Democrats & Liberals Archives

Emerging Conflict Over the Arctic

As the sea ice melts in the Arctic, conflict heats up over who it belongs to. The Russians wasted no time at all in sending a submarine to to plant the flag on the ocean floor.

There are five nations with Arctic claims - Russia, Canada, United States, Denmark, and Norway. According to the Struck article, these nations had ten years (1982-1992) to agree on the boundaries. They have not, and Russia claims that it the Arctic is theirs.

Of course, Canada claims it is theirs. Further, that Russia is trying to claim territory beyond the 200 mile international limit. The Canadian response is to announce that they are building two military bases in the region.

Not to be outdone, Denmark is launching an expedition to see if they have a claim to some of the region.

Once again, we have the merging issue of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and global warming. The Arctic ice is retreating rapidly. This is making accessible portions of the ocean floor that have not been accessible for thousands of years. The decreasing global supplies of oil and gas raise the stakes on any of those resources that might be claimed.

The irony of the burning of hydrocarbons causing increased CO2 which is a major contributor to global warming is unavoidable. Using fossil fuels accelerates global warming which causes more ice melt exposing more of the Arctic for exploitation of potential oil and gas reserves. It is nuts, but it is a sure indicator that:

  1. there is no near term plan to move away from fossil fuels, and

  2. there is no serious commitment to addressing global warming.

Can there not be any place on the planet that belongs to everyone (or no one)?

Some might laugh at the "quaintness" of planting the Russian flag on the ocean floor. However, be assured that military conflict over who claims what in the Arctic is not a far fetched fantasy.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at August 11, 2007 2:33 PM
Comments
Comment #229054

Rowan
This cannot be happening because global warming really just a big liberal hoax in an effort to take away our guns and make us all homos.Thought I’d beat somebody to the punch.

Less ice also means a navigable waterway. The fabled Northwest passage. That will make it even easier to move tankers.

Posted by: BillS at August 11, 2007 11:01 PM
Comment #229055

PS Al Gore has a HEATED swimming pool so that proves there is no such thing as global warming.

Posted by: BillS at August 11, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #229057


If you think the Artic fight is going to be rough, wait till they start fighting over antarctica, international treaty be damned.

Posted by: jlw at August 11, 2007 11:25 PM
Comment #229059

Greenland might be green again? Be able to accept more people and grow crops? Damn you Global Warming!

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #229065

The entire “alarming concept” of global warming is tied into the measurements of Arctic polar ice thickness. Having researched this a bit, my understanding is that the measurements of the Arctic polar ice have been taken by submarines since the 1950’s, and shows significant thinning. However, I also learned that the Arctic polar ice cap is not a stationary ice cap. It is not held in place by land masses, but is about ten feet thick and freely floats back and forth over the sea with the flow of currents beneath.
Therefore, any measurements taken even in the exact GPS or bearing location by a submarine below could be significantly off from the actual point in the ice above where previous measurements have been taken, if the ice mass has shifted with the currents. From season to season the ice also naturally melts and refreezes. Therefore, to achieve accuracy scientifically, one would need to implant hundreds of homing devices deep within the polar ice cap in strategic locations free from total meltdown, and home in on these “exact” locations with our nuclear subs at “exact” seasonal dates year after year to record the thicknesses at each strategic location.
I believe that the truth is, our government, and no other government would be willing to give up the locations of their nuclear submarines by providing such homing devices on the ice caps to be measured at regular seasonal intervals for the purpose of collecting ice thickness data. If the positions of the submarines were tracked using these homing devices, and their seasonal frequency in particular areas of the ice caps were to fall into the wrong hands, it would be a disastrous breach of national security. It is not possible that submarines could give scientifically accurate data on Arctic ice thickness without such methods in place.

The claim that the Russians will begin drilling in the Arctic seabed because of global warming is a pretty extreme claim since the ice in the Arctic is so unpredictable, and nobody expects the Arctic to be totally ice free forever. We could begin a cooling phase at any time. Scientists can not predict such things accurately enough for Russia to chance such an extreme operation in Arctic climates. Russia is obviously attempting to be the first to map out its boundaries. But, this has little to do with global warming.

As for Antarctica, it is showing very little sign of any significant melting, and is about 3 miles thick in some places, so I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that anyone is going to be fighting over the seabed under it for a very, very long time.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 12, 2007 1:20 AM
Comment #229066

“The irony of the burning of hydrocarbons causing increased CO2 which is a major contributor to global warming is unavoidable. Using fossil fuels accelerates global warming which causes more ice melt exposing more of the Arctic for exploitation of potential oil and gas reserves. It is nuts, but it is a sure indicator that:”
Posted by Rowan Wolf at August 11, 2007 02:33 PM

I read from scientific claims of global warming believers that the cause of Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect is 95% water and carbon dioxide related to the Earth’s water resources and plant resources, and 5% man-made. I am sure this man-made estimate is a high estimate since it was from a global warming article. How then, can you possibly claim that the burning of hydro-carbons is a major contributor to global warming? Since when has 5% of the total greenhouse effect become the major contributor to global warming?

JD

Posted by: JD at August 12, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #229067

JD Heavens sake,where do you come up that stuff?
You do realize that science is rather clever at measureing stuff?


Rhinehold

Not enough top soil on Greenland,I’m afraid. I would suggest covering it with what is left over from Texas after we use the lone star state to fill in New Orleans.Then we could give Greenland to the Palistinians or Isrealis after a coin toss.Its out of the box thinking like yours and mine that gives me hope for the future.

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #229069

Then, perhaps, Bill, you would care to give us an alternative explanation as to where they claim the data on ice cap melting has come since the 1950’s.

I’m curious as to what alternative methods the global warming scientific crowd has been using, and quoting in their research, because the measurements taken from submarines is the factual evidence that I found from my research that they are giving!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 12, 2007 2:07 AM
Comment #229072

JD
Perhaps they used tape measures.

Apoligies. I am a carpenter.Not a scientist.It just seemed to me that your insistence of that being the only possible way to determine ice thickness and furthur no nation would be willing to do the ONLY kind of research you would believe for their security reasons as unfounded.Could you sorce that?

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2007 2:43 AM
Comment #229073

JD
Seems to me that if you take a picture of a place and there is ice and then you take another on the same date and there is less ice and you take another and there is less ice…that there just might be less ice.


