Snowmageddon and Climate Change: Bradford Plumer in the New Republic
What The Snowpocalypse Tells Us About Global Warming
by Bradford Plumer
The New Republic, February 10, 2010
Washington D.C.’s getting slammed by record snowfall right now, which means that in addition to unplowed roads and Mad Max-style scenes at Safeway, we also have to suffer through a flurry of Al Gore jokes and Republicans snorting about how this proves global warming is all fake. I guess the prim, boring response is that a single weather event, even an extreme one, simply doesn’t tell us much about long-term climate trends.
But blah, blah, everyone’s heard that line before. A more thoughtful reply comes from meteorologist Jeff Masters, who explains why massive snowstorms in the Northeast aren’t inconsistent with a steadily warming world:
There are two requirements for a record snow storm:
1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow.
The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.
According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S.
This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, “The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity.”
Meanwhile, it’s worth noting the U.S. Global Change Research Program actually predicted stronger winter storms for the Northeast, in its 2009 report on potential climate-change impacts for the United States:
Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights.”
Still, we can’t definitively say that global warming caused this snow monstrosity—again, it’s impossible to attribute any single weather event to long-term climate shifts. (For instance, El Niño may be playing a bigger role right now in feeding these snowstorms.) At most, we can say that a warming climate is expected, over time, to create the conditions that make fierce winter storms in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic more likely. At least for awhile: If the planet keeps heating up, then in theory freezing conditions in the Northeast will become rarer, at which point snowstorms may, too. But we’re not at that point—the Earth hasn’t warmed that much yet.
On the other hand, climate models do predict that snowstorms in the southernmost parts of the United States should become less frequent in the coming decades: There’s plenty of moisture down south, but freezing temperatures are likely to decrease and the jet stream is expected to shift northward. So if those regions start seeing a sustained uptick in snowfall, then something’s gone awry in climate predictions. But one blizzard in the Northeast, while miserable and incredibly disruptive, isn’t out of whack with long-term forecasts. (That’s not exactly cheerful news for those of us who have to live here.)
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Indirectly related is an item from Australia which claims that organized intimidation of climate scientists is in play:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Interesting, Todd R., that Australia is presently in a record drought and in a distinct temperature rise running for decades:
http://www.connectedwater.gov.au/water_policy/climate_var.html
Misdirected frustration, possibly.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:02 pm
The climate warming of medievil times, was not consistent with the subsequent cooling trend. During the Ice Age, snowfall continued, until a mile-high ice sheet covered the north american continent. The predictors of global warming are grasping at singular events, as irrelevent to the eventual warming of the global climate that they are insisting, is taking place. It does not matter, how severe a winter storm, with snow and plunging temperatures; global warming is occurring and is taking place, because they have said so. Meanwhile, resignations of leading scientists and rebuttals of former predictions, matter not to the elitist thinkers. They believe!
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Suggestion, James: for “elitist thinkers” you could substitute “more than 90 percent of the scientists who know the climate science best.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Well and succinctly put, Andrew Bard Schmookler. My sister the scientist has no doubt about climate change. Her opinion, which of course is based on the opinions of many others, added to what I myself have read, is enough for me.
It is interesting that the usual crazies are abusing the climate scientists. Why am I not surprised. They do a lot of that sort of thing on a variety of topics. No, James, I am not thinking that you are the type who would stoop so low as to participate in any such thing. There’s supposed to be a bit of a friendly joke there in my even mentioning that.
Larry
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
I believe this good article link came to my attention via the Sojourners (sojo.net) daily world news selection service by Duane Shank a couple of days ago–a service I have recommended many times and continue to recommend.
Thomas L. Friedman says “global warming” should be more appropriately termed “global weirding” because what is happening and what will happen is more and more unusual weather patterns of all sorts, not just warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
Larry
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
James, you may want to consider the difference between a trend and a datum.
Re “the experts”, not long ago a cosmologist commented on climate change. He said that as a cosmologist he did not have the expert knowledge about climate that climate scientists do, so he had three choices, as he saw it:
(1) Have no opinion at all about climate change
(2) Disbelieve what the clear majority of experts on the subject says
(3) Believe what the clear majority of experts on the subject says
He chose option (3).
