It’s not global warming. But what if it is?

May 10th, 2007 1:44 pm · 34 comments

This is pretty much why I think the idea of global warming is beginning to get more and more traction:

Nature’s fury made life miserable Wednesday from one end of the nation to the other, with people forced out of their homes by wildfires near both coasts and the Canadian border and by major flooding in the Midwest.

And although the calendar still said spring, the first named storm of the year was whipping up surf on the beaches of the Southeast.

Freaky things are going on out there. People see this type of strange weather and they begin to suspect something’s going on. They begin to think: Maybe there’s something to climate change after all.

Which isn’t to say that these events are specifically a result of it; indeed, scientists are saying this premature tropical storm is not due to global warming, though global warming might indeed more hurricanes, hurricanes of greater duration, of greater strength.

There’s a growing perception that “nature’s fury” seems to be getting more, well, furious. It began with the Asian tsunami in 2004, and Hurricane Katrina certainly furthered the perception. Now entire towns in Kansas are flattened and we say, well, that’s always happened, there have always been ferocious tornadoes in the Midwest, there have always been floods along the Mississippi, none of this can be attributed to climate change. And none of it, specifically, can.

But at some instinctual level, I think people are beginning to get a little nervous. And when that happens, it provides an opening - an opportunity to talk about the issue of climate change, to talk about what might happen if indeed climate change is occurring, and we are playing a role in it. And that, of course, is the first real step towards doing something about it.

The weather itself, in other words - and more than that, the relentless coverage of these weather disasters, both by regular outlets and even more so by the Weather Channel (”It Could Happen Tomorrow”) - tends to feed a strain of fatalism; Chicken Little syndrome, conservatives might say.

Or maybe it simply takes a few historic deluges before people begin to wonder what happens if the sky really were to fall.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

34 comments Tags: climate change

There are currently 34 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

citydweller
5/13/07
11:09 PM

Er... is it possible, just possible that there may have been more than one reason why "early explorers" of north america found the place...um... "under-populated in relation to europe" ?

Maybe there's a reason why this continent was found by europeans as being "empty" for all intents and purposes. Maybe it just wasn't that native populations were too incompetent to procreate successfully. Maybe there was a good reason why no significant populations had set up camp here in the first place.

Maybe the weather was only nice for a few hundred years at a time. And then the car wash came on, on "full" setting".

A few hundred thousand people can live with that, especially if they lead a nomadic existence. Stuff goes bad, weather-wise (your valley fills with water), you move elsewhere and go back in business. A few generations later your valley drains, you go back and enjoy the fresh topsoil.

That doesn't work with a population of 40+ million people, most attached to their couches. Add big cities, factories, mortgages and all the fun stuff that comes along on that ride and you have populations that sit in the flooded valley and wait for the red cross to come fix it for them.

Meanwhile the buffalo, being slightly smarter, saw the water rising and moved away to dry ground. But they don't have a red cross, or a mortgage.

If we had followed the buffalo instead of shooting them from trains, we may have realised that this continent is only built for about a million people. That realisation would have saved us a couple billion dollars in insurance claims.

Just sayin'

grieker
5/14/07
11:51 AM

QUOTE(citydweller @ May 13 2007, 10:09 PM) [snapback]288607[/snapback]

Plausable

Subsonix
5/14/07
12:02 PM

And what if it's not? Are you willing to induce real economic disasters because it might be a cure to something we're not even sure if we did in the first place?

What produced the previous ice ages / warming period every 1500 or so years ago? Horse-drawn chariots that didn't meet CAFE standards?

What about recent warming on Mars? Should we send Al Gore there to save the Martians from themselves?

Has anyone considered variations in the sun's radiation output? It's not simply a 120,398,472,310,987 watt light bulb in the sky you know.

All that aside, trying to draw correlations from natural disasters within our lifetimes is ridiculous. 100 years is a speck of dust when it comes to climate cycles.

grieker
5/14/07
12:54 PM

Yes,

Send Gore to Mars please. He's been "out there" long enough and needs a place to rest

usedmeat
5/14/07
12:55 PM

In the late 1800's the luminaries of the physical sciences stated the only thing left for the next generation was to measure chemical compositions to the next decimal point. Then along came Marie Curie. Things have never been the same.

