Nye brings up an important point. Thousands of scientists can agree and all it takes a few naysayers to have people in denial. Most scientists believe that there is climate change.
All time records are being set. In the last 17 years, 16 of those years have been the hottest on record. We need to invest in electrical storage systems. We can lead the world change to meet these challenges. We can also improve our economy.
The weatherman on WRC 4, Doug Kammerer, has blamed global warming for this heatwave. Some conservative bloggers have called him a nut case. Pot meet kettle.
Nye is relating the forest fires to global warming and the dehydration of the forests because of the heat. Ever seen an entire tree do what appears to be spontaneous combustion? No lightning strikes, no fire wall…just burst in to flame. I saw it once. It made me a believer. Where did I see this? Utah, in the desert.
Eugene Robinson on climate change
Here’s a very good article on this.
http://grist.org/climate-change/did-climate-change-cause-the-colorado-wildfires/
So did climate change or global warming CAUSE the fires?
Well, the same way that a cold wet summer would have prevented much of it.
Or if we didn’t have entire forests of dead trees waiting to go up instead of healthy trees.
Or if we didn’t have a drought at this time.
etc….
That’s why the term climate change is useless. It covers to much and is too vague.
Well, there was that burning bush a few thousand years ago!
Warmer weather could also serously alter life as we know it. Water level rising as a result of melting polar ice could very well wipe out coastal cities. Shrug…might not be a bad thing also.
Bill Nye addresses his credentials in the video. You question his credentials and yet don’t hesitate to give your opinion. [raising eye brows] Why is your opinion more valuable than Bill Nye’s? You don’t believe people with the credentials in spaceweather, climatology, environmental science, etc.
I also believe he was suggesting NEW ways to store energy in batteries. I am pretty sure he wasn’t referring to the coppertops.
Back to the wildfires–some of them aren’t exactly what you and I would call forests. Forests have been around for centuries without being “managed.” Who is supposed to get in there and clean out the undergrowth? When I saw the range fires back in Utuah about a decade ago, They weren’t in a forest like I know a forest. It’s hard to describe. But I did see trees spontaneously combust that weren’t close to the fire. I am sure it was from the heat but it wasn’t real close. Strangest thing I have ever seen…one minute a tree is a tree and the next minute it iis incinerated…like a burning tower.
You left off lightning…many fires start because of lightning. Also man being careless. Remember those California fires a few years ago that were a result of people living in the woods. I can’t remember if it was carelessness or intentional.
The collection of evidence is that a phenomena exists that is called global warming. I feel like there is also an under-current of bullying so that people who aknowledge that global warming exists also feel ridiculed if they try to talk about it publically. Cutting off that kind of discussion is not a good thing. People do need to prepare for change. New electrical grids, storage of energy and new energy sources are not a bad thing. Less dependence of fossil fuels is not a bad idea. We have known this for years. fossil fuels are dirty to use. You don’t need a degree to know this. Coal stoves and furnaces tell you.
At any rate, politicians like Cuccinelli have tried to silence others and to make folks who accept climate change theories feel stupid. That is what must stop.
Why is there a drought? Beetle infestations have caused many trees to die, especially lodgepole pines. I agree, dead trees are a good cause of the wild fires. However, what change has happened to make the beetle populations grow exponetially? Its all inter-related.
And I want to make MY point which is, we have to be able to talk about these things without the typical nay saying shutting down discussions because the usual conservative attempt to make everyone else in the room feel stupid.
There may be global warming. We’ve been coming out of the Little Ice Age since 1850 or so.
But the evidence for “man made” global warming is controversial and has been corrupted by political influence.
The new ways for batteries is using rare earth types, like car batteries…..there’s only a few battery types.
And yes…I give my opinion, with links and evidence that I’ve found. I DON’T go on TV and pontificate that if we don’t do X, Y happens. I don’t go in TV and blame El Nino and global warming for more hurricanes….while there are less hurricanes.
I give an opinion that the science is not settled and trying to change world actions based upon predictions that have YET to come true is not a good idea. At the height of the UN global warming hysteria, it was admitted that based upon THEIR models….if we did EVERYTHING recommended, we would lower the Earth’s average temperature, in 100 years, by ONE degree, assuming that their science is right.