What is so wrong with getting away from fossil fuels. The stuff stinks,cost a lot and sooner or later we will run out of it.I realize it will change the whole geopolitical landscape but is that such a bad thing.From ww2 on oil has been the cause of most conflict. Besides wouldn’t it be fun to be able to tell Chavez to suck eggs and the Saudis that we might talk to them after the start treating women as other than slaves or if Europe could tell Russia to stop playing bully. There is no reason why there should be any great economic wrenching involved. Actually there might well be an economic plus to making some changes. To bad it is already too late for the US to be the leader in the switch to alternates. Other countries have already taken that role because of our failure to act.The role of devils advocate is valuable. Pig headed obstinance is not.

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2007 3:05 AM
Comment #229077

or how about the simple fact that there is an uncontested consensus that pollution is bad for everyone, that fossil fuels cause pollution, and that we would all be healthier, and the world a better place, without them - global warming or no.

…oh yes, that and the plethora of other data supporting the claim of global climate change. (i spose some sort of “space rain” might cause the ocean level to rise?)

Posted by: diogenes at August 12, 2007 3:37 AM
Comment #229084


JD: Yes, much of the knowledge known about the artic icecap was obtained by American submarines (Let’s raise her up boys and see if we can crack through this ice).

Today, the area covered by the icecap as well as the thickness can be measured by satelites from Earth orbit.

Posted by: jlw at August 12, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #229085
To bad it is already too late for the US to be the leader in the switch to alternates

Tell me, which country is leading the switch to alternatives again? Because, as I see it, no one is yet, not really. The problem is not lack of desire, money or political will, it is technology that just isn’t there yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 12, 2007 10:52 AM
Comment #229086


NASA has been collection satelite data on the Artic icecap twice a day since 1999.

Posted by: jlw at August 12, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #229096

Rhinehold-
The current configuration of croplands, rainfall, and watersheds is dependent on the state of the climate. You’re oversimplifying the issue. This is going to rearrange things in a way we are definitely not prepared for.

As for technology, it’s there in parts, but we have a government in play that’s committed to the status quo. Other governments are not so timid on the matter.

JD-
Regarding polar ice thickness, they’ve taken satellite photos of the extent of it, and its visibly shrunk in this time.

We have ice shelfs and glaciers that have been around since the last ice age disappearing.

We have gravitational evidence of loss in mass from both the Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheets, which have been around for over a hundred thousand years, since the ice ages started in earnest around a hundred thousand years ago. We’re talking actual loss of mass, so I’m not sure what sort of explanation can rationalize that: either ice suddenly got lighter, or the ice sheet’s getting light the old fashion way.

As for phases? Some contrarians want to present a picture of gradual graceful changes. That simply is not the case in the climate record that we’ve examined. It’s not orbiting around some stable average, it’s switching back and forth between different states, both short term and long term. In one instance, the end of the last ice age, the average global temperature jumped nine degrees in the space of about a decade.

I’d agree with the Arctic claim having little to do with global warming. The ocean there is very deep. It’s more about claims under the new law of the sea treaty. As for Antarctic, there’s a major difference: much of the ice rests on land, which means that it’s melting will affect sea levels where th Ice shelfs and ocean ice won’t.

On the subject of the ccientific claims about the greenhouse effect, it’s important to realize that the greenhouse effect is not a negative thing in moderation. In fact, it’s necessary for our survival.

It’s basic physics, really. Every chemical absorbs, scatters, and reflects light at certain discreet frequencies. Some we can see, some we can’t

The Oxygen and Nitrogen in our atmosphere are great at at absorbing and scattering higher frequency radiation. The stuff we don’t see, we can be thankful it gets in the way of: It’d be no picnic to deal with the ionizing gamma, x-ray, and UV radiation that those molecules block. We also get that nice, blue sky we admire on clear days. But we don’t get much of the warmth we’re accustomed to.

Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide are powerful absorbers on the infra-red end of things. The trace of them in the atmosphere keeps our planet from turning into an iceball. The thing to keep in mind though, is that what scientists are talking about with global warming is simply an intensification of this effect.

This intensification comes from the fact that our contribution are overloading the systems that would absorb and tuck away the CO2 in carbon sinks, places and materials that lock away the CO2, rather than release it. And how does that fraction cause an greater overall change? Well, to put it plainly, it just accumulates. If you’re putting more water into a sink than it can handle, even if its a small amount over the limit, it will eventually overflow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #229135

Stephen,

The argument that man is causing catastrophic global warming is ridiculous.

Regarding the Arctic meltdown, all scientists, even global warming believers agree that a total meltdown of the Arctic circle will not raise oceans at all because the water is being displaced by the mass of the ice. I am sure you are aware of this, but, to explain further for those that may not know, if you have half a cup of water and a very thin sheet of ice collected on top of the water, the cup will appear to have more than a half cup of water in it because the ice displaces the water upward around its edges. This is primarily the case with the Arctic ice cap. It could completely melt, and the water level could actually show a drop rather than a raise from the water itself no longer being displaced upwards.
You are correct that it is the Antarctic that is the biggest concern. There is much, much more ice, and poses more of a problem. However, there is no significant evidence of major meltdown occurring there.
As I previously said, the global warming alarm was sounded by a scientist, who has by the way never been to the Arctic, studying submarine-collected data of the thinning of the ice cap. This data is flawed by the very nature of its collection methods, and can not be considered scientifically accurate.
If the methods of an experiment’s scientific data collection can not be considered scientifically accurate, then the conclusion can not as well. That is the point I was making.

I was asking for further proof of a possible catastrophic meltdown by data collection of other means which would be considered scientifically accurate. And some links to other information would also be helpful for the premise of the argument of this posting being that the Russians are mapping the Arctic circle in expectation of its global warming “greening”, so to speak, for the purpose of drilling or mining there. That is all I ask!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 12, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #229148

“all scientists, even global warming believers agree”

your first mistake here is attempting to group “global warming believers” in the minority. there is no debate among the respectable scientific community. if you want the other side of the story, cut out the middlemen and just ask exxon.

secondly, there is more to worry about than just rising sea levels. ocean currents will be adversely affected when the northern caps melt, and the sea takes up a lot of the CO2 we create. no one knows what effect this will have on the ocean’s co2 uptake, but personally, i would not risk it.

also, ice reflects far more light than water. without the ice, the light is converted into heat. this will likely cause the warming to increase exponentially. and there go the southern caps.

have you seen the weather forecast of late?

Posted by: diogenes at August 12, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #229155
have you seen the weather forecast of late?

