2010 Closes With Yet More Killer Climate Disasters

[lakhota]

As greenhouse pollution continues to build in the atmosphere, 2010 is entering the history books as the hottest year on record. A year of unprecedented extreme weather disasters, 2010 saw tens of thousands of people killed and millions affected by our increasingly dangerous climate. The year is ending with yet more climate disasters, from floods in Australia to winter tornadoes across America:

Parts of Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee were on the lookout for more twisters after several touched down Friday — including one that killed three people in an Arkansas town. Two more people died in southern Missouri. Three people died in Cincinnati, a hamlet of about 100 residents about three miles from the Oklahoma border. An elderly couple died in their home, while a dairy farmer was killed while milking his cows.

The tornadoes are part of an “unusual” storm front fed by “warm, moist air in place over the region.” On the colder edge of the front, “the storm responsible for the deadly tornado is also bringing a dangerous winter storm to the West and Midwest,” with up to three feet of new snow from California to Idaho.

Meanwhile, Australia is being ravaged by unprecedented flooding, following tremendous rainfall for months, compounded by the Christmas Day landfall of Cyclone Tasha. Floods now cover an area “the size of France and Germany combined.” Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced millions of dollars of relief funding as she described the record-breaking floods:

Some communities are seeing floodwaters higher than they’ve seen in decades, and for some communities floodwaters have never reached these levels before [in] the time that we have been recording floods. For many communities we haven’t even seen the peak of the floodwaters yet, that’s a number of days away.

“Some sections of coastal Queensland received over four feet of rain from September through November,” meteorologist Jeff Masters reports. The floods, which have wiped out crops, drowned livestock, and disrupted the largest coal ports in the world, are expected to cause at least $1 billion in damage.

“The science is cooked,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told Politico today. Unfortunately, the cold facts of science are that the planet itself is cooking.

thinkprogress.org/2010/12/31/new-disasters-2010/

[steff]

What people don't understand is what "climate change" means . In the 35 years I lived in Houston, I never saw snow. It has snowed there the past 3 years in a row. Atlanta just had its first white christmas since the 1890's. and last month we had tornados ripping thru.

But those that want to play the "dems bad" game, claim that nothing is different, nothing is wrong. It's "cold" where they live...so what global warming? It's arrogant and downright stupid to think that all the chemicals we pump into the ground & air aren't having some kind of effect.

[Archiethedragon2]

To play devils advocate 35 years is not a very big sample size when we are talking about the climate of the planet. It is less than a half a blink of an eye.

[burnsattornincan]

The abundance of chemicals and other non natural substances being disposed of along with excessive carbon emissions due to the overpopulation of the earth certainly has a negative effect however the concept of earth polarity shifting seems more plausible as we see climate anomolies both north and south.

[verrip1]

Wow!!!!!! Bad weather!!!!!!!!! Cold in the winter, who'd a thunk?

Must be too much global warming.




And Kool Ade.

[verrip1]

Soon we'll be hearing reports of snow in Edmonton. <<brrrrrrrrr>>

[ed1066]

What people don't understand is what "climate change" means

Right. So why did the global warming crowd call it "global warming" for so long until no one would believe it anymore? Why does Al Gore's movie and his books say the earth will be largely a hot desert by 2050? Why did the IPCC panel say in 2007 that snow in the UK was a thing of the past? This is why the whole religious fervor of anthropogenic global warming is now completely discredited and, frankly, anyone who still clings to it comes off like a starry-eyed, brainwashed religious fundamentalist...

[comokate]

Perhaps those who don't understand what "global warming" actually means should research the theory a bit more before showing their ignorance. "Global warming" refers to the rise in the ocean temperature, which is, without doubt, occurring. It's a documented fact. What is causing this to occur is open to debate, but polluting the only planet ( currently) we have to live on " ain't helping".
The problem with the ocean warming, quickly, is that it causes glaciers to melt, thus causing the salinity ( amount of salt ) of the water to change (because of all of that "unsalty" glacier water rushing in). This causes ocean currents to change course because the salinity of the water has changed.
When ocean currents change, climates change.
Rome is at the same latitude on the globe as Chicago, but guess who has milder winter weather ? London is at the same latitude as Montreal, but guess who has the warmer winters...why? Ocean currents bringing warm water up to Rome and London. It's the reason these northern areas are much warmer in the winters than would normally be the case for their latitudes. If these warm currents go away, and there are signs these currents are slowing, the European continent would actually become much colder.
So again, for any who may have missed it;
"Global Warming" actually refers to the rise in ocean temperature.
The rise in ocean temperature will cause climates to change. Some colder, some warmer, some wetter, some drier. This will cause many species of plants and animals to die off.
Humans need plants and animals in order to survive.
Understand the problem?

www.eduspace.esa.int/Background/default.asp?document=243

So maybe before posting opinions that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of a subject matter, people could educate themselves without relying on "Al Gore" ( or any other media hound) explaining it to them.