I don’t say that my opinion is better. I say that his opinion is NO BETTER than mine.
He can read graphs. So can I. But its the scientists making those graphs that disagree.
He “appreciates” that they want to show two sides to the story? It’s a tradition in journalism? TRADITION? Showing ALL THE SIDES is the scientific method. You follow the evidence.
I have a problem with the statement that “record highs” mean AGW is happening when the same people discount “record snows” for global cooling. “Its just weather. Weather isn’t climate.” they say. I say “A pox on both their houses.”
I’ve been following this for years. Everything from poor temperature gauge positioning, urban heat island effect, ie Washington DC expansion, to political influence, ie government money, slews the numbers. And these people want to implement government programs that they say will work, when they get computer models to reproduce real life based upon their input. The EPA is now stating that their programs ALONE will affect temperatures: EPA documentation accompanying proposed greenhouse gas emission regulations states that it’s regulations will reduce the average global temperature by ’0.006 to 0.0015C by 2100.’
Really? They can predict THAT? But they can’t predict the next decade’s temperature average. I call total BS.
Climate science is too complex. The heat wave in Russia in 2010was blamed on global warming…until it was shown that those models predicted the OPPOSITE of what actually caused the heat wave. The models predicted that snow would be a thing of the past in England and Europe. Yeah…not so much.
Now, should we be energy efficient? ABSOLUTELY! Should we reduce pollution? YES. Should we explore alternative forms of energy? YES.
But you don’t get there by arbitrarily and politically declaring C02 to pollutant. CO2 is a life giving gas. There are signs that the Sahara is actually regreening in some areas due to the minute amounts of CO2 increases. And of those increases…Man only puts out .5%.
I agree with you that man affects the world. See heat island effects, land use degradation, etc. We should try to fix those. NOW. Things with immediate results. Not try to affect something that MAY happen in 150 years. Want to stop deforestation in 3rd world countries? Build gas and nuclear power infrastructure and run electricity to those homes.
Reports show that “CO2” output is back to 1990’s levels. That’s due to this economy. This would be the norm.
Cargo, I had to come back to this post. Are you able to hear your own belittling tone in your post? I
He has said nothing that needs to be belittled. I HATE this anti-intellectualism that seems to be consuming our nation.
Here’s a link about the derecho.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/01/washington-dcs-derecho-not-something-new/#more-66549
No shortage of ego there, Cargo. Here is the problem, he isn’t coming up with new things that others haven’t thought of. He is reinforcing what is out there. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I expect he has far more impressive cedentials than either your or I do.
I don’t think the rest of us have turned climate change into something political. I believe that there is a conservative movement out there who likes to belittle those of us to be believe that the earth is warming up and that the consequences of it doing so could severely alter how we approach the future.
Better to lower the temperature than raise it. I think the point is to plan for the future lest we eventually become like Venus. Let’s just take elementary school science. Is there any controversy that green house gases trap heat? Nah. That’s pretty solid and also why we even have an atmosphere. More elementary stuff….we know that growing seasons have extended over the past few decades. I can’t tell you why, just that it has.
We might even induce that all the smog from cars and factories might do something to trap heat. That isn’t all that far fetched since we know temperatures shoot up around these areas more so than away from them.
We can also observe from our own life experience that things have changed. Let’s just take changing leaves. The best time to go to Afton for leaf watching used to be the second week in October. You can stretch that out easily to around Halloween now. Speaking of Halloween, you used to have to wear coats under your costumes. Now you generally don’t even need a hoodie. Spring comes earlier now than it used to, it seems. I am not as solid on spring as I am on fall.
There have been concerns about rising sea level in the Chesapeake on this blog.
Here’s the latest.
A very interesting, educational, and relevant article on sea level rise along the east coast:
http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ten Chesapeake Bay water level stations presently have a combined total of 647 years of water
level measurements with record lengths varying between 35 years (1975-2009) at the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, VA, and 107 years (1903-2009) at Baltimore, MD. All ten
stations, with the exception of Gloucester Point, VA, are active stations in the National Water
Level Observation Network of water level stations maintained by the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.