Seriously?

Diogenes, if you want to be taken seriously AT ALL on this subject, I would recommend never asking that question again…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 12, 2007 11:25 PM
Comment #229156

do go on rhinehold.

would you like a chair? cuz i don’t think you’ve a leg to stand on.

Posted by: diogenes at August 12, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #229166


To this point in history, the doomsayers are batting zero. They are way overdue for a hit and if it is a grand slam, oh boy!

Posted by: jlw at August 13, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #229170

Diogenes:

1) Year to year temps are not a way to determine long term trends in a chaotic field like our weather system. If you had any understanding of chaos theory you would see how silly your suggestion that this year’s weather is indicative a long term issue like ‘global warming’.

2) In the midwest this year, April, May, June and July were considered the coldest monthly temps recorded. Is that the forecast you were talking about? What ‘forecast’ were you talking about exactly? The devastating hurricane season we would have in 2006?

There is no doubt that global warming is happening, it needs to happen some. But the ‘how catastrophic’ it will be and ‘how much’ is because of human actions are being debated. Despite Al Gore’s inane statement that there has never been a scientific subject that has more agreement than this (why do these people have to make such stupid statements, scientists agree more on global warming than the earth is round?) there is still debate going on about where those lines are.

I personally want to see us get away from fossil fuels, for a variety of reasons including the pollution that is created, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept every crackpot statement like the one you have made that comes along to do that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 1:00 AM
Comment #229171
As for technology, it’s there in parts, but we have a government in play that’s committed to the status quo. Other governments are not so timid on the matter.

But that’s the great thing about America, we don’t NEED the government to find a solution, we can find one ourselves. And I believe we will. I believe that eventually America is going to be the ones to find the best solution, not because of the government but because we have bright people who are not waiting around for someone to tell them how to fix it first.

A perfect example. McDonald’s was under pressure from people concerned about styrofoam that they abandoned the use of styrofoam in packaging their sandwiches (It meant the loss of my favorite McDonald’s sandwich, the McDLT, *sniff*) and the other fast food places followed suit. But recently some people who worked for me made a trip to England and what did they see at McDonald’s? McDLT’s in styrofoam containers…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 1:07 AM
Comment #229172

BTW, Gore’s exact quote was “In actuality, there is very little disagreement. This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science.”

I appreciate Gore wanting to make clear that most scientists agree with his view but the statement is beyond the pale, IMO. It is my guess that this ‘consensus view’ is not in the 100 in the history of science. And it’s that type of hyperbole that makes it hard for people to take him at his word and gives fodder for those who disagree with global warming being a potential problem to use against it.

And it’s one of the reasons why he had so much trouble winning an election against the likes of George Bush (not even carrying his home state) by 50 electoral votes, like he should have. Of course, his denail of the impending dot com crash, that Bush brought up during the election, didn’t help him much either.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #229174

THAWING DECADES OF DATA

Dr. Rothrock and two colleagues from the University of Washington’s Polar Research Center recently published a four-page paper in a relatively obscure journal called Geophysical Research Letters. But the findings in that brief paper won worldwide attention in media like the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and CNN. Not bad for data jockeys.
Why all the attention? Turns out, Arctic ice is getting pretty thin.
For most of the 1990s, Rothrock and his partners have been studying measurements of North Pole ice taken by U.S. Navy nuclear submarines. The Arctic Ocean is fairly deep in many places, and military submarines regularly glide beneath the ice, trying to remain strategically invisible to competing navies, while taking sonar soundings of the ice pack above. Since the end of the Cold War in 1990, the military has been increasingly willing to let scientists use their vessels, vehicles and aircraft to study the planet.
The Navy has been recording ice data for decades, but like most Cold War calculations, the information has been top secret. If an unfriendly nation obtains information on where and when submarines had taken their measurements in the past, they might be able to guess where those subs would travel in the future.
But — like the Arctic ice itself — military secrecy seems to be thawing. About a year ago, Rothrock convinced Navy brass that measurements taken in the 1950s could be helpful in figuring out whether the data from the ’90s was statistically significant. Armed with a pile of new numbers, Rothrock guessed that they might show that the polar cap had shrunk perhaps 18-20 inches over the past half century.
He was wrong. The actual shrinkage left him astonished.
On average, the University of Washington team found that ice had thinned by four feet (1.3 meters) — a 40 percent decrease since 1953. The “trend” of the 1990s seemed to be an indisputable fact. (Reported by CNN 2001)


The reports of submarine data by this Rothrock guy is what spurred much of the alarmist rhetoric of the global warming debate.

Here is a report on a speech from a NASA scientist recorded by USA Today:

MAMMOTH LAKES, Calif. — The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years, species will disappear and the Earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.
Hansen, who said he was not speaking for NASA, said that after the warming of the past three decades, the world is within 1°C of its warmest period in the past 400,000 years. He predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the same rate, the warming this century will approach 3°C, or about 5°F.
He forecast that such a change would eliminate up to half the species on Earth and would melt polar ice caps. Subsequently rising ocean levels would inundate Florida, most of Louisiana and much of the East Coast, Hansen said.
“We don’t know how long it would take for that to happen,” he said.
He said warning signs are appearing in Greenland where ice is melting twice as fast as it was five years ago. Ocean levels globally are edging up about “3.5 millimeters a year“.
(This was reported by USA Today, Jan. 2007, in a speech by James E. Hansen of NASA)

3.5 millimeters is about half the thickness of a typical mechanical pencil lead. (Just thought I would give a visual descriptive to those that are real concerned out there about ocean levels rising per year about half the thickness of a typical mechanical pencil lead)
I remind the readers that James Hansen was not speaking for NASA when he gave that speech, and it is a good thing, too!

These were actual NASA official reports on ice melts and temperature increases.

