The sky is falling

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The evidence for the consequences of global warming is appearing with alarming frequency. This morning's headlines are filled with tales of deadly weather: "At least four people were killed and about 40 injured when a tornado tore through a Boy Scout camp in western Iowa on Wednesday night"; "two people are dead in northern Kansas after tornadoes cut a diagonal path across the state"; "[t]wo Maryland men with heart conditions died this week" from the East Coast heat wave. These eight deaths come on top of reports earlier this week that the heat wave "claimed the lives of 17 people" and the wave of deadly storms killed 11 more: "six in Michigan, two in Indiana and one each in Iowa and Connecticut," as well as one man in New York. Tornadoes this year are being reported at record levels. States of emergency have been declared in Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan because of floods and wildfires. Counties in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have been declared disaster areas due to the historic flooding that has breached dams, inundated towns, and caused major crop damage, sending commodity futures to new records. The floodwaters are continuing down the Mississippi River, with "crests of 10 feet or more above flood level" for "at least the next two weeks."

GLOBAL BOILING: This tragic, deadly, and destructive weather -- not to mention the droughts in Georgia, California, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, North Dakota, and elsewhere across the country -- are consistent with the changes scientists predicted would come with global warming. Gov. Chet Culver (D-IA) called the three weeks of storms that gave rise to the floods in his state "historic in proportion," saying "very few people could anticipate or prepare for that type of event." Culver is, unfortunately, wrong. As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that the United States "had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events." In 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is "very likely" that man-made global warming will bring an "increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation." The Nobel Prize-winning panel of thousands of scientists and government officials also found, "Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems." In 2002, scientists said that "increased precipitation, an expected outcome of climate change, may cause losses of US corn production to double over the next 30 years -- additional damage that could cost agriculture $3 billion per year." Scientists have also found that the "West will see devastating droughts as global warming reduces the amount of mountain snow and causes the snow that does fall to melt earlier in the year."

WAKE-UP CALL?: Of the Memorial Day storms that killed eight people and "led to about $160 million in claims," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) rose on the Senate floor on June 5 to say, "the storm may serve as a wake-up call to those of us who have become somewhat complacent about severe weather warnings." The next day, Grassley joined 37 of his colleagues to filibuster climate legislation, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. This week, conservatives filibustered two more bills to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and support renewable energy and energy efficiency. In response to "[T]he most destructive flood in Indiana history," estimated to have caused "$126 million in damages," Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) told reporters that President Bush "called 'simply to inquire about how Hoosiers were getting through this, and to ask me -- as I have asked local officials -- was his level of government doing all it can to support us here and to cooperate with us? I told him, 'So far, so good.'" At the beginning of the month, Bush said he would veto these climate and clean energy bills if they came to his desk, declaring, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans."

'TURNING THE KNOB': Although the deadly weather has been front-page news all season, and news channels dedicate hours of coverage to "Extreme Weather," the media are strangely reluctant to discuss severe weather events in the context of climate change. Perhaps some of the reason is the virulent response from the right wing whenever a journalist or scientist dares to discuss how "the upsurge in the number and power of the deadly storms could be related to a warming climate." In a rare instance of good coverage, ABC's Good Morning America ran a segment on Monday about the East Coast heat wave that noted "90 records have been tied or broken" across the East and interviewed eminent climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider. Schneider explained, "While this heat wave like all other heat waves is made by Mother Nature, we've been fooling around by turning the knob and making a little bit hotter." Schneider then pointed out that we are making the climate hotter through carbon dioxide and methane emissions. In response, the right-wing media outlet Newsbusters wrote that Schneider "Blames Greenhouse Gases for Current Heat Wave," saying, "[G]lobal warming activists have another way to frighten the public -- using steamy weather to suggest human greenhouse gas emissions are worsening a heat wave."

Than's right folks, it's never flooded along the Mississippi. Tornadoes are an unusual occurence, especially in the midwest. A drought has never occured before now. Snow, wind, rain, lightning...all beceuae of your SL 500 or your spouses Yukon.

