There's been quite a bit about global warming in the news recently, with The National Academy of Sciences reporting to Congress that

recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

In addition, a study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) studied rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and found that global warming fueled the 2005 hurricane season.

Using worldwide SST data since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea calculated the individual contributions of global warming and the AMO to Atlantic SSTs. They subtracted the irregular Atlantic temperatures from the temperature patterns in the rest of Earth's tropical and mid-latitude waters.

Their calculations show that about half, or 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit, of the Atlantic SST increase was due to global warming, while only 0.2 degrees owed to the AMO. The remainder of the increase could be explained by the aftereffects of the 2004-2005 El Nino and normal year-to-year variations in temperatures.

"We found the much hyped Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is important [to hurricane activity] but did not really contribute much to 2005," Trenberth told LiveScience.

Stephen Hawking also revealed he was concerned about global warming, saying that the Earth

might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid.'

And finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to take a case between environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over whether the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide levels. The case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120, will be argued later this year, with a ruling expected by next June.

The states involved, which together account for more than a third of the car market, say the Clean Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated if it poses a danger to public health and welfare. They argue it does so by causing a warming of the earth.

The administration maintains that unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to ensure healthy air, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not a dangerous pollutant under the federal law. And, officials argue, even if it is, the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it, considering the economic costs involved.

The agency should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions'' when voluntary ways to address climate change are available, the administration argued in its filing with the high court.