To model the mass balance of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets, Research Assistant Veronique Bugnion developed a snowpack model which embodies a physically based approach to modeling the temperature and density distribution of a snow, firn, and ice mixture. The snowpack model performed satisfactorily in capturing the surface energy balance and melt amounts measured at stations in Greenland and Antarctica. Also a comparison between the predicted extent of the wet snow zone obtained with the model and the same quantity derived from satellite microwave measurements showed excellent agreement. In addition the model’s simulated total runoff was close to the best estimates from observations for the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. Ms. Bugnion and research scientist Andrei Sokolov coupled the snowpack model to the climate submodel of MIT’s Integrated Global System Model (IGSM) and integrated forward over the 21st century for a range of climate change scenarios, using forcings from simulations with the IGSM. The changes in mass balance of the ice caps were then translated into changes in sea level. For the scenarios with small to moderate warming, the runoff from Greenland and Antarctica is minimal. For the scenarios with a larger warming, there is a net increase in sea-level of 2-3 cm from Greenland, and a decrease of between 2 and 5 cm from Antarctica. These results show that the net change in sea level which can be expected to follow climatic changes in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, a decrease of 2 to 4 cm or less by the end of the 21st century, is smaller than most previously published estimates.
(Goddard Space Flight Center)

April 29, 2005 SCIENTISTS CONFIRM EARTH’S ENERGY IS OUT OF BALANCE
Scientists have concluded more energy is being absorbed from the sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth’s energy “out of balance” and warming the globe.
Scientists from NASA, Columbia University, New York, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. used satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth’s oceans. They confirmed the energy imbalance by using precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
The study reveals Earth’s energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet’s history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.
(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

This is a report by James Taylor, a writer to the Chicago Sun Times, and author of two Environmental books, who appears to be more in line with NASA findings.

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, “the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain.” In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
(Chicago Sun-Times June 2007)

So, there are definitely some differing opinions out there!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 13, 2007 2:30 AM
Comment #229188

rhinehold,

global warming refers to the overall trend. that’s why they’ve taken to calling it climate change, to help people such as yourself grasp the concept. what we’re talking about is shifting, ever less predictable, and ever more extreme weather patterns, trending towards an overall warmer globe (hence, the global warming).

so those “record coldest months?” yah, that’s part of it. counterintuitive as it may sound - which is why i find it so irksome when someone so uninformed makes a ridiculous statement (such as yours) like, “i wish there was some global warming, it’s colder ‘n hell here.”

stick your head out the window. records are being broken everywhere - heat, cold, draught, floods, fires, storms, hurricanes… you name it. and i recommend that you do a little research on it.

“but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept every crackpot statement like the one you have made that comes along to do that.”

crackpot statement? look at the extreme trend in the weather as proof that the weather is getting more extreme? crackpot? really? it’s as i suspected… you’ve not a leg, nor a clue.

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 9:00 AM
Comment #229205

Russia and Canada will benefit the most from global warming, the U.S., Denmark, and Norway somewhat less. Tropical weather patterns will move north, which means much more rainfall in some relatively arid regions. Antarctica now has grass growing in some areas, and the penguin population is way down. Global warming is basically good because it means more rainfall. Some people who claim that it is an Ecomyth are admitting that, which really makes no sense at all. It’s only bad for Bangladesh, and a few other similar areas, plus the island nations that don’t rise very far above sea level.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #229216

Diogenes,

that’s why they’ve taken to calling it climate change, to help people such as yourself grasp the concept

Gee, really? The funny part is that when you say ‘people like me’ you really don’t know what you’re talking about since I never once suggested global warming wasn’t taking place, as I stated in my response to you that apparently you failed to catch. And being a nuclear physicist, I do have a ‘small grasp’ on the way that science works.

what we’re talking about is shifting, ever less predictable, and ever more extreme weather patterns, trending towards an overall warmer globe (hence, the global warming).

No, we’re not. We’re talking about a global warming trend. I’m not sure where the notion that ‘extreme system changes’ are part of all of that, but it’s nonsense. Now, by messing with the levels of saltwater/freshwater in the northern Atlantic we are causing some interesting weather patterns, but nothing that hasn’t been recorded before.

You missed where I said ‘in the midwest’ on the cold months. Again, this ‘extreme’ weather, which it isn’t, was a localized phenomenon. Most of the hot records are from the 1934-1938 period because that was some really extreme weather, hurricanes hitting Rhode Island, etc. It was also after decades of very very very bad pollution from the industrial revolution, which tapered off because of the depression, that may have been responsible, that’s a theory at least, but there are others.

The simple fact is that too many people are either on one side or the other, grasping at hyperbole and statistical anomolies, to counter the other side, getting shriller and shriller until actual fact and understanding are no longer part of the equation anymore. It’s like another religion to some.

Remember, Greenland use to be green (hence the name), the Thames river used to freeze, as did the Delaware (ala, George Washington crossing). There are examples all throughout the past 500 so so years that show more extreme weather whan we are having now, which has for quite a while seemed very normal, almost boringly so.

so those “record coldest months?” yah, that’s part of it. counterintuitive as it may sound - which is why i find it so irksome when someone so uninformed makes a ridiculous statement (such as yours) like, “i wish there was some global warming, it’s colder ‘n hell here.”

And my ridiculous statement was? I believe it was your ridiculous statement that started this whole exchange, the one that says you can prove long term climate change by looking at the weather forcast.

stick your head out the window. records are being broken everywhere - heat, cold, draught, floods, fires, storms, hurricanes… you name it. and i recommend that you do a little research on it.

Yeah, because I haven’t done any research on it. Ok, I’m looking at today’s weather where I live.

Indianapolis, August 13:

Record high max: 98F - 1936
Record high min: 66F - 1946
Record low max: 48F - 1964
Record low min: 76F - 1918/1936/1995
Record precipitation: 3.08” - 1913

Indianapolis, Month of August

Record high max: 103F - 1918
Record high min: 58F - 1891
Record low max: 41F - 1965
Record low min: 82F - 1936
Record precipitation: 4.46” - 1976

Wow, all those extremes in the 21st century…

You see, this is WHY we don’t look at the forecast to determine if global warming is going on or not because your assertion that ‘records are being broken everywhere’ is not accurate.

Of course, the ‘long term trend globally’ is warming, which is what we should be looking at, not our local forecasts.

crackpot statement? look at the extreme trend in the weather as proof that the weather is getting more extreme? crackpot? really? it’s as i suspected… you’ve not a leg, nor a clue.

Actually, its arguments like you’ve provided that help the OTHER side make their points. Here you are assailing me of being uninformed and not having a clue when I actually AGREE that global warming is occuring.

*shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #229221

you’re actually going to try to make the claim now that global warming is a good thing?

you’ll have to provide a lot of sources, cuz most of what you just said is silly junk.

the theory is that there will be a window where global warming makes things slightly better (and a counter theory that this advantage will be more than offset by the concurrent detrimental effects). but no one is seriously thinking that global warming might be in any way good in the long run… except those same junk scientists who still try to deny that it exists. honestly, no one knows - but there is absolutely no reason to expect the least likely best case scenario.