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
The scientists who know the climate science best are stilted from the lack of information needed to definitively point to the truth of the matter; the whole truth and nothing but, so it behoves on individual `knowing bests` to lean on others, drawing the society into the deception. More than fancy narratives and sketchy research are required to arrive at the truth. We need to know and draw back from prediction!
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
James, could you try saying that again another way? I cannot find the sense in it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:42 am
Meanwhile, part II on who is organizing the intimidation of climate scientists in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm
Part of the article there:
“What motivates the legion of climate deniers to send hate-mail? In recent years a great deal of evidence has come to light linking fossil fuel corporations with organisations that promote climate denial, but it would be a mistake to believe that the army of sceptical bloggers is in any sense in the pay of, or directly influenced by, the fossil fuel lobby.
Climate denialism has been absorbed by an older and wider political movement, sometimes called right-wing populism. Emanating from the United States, and defined more by what it fears than by what it proposes, the movement’s enemies were helpfully listed in a 2004 TV ad attacking Democrat Howard Dean, whose supporters were characterised as a:
“tax hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show.”
Although the targets are adapted to Australian conditions, in both countries the movement is driven by feelings of angry grievance. Those who identify with it see themselves as anti-liberal, anti-elitist and anti-intellectual. They are resentful of their exclusion from the mainstream and at the same time proud of their outsider status.”
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Those in the know, realize that Global warming, doesn`t exist.The assumption that the scientists have embraced, theorizes that humans are responsible for this: the theory that temperatures would rise due to human emissions. There is a consensus before the research. We listen to the politicians who are unschooled, while the frightened scientists give the government what it wants, for fear of losing their grants.
The climate deniers such as Michael Crichton, “State of Fear”, Richard Lindzen (MIT), Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, and Aaron Wildavsky might ask Andy: Yes, but is it true?”
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6042
I am trying to say that the leper huddled in that dark shadow might know the way better than the ivory-shawled `tall fiqure`, who holds the gilded schroll as proof. Yes I hear y`all, but is it true”?
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Perhaps I should just let you be. But I still feel moved to say:
Sometimes you astound me, James. How in the world do you come to be able to make such claims, as if you were somehow able to make such a judgment, contrary to the National Academy of Sciences and dozens of other institutions that, one would think, you might feel would be in a position to judge better than you.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Another way of expressing the above to clarify and make sense of what you find sensless: The scientists supporting climate change are supporting a theory and arriving at a consensus, before the scientific method of investigation has been exhausted. The climate is warming and, according to the majority, it is considered proper to accept the consensus of opinion, which is a mere theory or belief; an abstract: the majority believes. The individual scientist must (behove) the others and gleen strength form those who have been deemed, as knowing best, to accept the prevailing consensus, otherwise the individual becomes an outcast and, is out of work. Scientists need to work too. The public however, need to know the truth and not rely on expert theory, or the prediction of climate change will bankrupt the economy, putting most out of work, except the rich.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
You have a point, my conceit in thinking that I could possibly form an opinion on the climate issue. If were a passenger on the Titanic, how conceited of me to suggest to Captain Edward Smith, that he not retire, but pay attention to his ship; he knows so much better than me. If a homeless person has been there; seen that; would`nt you consider his or her judgement over that of the cloistered professor? I thought not, so it is inevitable that you will, with the others, go down with the ship. Andy, talk to the wretch now and then; they have been there and seen that!
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
It’s one thing to form an opinion. It’s quite another, James, to presume that your opinion –based on what?– is superior to that of the great majority of the scientists in the field.
What word would you choose to describe the latter?
You write:
What does that mean? What could it mean for “the scientific method of investigation” to be “exhausted”?
One might be charitable, and take your meaning to be that the scientists have reached a consensus while there are still things to be learned about how the system of the earth’s climate has fully been understood. Of course, that is true. WHen will that system EVER be fully understood?
There are two kinds of error here. One is to do something when nothing is required. THe other is to do nothing when something is required.
