Extreme weather to increase with climate change - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

TheStripey1 · #46 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

yes and the issue is goober a million years ago the very same thing had happened and so friggin what? but because it NOW and the temp. has gone up what, a 1/4 a degree, we should start packing for the moon......

You know seriously, everyone needs to sand back for a minute, imagine if you will, looking a the timeline on the floor in a large building or out doors where you have enough space and clear your head, totally outside yourself, at least try and drop pre conceived judgments, and start at say 1950's and there after as on a number line add in all the forecasted environmental/ecological scares/events that took place and where all supposed, at the time, to be the real deal......

Its staggering AND informative, the take away from this is I believe is- there is NO consensus, nor has there ever been nor shall there be when it comes to making predictions on a scale as huge as this as every 25-30 years the event(s) being prognosticated in fact changes....in 20 years, we will look back at this and there will be another marker on the line that says the “ gore GW binge”...the only question left is what then will be the flavor of the decade and how badly will we have damaged ourselves following the unproven and emotionally suspect advent of the latest fad. ?

The opening paragraph of my TO...

Quote:

Droughts will get dryer, storms will get stormier and floods will get deeper with changing climate, a government research report said Thursday. Events that have seemed relatively rare will become commonplace, said the latest report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a joint effort of more than a dozen government agencies.

...snip

A report generated through a joint effort by a dozen US government agencies states that our droughts will be dryer and our floods deeper and our storms more severe if nothing is done to change our course.

Are you saying you don't believe those government agencies?

why?

TheStripey1 · #47 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

The question has to be asked: If humans are to blame for global warming, how the fuck did the Earth ever come out of the Ice Age?

what does that have to do with the report generated by more than a dozen US government agencies?

TheStripey1 · #48 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

Millions of years ago, the CO2 was at one point, almost 4000 ppm which is over 10x what it is now. Nothing tipped back then. Nothing is going to tip now or in the near future from higher CO2 levels.

Kramer

Link?

drgoodtrips · #49 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Is this a blog?

TheStripey1 · #50 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

yea well I cannot think of better place for tis article, a whack at the brainwashing sect. that has taken over science......

..snip

An article from WSJ, Rupert Murdoch's latest acquisition? surely you jest...

Let me be clear here...

Imp, are you saying that the latest report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a joint effort of more than a dozen government agencies, is part of a brainwashing sect?

TheStripey1 · #51 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Is this a blog?

no why? ohhhh.... maybe you're talking about my reading through my thread and responding to the various people who have responded to it... I quote them... a blog would just be me talking without the quotes...

But multiple responses do tend to stack up, true... you know, doc... some sites have a feature that actually bundles multiple quotes together if there's no one answering in between... I don't recall which ones I have seen that at but when I see it again, I'll ask the owner how they do it and bring it here for you to implement.... should you choose to...

I don't come here day in, day out...

but I bet you knew that already...

I have other sites I visit..... Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd I also push myself away from the keyboard on weekends, holidays and evenings, preferring to spend that time with my family and friends.

Bottom line... I guess, some people spend all their time on these boards... I am just not one of them.

Si modo · #52 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

seems that goober's link showed exactly what you were asking for and yet... it's still not good enough for you...

why? do you just like being contrary?

perhaps you could post a link or two by peer reviewed scientists that say climate change is NOT happening.

Doesn't matter though, cuz simodo, climate change doesn't need anyone's permission to be...

It's not peer-reviewed. It's quite sad seeing others play at science.

Now, back to your blog.

ViolaLee · #53 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

It's a news article. Do you have anything peer-reviewed since you are trying to discuss science? I don't mix science with politics.

LOL!!! Neither does Bush. He has the science changed to suit his agenda of selling more oil!

kramer · #54 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

Link?

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf

Oreo · #55 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Well, there is never going to be an issue where everyone in a community as broadly defined as "the scientific community" agrees completely. But you asked for "peer reviewed" and if you look at 928 peer reviewed papers and exactly none of them reject the AGW theory. That's about as close to consensus as you are going to get.

I mean, There actually is a "peer reviewed" creationist journal.
Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Yeah--scientific consensus reminds of how the stock market analyst's are. When there is heavy consensus among the supposed "experts' of a bull market, the exact opposite happens.

The point is, our scientists really do not have a lot of history to determine how storms are going to be in the future. After all, we have only been studying the weather for the last 100-125 years, while planet earth is millions of years old.

Mahasattva · #56 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

That religion is Extreme Enviornmentalism.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a fauxumentary which presents out right lies (the polar bears population has quadrupled since the 60s/70s), half twisted truths (the noncorrelation between CO2 and global warming), extreme exaggerations (Miami is not going to be underwater), and special effects from the movie The Day After Tomorrow. I'd say the Nobel Committee has embarrassed itself and should feel ashamed, but they had already given the Peace Prize to Arafat.

Like all fanatics, if you question the sacred tenets of their religion or point out the flaws of their Saints you are demonized and considered one of the evil ones who will burn in hell. If they are atheists they'll do their best to fry you now.