New technologies such as sea surface range measurements from earth-orbiting satellites now
provide a global assessment of absolute sea level (ASL) trends relative to the center of a
reference ellipsoid rather than fixed points on the earth’s surface to which relative sea level
(RSL) measurements refer. New methodologies have also been applied to derive spatial averages of ASL trends over large regions with greater accuracy. Notwithstanding these advances, there is still no substitute for an accurate time series of water level measurements obtained locally, preferably one spanning several decades, when assessing RSL trends that will affect a specific community or township in the coming decades. RSL trends will determine local inundation risk whether due to vertical land movement (emergence or subsidence) or the ASL trend found as the sum of RSL trend and land movement when both are measured positive upward. In Chesapeake Bay, RSL trends are consistently positive (rising) while land movement is negative (subsiding).
By choosing a common time span for the ten bay stations evaluated in this report, we are able to
compare differences in RSL rise rates with approximately the same degree of confidence at each station. Uncertainty has been reduced by extracting the decadal signal present at all ten stations before using linear regression to obtain new RSL rise rates with smaller than usual confidence intervals, permitting both temporal and spatial comparisons to be made.
Temporal comparisons at five bay stations over two periods, 1944-1975 and 1976-2007, suggest that, while RSL continues to rise at some of the highest rates found along the U.S. Atlantic coast, there is presently no evidence of a statistically significant increase marking an acceleration in RSL rise at any of the five bay stations. Small but steady increases in RSL rise rate with time are still a possibility as RSL trend confidence intervals remain too large for statistical inference. Spatial comparisons at ten stations for the 1976-2007 period provide new evidence on spatial variability of RSL rise rates within Chesapeake Bay. Global positioning system (GPS) data from ground stations further define the pattern of spatial variability and permit new estimates of ASL rise rates in the region, all of which are significantly less than the global ASL rise rate of 3.1 mm/yr over 1993 to 2003 reported in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Present evidence suggests an ASL rise rate of about 1.8 mm/yr in Chesapeake Bay over the 1976-2007 period. Applying this rate uniformly throughout the bay, subsidence rates ranging from about -1.3 mm/yr to -4.0 mm/yr are found, leading to the general conclusion that about 53% of the RSL rise measured at bay water level stations is, on average, due to local subsidence. Outlook: Land subsidence in Chesapeake Bay is likely to continue at or near present rates. Future ASL rise in the bay region remains uncertain owing to diverse and possibly changing trends world-wide (see report cover). Their combination strongly suggests a need for future monitoring.
In other words…the sea level is running at or below global averages. The LAND is sinking.
This is one study. Just one. Do those names mean anything to you? Is this a professor or graduate students? We really don’t know. I don’t recall doing anything on the Chesapeake Bay here except concern over run off and pollutants. As for the land sinking vs the sea rising, I expect the bay would behave differently than the open ocean. Lots of things could make the land sink.
I recall there being discussion about the water levels rising at Norfolk. Again, one study. I would think we should be fairly concerned about the land sinking since the end game will produce the same results as far as coastal flooding.
I don’t see why you are fighting this so hard. NO one says you have to give up your way of life or sell your first born. So much of climate change stuff is just intuitive. You are turning it into some good ole boys club. I don’t like it because people can’t talk about change without feeling like they are being politically incorrect which was the entire purpose anyway.
I don’t be bullied out of believing in non-biblican earth beginnings, thinking climate change is an environmental concern, or believing man came from earlier man-forms. Cuccinelli would have us burn all the climate change books because it is politically popular amongst a particular group of people.
@Cargosquid
Actually showing all sides is not the scientific method.
I grew up in an area where scientists were respected, not looked at with suspicion. There was always the wacky professor or two but even they served a purpose. Everyone contributed a little piece of the puzzle. They were all competitive but the non scientific world wasn’t out there trying to second guess.
The very fact that CO2 is by product, something we rid ourselves of should tell us something. These discoveries weren’t made overnight and the polar research has been going on for almost a century. Pulling a puzzle piece out and holding it up as the puzzle rather than one small pice is what Nye warned us about.
Pulling out the polar piece is not holding it up as THE puzzle. Its holding up the piece that doesn’t FIT the puzzle as presented.