“if it does exist - which it doesn’t - but if it does… then it will be good for us. but just so you know, it doesn’t.”

riiiiight.

rhinehold,

“In the midwest this year, April, May, June and July were considered the coldest monthly temps recorded. Is that the forecast you were talking about?”

as i said, or was attempting to say, this occurrence actually supports the theory, rather than disproves it. this was your ridiculous statement. (and to answer your question more directly, YES these are some of the forecasts i was talking about). so again,

“Gee, really? The funny part is that when you say ‘people like me’ you really don’t know what you’re talking about since I never once suggested global warming wasn’t taking place, as I stated in my response to you that apparently you failed to catch.”

never said you denied it, i said you failed to understand it. which clearly, it would seem to me, you don’t.

“And being a nuclear physicist, I do have a ‘small grasp’ on the way that science works.”

if you say so.

“You see, this is WHY we don’t look at the forecast to determine if global warming is going on or not because your assertion that ‘records are being broken everywhere’ is not accurate.”

you’re just reaching. as i said, when you flip on the news and there are record droughts, wildfires, floods, heat waves… etc, and all at the same time - that demonstrates that there is something happening worth investigating. it proves nothing, and neither have you. your effort to deny what is in front of your nose because it isn’t sufficiently compelling evidence to prove the theory is merely looking for a reason to argue.

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #229226

sorry, the beginning of that post was to ohreally.

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #229232

Here’s some more silly junk for you. The surface of the earth is mostly water. Increasing the temperature increases evaporation, which in turn increase precipitation.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #229241

extreme weather is one of the major concerns - this includes weather at every extreme - drought *and* flooding, cold *and* heat waves. no one knows how bad this might get, and if or where it will occur.

thus, assuming that we will be better off because there will be more rainfall is simply naive. just because there will be more, it does not follow that it will be in an inhabited area, or even over land. if it is over land, it may fall to such a degree that it floods that land - that’s not going to help us.

there are many such seeming contradictions implied in the theory. desalinization - how could it be a bad thing for there to be a lesser concentration of salt in the water? aside from screwing with ocean currents, as the sea level increases, it will flow into freshwater sources, contaminating them and leaving less overall potable water (lesser concentration of salt, but a greater volume of saltwater).

this would also affect our ability to irrigate crops. longer growing season? perhaps - but will we have anywhere to grow crops, or anything to water them with? no one knows.

that which is known is that whatever occurs, it will be increasingly erratic - which is, by virtue of our inability to plan or predict it, a very bad thing.

rhinehold, your denial of climate change and extreme unpredictable weather playing any part in problem of global warming demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. stick to nuclear physics.

the occurrence of extreme weather demonstrates just that… that extreme weather is occurring - looking at recent weather forecasts will prove this (forecasts in areas where it is occurring obviously - not literally out your window). the fact that it has been occurring more often demonstrates just that… what i’m saying is that we can expect this trend to continue, and to worsen.

i’m glad you’ve yet to feel the effects of global warming. now, i never meant to imply that extreme weather is occurring everywhere simultaneously, as i’m sure you know - but regardless, your exception does not disprove the rule any more so than looking out the window could ever conclusively prove it.

looking out the window and seeing gray clouds does not prove that it’s about to rain, but i bet you go roll up your windows anyway…and by the by, don’t expect your luck to last.

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #229246
rhinehold, your denial of climate change

Again, I never denied climate change. I’m not sure what flipped your ‘get out the Al Gore factsheet’ shrillness is coming from but you are making assumptions about my position that aren’t remotely accurate.

(forecasts in areas where it is occurring obviously - not literally out your window)

Good, I see that you are finally admitting that your statement ‘have you seen the weather forecast of late?’ is no way to convince people of long-term global trends. Was that so hard?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #229250

please, rhinehold.

that’s a pathetic attempt at argument. “have you seen the weather forecast of late?” when interpreted to mean your local forecast only would obviously have a high miss percentage as far as convincing any reader of my claim. only those actually living in affected areas would understand the message. your assigning an overly strict interpretation to that sentence so that you can claim i am being an extremist. weak attempt.

looking at the recent forecasts all over the nation, as the great majority of people do when they watch the news (and as i am positive you do) will demonstrate just what i have said. occurrences of extreme weather are increasingly frequent.

gore is no hero of mine. but he knows a whole helluva lot more about it than you do. (doesn’t sound like that’s a very hard feat to achieve.)

“I’m not sure where the notion that ‘extreme system changes’ are part of all of that, but it’s nonsense.”
here, by the way, is you denying climate change as it relates to global warming.

collect yourself, and attempt an actual argument… though since you agree with me that global warming is happening, and can’t muster any meaningful argument over the intricacies of it (especially concerning extreme weather or climate change)… what exactly is it that you intend to achieve?

if it makes you happy, i shall concede that i could have been clearer on that contested sentence. you know what i meant, and what i meant still applies, but parsing my words in that manner certainly makes me sound wrong. congratulations on your sound semantic victory.

*shrug*

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #229264
record droughts, wildfires, floods, heat waves

Do you have link detailing out these extremes going on right now?

For my part:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html

Highest Temps

Africa 136 El Azizia, Libya 367 13 Sep 1922
North America 134 Death Valley, CA -178 10 Jul 1913
Asia 129 Tirat Tsvi, Israel -722 22 Jun 1942
Australia 128* Cloncurry, Queensland 622 16 Jan 1889
Europe 122 Seville, Spain 26 4 Aug 1881
South America 120 Rivadavia, Argentina 676 11 Dec 1905
Oceania 108 Tuguegarao, Philippines 72 29 Apr 1912
Antarctica 59 Vanda Station, Scott Coast 49 5 Jan 1974

Lowest Temps

Antarctica -129 Vostok 11220 21 Jul 1983
Asia -90 Oimekon, Russia 2625 6 Feb 1933
Asia -90 Verkhoyansk, Russia 350 7 Feb 1892
Greenland -87 Northice 7687 9 Jan 1954
North America -81.4 Snag, Yukon, Canada 2120 3 Feb 1947
Europe -67 Ust’Shchugor, Russia 279 January @
South Amercia -27 Sarmiento, Argentina 879 1 Jun 1907
Africa -11 Ifrane, Morocco 5364 11 Feb 1935
Australia -9.4 Charlotte Pass, NSW 5758 29 Jun 1994
Oceania 12 Mauna Kea Observatory ,HI 13,773 17 May 1979

I’m curious how you are quantifying these ‘extreme’ weather conditions compared to past history?