During the 1970's climatic scientists thought that the increased reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere caused by pollution would lead to another ice age.Then along came the Venus probe that found that the Evening Star's atmosphere was hotter than Hades.

The science has advanced, and so have the computer models. Oh, and BTW they do take into account Solar output.

Grieker made a funny about Al gore. Gee, Al Gore was right about what would happen if grieker's Monkey invaded Iraq. Why don't you make a funny about that, grieker.

grieker
5/14/07
1:43 PM

QUOTE(usedmeat @ May 14 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]288668[/snapback]

I don't have a monkey.

Here's a quote from Al

"Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint."

So I guess you're right. But isn't that his job to disagree?

Here's two more quotes from Gore.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

mam0412
5/14/07
2:09 PM

QUOTE(Subsonix @ May 14 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]288663[/snapback]

And what if it's not? Are you willing to induce real economic disasters because it might be a cure to something we're not even sure if we did in the first place?

Please cite your source regarding inducing "real economic disasters". Sounds like a Republican talking point to me.

Shawn
5/14/07
2:35 PM

QUOTE(Subsonix @ May 14 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]288663[/snapback]

hahaha
5/14/07
3:09 PM

So lets impose really strict rules of no pollution and no carbon use so more companies pack up and move to other countries with less restrictions. The companies left will have to charge more for their services and goods since they will need to meet all the new restrictions. I believe that is the economic disaster being alluded to.

Obviously the answer lies in the middle, a common ground between both sides that makes obvious economic sense and our world a better place.

Subsonix
5/14/07
4:10 PM

QUOTE(Shawn @ May 14 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]288689[/snapback]

Shawn, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Gore and the rest of the global warming crew are blaming CO2 for our weather. This is carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant. It's a byproduct of the oceans, of animal life and of combustion.

Pollutants are things like hydrocarbons which have been reduced about 98% from automobile exhaust since the 1970's with the invention of the catalytic converter. Nitrogen oxides, another smog forming compound that USED to be found in automobile exhaust results when combustion temperatures inside an engine become too high. This compound causes smog, but has been virtually eliminated from auto exhaust with the invention of lamda sensors and onboard fuel injection computers. Other pollutants include CFCs which have been outlawed in the US due to the damage they cause to the ozone layer. CFCs were used in aerosol propellants, automotive and home cooling systems and refrigerators. They have largely been replaced with other environmentally inert gases.

Do some reading before making such simplistic assumptions.

justplainjoe
5/14/07
4:25 PM

QUOTE(Subsonix @ May 14 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]288711[/snapback]

Pollutants are things like hydrocarbons which have been reduced about 98% from automobile exhaust since the 1970's with the invention of the catalytic converter. Nitrogen oxides, another smog forming compound that USED to be found in automobile exhaust results when combustion temperatures inside an engine become too high. This compound causes smog, but has been virtually eliminated from auto exhaust with the invention of lamda sensors and onboard fuel injection computers.

great...so there is no smog in los angeles.

oh except for the carbon dioxide exhaled by trees.

and lancaster county has air as clean as its water.LOL

oh.....http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hydrocarbons

Shawn
5/14/07
4:35 PM

QUOTE(Subsonix @ May 14 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]288711[/snapback]

I very much have an idea of what I'm talking about. The issue is whether or not businesses and citizens should be held accountable for pollution. Yes, C02 is very much a pollutant. Just because it isn't 100% man made, doesn't mean it is not a pollutant. Why should business have been made to cut back on CFCs and other hydrocarbons? It would have certainly been cheaper for them to do business without worrying about such things. C02 forms a barrier in the atmosphere that allows heat in, but doesn't it let it out. Heat is trapped by C02 emissions. Just because such emmisions occur naturally as well as unaturally doesn't mean they shouldn't be watched. Anything we can do to help limit the amount of C02 emmitted into the atmosphere is a step in the right direction. Just as forcing car companies to use catalytic converters, and hair spray companies to use non-cfc compounds didn't put them out of business, limiting C02 emissions will not put American companies out of business.

Later...Shawn

BuffaloBill
5/14/07
6:32 PM

Bush orders rules meant to curb greenhouse gases

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/14/bus...s.ap/index.html

QUOTE

Last month, the Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration for its inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, it declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus can be regulated by the EPA.

The court also said that the "laundry list" of reasons the administration has given for declining to do so are insufficient, and that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming, if it finds that it endangers public health.

usedmeat
5/15/07
11:18 AM

QUOTE

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Proof of how desperate the republicans are for cover after blundering into Iraq. Al Gore made these statments based on the best guesses by our intelligence agencies. The U N inspectors didn't return to Iraq until the following month. They were there from November 2007 to Martch of 2003 when greiker's Monkey ordered them out.

Lie to me once(Saddam's WMDs), shame on you. Lie to me twice(no man-made global warming), shame on me.

Who does Bush have on his side?

A former medical doctor that writes science fiction. A couple of blow-hards on the radio. A few scientists who were funded by big oil.

cyberscribbler
5/15/07
11:35 AM

It nonsenical to continue denying the existence of the portion of global warming attributed to man made causes. Bush is punting another problem to the next administration by delaying action
Response to the high court

QUOTE

What happened: President Bush, responding to the Supreme Court's ruling on global warming, ordered his Cabinet to cut America's gasoline usage by boosting ethanol production and raising federal fuel economy standards.

What it means: Rather than enact tougher regulations like California's -- requiring deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions -- Bush's plan would help Midwest corn farmers and offer flexibility to U.S. automakers.

What's next: Bush's regulations would not go into effect until the end of 2008 just as he leaves office. But Congress may move faster with a new bill requiring new passenger cars to get 35 miles a gallon by 2020 or by other proposals to curb greenhouse gases.

Cody
5/15/07
11:46 AM

QUOTE(usedmeat @ May 15 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]288859[/snapback]

I will give Al Gore a pass on believing world-wide intel estimates of SH's WMDs, and then flipping on the issue when it suited personal partisan politics, but should I then give him a pass on his pseudo-science of man-made global warming?

Sure, man pollutes. It turns out that the SUN, you know, that big bright ball in the sky, causes global warming (doh!). Indeed, the increased CO2 levels are a result of the global warming, not the other way around.

Good bye, surrender monkeys!

solitary
5/15/07
11:58 AM

I'm not a climatologist. I'm not a firefighter. I'm some guy with average credentials (a degree outside of this subject) and a good bit of time to think, at least three hours daily, probably closer to five, where my mind is um, unoccupied. (not vacant, the other definition).
I have the solution to the wild fires.
Fire, like water, wind and earth, is a natural part of the cycle of nature. Fire burns the brush, wind blows in seeds, water wets the seeds, seeds become bushes, bushes become forest, forest becomes overgrown and fire burns the brush. That works successfully for eons.
Now, when a natural fire starts, we put it out. Another starts, we put it out. Another, and another and another, we put it out. Then one starts and we can't put it out, and it burns 1/4 of a state and we look at the complete distruction in awe and wonder why it happened.
The solution, don't put out the naturally started fires. A hundred acres or so will burn and it will stop. The artificially started (arson) fires should be put out, but the rest should be left alone.

I have no solution for earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, other than don't live there or expect them. (Tornado people already do.)

usedmeat
5/15/07
12:00 PM

QUOTE

I will give Al Gore a pass on believing world-wide intel estimates of SH's WMDs, and then flipping on the issue when it suited personal partisan politics,

QUOTE

but should I then give him a pass on his pseudo-science of man-made global warming?

A science backed by an overwhelming majority of atmosphereic scientists.

QUOTE

Good bye, surrender monkeys!

Leaving? So Soon? Well, don't let the door hit you on your exhaust port.

Cody
5/15/07
12:28 PM

QUOTE(usedmeat @ May 15 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]288870[/snapback]

How about changing your opinion based on the facts? The partisan politics were Bush gaming the intelligence with the aid of a compliant media. Remember, if your were for the U N Inspectors completing their mission before invading your were labled a Saddam Lover.

A science backed by an overwhelming majority of atmosphereic scientists. Leaving? So Soon? Well, don't let the door hit you on your exhaust port.

Do you even understand the meaning of partisan politics? If you did, you would not make such a ridiculous argument. If you want to posit that he built his case on intel estimates such as Pres. Clinton did, have at it. Your monkeys in Congress voted in favor. Now you want to blame GWB alone? That is partisan politics.

Yes, the same UN inspection agency who finally admitted that the Iranians had lied to them for 20 years about their nuclear activities? The same ones who documented how they never got unfettered access while Iraq played the shell game with their WMD tools? Get real.