I was pointing out that showing ALL sides is the scientific method because you rely on actual evidence and reproducible results…not just the ones you want.
CO2 IS a by product. Not all by products are pollutants.
Conservatives are only using the evidence provided to them by the AGW crowd. If THEY would actually stop saying silly things, conservatives wouldn’t be able to make them look silly. Perfect example: the IPCC. Said that Himilayan glaciers are melting…we’re all gonna die!” I’m paraphrasing. That data came from a college student’s non-peer reviewed thesis. Oops. Or the Mann hockey stick. Or the predictions that “snow will be a thing of the past by 2010 in England.” and other idiotic doomsday predictions. With the gov’t making plans to spend billions and cause our energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” so that we can adjust the “average global temperature by ’0.006 to 0.0015C by 2100.”
All the while India’s, China’s, and Brazil’s “carbon output” has increased by huge amounts. Is the EPA taking THAT into account?
IF they would stop being ludicrous, we would stop pointing that out. Just as I am happy to point and laugh at creation theory being presented as science.
Rest assured that I don’t deny that climate change is occurring. As I wrote in my post yesterday, a visit to Ostia Antica is enough to see dramatic changes in sea levels over the past 2,000 years or so. That should convince anyone. Also, there’s been an ice age, a little ice age, etc. My point is that “scientists” (often just politicians) often attribute all climate change to human activity in furtherance of political and personal agendas. In fact, scientists are unable to sort out the impacts of human activity from natural forces that have been taking place essentially forever. Their forecasting models are essentially worthless – at least as bad as the forecasting models economists use. Both are trying to predict change in complex systems, which is impossible.
The claim of “settled science” is true regarding whether climate change occurs. It has and always will occur with or without humans. The problem is when people take the leap of faith to attribute the change entirely or mainly to humans.
I’ve studied this topic a lot. I consider myself a strong conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt mold but not an “environmentalist” like Al Gore. We must separate the questions. First, is climate change occurring? Yes, obviously, it always has and always will. Second, are humans causing the climate change? Possibly, to some extent. However, it strains scientific credibility to argue that given eons of climate change brought about by non-human forces that all of a sudden human forces represent the only or even the primary catalysts for climate change. Third, can we predict climate change? No. Therefore, we don’t know the impacts and unintended consequences of policies being proposed. Fourth, should we adopt the political agendas of people like Al Gore, who stand to make even greater personal fortunes if their agendas are adopted, and reduce our standards of living dramatically? No.
Lastly, whatever policies and actions are adopted should include the world’s worst emitters of carbon and pollution including China. They have a free pass now and are exempt. I will under no circumstances accept any policies that hinder the U.S. economy while exempting others.
@ Cargo Why do you try?
I remember my daughter – who really is a scientist now, coming to me in about the 7th grade and asking me about the rising sea levels. I asked where she go that from and she told me that the teacher had talked about the Artic ice melting. I took a glass of water, filled it with ice and water and told her to come and get me the minute it overflowed. She actually watched it for at leasdt an hour. We talked about it. Then she came to me and asked about green house gases, so I asked her what caused it and what it should be compared to – what is good and bad, ok and dangerous. She gave the political answer about cars – so I asked here how many cars would need to be taken off the road to compensate for a single volcano or wild fire. She is still not happy with me.
Nothing causes atmospheric upset like a volcano, does it?
HOw long are did it take for the effects of Kratoa to wear off?
@blue
You are my new hero.
“Global warming” is a myth. Further study is needed.
@Marin, why would you say that something is a muth if it needed further study.
Are you seriously telling me you don’t think that all the cars and factories, especially factories that don’t meet our standards world wide, aren’t going to have some effect on our atmosphere and thus our climate?
The hot temperatures are being caused by an upper-level blocking pattern that locks extreme conditions in place for a long period of time (e.g maybe two weeks). A similar heat wave produced by a blocking pattern in Chicago in 1995 resulted in several hundred deaths. A block can result in extreme cold in the winter or extreme heat in the summer.
During an extreme cold event in Europe (in 2010, I believe) produced by blocking, some suggested that it was proof that global warming had stopped. Even though multiple records for cold temperature were shattered, it was correctly pointed out by the climate community that a single episode cannot be related to climate and records for cold temperature tend to occur in winter.