Please, since you are so wise in this area, how do you measure these extremes and how do they stack up to known past extremes, like the Dust Bowl or the 1970 Bhola cyclone, etc? What is considered extreme? Isn’t ‘extreme’ a bit of a subjective term? Are there people who believe that the weather we are seeing now is more extreme than when Greenland was actually green and the Thames river used to freeze? Or are these patterns normal over the long term? Are we still in an Ice Age, just coming out of it or are we swings of weather that have never occured before.

What is natural weather patterns? Have we, as humans, ever seen ‘natural’ weather patterns?

There are a lot of things you will have to explain to my poor addled brain because looking at the weather forecasts, as you say, doesn’t seem much different than looking at them when I was much younger, except we have a lot of modern looking graphics and detection systems that we didn’t have back then.

The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a 50-70 year cycle, also known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Although more common since 1995, few above-normal hurricane seasons occurred during 1970-1994.[97] Destructive hurricanes struck frequently from 1926-60, including many major New England hurricanes. A record 21 Atlantic tropical storms formed in 1933, a record only recently exceeded in 2005, which saw 28 storms. Tropical hurricanes occurred infrequently during the seasons of 1900-1925; however, many intense storms formed 1870-1899. During the 1887 season, 19 tropical storms formed, of which a record 4 occurred after 1 November and 11 strengthened into hurricanes. Few hurricanes occurred in the 1840s to 1860s; however, many struck in the early 1800s, including an 1821 storm that made a direct hit on New York City. Some historical weather experts say these storms may have been as high as Category 4 in strength.[98]

These active hurricane seasons predated satellite coverage of the Atlantic basin. Before the satellite era began in 1960, tropical storms or hurricanes went undetected unless a ship reported a voyage through the storm or a storm hit land in a populated area.[96] The official record, therefore, could miss storms in which no ship experienced gale-force winds, recognized it as a tropical storm (as opposed to a high-latitude extra-tropical cyclone, a tropical wave, or a brief squall), returned to port, and reported the experience.

BTW, I have been watching a great History Channel show today on the New England Hurricane of 1938. It was the first hurricane to hit New England in nearly 70 years. Was that extreme? Was it extreme to them? Was it extreme in the grand sense that you are using?

So, please, instead of calling me stupid why not convince me that we can tell how bad global warming is by ‘looking at the weather forecast’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #229270


Meanwhile, back to the Artic, a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker is rushing to the Artic Ocean to begin surveying the ocean floor.

Posted by: jlw at August 13, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #229273

Much of the agriculture on earth occurs outside of the temperate climate zones, and requires irrigation. More rainfall, more water, more crops. Rainfall from cyclones is helpful to the areas on the fringes of those cyclones. The USA might not appear to benefit from global warming, but we are the ones that are causing most of it. There are actually more serious environmental issues than this, like no fish in the oceans in 50 years.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #229279

I am amazed that the global warming alarmists wish to have their cake and eat it too. They point to record high temperature days and claim “global warming”! Then they look at record lows and claim “global warming”. If July and August was exceptionally cool, they would say, “AHA, see this unusual weather is caused by global warming”. They have set up their argument so that regardless of the actual weather, relatively extreme, or relatively moderate, they can still claim “global warming”, so your rational argument, Rhinehold, is meaningless to them.
The Earth’s atmosphere by its very nature was created to facilitate a balance of warmth and cold. The fact that most scientists are predicting a change of overall temperatures of only one degree or less in this century is proof of the confidence they have that Earth is an incredibly reliable and wondrous place to live. I don’t know why people get such jollies trying to scare the heck out of people. Unless, it could bring them around 50 billion dollars in donations to save the environment, of course!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 13, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #229285

i most certainly did not call you stupid.

i find it most curious, however… for someone so convinced of the validity of global warming, you sure seem eagerly poised to dispute it.

you are correct, “extreme” is subjective. after all, some people thrill at the prospect of a hurricane, some find a nice flood rather pleasant from time to time.

“So, please, instead of calling me stupid why not convince me that we can tell how bad global warming is by ‘looking at the weather forecast’?”

you act as though this were the whole of my argument in its entirety. perhaps you are right about that too, though… the forecast is useless - especially as regards, um, say, forecasting the weather, right? don’t play dumb and i won’t call you out for doing so.

by God this is monotonous… but here are some random links which you could have, should have, and probably already did google (and chose to disregard);

extreme weather trends in europe, believed to be caused by climate change/global warming.

wiki entry on the nature of

you’ll note,
“The main effect is an increasing global average temperature. From this flow a variety of resulting effects, namely, rising sea levels, altered patterns of agriculture, increased extreme weather events, and the expansion of the range of tropical diseases. In some cases, the effects may already be occurring, although it is generally difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term global warming.
(emphasis mine)

so you’re asking for specifics… next you’ll ask for proof that those specifics are related to global warming or climate change, and then claim that they must not be related because it can’t be emphatically proven, right? and thereby, wasting my time in delivering you the random stats you’ve requested. how tedious. i guess i’m lucky i mostly posted links.

a article from msnbc
“The world experienced a series of record-breaking weather events in early 2007, from flooding in Asia to heat waves in Europe and snowfall in South Africa, the United Nations weather agency said Tuesday.”

“‘More frequent’ extremes predicted -
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. umbrella group of hundreds of experts, has noted an increasing trend in extreme weather events over the past 50 years and said irregular patterns are likely to intensify.”

bored yet?

“The start of the year 2007 was a very active year in terms of extreme climatic and meteorological events,” said Omar Baddour, a climatologist with the World Meteorological Organization….”When we observe such extremes in individual years, it means that this fits well with current knowledge from the IPCC report on global trends,’ Baddour told The Associated Press.”

so… when we see extreme whether increasing in frequency as has been predicted by climatologists studying the effects of global warming… see these events, say, by watching weather forecasts… it means that the predictive ability of the current understanding of global warming is accurate? maybe those crazy meteorologists can serve some purpose. here and i thought it was just to fill up the space between real news segments.

the ipcc report summarized

the full report

and yes, for more localized occurrences, watch the news.

so, my point… extreme weather is expected to increase as global warming continues. lo and behold, it has, it is, it will continue. just watch the news.

your counterpoint… something like - tornadoes have occurred in the past in some places… and there isn’t one here and now… so you’re wrong. and something about me being considered a joke because i suggested that you watch the news for weather related information.

good point. you done? (i’d quit now)

Posted by: diogenes at August 13, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #229307

I have to just shake my head. Every time climate change comes up there is this argument about whether it exists or not. The Pentagon believes it exists enough to develop response scenarios for climatic collapse.