It's all your fault.

We'reallgonnadie
 
what did we learn today?

a random set of strewn-together happenings or factlets does not a generalizable pattern make.
 
First of all, they aren't saying the sky is falling. They aren't saying we're all fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. What they are saying is that if we continue to do what we are doing, things will get worse. It may take another 1000 years before they become globally deadly, but they will get worse. Is it really that hard to understand, or must it always be a knee-jerk?
 
What they are saying is that if we continue to do what we are doing, things will get worse.

What happened to the ice age? A fluctuating pattern is the norm. It can't always be hot & it can't always be cold. Every thirty years or so, we're told it's a new ice age or it's a heatwave. Nothing has changed but a new way to make folks paranoid.
 
First of all, they aren't saying the sky is falling. They aren't saying we're all fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. What they are saying is that if we continue to do what we are doing, things will get worse. It may take another 1000 years before they become globally deadly, but they will get worse. Is it really that hard to understand, or must it always be a knee-jerk?

Sorry PT, but my problem with the majority of the global warming/climate change bunch is that they in fact are trying to say the sky is falling. The way they exaggerate their clams and overblow the data trivializes what is really happening and their calls for "heroic" measures against it actually works against the people who might have more realistic and likely to be implemented responses. Do you think we can stop using fossil fuels within a decade? Do you think we can stop China from doing it without global thermonuclear war? That'd be great for the environment, wouldn't it? Hey, it would sure as heck stop global warming (well, after all the fires go out).

Al Gore said:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

That's political speak for "lie about it" and it's never "appropriate" now, is it?
 
Sorry PT, but my problem with the majority of the global warming/climate change bunch is that they in fact are trying to say the sky is falling. The way they exaggerate their clams and overblow the data trivializes what is really happening and their calls for "heroic" measures against it actually works against the people who might have more realistic and likely to be implemented responses. Do you think we can stop using fossil fuels within a decade? Do you think we can stop China from doing it without global thermonuclear war? That'd be great for the environment, wouldn't it? Hey, it would sure as heck stop global warming (well, after all the fires go out).
And that is obviously a problem. I don't buy into the fact that the sky is falling either, I know, there are several of them that make it out to be a HUGE problem, and RIGHT NOW. But as you say, can we stop using fossil fuels in a decade. No. Do we need to stop using fossil fuels at some point in our future? Absolutely. Will we be able to stop using them in two decades if we wait another decade to start? Nope, then we're just in the same boat we're in now.

The point is that we need to start making some of these changes now. No, we can't make it all better tomorrow, but if we don't start until the day after tomorrow, then next week isn't looking good either. And quite simply, its unfortunate, but people aren't really willing to make changes like this unless they see an immediate need. Tell people they need to cut their energy use by 10% over the next five years and 90% of people will wait four years to start. Tell them they need to cut 10% of their energy use or they will fucking DIE, and you might get some reaction.
 
Why would we need to cut our useage? Energy is what makes the world go round. It allows all the warm & fuzzy feeling things to happen. It saves lives. It expands our ability to learn, to spend tiume with our loved ones. All advances in the last century come because of fossil fuels.

I'm an advocate for clean atomic energy. Why hasn't a plant been built since the 70's?

Hydrogen automobiles may be the future. It'll take how long to put enough fuel stops into place & to get all our people into hydrogen autos? Hell, it took 4 years longer than planned to get us all over to digital (HDTV). And that isn't complete, yet.

Cutting our use of energy isn't the answer to anything. Allocating energy production from existing technology is the answer. Build atomic & use our resources to find better ways. Just don't mandate it.
 
The tree huggers make the pols anxious. Anxious politicians don't do squat. That's why there have been no refineries nor power plants built since the 70's. The energy companies have requested approval only to be shot down. Time after time.
 
hint: it ain't the tree huggers.