The corollary for this heat wave is that a single episode cannot be related to climate and records for high temperature tend to be set in the summer.
pppst…Kelly, 10,000 scientist might be on the right track. Climate change is used because it implies the weather extremes. How often does it drop 30 degrees in a half hour around here?
One year doesn’t make global warming. I think we can all agree on that.
Speaking of creation, we may be on the verge of a major announcement about the Higgs Boson (God Particle). Einstein proved long ago that energy and matter are essentially the same. What we don’t know is how energy congeals into matter. Discovering the Higgs Boson could help explain it. This is really fascinating stuff!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/physics-higgs-particle/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
By the way, skeptics of AGW do not necessarily believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that humans rode dinosaurs to work. I question everything regardless of whether it’s coming from a religious authority or someone with a political agenda. Moreover, I see the version of creation in the Bible as completely consistent with modern cosmology, evolution, genetics, etc. The Bible gave us the outline, and science is filling in the details.
The term AGW has taken on a political ring. Is it possible to discuss climate change without making it political?
The question I think we all need to be asking is what came first?
Did someone develop a political agenda because of their scientific findings or did someone develop that agenda first and then go out and look for data to support it?
Do I believe that there is climate change? Absolutely. I know there is. Do I have an agenda about what to do about it, if anything? NO.
Do I need anything other than common sense to tell me that there are too many pollutants in the air and that its a bad idea to dump chemicals from factories into the air and into rivers and streams.
@Moon-howler
Belittling? Because I object to HIS condescension?
You are equating my objections to “anti-intellectualism?” Am I reading that right? Because people disagree with AGW, its anti-intellectualism? Even though “real” scientists are disagreeing? Why are YOU belittling their arguments?
@Moon-howler
So…Galileo’s ONE study is invalid?
If a scientific investigation of empirical data disagrees with other reports, then the theory is invalid. All it takes is ONE.
Why shouldn’t his investigation be taken seriously? You’re taking Bill Nye seriously.
Which study of Galileo? He had lots. He was a scientist, philospher and mathematician. I am sure some were invalid. The solar system being heliocentric, bingo. Of course, how long did it take the church to apologize? They still havent, have they?
I am taking Bill Nye seriously. Yes. However, he isn’t basing what he says on his own experiments.
Galileo? I have always taken him seriously. Think how far we have come since his time. From a few lenses in a tube to the Hubble. Geez. I am humbled.
Actually, yes they did. As soon as further evidence was provable….a few hundred years later.
And the “his” I was talking about, in case I was unclear, was the study about the area sinking and thus making it seem that sea level was rising.
It wasnt’t really an apology befitting his contributions. I believe I would use the term “half assed,” Where is the statue of him? Pulled. Never completed.
I am lost. What did Galileo have to say about the land sinking and how would he know? Leaning Tower might do it. Much of what he did was from observation.
@Moon-howler
“Do I need anything other than common sense to tell me that there are too many pollutants in the air and that its a bad idea to dump chemicals from factories into the air and into rivers and streams.”
I agree with you 100%. However, clean water and air are not the same issue as the Al Gore agenda. I use him as the most visible public face for AGW. The effects of toxic air and water are obvious. Efforts to clean them up are essential. However, there is no leap of logic from that conclusion to the one that humans are the only or even the primary cause of climate change. There is a clear, demonstrable link between toxic effluents and the health of our water systems and food supplies. The same holds true for pollutants dumped into the air.
That clear, demonstrable link does not exist between AGW and human activity. If I test a fish from a river and find mercury in it, it’s easy to link that mercury contamination back to the factory that dumped it. If I see an excessively hot summer, I can speculate that human activity might have had something to do with it, but cannot remotely prove it.
Keep in mind the Gore is co-founder and co-owner of an investment company that trades carbon offsets and profits in other ways from adoption of the agenda he’s pushing. I don’t like being scammed.
No one here is even talking about Al Gore.
The environment has been a passion of Al Gore’s most of his life. That doesn’t make him right or his passions political, necessarily. However, It would be my hope that we can have discussions without involving Gore or anyone else who is a politician. I haven’t mentioned him and his movie bored me to tears. I don’t know if he is right or wrong. I couldn’t stay awake long enough.