You are concerned with the first. As you write:
What a leap, and based on WHAT?, this idea of yours that doing SOMETHING will bankrupt the economy. What if that Something involved spending 1 percent of GDP, or 2 percent? Did it “bankrupt” the economy to pay between 3-6 percent every year for forty years on defense to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war? Do you somehow assume that what people are calling for is some sort of zero-carbon-emissions program? What exactly do you know about what’s being proposed, on the basis of which you call for us to ignore the scientists.
And then there’s that other error, to do NOTHING when something is required. What if the overwhelming majority of scientists are right about what’s happening, and what its implications will likely be, and we do nothing to avert that scenario? Are you even aware of the scenarios that are considered plausible by climate scientists? And if so, what do you think prudence would require of us in the face of such scenarios, considered quite plausible by most of the most knowledgeable people?
What do you think future generations would think of people like you, saying the things you are saying, if those scenarios come to pass and we were to follow your counsel?
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Mankind can do something about cyclical warming and cooling or do nothing and adapt to the changes. Would you propose impoverishing the world`s people over scientific theory or yield to common sense as previous generations have and, prepare for what is coming: a warming climate. Mankind does not have the power to subvert the forces of nature; hurricans, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, astroid strikes, plasma radiation, etc. Where on earth, did you get the idea that civilization has God-like powers of dominance and control? You stand in awe of the men and women of letters but have you considered their position in all of this? Politics and money dictate what is to happen here; not the money seeking crowd of prestitious institutions!
No amount of intervention by society can control these forces; it`s a waste of precious dollars, while time is running out, for those who ignore the need to build the structures needed to protect us against nature.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Ah, yes. Here we are on more familiar territory. I had thought it odd that you –who for five years here on NSB has been a consistent voice for rejecting hope, for our powerlessness, for the futility of all efforts– were on this matter of climate change taking the position of “WHat, me worry?”
But now, with this comment, we return to the more customary posture: we can do nothing.
I wonder just how you conclude that. Do you dispute that the amount of CO2 in the air has almost doubled since the Industrial Revolution began, and has been increasing at an accelerating rate? Do you dispute that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is to trap heat and warm the earth? (I don’t believe there’s ANY science around to dispute either of those claims.) If you accept those two propositions, then does that mean that you somehow believe that our rate of spewing CO2 into the air is beyond human control to alter?
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I don`t have the wherewithal to counter the claims nor do I say reducing emmissions is beyond human control. But nothing like this will happen – reducing emmissions – India, China and I think Russia are balking at the idea of reducing emmissions. Climate warming was occurring in Medievil times, in the absence of an industrial society. … ?? The waxing and waning of the ice age is not understood. The sun, the driver of earth`s climate, has a mind of it`s own and cycles irrespective of any futile power that mankind possesses. Altering CO2 emmission output is unlikely to halt the warming trend, as the preponderence of upward pressure on the temperature is determined by many other factors, that are poorly understood: atmospheric haze for example; and many other energies, that feed upon one another to the consternation of researchers.
Our efforts to contervail rising atmospheric temperatures is akin to stopping an earthquake, but we can adapt, by building stronger and higer dikes, to save New Orleans, when the next big one arrives.
If you can demonstrate how our frail power can change the direction of the natural forces, I would be thrilled to listen. An ant can lift 100 times it`s own weight, while we have trouble lifting our own. It is safe to say that I cannot lift 100 james`s; perhaps you could lift 100 Andys?
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
James said,
Jumping in here, James, I also did not understand initially that this was what you meant. I have my doubts also, whether it will really be possible to do much about climate change. I look both at the ideas of what could be done and also at the inertia/momentum of the many aspects of the existing petroleum-based economic system, and I have my doubts.
Certainly it is true that new energy technologies are business ventures that those who engage in them hope will make them money. There’s nothing wrong with that. And I there are many who honestly feel that trying to prevent or slow down further climate damage is a moral imperative. With many it’s not “just business.” I can’t say that those who want to invest in wild hope are wrong when the problem is as serious as it is. But it may just be that world governments just have too many other more pressing short-term priorities–like dealing with unruly hungry people perhaps–to try to get it all done in the necessary 10 years or whatever. The question of whether those who are in a position to do anything at all should spend their time trying is not for me to answer. And perhaps whatever gets done will not be a complete waste. But sometimes we feel we absolutely have to do something and then change our minds and make a different plan when we are forced to realize that the thing is impossible.
