Yep, it looks like we have made it thru another Hurricane season as computer guidance indicates those fall fronts will keep coming and any tropical activity will be steered off the east coast of the U. S. keeping the Gulf quiet. Am I saying we won't see an October storm in the Gulf?...absolutely not. What I am saying is we should not see a major storm in the Gulf threaten us. We might see a "minor system", but the cooling water temps should keep anything major from developing. Frankly, we need to shift our attention back to our politicians for it is they who control our future. This storm season should have shown them that we need to start to rebuild our coasts NOW.
Regarding our Global Warming discussions...every time I bring this up, some of you quickly point out GOVERNMENT FUNDED sources for your information. You deny any opposite opinions by saying the IPCC report or EPA or whatever GOVERNMENT AGENCY says this ,when in fact the opposing opinion is by people not dependent on NSF grants or money from oil companies. Nope, just reject that opinion as being wrong. Kinda like religion. This is not about science, it's about politics and it's about MONEY. Just ask Al Gore how much he's gonna make thru the Cap & Trade of carbon credits? Will it reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere? Nada...but it will make a few folks rich.
10 comments:
I would say global warming is a fact supported with tons of data not just from govern't sources. How do you explain photos taken 30 years ago of snow capped mountains which have always been snow capped as long as man can remember and then you compare them to more recent photos and the snow is gone!? Same with glaciers and rising sea levels?
I think the scientists are saying that the earth is naturally going into a warming cycle but man has caused this cycle to increase at a rapid pace. For example a certain amount of ice to melt would in the past taken 10's of years but now that same amount of ice is melting in just a few years.
AMS believes in global warming and they are not the federal gov't etc. and you are even a member of their organization. Why? curious...
I believe that Bob has covered this in past blog postings, but we can refresh some people's memories.
The top of Mt. Kilimanjaro showed an 82% snow cap loss between 1912 and 2001. However the temps up there have actually declined and are now well below zero (explain that). The issue is moisture that is deposited up there. Not simply the warming.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080814/981/tsc-mt-kilimanjaro-s-snow-cap-may-not-di.html
http://www.greenpacks.org/2008/08/15/mt-kilimanjaro-snow-cap-okay/
Blog Watcher
During the last few decades, the permanent snow and ice on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro has almost completely disappeared, at the rate of about a foot and a half of glacial ice lost per year. This loss is primarily due to increasing average annual temperatures in the region, and scientists are speculating that the glaciers could be completely gone from Kilimanjaro by the year 2015. This ice cap formed more than 11,000 years ago, and 80% of the ice fields have been lost in only the last century.
Even though the volcano appears to be dormant, events on top have been drawing global attention recently. The glaciers are rapidly disappearing. Over the past 100 years , the ice cap has reduced by over 80%. In 2002, a study by Ohio State University ice core expert Lonnie Thompson predicted that ice would be gone between 2015 and 2020. Though the cause of the reduction in ice volume is in dispute, the loss of the Kilimanjaro ice fields will carry significant implications for local populations who depend on water from the ice fields during the dry seasons and rains failures.
From January 2006, the Western Breach route has been closed after a rockslide which killed four people at Arrow Glacier Camp. The rockfall is believed to have been caused by frost action in an area which is no longer frozen.
I had a uncle Caveman that lived their and his cave is no longer covered in ice.
lol ALl that article does is say there is still some snow on the MT and that the temps are cold... lol says NOTHING to explain the 80% loss of snow over the last 80 years which is still occuring at a rapid pace...
Bob, the weather channel has recently done some specials about how global warming is the cause of a lot of the recent fires, tornados, hurricanes, etc.. How in the world can a supposedly credible source be so bias? I lost all faith in them when I caught that show. Politics and money you are correct. There must be a greased palm somewhere at the weather channel!!
It's my opinion that mentioning Al Gore every time the topic of global warming is addressed is a deflection of the actual topic. Al Gore did not discover global warming, he just was initially involved in a movie about it. The issue at hand has been around a long time. What is political is in actions taken by people who have a vested interest in denying the science, such as editors for a certain administration forcibly removing all references to global warming corresponding with human activity from scientific reports. The scientists who wrote the reports objected, but political and financial gain is the motivating factor for many of the anti-global-warming crowds. So both sides do the same thing ... no surprise there. ;)
Does Al Gore make money through his cause? ... sure. Do many on the opposing side make money from theirs? ... absolutely. Hell, if I could become rich by by doing something I am passionate about for a living then that would be spectacular. I do not fault anyone who manages that dream.
But, again, you can love or hate Al Gore, but to attribute global warming to his name every time it is mentioned does nothing for the facts. In my opinion, the consistent name-dropping of an ex-politician whenever a scientific topic comes up is also attempting to politicize an issue that is supposed to be rooted in science.
FYI, the rest of the world, especially the U.K., have been very familiar with the topic years before it became a house-hold word in the U.S. Over the last 20 years they have had some drastic differences, such as getting tornadoes when they are never supposed to have any. So let's drop the political accusations and, in effect, politicizing it ourselves (I also did to counter-charge the anti side) and focus on only scientific facts. There is no need or benefit to name-dropping.
Ditto- Using ole Al Gore all the time has become pretty lame, esp when there are FACTS about the earth warming up quicker than in previous years. etc.
I do not understand the constant attacks on Al Gore. You can say what you want about him but he's only one private citizen and that's it. Sure, he can try to do things to call attention to the issue but OTOH there's the administration who is in power and can issue executive orders and pass legislation and who clearly have their close connections to parties who have vested interests, e.g. oil companies, who seem to be trying to deny or dismiss the science. That's what's not right. Does anyone really believe that the administration has even been even-handed about this? And yet all these constant attacks on Al Gore. Let's focus on the science, absolutely.
With regards to the acorn:cold winter theory - - it takes two seasons to grow an acorn from flower to fruit. As such, for the oaks to predict a cold winter in 2009, they'd need to know in spring 2007. Given that most nut bearing trees are wind pollenated, it's a bit more plausible to note that a heavy nut crop in 2008 is due to conditions favorable for successful pollenation in 2007 and fruit growth in 2008. I can't comment on the feathers, though.
The problem with Al Gore is not the snake oil he's selling. I'm a capitalist, I encourage the sale of snake oil as long as people want to buy it. But once you start passing laws that require that I buy Al's snake oil . . . now I've got a problem.
I call it snake oil because it costs a lot of money and there is no scientific evidence that there will be any discernable impact on the climate.
There is an infinitely large body of evidence out there that is routinely cherry picked applied anecdotally by those who wish to prove that they know where the climate has been and where it's going (either way). Most of these studies do not apply rigorously the requirements of the scientific method in their conclusions, but are fraught with opinion and speculation. There is also no solid scientific evidence that CO2 in varying proportions of the atmosphere has ever or will ever have an impact on global climate systems.
If I had to guess, I would speculate that there is some impact, and that increased CO2 is likely a warming bias. But there is no way that that can be proven, therefore there is no way anyone should be forced to change their lives because of my own or anyone else's speculation.
We must be very judicious with the powers we grant our government, for once granted it is nearly impossible to take them back.
Post a Comment