@NTK
Deductively these things cannot be proven but you sure can make repeated observations.
You can’t prove all sorts of things that we accept as standard science through inducive reasoning.
If a volcano errupts and spews all sorts crap into the atmosphere. We have a cold summer. What do we determine from our observations? Maybe it was going to happen anyway but it probably was that volcanic ash.
Then there is man…and he is not always a good steward of the earth.
@Moon-howler
Science is not a democracy. It is not unusual at all for the minority to be correct in science.
I let it go the first time, but Nye’s statement about the 30-degree drop shows that he has no understanding of the physics at all. The strong cooling was due to air transported downward from the upper atmosphere by the thunderstorm. The temperature drop (I think it was really 23 degrees) is related to the energy difference of the air between the surface and upper atmosphere and the intensity/size of the thunderstorm’s micro-burst. That has very little relevance to the debate on global warming.
@Kelly, You obviously didn’t watch the video. He was making the point that extreme weather exists and the 30 degree temperature drop was an example of extreme weather. He didn’t say it was an example of Global Warming. A 30 degree drop in a half hour is not all that common. A Derecho is not all that common around these parts. One event proves nothing. Many extreme events starts one looking for trends.
IN this case, don’t count on your minority being right. Probably none of them are right. Some little nerd is going to spring out of no where on a shoe string budget and hit it dead to right one of these days. However, the more we know, the closer to the correct answer we get.
@Moon-howler
“@Marin, why would you say that something is a muth if it needed further study.”
It’s a quote from The Simpsons.
“Are you seriously telling me you don’t think that all the cars and factories, especially factories that don’t meet our standards world wide, aren’t going to have some effect on our atmosphere and thus our climate?”
Everything has an impact. But, I would argue that the impact we have doing any of the above may not have a demonstratively global impact. It may be that all the stuff we do is negated by some fungus we’ve yet to discover. Who knows? But, the science is hardly settled here.
So I have no objection to scientests to continue to study the open question but for someone to say it’s “fact” doesn’t really understand the whole “science” thing.
@Moon-howler
But standard science is based on proof and observation. That’s one of the problems I have with AGW. You can’t call anything “science” unless it’s based on the scientific method of forming a hypothesis and doing empirical research to find evidence to support that hypothesis. That’s why science can’t prove a negative. When someone asserts a hypothesis, the burden is on them to provide the empirical evidence. It’s not up to me to prove that their hypothesis is false. That’s always how science has functioned.
A good analogy would be those idiotic shows on space aliens that History and other channels are showing now. Their logic goes along the lines of, well, we don’t really know how the pyramids were built, or how the stones on Easter Island were erected, therefore, space aliens must have done it. Don’t agree? Prove space aliens didn’t do it.
Same thing with AGW. We know climate change is taking place, just like we know the pyramids and stones on Easter Island exist. Some (many) people make the argument that we know climate change is taking place but don’t know exactly why, therefore, humans must have done it. Don’t agree? Prove humans didn’t do it.
(Of course, I’ll admit that it’s possible that space aliens might have built the pyramids, but I really, really don’t think they were behind it.)
Yea, and all those tens of thousands of scientists out there are gathering empirical data and forming their hypothesis and fitting their piece into the puzzle.
Do you honestly think they haven’t done this? Not every hypothesis leads to an accurate outcome. Its inductive reasoning and can never actually “prove” anything like a geometry proof.
Why is this part of the Republican platform?
I was listening to NPR and it was a great show with the elected leaders in the Norfolk area dealing with rising sea levels. And it was fascinating that he said that he had to be soooooo careful in the language he chose when discussing what strategies to implement due to rising sea levels. The unreasonble fear that global warming creates in people is just illogical to me. I understand not wanting to be chicken little, but when you have clear scientific evidence that sea levels are rising, isn’t it just common sense to PLAN for the future?
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/lawmakers-avoid-buzzwords-climate-change-bills
We are so lucky to have all these professional scientists on our blog aren’t we Moon! That damn Marxist Nationl Geographric with its global warming propoganda. It’s a good thing we have Blue to debunk the myth of our seas rising by putting an ice cube in glass. Take that Venice and those Islands that are sinking into the ocean! What a bunch of idiots those people must be! Stop complaining and buy a house boat to live on, geez, what a bunch of winers!
