A frequently heard refrain from the right (how in the hell did this become political?) that shows utter ignorance of how global warming works. It’s not too hard. Warming temperatures (mean temperatures – measured on a planetary scale) mean more evaporation from oceans, and the excess water rises into the atmosphere. Water has to go somewhere, requiring rain to fall – and now that we have more water up there, more water must come down here. That’s why we’re not expecting more storms, we’re expecting more severe storms. This is also why we had so much snow in the temperate zones last winter. The water goes up and the water comes down.
Here are a few facts about the ongoing flooding crisis in Pakistan (6,000,000 people directly affected; 2,000,000 homeless). Expect to see more of this:
- one fifth of the country under water
- two years of crops washed away
- towns and villages across the country disappeared in two days
- a year’s worth of rain fell in ONE DAY
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
Warming temperatures (mean temperatures – measured on a planetary scale)
Do temperatures fluctuate over time and places without human intervention?
LikeLike
Of course they do. They always have. Natural processes assure us of that.
LikeLike
Of course they do. They always have. Natural processes assure us of that.
Right. So, how can you be so sure that what we are seeing isn’t natural variation?
Hi 😉
LikeLike
It’s not me who is sure – it’s (see below) NASA, NOAA, Pentagon, even the CIA has a bunch of reports out.
We do know that excess CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet, whether it gets there without our help or not. And there is excess CO2. And the planet is warming. And as hte CO2 dump accellerates, so does the warming.
But I’m no scientist, so I have to make informed choices about who to believe. And when an enormous preponderance of the scientific community in the world, when all those who must constantly update planning (Pentagon, NASA etc) and hte data they publish say it’s happening, I go with that.
You don’t have to beleive it of course. Although I have no idea whether you do or don’t.
LikeLike
Forgot to say hi!
LikeLike
Puzzled though, I’ve been told a number of times that Global Warming will cause drought and desertification.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Absolutely, desertification and drought will be part of the picture for sure.
LikeLike
Here’s a NASA link
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
here’s another one
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Click around and you’ll find lots about drought and desertification. Or go to the Pentagon or CIA sites and search them for climate change. Very similar stuff.
LikeLike
So you are saying that the floods in Pakistan and China are caused by global warming then?
Cheers
Roger
LikeLike
The floods (in Pakistan anyway) are caused by an extreme amount of rain., way more than a normal monsoon. They got a years’ worth of rain in one day.
So the question is why such heavy rain? See the post.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
There is no way to prove that extreme weather events, storms, droughts, floods, etc. are any worse because of supposed global warming. You cannot measure it. There also is no way to prove that reducing green house gases will have any effect on the weather.
As far as desertification, that has always gone on. And you really cannot blame Global Warming deniers for using unusual things like freak snow storms to debunk Climate Change. Your side used every heat wave and Hurricane as proof of Global Warming.
Now follow me on this. During this economic downturn of the last 3 years, the US and the rest of the world has put out less green house gases, so why hasn’t the earth cooled ? Why the drought in Russia and the floods in Pakistan ?
LikeLike
First, I don’t have a ‘side’ in this but you seem to. As for your question about the last three years? Get serious Alan!
LikeLike
Alan has a point! Here is something else to consider; the patterns of climate change seem to indicate either wondering poles or a wobble in the earth’s spin. This is the likely cause of many earth quakes and strange weather patterns. The earth is basically a celestial magnet because of its size (if it were as small as Mars, we would have lost our atmosphere a long time ago) Dislocation of core mass in the earth effects the earth’s magnetic field. That has an effect on weather as well. Also, observe the activity of the Sun in connection with weather cycles. The Sun just went through a period where there were no Sun spots. It lasted for an unusually long period of time. During that period, there was a cooling cycle. The same thing happened in the 80s’. It seems that points of highest solar activity have a direct effect on global climate.
Extreme weather is also the planet’s way of renewing lost ozone, most of which is lost from solar winds. When the Sun is extremely active, we are literally being bombarded with radiation. Traveling solar particles strip off ions. I do think we should take care of the environment but climate change isn’t happening for the reason we’ve been led to believe, well at least those who don’t understand physics.
We are in more danger of poisoning our selves than anything. Life goes on without us. We die, but everything else adapts. Isn’t that a good thing from a liberal point of view? After all, mankind is the virus right?
LikeLike
Hi frankenmosher (love the name!) – your comment is way too wonky for me – above my pay grade. A link or two might prove informative for this unscientific type.
And of course you are correct – the planet and abundant life will go on no matter what we do to ourselves. Adaptation is the key. The question has always been what should we do to save our friggin’ SELVES. I would think we need to adapt.