We also have over 1500 scientists who have participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Folks mike check out the various reports at IPCC.

Since much of the faux debate here revolves around the “reality” of global warming/climate change. I would recommend the Summary for Policy Makers - physical basis of findings.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence7 that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}

I recommend looking at the charts on page 6 of the document, and the summary table on page 8 which is an assessment of the likely contribution of humans to a variety of phenomenon.

(page 9) Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

Page 11 shows charts on continental, ocean, and global AVERAGE temperature changes from 1900 - 2000.

The “Best estimate” temperature projections under various detailed scenarios runs from a low of 1.1C to 6.4C. 1C equals 1.8F therefore the Fahrenheit temperature range is approximately 1.98F - 11.52F. As projection methods become more sophisticated and current data are fed in, there seems to be a positive feedback which is happening as observed changes are happening much more rapidly that models predict. That is why the estimates keep being revised upwards.

The report also includes maps of surface temperature changes, and precipitation changes under the various models used - pages 15-16.

I do not consider the changes being observed as a matter of “belief,” and as far as I can tell neither does the scientific consensus. Whether one “believes” or “disbelieves” the climate is changing and it is due to a global warming, there are real, measurable events occurring. These include, long term trends in temperature; rising ocean levels, shifting of precipitation patterns; changing presence of disease causing insects, etc.

Posted by: rowan at August 13, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #229348

for the record, i did respond to you rhinehold, yesterday evening. i guess my response was deemed too boring to be posted?

fortunately, rowan just posted some of the linx i attempted to provide (the ipcc report, and summary).

perhaps i’ll be permitted to respond when i try again later today…

Posted by: diogenes at August 14, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #229359

Seriously?? You were responding by just sending me to the IPC report??

Man, that is hilarious…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #229378

yes, seriously, those were some of the linx i tried to post… as i just said. you find that funny? have you read it? cuz u need to. it would clear up quite a bit of your rather substantial confusion. those are *actual* scientists. they know better than either of us. or does is climatology now covered in the discipline of nuclear physics?

i shall repost that response later. (not sure i should bother, as you are clearly trying your hardest to avoid learning anything)


Posted by: diogenes at August 14, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #229379

by the by,

regarding your own stats… as an alleged and self-professed scientist, you should know that your compendium of locations where extreme records have not been recently broken does not at all prove your null hypothesis, and so does very little to advance your argument.

it is as if, in order to prove that snow does not exist, you listed all the places where it has not fallen. good job on that. (sorry, not very good with analogies).

it is equally likely that, due to the shifting climate aspect of global warming, the records that have been broken in the very locations you have listed were of the opposite extremity. example, in the location listed for hottest temperature on record, the coldest temperature on record was broken within the last 50 years. understand? (such as, say, snow in africa) now, i’m not claiming to know offhand that this is the case in every instance, but i seriously doubt you do either.

even so, a number (granted a small number) of those you listed did occur in the last 50 years, at any rate. that, and i never claimed that every spot on the globe has experienced record breaking weather.

finally, the ipcc report clearly contradicts your absurd claim that increasingly frequent and extreme weather is not (nor ever has been) associated with global warming. that, one would think, is the first nail in your coffin. so go ahead, laugh it up.

Posted by: diogenes at August 14, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #229380

note;

“example, in the location listed for hottest temperature on record, the coldest temperature on record [for that given location] was broken within the last 50 years.”

Posted by: diogenes at August 14, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #229424

Is extreme weather down to climate change?

a fair and balanced article from the english… of note;

Dozens of wildfires have been raging out of control across Portugal, confounding attempts to contain them.

Portugal, like other areas of southern Europe and North Africa, has been experiencing searing heat and drought this summer.

Meanwhile, floods have brought chaos to a large swathe of central Switzerland, triggering landslides and cutting roads and railway lines.

also, ” ‘you can’t attribute any specific event to climate change.’ said Malcolm Haylock, of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit…” making a list of specific records that have been broken rather pointless for convincing the likes of you - “[but]you can say that due to the Earth getting warmer there will be on average more extreme events”.

the chinese are on board

August 02, 2007 — By Ben Blanchard, Reuters


BEIJING — China blamed global warming on Wednesday for this year’s weather extremes, which have led to more than 700 deaths from flooding and left more than seven million with little access to water.
Some parts of China have had too much rain, and others too little this summer.
About 7.5 million people are suffering from drought… Temperatures have been topping out at about 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), which has strained power grids.
Meanwhile, storms in the northern province of Shanxi have killed more than 20 people and destroyed more than 4,000 homes. In one county of the province, it rained for 36 hours non-stop starting from Saturday evening.
China is rapidly overtaking the United States to become the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases. It is under rising international pressure to accept mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions from its factories and vehicles. [and on and on and on]

…and Lord knows, with the amount of pollution they cause, i’m sure their ever-so-open-minded government is probably just spreading propaganda to convince the world that they, by way of said pollution, are our number one threat.

and here are some of those buffoons that none of us should ever watch…the world meteorological organization.

Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007. Several regions have experienced extremely heavy precipitation, leading to severe floods.

but you never watch the news for the weather. what purpose would that serve? what would they know about their chosen scientific field?

During the first half (June-July) of the Indian summer monsoon season, four monsoon depressions (double the normal frequency) caused heavy rainfall and floods in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh… These monsoon extremes and incessant rains caused large-scale flooding all over South Asia… An unusual cold winter season brought winds, blizzards and rare snowfall to various provinces in South America with temperatures reaching as low as -22°C in Argentina and -18°C in Chile in the beginning of July. On 27 June a winter weather front moved across South Africa bringing the country’s first significant snowfall since 1981… In India, a heat wave during mid-May produced temperatures as high as 45-50°C. Many European countries had their warmest January on record…. An increase in intense tropical cyclone activities in the North Atlantic since about 1970 has been observed.

the full ipcc report.


from a msnbc report, concerning in part, the ipcc and their findings… good ‘ol msnbc.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. umbrella group of hundreds of experts, has noted an increasing trend in extreme weather events over the past 50 years and said irregular patterns are likely to intensify.

yes, i know how you feel about the ipcc report… am i serious????

well let’s see - the science, the preponderance of evidence, and hundreds of experts from many nations versus… you.
i think i chose my side.

(sorry, i intended to post more random, meaningless stats as you have, but considering your responses thus far, and the fact that my original response was not posted, i’ll just leave you with these - unless you’re just dying for more… let me know)

Posted by: diogenes at August 14, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #229433

RE COMMENTS NOT POSTING
diogenes - I do not know if your email is one you check or not, but in case it is not …

Comments with more than three links are trapped by the spam filter being used by Watchblog. That is why your (or others) legitimate comments are not posted as expected.

Authors may (or may not) notice that a comment is in moderation rather than posted. At the very least moderated comments may be significantly delayed in getting posted as it requires manually locating and changing the status of the comment.

To ensure smooth posting keep the number of links referenced or shared to 3 or less per comment.

Posted by: rowan at August 14, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #229450

Diogenes,

Again, you completely miss what I’m stating.

Yes, I’ve read the IPCC report (more than one, actually) and contrary to your view, they don’t always get it right. You could look up

The large, full-colour “hockey-stick” was the key graph in the UN’s 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the “hockey stick” graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

But, that’s not my point either. My point is that you cannot prove climate change, as you suggested, by ‘looking at the weather forecast’. You somehow take that to mean that I’m saying ‘climate change will not cause extreme weather’. When in fact, I’m saying that extreme weather occuring does not prove climate change.

So, let’s get into a bit of the nitty gritty since you seem to think I’m an idiot.

For example, hurricanes. With the globe warming he surface temps of the ocean in the gulf CAN warm. That can lead to more intense hurricanes as they feed from that warmth. BUT, a series of strong hurricanes, like in 2005, does not PROVE that the climate is warming. It could just have been a random localized warmer period in the gulf that year. You also could not see some events occuring ‘on the weather forecast’ and infer from that that it is a global long term change or from an unexpected loop cycle in a chaotic system such as our weather systems.

It is also possible that climate change can lead to more NORMALIZED weather patterns. Areas that have seen large swings and temps drop down more in the winter could see fewer and fewer snowstorms and as a result less water in the ground during the spring season leading to fewer thunderstorms, etc. The cycle could actually calm down more in those areas. Is *that* what you mean by extreme, because it could be considered so, but it’s not something you would notice ‘on a weather forecast’.

So you can go on and keep telling people “have you seen the weather forecast of late?” in your attempt to preach ‘at’ them, but it doesn’t help your cause any. Which is your choice too.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2007 12:38 AM
Comment #229547

thank you rowan, i was not aware of that.

rhinehold,
again, i never said that weather forecasts would prove global warming, so this is a specious argument for your part. a forecast is merely a prediction, after all. by watching the (preferably global) weather related news, however, you will likely begin to recognize that these events are occurring ever more often - thereby lending credence to the notion that global warming, of which you are an admitted believer, is likely to be the cause… even though this alone will obviously prove nothing, indisputably.

for those who don’t believe in global warming, recognizing the ongoing rise in extreme weather will challenge them to put forward a logical and superior causal factor… a challenge they have thus far failed to meet.

“BUT, a series of strong hurricanes, like in 2005, does not PROVE that the climate is warming.”

as i noted above, no amount of random, recently occurring catastrophes would be adequate to prove that extreme weather is a result of climate change/global warming… it merely supports the theory… and quite well. nevertheless,

“I’m not sure where the notion that ‘extreme system changes’ are part of all of that, but it’s nonsense.”

it would seem that the experts believe you to be mistaken.

for the record, i haven’t called you stupid, idiotic, etc… if you inferred that, i apologize. but, it seems that you’re grasping at straws now because you believed (believe?) those very things of me.

“Is *that* what you mean by extreme, because it could be considered so, but it’s not something you would notice ‘on a weather forecast’.”

no. i suppose that’s possible. anything is. but very, very unlikely. i’ve not heard of any credible scientist suggesting that global warming will ultimately lead to a more normalized global weather system.

more erratic. more chaotic. less ‘normalized.’ though weather might go through normalized stages. the entire system might also simply shift, leaving previously uninhabitable areas normalized, and rendering the other areas uninhabitable. it’s possible.

now, even if this should prove to be the case, what’s to say that the newly inhabitable areas (climatically speaking) will be over land? i’m not talking “water world” here, i’m saying, what if the land temperatures range from the most extreme heat to the most unendurable cold… and the only place where humans can withstand the elements is on the ocean…

mere speculation, of course, but that is one of the most troubling aspects of this whole ordeal… the unpredictability of it all.

“So you can go on and keep telling people “have you seen the weather forecast of late?” in your attempt to preach ‘at’ them, but it doesn’t help your cause any.”

if i’m not mistaken, you seem to have abandoned the “extreme weather has nothing to do with global warming” argument in favor of the much more tenable and easily defensible “you can’t prove anything with weather forecasts” argument. seems you’re well on your way to an epiphany.

sermon over. peace be unto you.

Posted by: diogenes at August 15, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #230219

Are we Ready for the next round of global cooling. It may be serious and cause crop shortages around the globe. If you look at the historic cycles, we don’t have too many more years before it’s upon us.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Sorry, Global warming is not a threat. Man has not turned it into a disaster. But I think, we need a voluntary tax increase that liberals can pay. As much as they want. They can make it hurt as bad as they need to hurt so they can sleep at night knowing they are doing the right thing!

Oh, that’s right, they want me to pay their global warming tax too. Because they can’t sleep, unless I’m paying more taxes. Tax and spend, tax and spend. Our democrat congress is spending more than the republicans. they told us, think of the little children, Republicans spend too much. But now that they are in, they are spending more….and doing it “FOR” the little children.

Gee, I”m starting to think that maybe that “little children” line is just a trick? Ehh? Nahhhhh!

Posted by: Stephen at August 22, 2007 2:20 AM
Comment #230227

UN Offical: Kyoto is a failure, emissions trading a failure, other methods needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6957328.stm

Posted by: Stephen at August 22, 2007 4:02 AM
Comment #239269

yeah this is to the guy that posted a comment about how this could be a good thing.One,it is not going to turn us homos and make people our guns because right now they have countries fighting over the aritic and if the ice did melt some of the worlds land mass would be lost and not to mention the the current would change and it could mean another iceage not but that in your pipe and smoke it!

Posted by: Cathreine at November 26, 2007 1:37 PM
Post a comment