[vl]

Have you recognized a pattern in the earthquake activity lately? It appears to be circling the globe just above and below the Equator, which coincides with the source for the surface area weather patterns like El Nino and La Nina. Lots of HORIZONTAL pressure on the tectonic plates globe-wide. I'm thinking that we're in for a big adjustment on the VERTICAL plates to alleviate all that pent-up frustration. Now if we can just come up with something natural that shakes the hell out of New York and Dallas and makes financiers soil their shorts and shorts their gambling software-- we'll be looking good for some peace and quiet in that following year.

[comokate]

Jan 4, 2011 7:53:05 GMT -5 @vl said:

Have you recognized a pattern in the earthquake activity lately? It appears to be circling the globe just above and below the Equator, which coincides with the source for the surface area weather patterns like El Nino and La Nina. Lots of HORIZONTAL pressure on the tectonic plates globe-wide. I'm thinking that we're in for a big adjustment on the VERTICAL plates to alleviate all that pent-up frustration. Now if we can just come up with something natural that shakes the hell out of New York and Dallas and makes financiers soil their shorts and shorts their gambling software-- we'll be looking good for some peace and quiet in that following year.

VL,
there has been an increase in activity in all areas. Earthquakes ( and volcanic activity) have always been somewhat common in the "ring of fire" areas of the world, places where the earth's floating crusts bump up next to each other, and in doing so build up tremendous pressure. Volcanic activity and earthquakes are the "pressure relief system".
It's thought that the inner core of the earth consists of a liquid ocean of iron ( which our land masses "float" upon ) surrounding a ball/mass of solid iron. There is speculation that the movement of the liquid iron around the solid core is, in part, responsible for the earth's magnetic field ( which offers protection from solar particlces and other cosmic "nasties" ).
Currently our sun is overdue for a big increase in flare activity.
www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/liam+fox+warns+of+aposthreatapos+from+solar+flares/3770782.html
www.universetoday.com/14645/2012-no-killer-solar-flare/
( Hey VL, find stock in the companies that will be needed for the clean up work )
As the flares bulge out from the surface of the sun, they send out energy particles as well as exert a gravitational, magnetic pull. It is possible this affects the liquid core of iron, to some extent, putting increased movement/pressure on the earth's floating crusts. Increased movement could result in an increase in volcanic/earthquake activity.
An interesting ( at least to me) side note is that the magnetic field is changing:
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html


Another possibility for the increase in earthquake/volcanic activity is the additional problem that as glaciers melt, the weight they exerted upon the crust they sit upon is released. This causes a rise ( in height ) in the land mass in the area they once sat, and a decrease ( in height) of the areas around them. Think of a down comforter...push down on it with your fist. The weight of your fist flattens the area of the comforter underneath, while causing the quilt to puff up ( rise ) around your hand. When you pull your hand away from the comforter, the pressure is released and the flattened areas rises while the once puffy areas that occurred around your hand decrease in height. When are talking about the movement of a hard surface like the earth's crust, the movement changes pressure and those pressure changes could cause the earthquake/volcanic activity.
We live in changing times-

[EVT1]

Careful with that sciency stuff around here. And just what is the 'global warming crowd'? Rational people that rely on experimentation & data to reach a conclusion? Beats ignorance or wishful thinking-and also on the subject- just where is it in the Constitution that allows a business to garbage wherever it pleases regardless of the externalities?

[floridayankee]

Jan 4, 2011 22:43:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And just what is the 'global warming crowd'? Rational people that rely on experimentation & data to reach a conclusion? Beats ignorance or wishful thinking-

that must be why they had to cherry pick their data to reach their conclusion.

Nobody denies "climate change". The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years....most of it with no help from us puny, insignificant human beings what-so-ever.

[jkapp]

Jan 1, 2011 23:03:17 GMT -5 steff said:

What people don't understand is what "climate change" means . In the 35 years I lived in Houston, I never saw snow. It has snowed there the past 3 years in a row. Atlanta just had its first white christmas since the 1890's. and last month we had tornados ripping thru.

But those that want to play the "dems bad" game, claim that nothing is different, nothing is wrong. It's "cold" where they live...so what global warming? It's arrogant and downright stupid to think that all the chemicals we pump into the ground & air aren't having some kind of effect.

It's also arrogant to think the past 100+ years of weather data is the "normal" when looking at a 5 Billion+ year old planet

[handyman2]

Funny I must be a lot older than I thought. Atlanta has not had snow on Christmas day since 1890. When I was 4 I was in Atlanta at my aunts house on Christmas day. It snowed. Lets see that would make me 128 years old. I guess that makes me the oldest person in the world.
People forget what was termed the little ice age that ran until the late 1800's Then there was a lot of crazy weather around the globe.The climate around the world has had radical changes for centuries.

[jkapp]

Jan 4, 2011 22:43:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Careful with that sciency stuff around here. And just what is the 'global warming crowd'? Rational people that rely on experimentation & data to reach a conclusion? Beats ignorance or wishful thinking-and also on the subject- just where is it in the Constitution that allows a business to garbage wherever it pleases regardless of the externalities?

Now quite so with the global warming fanatics...they already have their conclusion - what they need is for the experiments and data to fit it. Not quite the scientific method at that point

[ChiTownVenture]

fanatics

Fanatics are one thing, but when you have a high majority of the scientific community agreeing that there is a problem, then it is safe to assume that there might be a problem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In this case it is better to be safe than sorry.

[jkapp]

Jan 5, 2011 11:49:56 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

fanatics

Fanatics are one thing, but when you have a high majority of the scientific community agreeing that there is a problem, then it is safe to assume that there might be a problem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In this case it is better to be safe than sorry.

Couldn't you say the same thing about any religion?

A majority of people believe in a God...so isn' t better to be safe than sorry?

[verrip1]

A 'high majority of the scientific community' was once fully convinced that the world was flat.

Perhaps some of them still work at infamous East Anglia, where they put the fix on the data.

[ed1066]

Fanatics are one thing, but when you have a high majority of the scientific community agreeing that there is a problem, then it is safe to assume that there might be a problem

I think there's general agreement that the climate is changing. The disagreement is over the reason for the change. As someone else pointed out, the global warming zealots have made their determination and are now just trying to make the "scientific" data fit their conclusion (a.k.a. "bad science")...in that regard, they are exactly the same as the biblical literalists who are going around trying to prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's true. The current crop of anthropogenic global warming alarmists are basically a religious fundamentalist group, and should be treated as such...

[ChiTownVenture]

The disagreement is over the reason for the change.

I disagree, there is substantial agreement that humans are affecting the climate in a negative way. The disagreement is to what degree.

A 'high majority of the scientific community' was once fully convinced that the world was flat.

And what was the drawback to believing this, until proven otherwise? Again I would side with a scientist over some guy off the street.

A majority of people believe in a God

A majority of scientist with scientific data is very different from the majority of people with a hope and a payer.

[jkapp]

>>A majority of scientist with scientific data is very different from the majority of people with a hope and a payer. <<

When the scientific data is suspect, or cherry-picked to fit a pre-drawn conclusion, then the data and the "hope and prayer" are equally as valid.

[ChiTownVenture]

When the scientific data is suspect, or cherry-picked to fit a pre-drawn conclusion, then the data and the "hope and prayer" are equally as valid.

You can't nullify all data because some data was contrived. Removing the data that has been shown to be inaccurate and you still have plenty left to show that there is still a problem.

[nicomachus]

Major investment into Green infrastructure would put our economy on a strong rebound path. Unfortunately, few in the campaign donation giving business support this mentality.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2011 9:50:49 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Funny I must be a lot older than I thought. Atlanta has not had snow on Christmas day since 1890. When I was 4 I was in Atlanta at my aunts house on Christmas day. It snowed. Lets see that would make me 128 years old. I guess that makes me the oldest person in the world.
People forget what was termed the little ice age that ran until the late 1800's Then there was a lot of crazy weather around the globe.The climate around the world has had radical changes for centuries.

I believe they were referring to measureable snow (2 inches or more). In Memphis they said there had been no measurable snow (2 inches or more) since 1913. We only had flurries this past Christmas Day.

[floridayankee]

Jan 5, 2011 11:49:56 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

fanatics

Fanatics are one thing, but when you have a high majority of the scientific community agreeing that there is a problem, then it is safe to assume that there might be a problem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In this case it is better to be safe than sorry.

Nobody is arguing against economical "green" technologies that consume less energy / resources and/or pollute less. After all, we all want green grass, clean water, clean air, etc...

What people do not want are mandated restrictions on energy and expensive, unproven technologies forced upon us based off faulty science and environmental alarmists.

Think about it....if there is overwhelming evidence that there is "man made global warming", why the need to falsify and/omit data?

[nicomachus]

Jan 5, 2011 14:15:03 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jan 5, 2011 11:49:56 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

What people do not want are mandated restrictions on energy and expensive, unproven technologies forced upon us based off faulty science and environmental alarmists.

Think about it....if there is overwhelming evidence that there is "man made global warming", why the need to falsify and/omit data?

That is why the environment has become an economic issue. A capitalist society can only thrive if the driving principle of the market is consumption of resources, including natural resources.

That consumption will inevitably alter the environment from which those resources are taken. If too many are consumed, the region from which they were extracted becomes uninhabitable for two reasons: 1) There can be no local economy without resources, and 2) life usually depends upon those same resources for nourishment.

So in order for a capitalist society to survive without destroying itself, the state becomes a necessary tool to try to curb consumption while at the same time keeping the masses happy with their paychecks, cheap plastic, iPods, big cars, dollar meals, etc.

But the immediate problem, which floridayankee is quite right to point out, is that the government rarely has the expertise available to it to know what the real threats are, the rate of their expanse, etc. Compounding the problem is that its legitimate desire to preserve its society is coupled with its desire to protect profits for businesses, so that it will almost always take the most ineffective solution out of fear of damaging its ties to the business community.

Only by dramatically rethinking the purpose of the economy and its relation to the government can we solve problems like this.

[floridayankee]

That is why the environment has become an economic issue. A capitalist society can only thrive if the driving principle of the market is consumption of resources, including natural resources.

IMHO, smart capitalists know they need to balance consumption with preservation and/or reproduction of their required resources. Did we learn nothing from the buffalo hunters of early America? If you continue reckless depletion of a resource even as vast as the American buffalo, you'll eventually put yourself out of business.

[ChiTownVenture]

.if there is overwhelming evidence that there is "man made global warming", why the need to falsify and/omit data?

There could be any number of reasons why the data was falsified (including personal ego), but to say that it all the data is wrong, even data that was collected and analyzed completely separate from the data in question is irresponsible.

In any case we should be on the cutting edge of Green technology not falling behind other countries. We should also be setting an example of how to protect the planet not destroy it.

[floridayankee]

Jan 5, 2011 18:26:39 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

There could be any number of reasons why the data was falsified (including personal ego),

I'm not buying it. If their conclusion is based on solid scientific research and can be proven, without question as you seem to believe, to be 100% correct, there is absolutely no reason to falsify and/or omit data....unless your conclusion is wrong.

but to say that it all the data is wrong,

I'm not saying it is wrong. In fact, I acknowledge that they could be 100% correct. I just find it hard to trust a conclusion based on falsified / manipulated data

even data that was collected and analyzed completely separate from the data in question is irresponsible.

And it's not irresponsible to take the pre-determined conclusion (formed from proven falsified data) at face value without so much as a question as to why they felt the need to falsify their data in the first place?

You may be so easy to sway, but personally, when someone violates my trust, I tend to question them and their motives from that point forward.

Trust...it's so hard to earn and so easy to squander.

[ChiTownVenture]

You say this

I'm not saying it is wrong. In fact, I acknowledge that they could be 100% correct.

and then say this

I'm not buying it. If their conclusion is based on solid scientific research and can be proven, without question as you seem to believe, to be 100% correct, there is absolutely no reason to falsify and/or omit data....unless your conclusion is wrong.

I don't take the research without question, I also don't go into the discussion with disbelief because someone has falsified some data.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because if for some reason it is proven that we are not affecting climate change what have we lost?

We push ourselves to the forefront of alternative fuels, we prove that we can be leaders and we take responsibility for the resources we use and the damage that we are doing to the planet.

You may be so easy to sway, but personally, when someone violates my trust, I tend to question them and their motives from that point forward.

There is a different in blaming/not trusting the person/people that violate your trust, and blaming/not trusting everyone ever associated with that person.

I would prefer people do a little research and read the scientific findings on their own, then come to their own conclusion as opposed to blindly following a politician and their political ideology.