LikeLike
Adapt – I mean we need to alter hte way we affect this lovely blue planet that currently sustains us.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
Going Green has real economic costs. Ask the people of Spain. Now if you cannot ‘prove’ that reducing green house gases will have any measurable effect
on the climate, what is the point?
If you want me to, I can dig up all kinds of evidence of strange weather and climate shifts that happened long before Western Europeans began destroying the Earth.
The most striking was the desertification of Northern Africa, aka the Sahara Desert. Around, I think 8,000 BC the Earth’s spin wobbled and the rains shifted thousands of miles to the South. If only Al Gore had lived during that time. Maybe he could have banned camp fires.
LikeLike
[Going Green has real economic costs. ]
So does not going green. If a single utility company had been willing ot invest in nuclear power over the last 30 years, we might be in a much better position. But they weren’t into investment and they absolutely weren’t willing to spend the extra money to meet hte evolving safety standards.
[ Now if you cannot ‘prove’ that reducing green house gases will have any measurable effect on the climate, what is the point?]
If you cannot prove that an experimental drug might cure your terminal cancer, what’s the point?
I’m familiar with all the history of climate shifts and strange weather patterns over the centuries – so using your reasoning, I guess you’d need to ‘prove’ it means global warming isn’t happening before deciding to do nothing.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
Believe it or not life is a Galactic cost benefit analysis. Sounds like very capitalist,business, Republican phraseology. But every action all of us take is based on it . Whether when I’m laying on the couch watching the tube, am I hungry enough to get up and get a snack, or am I too tired to move. Deploying green technology is far more costly than whether I get my sorry butt off of the sofa.
I am not against developing solar, wind, geothermal, or my favorite butanol, which is an alternative to ethanol. Development and deployment are totally different. Burning our crops in our gas tanks ( ethanol ) is one of the most idiotic deployments of this ‘green’ age. Of course Republicans are just as guilty in this payoff to the Iowa Caucuses as Democrats. And if I were a corn farmer I’d be the biggest hypocrite and be for it too.
” If a single utility company had been willing ot invest in nuclear power over the last 30 years, we might be in a much better position. But they weren’t into investment and they absolutely weren’t willing to spend the extra money to meet hte evolving safety standards. ”
Ahhh, scuse me Lucy, I cannot believe you could put forth this argument. The ‘Greenies’, your people, did everything possible to make sure no more nukes were ever built after 3 Mile Island . These are the folks who swept Obama and Pelosi into office. Anytime a utility had a permit hearing for a new nuclear plant Protesters came with their signs and the lawyers filed papers to drown the utilities in red tape.
The funny thing is that France of all countries is a leader in Nuclear plants. They actually export electricity. Socialist France, who would have thought.
” [ Now if you cannot ‘prove’ that reducing green house gases will have any measurable effect on the climate, what is the point?]
If you cannot prove that an experimental drug might cure your terminal cancer, what’s the point?”
Which brings me back to my central point. Cost to benefit analysis. What is a human life worth. A Liberal would say ‘priceless’, but in the real World , even Obama’s World, that’s not true. If your theoretical experimental drug cost a penny and there was a 10% chance of it saving you, by all means do it. Even into the hundreds of thousands of dollars an ‘Obama death panel’ guy might say yes. What if this magical pill costs $10billion dollars, well see you in heaven.
And my $10 billion pill is not that big of an exaggeration when compared to the real cost of green energy. Again, ask the Spanish.
” I’m familiar with all the history of climate shifts and strange weather patterns over the centuries – so using your reasoning, I guess you’d need to ‘prove’ it means global warming isn’t happening before deciding to do nothing. ”
In the very long run technology will find a way to replace fossil fuels. Whether it’s nuclear, or green, or something not thought of yet. I see no reason to ruin my economic future, my children’s future, or their children’s future, over something that is pitched with lies.
Oh, since you are familiar with the history of climate shifts, what do you know about the great civilization ending droughts of pre Inca Peru?
Sorry for rattling on. Sometimes, I can’t stop.
LikeLike
[Ahhh, scuse me Lucy, I cannot believe you could put forth this argument. The ‘Greenies’, your people, did everything possible to make sure no more nukes were ever built after 3 Mile Island . These are the folks who swept Obama and Pelosi into office. Anytime a utility had a permit hearing for a new nuclear plant Protesters came with their signs and the lawyers filed papers to drown the utilities in red tape.]
Not my people Alan – just because they waved signs, doesn’t mean they are ‘the left’. Sure I’m an environmentalist, and I hope we see our way to developing alternate non fossil energy sources. But point me ot one single time that a utility or energy company even applied to build nuclear in 30 years! Just one. Didn’t happen.
The left was very anti-nuclear after Three Mile Island, but that changed a long time ago. Here’s what Al Gore said in 2008 – not an endorsement of nuclear, but he is not opposed.
“We have a lot of nuclear plants in the U.S., and … I’m not anti-nuclear. I’m a little skeptical that’s it’s gonna play a much bigger role than it does now. I think it’ll continue to play a role. But the problems with nuclear are it’s very expensive. It takes a long time to build. And these nuclear plants only come in one size, extra large. And utilities don’t want to commit all that money for 15 years to get a plant that’s rising in cost. And of course the fuel also has some problems, because if it gets out to other countries that can’t be trusted, it feeds the problem of proliferating nuclear weapons. ”
It’s not either/or – nothing is. We need to get going now because nuclear or solar or nuclear, it’s going ot take decades to develop and deploy new technology.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
I believe you are totally wrong in saying that the environmentalists are not primarily responsible for stalling nuclear energy for 3 decades. Generally I have proof, but right now I’m too tired to research it, so I will leave it for another thread.
But I was not kidding about the droughts of Peru. There was more than one Indian civilization wiped out by climate change before Cortez and Pizarro took out the rest.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt what you are saying about Peru. But was that Peru or the planet (at least as far as we knew)? I realize that desertification has happened throughout the world’s history, sometimes slowly sometimes fast. And climate changes have happened too. But none of that means that we aren’t experiencing a very serious climate change now.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
Sorry to drag this topic on forever, but one , I hope, last point. Long before I ever heard about Global Warming I read the Reader’s Digest version of ” The Sea Around Us “. Written by Rachael Carson. She had written “Silent Spring”. Anyway in it she talked about 700 year warm and cold cycles . They were controlled by ocean currents. It was the first I had heard of the medieval warm period. This lasted from maybe 600 AD to 1300 AD. (the Viking Age )
After which came the mini ice age. If the pattern holds true we are entering the next warming cycle.
Having still a smattering of these readings still in my big head, I was more than skeptical when Al Gore, fresh off inventing the Internet, discovered Global Warming was a great way to make money.
LikeLike
Another author we share – my copy of ‘Silent Spring’ has gone missing (and I’d had it for almost 50 years!) but I still have my copy of “The Sea Around Us”. She had such an enormous effect. I am now inspired to re-read at least the last chapter on the “Global Thermostat”.
My understanding is that the difference between natural ‘warming’ or ‘cooling cycles’ and today’s threat is that they are not caused by the same things. We are able to measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature in the troposphere and the two things correspond. And they have been rising in tandem since measurements began around 1850. Quite precisely.
Gore? Internet? He never said he invented it. This one always makes me mad. Because the fact is that what he DID say, that he was instrumental in getting the funding through Congress for the Military to pursue it, was absolutely true. He recognized when most others didn’t bother, that this had huge potential. So he was very instrumental.
And he deserves great credit for that. Instead, because of a sloppy bit of reporting about ten years ago, he gets scorn.
Gore was hugely important in the development of the Internet – which by the way, was yet another thing invented by that durn socialist government with our tax dollars.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
I have no respect for Al Gore. The man is worth about $100 million. I do not begrudge a capitalist getting rich. I do begrudge him because so much of it was made with his phony environmentalist ventures. I only hope Tipper takes him to the cleaners in the divorce. When it comes to rich Democrat hippiecrits, I believe in class warfare.
LikeLike
Phoney adventures leading to riches? Hmmmm? Lot of that going around.
Gore is about as phoney on environmental issues as Ross Perot was about the deficit.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
Funny you brought up Mr. Perot. I well remember telling everyone on my side they would be sorry for voting for him. In1992, many , well let me call them neo Libertarians, wanted to teach Republicans a lesson. They voted Perot. Every single time America decides to teach Republicans a lesson, there is trouble. In 76 America decided it would screw itself to teach Gerald Ford a lesson for pardoning Richard Nixon. Well we really showed the Republicans, we elected Jimmy Carter.
In 92, America and the Libertarians, they really showed us. Idiots, we got 8 years of Clinton. In 08 again Republicans had to be taught a lesson. How’s that hope and change workin for you America ?
But, I got side tracked. Personally I liked Perot, but I knew he would throw the election to Democrats. I knew he could not be elected. It took some time for my friends to realize I was right.
LikeLike
So you’re saying that Americans are very often in the mood to punish Republicans. True enough – a party that doesn’t beleive in government isn’t very good at governance.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
” a party that doesn’t beleive in government isn’t very good at governance ”
I accuse, or to use my 3 years of high school French, J’accuse you of using a strawman argument. This is a very serious matter, except when I do it. 🙂
But Republicans are not ” a party that doesn’t beleive in government “. They believe that government has got to have limits. A government with out limits is tyrannical. Barak Obama ‘is’ pushing us dangerously close to tyranny.
” So you’re saying that Americans are very often in the mood to punish Republicans. ” Yes! Being the amateur historian and looking back on politics, especially post WWII, I believe in the pendulum theory. The public gets tired of either party running the White House after 8 years. A President really has to be a bust, not to get a second term ( Jimmy Carter ) . George H. W. Bush was really a third Reagan term. Clinton and George W. both had 2 terms and the country then switched parties. Congress is more complicated.
Barak Obama will have to stop bashing Corporate America soon if he wishes to get the economy moving before ‘he’ is up for reelection. Believe it or not, a Republican victory in November might save him, like it saved Clinton. Republicans would force him into pro business policies and give him somebody legitimately to blame, when things go wrong. Right now, if you look at the polls, blaming Congressional Republicans, blaming Bush, ain’t working.
LikeLike
Far as I am concerned, Obama isn’t ‘bashing’ corporate America nearly enough. (Is saving GM and the big banks considered bashing?)
Sadly, as soon as he named Summers and Geithner to his economic team, it was clear that Obama was going to remain true ot the Goldman Sachs camp. Very sad for us all.
Anyone who thinks that big corporations (I don’t mean small business) aren’t calling the shots in DC or have the interests of this country at heart, is deluding themselves. The largest companies in this country do not have borders and have no national allegiance. None at all. Even if they talk the talk and wave a lot of flags – they do NOT walk the walk.
LikeLike
Moe,
“Far as I am concerned, Obama isn’t ‘bashing’ corporate America nearly enough. (Is saving GM and the big banks considered bashing?)”
Who do you work for then, or do you have private wealth to live on?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Ah Roger, I retired last year and my income is the socialist Social Security – into which I paid for 43 years. What are you planning to live on when you retire?
(In my working life, I worked for some fine corporations and some not so fine corporations. I always preferred the ones who actually made stuff or did stuff. Tried working once for a company that just owned stuff. Made me feel dirty.)
LikeLike
Moe,
So the question is, if you were still working for those corporations, would you still prefer that Obama bash hell out of them and the infrastructure they depend on?
Cheers
Roger
PS I wont have the privilege of retiring as the government here managed to take all my savings when I tried to get a consent to plant 20 hectares of native trees on some eroding coastal land. It seems it was inconsistant with their conservation and sustainability policies.
LikeLike
rogerthesurf,
It amuses me how Liberals who apparently have no money problems bash American Corporations. As if corporate is a dirty word. Last time I looked, the portion of my 401k that is in equities, is all in evil Corporations. When Obama was punishing evil BP, a bunch of poor guy British pensioners were crying. Actually a bunch of retired American state worker poor guy types were crying because their pensions were invested in BP. Of course now we could call it Barak Petroleum. That along with Government Motors are all part of Obama Inc.
The American public is basically dum as paint. They got the hope and change they voted for.
LikeLike
[Of course now we could call it Barak Petroleum. That along with Government Motors are all part of Obama Inc. ]
Nope. Not so. BP has not given US even a sliver of ownership.
Also, you seem to think that buying stocks in a private corporation should be a guarantee that the stock will go up. Since when is that supposed ot be the case?
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
” Nope. Not so. BP has not given US even a sliver of ownership ”
I do not trust Obama keeping his hands off the 20 billion spill fund. To him it’s another stimulus patronage fund.
” Also, you seem to think that buying stocks in a private corporation should be a guarantee that the stock will go up. Since when is that supposed ot be the case? ”
Please show me how I ever gave you that impression. After 3+ decades of riding the market to many tops and many bottoms, you have got to be kidding. You totally missed my point. That point is, the rest of the investing universe does not share my courage or stupidity, depending on your viewpoint, that America is still a good place to put your money to work. Until that fool ‘you’ put in the White House stops screwing the investor, he never will get unemployment down to Bush’s levels.
Even Clinton understood economics. Resides chasing women, it was the only thing he was really good at.
LikeLike
[ he never will get unemployment down to Bush’s levels. ]
As over the top as anything you’ve ever said Alan. Just amazing.
LikeLike
Moe,
I don’t know if you realize it, but your last comment is an ad hominem attack and you avoided any factual or logical rebuttal.
We are used to that through discussing things with global warming alarmists but surely you are better than that.
Cheers
Roger
LikeLike
roger – it would be ad hominum if Alan and I hadn’t been having this exact conversation for many months now. We have in fact been chatting on this very subject of jobs and unemployment on another thread, so the comments here was contemporaneous with that conversation. Please join in:
Actually, we’ve been having htis conversation on more than one thread. I think Mr. Scott and I like to talk too much 🙂
And meanwhile, welcome.
LikeLike