Larry
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
This article from November 2009 might be worth mentioning here in connection with inertia and priorities:
“Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing
the Public on Climate Change”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/print.msp?id=2210
February 24th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Thanks Larry, your opinion carries much weight for me and, I really appreciate the interest you have expressed in this issue. One needs to follow the money. What is the cost and what is the benefit to the individual and the institutions of government, who are surely involved in the debate over here while in Europe strategies are being developed to deal with the myth of human induced global warming. A cost-benefit analysis reveals the truth as to who benefits and who suffers from climate change. Wall Street waits in anticipation of the carbon trading, while the public watches helplessly, as social benefits are withdrawn, to support actions, such as the 180 billion handed to AIG: not to mention the on-going war games and securitization of foreign oil reserves, under the guise of saving little school girls.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:41 am
James said,
Thanks for your response, James. I probably would not argue with you there except for the fact that a personal cost-benefit analysis approach may not fully answer those who feel that trying to preserve the earth is a moral imperative if it is at all possible to do so–for the sake of our descendants. I think there is a case to be made for that idea. Whether or not preserving the earth in the long term is a practical possibility is a separate issue, really. The fact that many or most people may use a personal cost-benefit analysis approach with little regard for any such morality is obviously one thing that cuts against the practicality of others making an effort. But again, perhaps the efforts that are being made and will be made will not be a complete waste. Perhaps more parts of the planet will be inhabitable for longer periods of time as a result of their efforts.
Larry
February 24th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Morality aside – being good won`t bring in the bacon – because it`s a dog-eat-dog world out there that is being exploited by those in the know. Kwiatkowski`s rant on Sara Palin points to the marriage between the scientists and the State: “scientific bureaucratic state … ” making one wonder how much they are being paid off. [1] More to point of leading the american to understand how they have been hoodwinked, Josh Fulton expounds on the many reasons to reject the trumpets of alarm! [2]
[1]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17769
[2]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17769
February 24th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
There`s the Kwiatkowski rant!
[1]http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski243.html
February 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
James said,
Ah! Now we are back to what I thought you were saying in the first place, that climate change is not really happening, and back to my previous response to that. I would add that some of the 75 points in Josh Fulton’s article, the points that supposedly “reasons to be skeptical of ‘global warming,’” are not reasons at all. For example, what 45 percent of Americans may think is irrelevant, as is the notion that an official might come into someone’s home to check for energy efficient and the location where Al Gore bought a house. Such poor writing! But anyway I am not personally equipped to evaluate Mr. Fulton’s article against all the scientific literature and I doubt you are either.
There is actually a strong school of thought that one ought to be moral whether or not it brings in the bacon, for example that one ought not to steal even though one might get away with it. Anyway, many people have been known to sacrifice for the sake of their children even though doing so has no prospect of making them rich. I am still doubtful that climate disaster will be averted in the long run, but I am a bit surprised that you would cast aside trying to do what’s right quite as lightly as that sounded.
I watched the fight for many years between real scientists and scientists paid by the tobacco companies over whether or not cigarette smoking causes cancer. As a long-time heavy cigarette smoker once upon a time I suppose I would rather the tobacco company scientists had prevailed. Oh well. Of course that argument has nothing to do with the argument over global warming. But it suggests that you might look at least as hard at the finances of the global warming denial scientists as you seem to be looking at the finances of scientists who are crying that things need to be done about it. I have read that there are scientists being paid very well by clients such as oil companies to proliferate continuously articles whose purpose is to create doubt that there is any need to reduce dirty fuel consumption for the purpose of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Of course the question of where their money comes from really does not prove anything at all about which of the scientists are more correct.
As I said earlier, I have to go with my scientist sister, who I know for sure is both brilliant and honest. She is a strong advocate for green technologies–none of which have anything at all to do with the work she gets paid for doing. Climate change and energy efficiency are simply serious concerns that she has had for several years mainly because she is a responsible parent concerned for her children and her nieces and nephews and their children. She has said she hopes for some scientific breakthrough or breakthroughs that somehow will make solutions practical–a miracle in other words.
