|
|
|
August 07, 2007
Record Highs
Sacramento California has been reporting record highs this summer. Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest "highs" for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877.I'm wondering if like the Gore effect there might not also be a Newsweek effect. Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.So what I want to know is: why isn't my check in the mail? However, I'm not a true denialist. The IPCC projection of sea level rise has gotten me seriously worried. My advice to people living close to the shore? "Run for your lives before it is too late" the IPCC predicts a 3 mm per year rise in sea level. That is one foot in a century. Think of the devastation that wave would cause if it happened all at once. A one foot wave is unprecedented. It will be the end of civilization as we know it. OTOH "dude, surf's up". OK so could a 5 deg F temperature change be deadly to the flora and fauna on earth? You are telling me that a system that varies over a range of 120 deg F in a year's time is going to be seriously disturbed by a predicted 5 deg F change? And is already out of whack from a 1 deg F change? You are telling me that the biota will not adapt? That adjustments will not be made? You are telling me that we must assume a signal which is much less than the noise will have big effects on the system? Doubtful. That 120 F yearly variation and 20 F daily variation tends to anneal out the effects of very small very low frequency variations at least until they get significant relative to the yearly variations. Well any way, I'm willing to become a full fledged denialist if it pays well. I think $2,500 a month would be sufficient to start. Just let me know the check is in the mail. Several sites have suggested this Marc Morano article: The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION for skeptics - Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below)Mann. I'm on the wrong side in this argument. I guess the check will not be in the mail. There are also some good links here. H/T papertiger Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 08.07.07 at 11:42 AM
Comments
OK. Zones change. Different plants at the edges. Say a zone changes 300 miles in 100 years. This is a problem? I do believe plants and animals will adapt. Their ranges will change. It will not be a problem. M. Simon · August 7, 2007 02:11 PM Wow. The only thing more amazing than your scientific ignorance is the fact that you managed to put so much of it in one place. - Of course individual spots will see new temperature lows. Global warming has to do with average temperatures. On average, temperatures around the world are increasing. Finding one spot where a new low occured is about as significant as finding one person who still supports George Bush - a trend it does not make. - As to temperatures going up 5 degrees on average. The effect would be beyond any you or anyone else has ever seen. The last mini ice age, that plunged Europe into decades of ice, was caused by a global temperature fluctuation of less than 5 degrees. - Sea levels rising a foot is not the same as a one foot wave. The following is from a study by the EPA and only refers to the effects of erosion (one of many effects of sea level rise)... Although erosion is more difficult than inundation to predict, applications of the Bruun (1962) rule and other simplified procedures suggest that a one foot rise in sea level would erode the shore 50-100 feet in New Jersey (Kyper and Sorensen 1985) and Maryland (Everts 1985); 100-200 feet in South Carolina (Kana et al. 1984); 200-400 feet in California (Wilcoxen 1986); and 100-1000 feet in Florida (Bruun 1962). Flooding would increase both because storm surges would have higher bases to build upon (Kana et al. 1984; Leatherman 1984) and because rainwater would drain more slowly (Titus et al. 1987). 2 Finally, the salinity of estuaries and aquifers would increase, threatening water supplies and aquatic life. (e.g. Hull and Titus 1986; Williams 1989). In summation. Get a clue, read a book, or do whatever you need to do say something worth reading. Liam Liam Shannon · August 7, 2007 04:13 PM Wow. The only thing more amazing than your scientific ignorance is the fact that you managed to put so much of it in one place. - Of course individual spots will see new temperature lows. Global warming has to do with average temperatures. On average, temperatures around the world are increasing. Finding one spot where a new low occured is about as significant as finding one person who still supports George Bush - a trend it does not make. - As to temperatures going up 5 degrees on average. The effect would be beyond any you or anyone else has ever seen. The last mini ice age, that plunged Europe into decades of ice, was caused by a global temperature fluctuation of less than 5 degrees. - Sea levels rising a foot is not the same as a one foot wave. The following is from a study by the EPA and only refers to the effects of erosion (one of many effects of sea level rise)... Although erosion is more difficult than inundation to predict, applications of the Bruun (1962) rule and other simplified procedures suggest that a one foot rise in sea level would erode the shore 50-100 feet in New Jersey (Kyper and Sorensen 1985) and Maryland (Everts 1985); 100-200 feet in South Carolina (Kana et al. 1984); 200-400 feet in California (Wilcoxen 1986); and 100-1000 feet in Florida (Bruun 1962). Flooding would increase both because storm surges would have higher bases to build upon (Kana et al. 1984; Leatherman 1984) and because rainwater would drain more slowly (Titus et al. 1987). 2 Finally, the salinity of estuaries and aquifers would increase, threatening water supplies and aquatic life. (e.g. Hull and Titus 1986; Williams 1989). In summation. Get a clue, read a book, or do whatever you need to do say something worth reading. Liam Liam Shannon · August 7, 2007 04:13 PM Liam, I see your point about 5 deg F and you have got me worried. We need to get the temperature up and keep it up to prevent an ice age. So I do appreciate your warning. BTW I do know the difference between climate and weather. Just having some fun at the true believers expense. I also note you made my point. There have been changes in the past (Ice Ages, Warm Ages). We have managed. We will manage. Besides I'm of the opinion we are headed for a Little Ice Age. Part of the 1500 year solar cycle. M. Simon · August 7, 2007 09:29 PM I've already started seeing changes in sea level on my vacation property at the mouth of the Columbia River in Washington. Part of my property now FLOODS in winter, whereas for the last 70 years or so, it didn't. Frank · August 7, 2007 11:52 PM The last mini ice age, that plunged Europe into decades of ice, Wow, I'm surprised you cite that, seeing as those consensus "scientists" who worship at the Church of AGW (presided over by Pope Goreicle the First and Grand Inquisitor Jerry Brown) like to skip that niggling detail. Just what "caused" that mini ice age, hmmm? Darleen · August 8, 2007 01:44 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Propaganda consumes valuable time
• Record Highs • Mutilating the gender normative narrative • Thugs at the trough. (But they "perform a service"!) • When good people can't talk.... • An Interesting Question • Blaming Kevin Bacon (But he's just the tip of the iceberg) • Suspicious Lack Of Coverage • Something Is Wrong • Handy word?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Wrt a few degree change causing problems: Do you do any gardening? Look at the maps they provide sometime--you have to buy plants that fit your zone, and the average temperature change from zone to zone isn't all that big. The issue isn't the mean, but the integral in the tails...
Disclaimer: Do not take this as an argument for or against anthropogenic global warming.