Quote:

Most urgent hurricane threat? Overdevelopment, not global warming
By Curtis Krueger, Times Staff Writer
In print: Saturday, July 5, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Al Gore's Nobel-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth, hurricanes became symbols of the danger of global warming.

The reality is more complicated.

Scientists are locked in debate about whether global warming is spiking the intensity of hurricanes. Even those who agree that humans are causing global warming disagree about whether it is making hurricanes worse.

Leading experts are changing their findings. Climatologists desperate for clues are boring holes along Florida's coastline, trying to discern from grains of sand how many tropical storms pounded our shores in past centuries.

Amid the whirlwind of debate, most scientists agree on the most urgent hurricane threat. And it's not global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science, was named by Time magazine in 2006 as one of "100 people who shape our world." The reason? Just before Hurricane Katrina smashed into New Orleans in 2005, he published a scientific paper in the journal Nature saying the power of hurricanes had nearly doubled in recent decades.

His findings were based on heat.

Hurricanes are born in tropical heat, beginning with seas that are at least 80 degrees. Warm, moist air rises from the sea surface and gets caught in converging winds, twisting upward. Moisture in the air condenses as it rises, giving off more heat. This provides the energy that pumps vast quantities of air from sea to sky and keeps storm winds whirling fiercely.

Emanuel charted the temperatures of the Atlantic's sea surface and hurricane power, and showed in his paper that the two rise and fall together. He found that hurricane power had increased, probably because of man-made global warming.

"While many researchers had been predicting an explosion of more powerful storms, Emanuel, 51, offered evidence that it was actually happening," Time wrote.

To test the theory, Emanuel and other scientists recently loaded tons of data into computer models, hoping to learn how bad it could get if global warming keeps pushing up sea temperatures.

The results were surprising: Hurricanes didn't increase dramatically in the projections, even after decades of simulated global warming.

Emanuel was not disappointed that the research seemed to undercut his old results. "One gets used to being mistaken, and we follow the evidence and sometimes the evidence is contradictory and then we have to sort it out."

He's uncertain whether the recent results are correct or the outcome of faulty models. "There is a real conundrum here."

Emanuel thinks a warming climate "will almost certainly have some palpable effect on hurricanes," and he expects more intense hurricanes. "But the jury is out on how it affects their frequency."

Emanuel is not the only top scientist to test the hurricane-global warming link. Thomas Knutson, who works for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., also loaded tons of data into computer models.

The results were even more stunning: After several decades of simulated global warming, the number of Atlantic hurricanes slightly decreased.

"Our research has indicated that we don't think global warming is going to cause really large increases in tropical storm or hurricane numbers," Knutson said. "But it may cause the hurricanes that do occur to have greater intensity and higher rainfall rates."

Some studies say sea surface temperatures have increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 50 years. How could a barely perceptible change have such a dramatic effect?

Because it takes a huge amount of energy to heat a vast ocean, says Jay Gulledge, senior scientist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. That extra energy wouldn't create hurricanes, but it could make them more intense.

That's bad news, he says, because studies show that a slight increase in wind speed leads to an exponentially larger increase in a hurricane's destructive power.

No increase, they say

All of this has deepened confusion about a complex and controversial topic. But one hurricane guru who is not surprised is Chris Landsea, science and operations officer for the National Hurricane Center.

Landsea, like Emanuel, Knutson and most other hurricane researchers, thinks the Earth's climate is warming and that humans are contributing to it. But he doesn't see evidence that this warming has affected hurricanes.

As a researcher, Landsea has spent much of his career deep in the data of past hurricanes. To him, one thing is clear: That record is incomplete.

Tropical storms and hurricanes likely formed in the Atlantic during the first half of the 20th century, when there were no satellites or Hurricane Hunter aircraft to spot them. No wonder it looks like hurricanes increased in the latter 20th century.

That's the position of Stanley Goldenberg, a hurricane researcher at NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami.

"There's not a single scientist that I know at AOML or at the National Hurricane Center that feels that we have seen in any measurable increase in hurricane activity because of global warming," he said.

Goldenberg was the lead author of a highly cited article in the journal Science that said Atlantic hurricanes increase for periods of 10 to 40 years and then decrease for similar periods. That's a natural cycle related to the rise and fall of sea temperatures and to upper-level winds that can disrupt hurricanes, he said. The underlying cause may be something called "thermohaline circulation," a nearly global circulating stream that changes with the temperature and salinity of the ocean water.

The ongoing cycle of greater and lesser hurricane activity is not attributable to man-made global warming, Goldenberg says. In fact, he does not think humans are causing global warming.

So what's the basis for warning that hurricane dangers are increasing? Besides the possible global warming-hurricane link, there are at least two reasons.

Teeming shores

As seas warm, they expand. Levels rise slightly. Over 100 years, that could add a foot or two to the storm surge of hurricanes, assuming the warming trend continues.

Of course, none of this would matter much if the world's coastlines were long undulating stretches of undeveloped sand.

Instead, coastal development has exploded. In Florida alone, the number of coastal residents increased 10-million between 1950 and 2000, according to historian Gary R. Mormino in the book Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams.