Larry
February 24th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
James said,
I didn’t see that link earlier. But now I’ve read it. The idea that science and government have become intertwined also does not prove anything at all about any particular social policy or proposed social policy being wrong. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I assume you are in favor of public schools being available for children. Public schools are an aspect of the “scientific bureaucratic state” that Dr. Kwiatkowski seems to oppose.
Following the link in the article by Dr. Kwiatkowski, I certainly agree with former President Eisenhower that both having the government control science and having scientists control government are undesirable. But he never suggested that policy makers and ordinary people should not listen to what scientists have to say and take them seriously. The idea that we should not listen to people who know things we don’t is a bit ridiculous. I doubt you meant that. Giving respect to experts where it is warranted is not the same as putting them in control.
Larry
February 25th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Climate change is happening as the result of normal cyclical patterns but is not influenced by the emissions produced by humans. I`m not schooled in climate science; nor experienced, but he has a point, and is not uninformed. You brush him off as being of no-account. One confronts the Romans with tactics designed to counter their lack of moral stance,or one will starve! Circumstance is the decider if one needs to eat! There is no justification for harming others but, why be a misogynist! The laws of physics preclude miracles, Larry, but innovation should not be ignored for fanciful concepts, like fusion reactors: they won`t happen!
Scientists are needed to empower governments, who crave total control: they must not be swept away. In doing so, science is subverted to devious ends and fails to move society forward into the future in a fruitful way, designed to improve the lot of the people, rather than enslave them. The “Futurists”, embraced this concept. Scientists know things, but people don`t want to be told by a priestly group who are working in their own self interest. People just want to live.
If we decide not to listen to the mantra “do as you are told” and begin to question the images and flavors of supposed respect we are urged to gaze upon, Our lives would hinge on human dignity as oppossed to the unerpinning of gadgetry and “the great deceit.”
February 25th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
James said,
That seriously distorts what I said, James. It’s not at all a fair statement. I did suggest that his thinking seems at least somewhat impaired, but that does not by itself mean he is of no account. You might care to review for yourself what I said.
I don’t know what to tell you, James, other than that that because I have personal access to trusted a family member and another old friend who are serious scientists and who deal with scientists on a daily basis I am just not quite that paranoid about scientists, to think they are mostly all dishonest just because they are presumably working in their own self interest just like everyone else. And I was present when Bill McKibben spoke to a college graduating class in 2008. In my perception he was most earnest, most sincere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben
Yeah, me too.
Larry
February 25th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Speaking of Bill McKibben, this article of his is new today. I just now happened on it. This is the concluding paragraph:
It is worth reading in its entirety.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175211/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_climate_change%27s_o.j._simpson_moment/print
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 10:16 am
The deniers are not falsifyng the data or deleting sensor information, like the scientists concerned with evidencing climate change theory. Skeptics are looking for the cold hard facts, which apparently have been ignored, deleted, or falsified. Powerful computers run astoundingly complex software programs, to create climate models designed by hoards of PhDs`, showing climate graphics, far removed from the real world; hence everyone is led astray. The same thing happened to the banks, who hired platoons of PhDs, to create models, predicting profits, that led the bankers into a quicksand of risk; nearly destroying the world economy. Without a sense of judgment, the mathematicians override common good sense and lead the authorities to ruin.
There is some nuance to my descriptions, Larry: scientists are serious-minded individuals, but they have a need to herd together. Hope and courage are no excuse for ruining the lives of the masses, who require government services to keep them afloat.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:48 am
If anyone feels he or she has some insight into where James is coming from in his climate-change position, I’d be interested to hear it.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Gee, and here I thought I had expressed quite well an understanding of where James was coming from. Oh well. It was basically denial–based on resistance to change, I’m guessing–completely understandable. (Please correct me if I’m mistaken, James.) I’m hoping James may change his mind about what the facts are based on the evidence.
On a different topic, that is, different from where James might be coming from, this is the text of an email I just sent to my private list. It is relevant here particularly for the story about Facebook.