That should read "It aint JUST the tree huggers". Fossil fuels were cheaper to use in energy production than nuclear, so our energy producers decided not to build nuclear plants. This appeased the tree huggers because they didn't want another TMI in "their" nape of the woods. They also didn't want a coal-fired plant (acid rain), or hydroelectric (damming the rivers/snail darters). That doesn't leave much, does it? Wind power takes a few hits because of bird-strikes and, according to jimpeel the risk of catastrophic blade failure in extreme wind conditions. Solar takes a hit because of low-light conditions. None of this would really matter if our energy policy was focused on clean energy, though, instead of lining someones pockets...I'm still banking on wind being the ultimate electric-producer...
 
Acid rain...I've always loved that. The affects used to be called erosion.
 
Nope. Good business sense isn't always driven by fat profits.

It's pretty evident that in todays business climate, with very rare exceptions, it very much is. Even given the evidence that it's bad business practice in the long run.
 
Nope. Good business sense isn't always driven by fat profits.

you're right. however there is a decided lack of good business sense. the drive toward immediate profits AKA "shareholder value" results in a buncha shitty, short-sighted decisions. effectively we've got corporate mindset that finds it very difficult to think beyond existing production, distibution, and other large scale technical systems.
 
This morning's headlines are filled with tales of deadly weather: "At least four people were killed and about 40 injured when a tornado tore through a Boy Scout camp in western Iowa on Wednesday night"; "two people are dead in northern Kansas after tornadoes cut a diagonal path across the state";

Tornadoes are caused by cold air, not warm. Just one more large piece of evidence that the proponents of GW are full of shit.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_tornadoes.htm

Tornadoes form in unusually violent thunderstorms when there is sufficient (1) instability, and (2) wind shear present in the lower atmosphere. Instability refers to warmer and more humid than usual conditions in the lower atmosphere, and possibly cooler than usual conditions in the upper atmosphere. Wind shear in this case refers to the wind direction changing, and the wind speed increasing, with height. An example would be a southerly wind of 15 mph at the surface, changing to a southwesterly or westerly wind of 50 mph at 5,000 feet altitude.

This kind of wind shear and instability is usually exists only ahead of a cold front and low pressure system. The intense spinning of a tornado is partly the result of the updrafts and downdrafts in the thunderstorm (caused by the unstable air) interacting with the wind shear, causing a tilting of the wind shear to form and upright tornado vortex. Helping the process along, cyclonically flowing air around the cyclone, already slowly spinning in a counter-clockwise direction (in the Northern Hemisphere), converges inward toward the thunderstorm, causing it to spin faster. This is the same process that causes an ice skater to spin faster when she pulls her arms in toward her body.

Other processes can enhance the chances for tornado formation. For instance, dry air in the middle atmosphere can be rapidly cooled by rain in the thunderstorm, strengthening the downdrafts that are needed for tornado formation. Notice that, in virtually every picture you see of a tornado, the tornado has formed on the boundary between dark clouds (the storm updraft region) and bright clouds (the downdraft region), evidence for the importance of updrafts and downdrafts to tornado formation. Also, an isolated strong thunderstorm just ahead of a squall line that then merges with the squall line often becomes tornadic; isolated storms or more likely to form tornadoes than squall lines, since an isolated storm can form a more symmetric flow pattern around it and also have less competition for unstable air "fuel" than if it were part of a solid line of storms.
 
Fossil fuels were cheaper to use in energy production than nuclear, so our energy producers decided not to build nuclear plants. This appeased the tree huggers because they didn't want another TMI in "their" nape of the woods.

In New York Mario Cuomo stopped the construction of a nuke plant at Shorham, Long Island even though it was being brought up and had achieved 1% of capacity. The order was then given that the vessels were to be drilled full of holes so they could never be used again or ever brought on line. Otherwise, there would be another 3,000 MW of power available to New Yorkers.

$6 billion down the drain and the electric utility bankrupted and went out of business. The taxpayers had to pay the bill and their electric rates are sky-high. It was the first time that a fully functional federally licensed plant had been taken off line by a state governor.
 
Back
Top