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
How about this headline on Fox News Latino (if Fox News has a Latino outlet I guess I need to check to see if Snooki is co-hosting the 700 Club with Brother Pat) — “Wildfire: Guns Blamed for Fires.” New NRA motto: “Guns don’t kill people, they burn down their houses.”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/07/03/wildfire-guns-blamed-for-fires/
@Elena
Actually Venice IS sinking.
And we didn’t say that its not rising.
We were talking about the recent kerfuffle about the mid-Atlantic rising and worries about Norfolk.
The sea level is rising about 3mm a year, and has been for a VERY LONG time. Here’s quote that links two separate things.
“Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s. The trend, linked to global warming”
Yes, its been linked to global warming. So has hundreds of other things that aren’t actually caused by global warming….or at least MAN MADE global warming. That doesn’t mean that there’s been any change since the onset of sea level rise tens of thousands of years ago.
The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age and the seal level has been rising since the last Great Ice Age.
Perhaps all the scientists here (on this blog) need to trottle back a little, and just look at what we are really talking about. We are talking about pollution. Pollution is screwing up the atmosphere and the climate.
There are places in the world where on some days you can’t really see the sky. It is cloud covered in smog. I have told you all several times about how my Brit friend Roger almost died in Egypt because it really is just a freaking filthy country. The air pollution there set off his asthma.
So please, rather than than throwing out something about AGW which you all can cloak cleverly in what you really don’t know, justify pollution.
Tell me where pollution helps the earth–
@Moon-howler
Actually we’ve said REPEATEDLY that pollution is bad and that we need to clean up better, which we have, in this country and the Western world.
What we’ve also said is that CO2 is not a pollutant.
And why do you feel that is an accurate statement? You are telling me that carbon dioxide is NEVER a pollutant? How about carbon monoxide? Is that ever a pollutant? Is carbon dioxide EVER a pollutant? Ever been shut up in the same room with others (or alone) and not had any air exchange?
@Moon-howler
In your example…you can also have problems with too much oxygen. 100% oxygen can be dangerous.
CO2, as touted by the EPA, is not a pollutant. Do pollutants make grass grow, deserts bloom and trees grow faster? All of that is being attributed to increased CO2. The abilities of CO2 to cause AGW is what is being touted as a pollutant while it is still in contention.
Carbon MONoxide…pollution. CO2 in a sealed environment – pollutant…..? Technically…it will kill you. I see what you are getting at. But in law, pollutant has a specific meaning. In my training, the presence of too much of one gas was not treated as a pollutant, but the ABSENCE of enough oxygen. That’s one reason I hesitate to state that CO2 is a pollutant in THAT situation. My hazmat training from the Navy put me into those situations.
But, I’ll agree that in your case…CO2 can be considered a pollutant. But in climate..its just not. Its a trace gas.
Cargo,
Is the state of VA sinking too?! Holy batballs, you better get yourself to ODU and set those scientists straight 😉
Cargo,
You and I must be reading polar opposite research. How is that possible. Did you read from the link I attached?
@Elena
Um, yes….that’s what the study showed…. The coast line near Norfolk is sinking about a few mm’s every year.
Yes, I read the link. I even quoted from it.
The problem is that EVERYTHING is being blamed on man made global warming, without THAT being proven. It MAY be due to GLOBAL warming, caused by other means.. IF the globe is warming. Some say yes. Some point to evidence that says no.
Back on the original topic….
Gun control groups are attempting to blame them all on shooting in dry areas.
So, if THEY’RE right, which they aren’t, nope…not global warming. It was AMMO warming.
Anyone out in the wilderness is a danger during exteme dry spells. One careless match, glass doing a prism thing, all sorts of reasons.
WHAT gun control groups? Hunters, campers, hikers should be sharing the blame if they are being careless.
@Moon-howler
Its not the common sense safety groups but the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. They’re trying to link the fires to guns and want that to be the reason to restrict guns. Any straw in a wind….
At least one fire WAS started by idiocy with a gun. Others were also started with using illegal targets. