ways to help out the planet is about what we are leaving our kids. can you spare the 'cool' suv for a hybrid to help try to improve the world for them when we die? "

an idea wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:46 PM:

" So maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I think you would get the explanation of the difference between the Bronze Age and now if you watch An Inconvenient Truth. Although it is Al Gore, he takes a scientific approach ot the matter. Obviously some political things came into play during the film...but they were not focused upon greatly. It is about the numbers and the science....and that is proving some scary things. And hey, we should take care of the Earth better anyhow....whether it is global warming or not. "

It's called CLIMATE CHANGE wrote on Feb 6, 2007 7:32 PM:

" not Global Warming. ANYTIME you throw BILLIONS of "research dollars" at an issue you are going to have people justify the grants by teling you exactly what you want to hear. All you treehuggers need to answer this question...Why was there global warming in the Bronze Age? Documented FACT that the same atmospheric changes occured then as well...with less than 1/4 the currnt Earths population WITHOUT fossil fuel emmissions..Any of you Libs care to bite ? "

To Population control wrote on Feb 6, 2007 4:51 PM:

" You're right, population control isn't feasible and neither is significant global reduction of energy demands. But this is my point, we would have to become cruel predators to decrease the world's population. What if these so called "experts" decide reduction of carbon emissions isn't enough? Should we let them open Pandora's box without strict accountability? Are they guessing? What if global warming IS a natural occurrence and man's contribution is miniscule? History has shown what human nature is capable of. Let's hold these scientists as accountable as we try to hold our government. Or, the future is in for one nasty time. "

Population control wrote on Feb 6, 2007 11:22 AM:

" Population control is not feasible. While it would be nice if people were socially responsible and did not have more than two children, it is impossible to enforce population control in a humane way. Are we going to kill or stop helping humans in need? That would be worse than global warming. Our only hope is that science finds a solution to fossil fuels. "

but the worst part wrote on Feb 6, 2007 10:49 AM:

" The worst part is, in our effort to jump on the global warming hay ride, we are overlooking the root cause of the problem, PEOPLE! If we are to do something about global warming we can't rent out space in "la la land" and hope for new technology. Technology which got us into this mess in the first place. Provided global warming is man made. Glaciers have been melting for centuries and the planet has had ice ages as recently as 300 years ago. I believe man's contribution to global warming is scant. But that doesn't make for good fundraising now does it? But I predict, if we continue the "man made global warming" path, soon you will see a push for population thinning by the "experts". "

continued point of view wrote on Feb 6, 2007 10:40 AM:

" As we zero in on emission free technology, the world population grows. Along with this come higher demand for energy in the processing of food, shelter, transportation, agriculture, electricity and I think you get the picture. Our current technology enables more people to live longer. Each time nature attempts to "thin out the herd" our technology steps in and thwarts Mother Nature. At least to some degree. Eventually, Mother Nature is going to win. People need to understand that. If we want to ensure the survival of our race and not go the way of the caveman, we need to act now. Population needs to be controlled. continued "

I understand your point but, wrote on Feb 6, 2007 10:29 AM:

" The problem is the new technology. Is it two weeks away? Two years away? Two decades away? I'm entirely for the new technology which would cut out fossil fuel usage all together. If global warming is caused by humans and not a natural occurrence we have a much bigger problem. Two reasons why, first population and second, because the new technology you refer to doesn't exist yet. As with any new technology, it will not be affordable world wide (hence not used world wide), will not be available world wide and will almost certainly be shunned by China and India. (large population centers) to be continued "

The key thing is action wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:50 AM:

" It is one thing to sit in front of our computers and electronically discuss the issues that affect us, but it is quite another thing to get up out of that chair, go out into the world, and do positive, constructive, thoughtful good works. I urge us all to seek the guidance that will direct us to accomplish those things we think we cannot do. Let us make the world a better place, one day at a time. "

Population control? wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:22 AM:

" Your claim that population control is the only way to reduce energy consumption is absolutley wrong. There are clean forms of energy out there. Once these forms of energy are available to the masses, we can decrease our carbon emissions. Therefore a population of 8 billion using clean enegy would pollute the air much less than a population of 3 billion using traditional energy forms. "

What you have to do is.. wrote on Feb 5, 2007 5:13 PM:

" Population control is absolutely the answer. If people start pulling their heads out of their collective backsides and start doing the math, they will quickly see there are too many people requiring food, energy and shelter. The earth's resources are limited right? Sorry dude, you can't have it both ways and nobody is coming up with free energy anytime soon. There's no such thing! Reduce the population, reduce the demand. It's that simple. Unless, global warming is actually a natural cycle. People better start getting a grip before it's to, to, late. Better ways to travel, put food on the table and provide shelter are all great. But as populations continue to grow so will demand. "

Population control? wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:43 AM:

" The solution is not population control. We need to eliminate as many forms of carbon emission that we can. With a significant reduction, the population is a non factor. If we all use clean energy, the amount of people using the energy is not an issue. "

To Steve Kulas wrote on Feb 5, 2007 8:30 AM:

" I liked your article. We need to do everything we can to improve our usage of fossil fuels. To control global warming (provided humans are responsible and it's not a natural occurrence) here are several sure fire ways to turn the problem around. No more intervention or aid to tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, tornado or volcano disasters and the victims. No more medical research, free or assisted health care or prescription coverage. No more bans on smoking, drugs, or drunk driving. No more targeted attacks, ONLY carpet bombing, chemical, nukes and biological warfare. No more USDA, FDA, OSHA, OR FAA. No more interfering with nature trying to thin out the herd. "

Roger wrote on Feb 4, 2007 9:54 AM:

" The world is a pretty big place. I've been fortunate to have been around it a couple times (military) and have seen cities where you would certainly think carbon emissions must be doing something on a planetary scale. But these are pockets of large numbers of people. The rest of the planet is pretty much as we found it. I think this is a natural occurrence but, developing less dependance on fossil fuels important in and of itself. Party Bowl does have a point, as populations grow, so do demands for energy, that's just the math. Let's spend our money tackling the real energy problems and pray this does help old Mother Earth and it's inhabitants along the way. "

the sultan wrote on Feb 4, 2007 1:32 AM:

" global warming? i believe so. i have noticed a change in snow through my growing years. i remember when sledding was my passion. now its almost gone.... snowmobiling, when i did that i did not have to load up my trailer with my sled and take it up north. did i cause global warming by voting republican? i hope not... the fact is that its not a liberal or republican issue. it isnt even a us issue (yes i know the facts) but we arent the only technology advanced country on this planet. at what point do we accept global warming as more than a natural shift? hopefully we (as in human kind) in general can take steps to correct our actions. and even if we arent the cause of global warming the steps we take cannot hurt. "

Party Bowl wrote on Feb 3, 2007 10:31 AM:

" Yes there is very big "IF" about human contribution. Each report used in determining this is bought and paid for. It's how organizations raise funds, big funds. There is no "IF" in the greater the calamity, the better the fund raising. It is equally true that global warming (which I do not dispute nor does Rush Limbuagh) may be a naturally occurring cycle. Keep in mind, where we live was once covered by melt water from a huge glacier to the north. As I recall, that MELTED due to global warming. Feel free to buy into it if you like but, if you are right, then the only way to turn global warming around is (pay close attention now) LESS PEOPLE! "

Rush Limbaugh wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:18 PM:

" Global warming is a figment of the liberal media imagination! "

Re: Party Bowl wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:17 PM:

" Humans are contributing to global warming by our carbon emissions. There is no "if" in that statement. We need to lower our carbon emissions. "

Bruce Langseth wrote on Feb 2, 2007 12:15 PM:

" Actually, I have spent quite a bit of time south of the Mason Dixon line and can tell you from experience, the war ain't over, down there. Alabama, Mississippi and Lousiana are by far the most "difficult" where as Tennessee (lived there) and Georgia (lived there too) aren't too bad but you need to watch yourself. Taking a "Yankee" for a ride is all in a day's work for some of them. "

The WRONG side of the Mason-Dixon line? wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:56 AM:

" I am from the north, but I suppose those persons from the south might take offense at your opinion of the south being the WRONG side. Just a thought... "

Party Bowl wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:42 AM:

" Real Global warming? If human are contributing like the "experts" say the only real answer is less humans and negative population growth. That makes me shiver! "


The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Winona Daily News.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post. Send comments to jerome.christenson@lee.net

We reserve the right not to post reader comments containing racial, religious or personal attacks, slander, profanity, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers or Web site addresses that are for personal or promotional gain.
Log In - If you have already signed up with winonadailynews.com, please sign in now!
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, winonadailynews.com requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 

NEWSPAPER ADS

WINONA JOBS

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes


 
 
Dailies
La Crosse Tribune
Winona Daily News

Weeklies
Coulee News
Courier Life News
The Chronicle
Houston County News
Tomah Journal
Vernon Broadcaster
Westby Times

Regional
Inside Preps
My LIVE! Entertainment
Best of River Valley
Business Report
Healthy Living Today
Strictly Golf
River Valley Bike Trails
River Valley Blogs
River Valley Outdoors

Shoppers
Tri-County Foxxy

Marketplace
Newspaper Ads
Local Website Directory
7 Rivers Rentals
HomeSeller
Wheels Website
Outdoor Motors
Jobs

Portals
La Crosse NET
Winona NET

Classifieds
River Valley Classifieds

Links
Lee Enterprises
Minnesota Farm Guide

About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
Copyright © 1997 - 2009 The Winona Daily News. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.