It's not just millionaires who are building along the sands, but increasing populations of the poor. That was the greatest source of devastation recently in the cyclone that struck the southeast Asian country of Myanmar, killing 130,000 people.

Leading and sometimes sparring researchers signed a statement in 2006 calling for governments to adopt policies to slow this overdevelopment and to address "the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea." The signers included Landsea, Emanuel, Knutson and former National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield.

This is one point on which scientists agree.

Says Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at weatherunderground.com: "Pretty much every hurricane scientist that you'll talk to will say that coastal overdevelopment is probably the biggest issue affecting hurricane damages in the coming century."

Curtis Krueger can be reached at ckrueger@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8232.
Most urgent hurricane threat? Overdevelopment, not global warming - St. Petersburg Times

It seems to me that there is a scientific consensus that they don't know what to think.

tashi deleks,

M

Oreo · #57 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

The opening paragraph of my TO...

A report generated through a joint effort by a dozen US government agencies states that our droughts will be dryer and our floods deeper and our storms more severe if nothing is done to change our course.

Are you saying you don't believe those government agencies?

why?

Common sense has to ask--just how do these 12 agencies now this? I mean after all, you watch the meterologists every night on T.V.--to see what you're local weather is going to be over the next 7 days. Now go back & see how right they were?

Last year, our local weatherman "may" have been right about 50% of the time, & that was using high tech equipment.

We're to believe from this, that they can "somehow" predict what weather conditions are going to be in the coming years, when they can't even get the next 7 days correct! "Com-on"!

Oreo · #58 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

The opening paragraph of my TO...

A report generated through a joint effort by a dozen US government agencies states that our droughts will be dryer and our floods deeper and our storms more severe if nothing is done to change our course.

Are you saying you don't believe those government agencies?

why?

Common sense has to ask--just how do these 12 agencies know this?

I mean after all, I watch the meterologists every night on T.V.--to see what oue local weather is going to be over the next 7 days.

Last year, my local metorologist "may" have been right about 50% of the time, & that was using high tech equipment.

So we're to believe from this, that they can "somehow" predict what weather conditions are going to be in the coming years, when they can't even get the next 7 days correct! "Com-on"!

I believe there is way to much political "hype" to this. And it's going to be very embarrasing to some in decades to come.

For instance: Why is it that global ice is actually thickening in the South Pole? Is it a natural circumstance of our earth, or are humans to blame for that too?

Oreo · #59 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

it seems, Viola, that some of those on the right don't really care about the planet... all they care about is their gadgets.

That's not true. Everyone on this board cares about the planet. Those on the right want cleaner air, clean water & all the things you want, including going to green energy.

What we don't want is the political "hype" & fear tactics by these type of stories that come out of no where, that simply do not make sense.

1. We know there was an ice-age on this planet, it melted & the ice receded. We also know that humans had absolutely nothing to do with it.
2. Global ice is thickening in the S. Pole. Is it a natural occurrence of planet earth or are we to blame that on humans also.
3. This article--claiming that all weather is to be more severe in the future, when local meterologists can't even predict the weather correctly for the next 7 days!
4. It's ridiculous to assume that humans can stop tornadoes, hurricanes or the snow from falling. These weather conditions have only been studied for the last 100-120 years, yet somehow, these experts plan to predict the future on a planet that has been around for millions & millions of years.
5. It was only in 1963 that we were able to circle earth for the 1st time from space. Yet somehow we are to be browbeaten into understanding something called the "greenhouse" effect. We don't really know if there was another "greenhouse" effect a million or more years ago?

Therefore, we just want some common sense--not all the politically correct statements from Pulitzer Prise winners, or scientists that are basing their theories on an extremely miniscule time frame of planet earth.

Mahasattva · #60 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

which side are you on?

Those that believe global climate change is happening or those that don't believe it is?

Guess
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
Amazon.com: Free Market Environmentalism: Terry L. Anderson, Donald R. Leal: Books
Amazon.com: In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Myths of Nature: Alston Chase: Books
Amazon.com: Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park: Alston Chase: Books
Amazon.com: Biologists under Hitler: Ute Deichmann, Thomas Dunlap: Books
Amazon.com: The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations: Dietrich Dorner: Books
Amazon.com: The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850: Brian M. Fagan: Books
Amazon.com: Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto: Peter Huber: Books
Amazon.com: The Ecological Indian: Myth and History: Shepard Krech III: Books
Amazon.com: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World: Bjorn Lomborg: Books
Amazon.com: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming: Bjørn Lomborg: Books
Amazon.com: The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming: Patrick J. Michaels: Books
Amazon.com: Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies: David E. Nye: Books
Amazon.com: After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America: E. C. Pielou: Books
Amazon.com: The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?: Lowell Ponte: Books
Amazon.com: Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (The Institution for Social and Policy St): James C. Scott: Books
Amazon.com: Man and the Natural World (Penguin Press History): Keith Thomas: Books
Amazon.com: But Is It True?: A Citizens Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues: Aaron Wildavsky: Books
Amazon.com: Searching for Safety: Aaron Wildavsky: Books
And for a little fun: Amazon.com: State of Fear: Michael Crichton: Books

tashi deleks,

M