—————
Subject: don’t take away my computer
“Consumers Are Sleeping With the Enemy – and Paying for It”
by Sandy Leon Vest, February 26, 2010, CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/print/53231
I resist the notion that I am addicted to anything much besides breathing and eating and sleeping. But my computer, you know, is a major part of my life. It is a major window into the world for me, not referring to the Microsoft operating systems. I am resistant to giving it up. Since you’re reading this you probably feel the same way about yours. :-7
So I think I understand what Sandy Leon Vest means by this most insightful article. But then I don’t know what to say except perhaps let’s make it last as long as we can, and hope for some scientific miracle to rescue the global economy down to the personal level. :-7
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 11:15 am
This thread is getting a bit old now so he may not see it. But Jim Z might particularly appreciate that article by Sandy Leon Vest that I just mentioned. Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 11:25 am
You’ve been doing some good work here indeed, Larry. But I don’t think that you’ve altogether uncovered where James is coming from.
You write, for example, “I’m hoping James may change his mind about what the facts are based on the evidence.” I’m not sure how much that’s an expression of real hope –in that you assign a non-trivial possibility to that change of mind– or whether it is a kind of friendly and encouraging gesture toward James, as your interlocutor, even though you really don’t hold any actual hope on that score.
But my intuition tells me there’s barely a snowball’s chance in hell –speaking of climate change
– that James is going to change in any such way. There’s SOMETHING in the tone and resoluteness of his stance, something powerful at work that makes him feel entitled to a degree of certainty and an unambiguous taking of sides in a battle, whose ultimate source remains, to my eye, altogether hidden from view.
We here have heard James speak to many things, and there are certainly patterns. There’s something somewhat distinctive and, to me, mysterious about the quality of feeling and the style of interaction that surfaces on this climate change issue.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I`ve read McKibben`s piece, Larry; you`re right, it`s worth reading. That Part about O.J.? Get that? “If the gloves don`t fit, you must acquit!” Is`nt it mysterious that the majority of americans are skeptics, after all, they voted Obama into office. They must be right. Thanks again for your time!
February 26th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Thank you, that is kind of you to say.
Well of course James is distinctive, and I hope and trust we will learn more about how distinctive he is. And while you and I may feel that his stance on climate change is mysterious, it is utterly clear that he is by no means alone in that stance, mysterious to us or not.
Except when a person’s mind is further gone than James’s mind appears to me to be–people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, for example, I always hold hope for change, given a person of some intelligence, without assigning any probability. Yes I am friendly to James, but my main purpose in working a bit to understand where he might be coming from is so as to select a starting point from which to explain my understanding of the facts. James aside, who knows, I might come up with something that might influence someone else.
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
James said,
You are most welcome, James. I trust you understood that Billl McKibben was being critical of the argument, “if the winter glove won’t fit you must acquit.” Since a wide variety of local weird weather experiences, including winter storms, are expected to continue to become more and more extreme as a result of climate change, which includes a warming trend overall, the argument in question appears to me to be a purposeful distortion of the facts that is almost certainly being generated by the usual suspects who support business as usual. Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
James, here’s an argument that’s right up your alley! lol. I’m sure you noticed Bill McKibben’s mention of Senator James Inhoff as a leading climate change denier. Take a look at where Senator Inhoff’s major support comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe#Campaign_contributions
Of course where Senator Inhoff’s money comes from doesn’t actually prove anything by itself, but still, it does appear to be your sort of argument, although I do recognize that you seem to have been growing away from ad hominem arguments in general, if I may presume to say so.
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Ah … the homphobic Senator form Oklahoma … usually seen looking behind, to cover his back; yes he was my cover when the climate change issue was initally posted here and I referenced his material to support my idea of the whole thing, being a cover for the oil companies: although I failed to mention specific corporations. His side-kicks, no doubt did the bulk of the research on the matter, – there`s stacks of papers on climate denial -and he is a declared family man who likes to spend time with his kids., leaving him with little time other than to trek to and from the bank. He seems to be an apparition, right out of some hollywood production by James Cameron: unbelievable. But donations to the members is old news and what continues as old news, is the disfunctioning of the government, which is now somewhat of a joke. Paul Craig Roberts suggests in his latest piece, that the end is nigh because they are leading society to the apocolypse.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17821
February 26th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
I`ve noticed that, Inhoff wants a word from the recalcitrant Gore, who has buttoned up on global warming, and won`t even answer his phone. What`s the VP hiding?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/
February 26th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I don’t think I’d waste any time on conversing with Senator Inhoff either, no matter if he is a United States Senator. Perhaps Al Gore is too polite to say that such a conversation would just be poor use of his time. lol Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I’m afraid I may have failed to put my name in the name field on my previous post about Al Gore. Oh well.