Global warming is accepted by a majority of atmospheric scientists. Man causing it is most definately not. Clean energy only makes sense. Lowering pollution also.

Please don't tell me you went to Lancaster Catholic HS. I don't want to lose faith that they have stopped teaching critical analysis.

Shawn
5/15/07
12:30 PM

QUOTE(Cody @ May 15 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]288865[/snapback]

I have a simple chemistry question for you. Do you believe that C02 traps heat within our atmoshpere? Or, do you think that is a falsehood, and that C02 has no heat trapping qualities?

Later...Shawn

justplainjoe
5/15/07
12:45 PM

QUOTE(solitary @ May 15 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]288869[/snapback]

if the fire burns the trees how do the seeds escape the fire to be blown in the wind? would they not burn up as well?

grieker
5/15/07
1:40 PM

QUOTE(justplainjoe @ May 15 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]288893[/snapback]

if the fire burns the trees how do the seeds escape the fire to be blown in the wind? would they not burn up as well?

They usually don't. Just take a look at any wild fire area a year or two after.

QUOTE(Shawn @ May 15 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]288885[/snapback]

I have a simple chemistry question for you. Do you believe that C02 traps heat within our atmoshpere? Or, do you think that is a falsehood, and that C02 has no heat trapping qualities?

Later...Shawn

Simple answer; yes it does trap heat. A large portion of the "greenhouse" gas is gas that is released by volcanoes. Kind of hard to stop that, but if we could, it would reduce the greenhouse gasses over all.

Cody
5/15/07
1:46 PM

QUOTE(Shawn @ May 15 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]288885[/snapback]

I have a simple chemistry question for you. Do you believe that C02 traps heat within our atmoshpere? Or, do you think that is a falsehood, and that C02 has no heat trapping qualities?

Later...Shawn

I am told it does. It is part of a positive feedback loop as a reaction to global warming caused by the sun. Looking at just a part of the problem will not solve the issue. Reducing our carbon footprint is good for the environment, but it is not proven to cause global warming. Reduce the output of the sun and you reduce CO2 and warming.

Cities have been shown to create micro-climates downwind from their locations. Some of this is thermal, due to the lack of vegetation, and some from pollutants that retain the increased reflected heat.

cyberscribbler
5/15/07
2:05 PM

QUOTE(Cody @ May 15 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]288907[/snapback]

Cities have been shown to create micro-climates downwind from their locations. Some of this is thermal, due to the lack of vegetation, and some from pollutants that retain the increased reflected heat.

Good point!
Deforrestation is also a contributing factor to global warming.
Less trees & rainforrests, less CO2 being converted to oxygen.

johnq
5/15/07
2:31 PM

QUOTE(justplainjoe @ May 15 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]288893[/snapback]

if the fire burns the trees how do the seeds escape the fire to be blown in the wind? would they not burn up as well?

Several of the Western Conifers have cones that will ONLY seed when burned by a fire. Forest fires were once a natural part of the ecosystem and the trees adapted to it. Fires actually triggered reproduction. Don't believe a guy with a Forestry degree, look it up for yourself.

justplainjoe
5/15/07
2:56 PM

QUOTE(johnq @ May 15 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]288926[/snapback]

i believe you john. thanks.

johnq
5/15/07
3:40 PM

QUOTE(justplainjoe @ May 15 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]288935[/snapback]

i believe you john. thanks.

It's actually one of the reasons the Forest Service adopted a policy to let fires burn. It stimulates reproduction in that particular ecosystem. Another interesting tidbit - raspberry seeds can lie dormant for up to 90 years. Go check out a clear cut area in an Eastern Forest a year later and it's raspberry heaven. Just look out for the black bears.

Shawn
5/15/07
3:55 PM

QUOTE(grieker @ May 15 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]288904[/snapback]

They usually don't. Just take a look at any wild fire area a year or two after.

Simple answer; yes it does trap heat. A large portion of the "greenhouse" gas is gas that is released by volcanoes. Kind of hard to stop that, but if we could, it would reduce the greenhouse gasses over all.

That being the case, doesn't it make common sense to try to stop the C02 emissions that we can. It seems strange to say we aren't going to do something about the C02 we can control because there is other C02 that we can't control.

Later...Shawn

QUOTE(Cody @ May 15 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]288907[/snapback]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the C02 is magnifying the effects of a warmer sun that that reduing C02 would reduce the effects of the warming sun? While there is nothing we can do to reduce the heat of the sun, we can certainly reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and attempt to mitigate the effects of a warmer sun to whatever extent possible.

Later...Shawn

solitary
5/15/07
3:57 PM

QUOTE(justplainjoe @ May 15 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]288893[/snapback]

if the fire burns the trees how do the seeds escape the fire to be blown in the wind? would they not burn up as well?

I over simplified, in addition to wind/fire seed dispersal, birds also play a huge factor in this as well as other wildlife. But I firmly beleive the fires experienced in the extreme east and western states over the last, 20 or so years, where hundreds of thousands of acres are wiped nearly clean are the result of stamping out little fires during the last century.
Nature will take care of itself, even if we try to stand in the way. While I have little sympathy for the hollywood types and CEOs who's multi-million dollar summer homes are destroyed, I do see a benefit (environmentally, economically, etc.) in attempting to save people's houses from these small fires. However, the size of the fires that we see right now, this isn't possible.
I can also take the stance that extreme disaster prone ares (mostly island ecosystems) is Nature's way of telling us to get out. Rather blunt, but some areas should not ever been developed. See "Hog Island" as a prime example.

BuffaloBill
5/15/07
4:29 PM

Prescribed burns are one of the best ways to eliminate the fuel that contributes to such large fires. Until the municipalities ban open fires, then it only takes a few years until the entire community is a tinderbox waiting for a spark, lightning, an errant ember or a discrarded cigarette.

lanzate
5/15/07
5:19 PM

Ok, lets be real here. What kind of car does everyone drive? My 5-speed corolla gets close to 40.
Don't worry we won't judge you since I'm sure it is because of your incredible affluence and influence your SUV is justifiable along with never experiencing car pools or public transit.

Maybe we could all pull an Al Gore and cut down on our airconditioning from 24 rooms to 21 during the hottest parts of the summer. Next year you can buy more carbon credits and get yourself a hummer.

johnq
5/15/07
6:17 PM

QUOTE(lanzate @ May 15 2007, 05:19 PM) [snapback]288965[/snapback]

My wife drives a 5-speed Corolla, too. I got rid of my truck (a 4-cylinder S-10) and ride my bike or walk. Saves a lot of dough.

Jaxm31
5/16/07
12:08 AM

QUOTE(Shawn @ May 14 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]288689[/snapback]

I agree. There should be no pollution standards whatsoever. So what if our rivers catch on fire and other bodies of water become health hazards. I meteor could fall from the sky and kill us all anyways. Why should we worry about making companies invest money in pollution prevention? So what if air quality plumets. How good do you think the air quality was back in the prehistoric ages. If we don't cause pollution, some other natural force will. All pollution restrictions should be removed immediately so that our economy can prosper. Just think how much money would trickle down to our own pockets if big businesses didn't have to worry about pesky pollution requirements.

Yes, it's not our problem . Let the next generation worry about it anyway. Who cares if our children and our childrens children pay the price for any reprocussions that could happen. Afterall, they will be paying the price for this war, why not the enviroment while we are it? Hell, it will put hair on their chests....or at least it may be hot enough from global warming to singe them when they do grow them .

solitary
5/16/07
9:54 AM

QUOTE(lanzate @ May 15 2007, 05:19 PM) [snapback]288965[/snapback]

My 1982 Kawasaki gets 47 mpg if I flog the living tar out of it. It's also a 5-speed, but the case says six. If I ever find that missing gear, I should be able to get another two or three MPG points out of the top end of it's economy (59.4 mpg).
I have an 84 mile round trip, public transportation does not run at 4:00 a.m. near my home, it doesn't go as far as I need it to. Walking/bicycling would be nice, but even at a decent jog, that's 20 hours in commuting time.
Speaking of A/C, I need to chew out which ever one of my kids turned it down to 67 last night. I was freezing, didn't sleep too great and damn it, they have a window to open in their room, it was 64* outside, which is free.
I'm also the guy who welded (poorly) up a box to keep them from messing with the timers I put on their TVs so they weren't running all night long.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

It’s not global warming. But what if it is?

May 10th, 2007 1:44 pm · 34 comments

Lancaster blogs

More Smart Remarks