Just to mention, James, I am not a blind follower of ex-Vice President Al Gore myself. I have read scientists who have said that cap and trade, with which I understand Al Gore has been heavily associated for years, is not a good solution or not the best solution. That in no way suggests that ex-Vice President Gore is mistaken about the existence of the basic problem.
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I said,
….or perhaps it was that cap and trade is not good enough by itself and should not be considered a primary solution. I just don’t recall at the moment which of those it was.
The post I couldn’t see a bit ago is there now, “awaiting moderation,” so no problem. I guess there was some momentary problem on my end.
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Another possibility that seems reasonable to me, James, is that ex-VP Al Gore is discouraged by what happened at Copenhagen in December. Huge numbers of people feel that way. That also does not signify at all that anyone is or was mistaken about the existence of the problem. I read yesterday or today that the movement’s whole approach is changing, to a focus on local projects such as fighting mountain top removal. Al Gore isn’t really needed for that, I suppose.
Larry
February 26th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
And one more thing I feel I ought to mention, James, in case you may not be aware of it. I regard Fox News generally as an arm of corporate manipulation and manipulation by Rupert Murdoch* and of course his employees, over government and everyone else, and therefore not to be trusted. That of course does not signify that nothing Fox News says is true, just that it has been shown clearly that an unusually high proportion of what Fox News reports is false or distorted in one way or another, in ways that are not simply suspicion of the owner and his affiliations. Fox News just does not have a good record, in other words.
Larry
* Those unfamiliar with Rupert Murdoch may wish to reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
February 27th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Al Gore was an advocate for the polar bears and was continually decrying their situation, until his vocalizations in the UK, where he was challenged by a dissenting journalist, that the bears were were proliferating, contrary to Gore`s warnings. Security dragged the dissenter away as he was denouncing Gore. He has been in seclusion, lately, while his aids shield him from view, proclaiming he is too busy to come to the phone. Al Gore is needed for his polital skills if only he would use them to further the cause; but he did not of cours; except to line his own pockets: he`s quite rich now!
Inhoff, a member of the United States Senate – a powerful position in government – is wary of the former VP and wants to grill him on the harm done to the children by his alarmist views. Gore is an experienced politcal strategist – a skill not used in the climate change issue, (for unknown reasons) – and knows how to make things inconvenient for the Senator.
Cap and trade is a lucrative opportunity for Wall Street traders, to clean up, while impoverishing the world`s poor farmers even more than they are now – farm subsidies have eliminated rice farming in Cuba, driving the unemployed into the city hovels, so the added burden of trading should finish them off.
Fox news is a supplicant of government controlled media, I believe, driving newspapers out of business; throwing tens of thousands of journalists onto the breadlines and further securing government influence over public opinion; enabeling the war machine to stomp unfettered over the planet. By not covering activities overseas like Edward R. Morrow would have, editors have doomed print media to the trash heap and destroyed the profession. We will never know the truth about the horrors of Iraq. Besides, the papers blame the shrinking ad revenues for their demise, but who controlls the corporations, if not the world`s elite.
February 27th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I don’t think it’s good for adults to live in denial of reality just so as to hide bad news from children, James. Adjusting to this climate change news has been very difficult for many and impossible for many. Carolyn Baker is a therapist part of whose work has been try to help people adjust their minds to this reality. I mentioned her and her recent book here awhile ago. Sometimes I feel she is a bit more bitter about other people’s blindnesses than I think is useful and/or healthy for her. Or perhaps I mean she sometimes lapses into bitterness more than I think is useful and healthy. But I think those are just small lapses here and there. She grew up and still has family in Elkhardt, Indiana, if that suggests anything. :-7 You might be interested. http://carolynbaker.net/site/
Larry
February 27th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Looks like a few people are still reading comments in this thread. So I’ll point out that recently a germane open-access article appeared in Proceedngs of the American Academy of Sciences: “Attribution of Climate Forcing to Economic Sectors”.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3382.full.pdf+html
A much-cited bar chart provided by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change displays the climate impact, as expressed by
radiative forcing in watts per meter squared, of individual chemical
species. The organization of the chart reflects the history of atmospheric
chemistry, in which investigators typically focused on a
single species of interest. However, changes in pollutant emissions
and concentrations are a symptom, not a cause, of the primary
driver of anthropogenic climate change: human activity. In this paper,
we suggest organizing the bar chart according to drivers of
change—that is, by economic sector. Climate impacts of tropospheric
ozone, fine aerosols, aerosol-cloud interactions, methane,
and long-lived greenhouse gases are considered. We quantify the
future evolution of the total radiative forcing due to perpetual constant
year 2000 emissions by sector, most relevant for the development
of climate policy now, and focus on two specific time points,
near-term at 2020 and long-term at 2100. Because sector profiles
differ greatly, this approach fosters the development of smart
climate policy and is useful to identify effective opportunities
for rapid mitigation of anthropogenic radiative forcing.
First paragraph:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important single contributor
to global climate change and therefore mitigation policies and
actions must focus on this species even though impacts may take
decades to be realized. The coemitted air pollutants tropospheric
ozone (O3) and fine aerosol particles also significantly affect
global climate but in complex ways involving both warming and
cooling (1). These air pollutants, hereafter referred to as shortlived
species (SLS), have short atmospheric lifetimes of days to
weeks such that changes in their precursor emissions will have a
swift change in radiative forcing. Their combined climate forcing
effect since preindustrial times may outweigh that of CO2 (2).
Concerns about the rapid rate at which climate is changing at
present place urgent emphasis on exploiting the potential benefit
of SLS (especially O3 and black carbon) reductions in global
climate change. The ability to evaluate these benefits is somewhat
confounded by the coemitted aerosols that cool the climate,
complex interactions between gas and aerosol pollutants, and
the lack of useful metrics for air pollutants with uneven spatial
distributions.
Abstract:
February 27th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
The CO2 varient is all well and good – the forcing factor and so on – but we live on a water planet and, the relationship between moisture and climate change is not understood, to the detriment of the climate change theorists, in spite of all their papers and modeling. Water, believe it or not, has a mind of it`s own!
I`ll get to that link a little later Larry; thanks.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:06 am
James said,
I don’t believe it, James. The discovered and developed laws* of science have brought us a very long ways.**
Larry
* A law of science is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
** You are using a computer, for example. How to make a computer starting from raw materials from the earth did not come to somebody in a dream.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:52 am
It`s hard to believe … I see that … but, from what I have observed, the water molecule is the most – the most marvelous – active combination of elements I have ever seen and from tradition; if the circumstances are just right: an ocean can be commanded to obey orders. Dr. Emoto has determined, that water is conscious.
The law of science is a predeterimed constraint, opening the door to freedom, providing we move within the scripted constraint. The computer arrived as an unfolding; as it was written to be and, as other innovative devices will be; as it has been written. Similar to a written code, our destiny has already been determined. Science cannot help us with the most important of human concerns, such as ethics and morality!
March 1st, 2010 at 10:50 am
I am an observer, and hold the wildebeest in my gaze as one of the most water seeking animals on this water planet. They drink a lot of water, with a million of them migrating from the Serengeti to the mara, annually, as they follow the rains. This is a testament to their survivability as water seekers on a planet, where water is the basis for life. Water directs them!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100227215943.htm
This man was fascinated by water; he would spend time gazing into pools of water: I don`t know if he saw the truth in water.
http://physics.about.com/od/alberteinstein/ig/Albert-Einstein-photos/Wax-Einstein.htm
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
Thank you for having made clear some of the bases of your position, James. I don’t think I have anything further to add to what I have already said on this topic. Larry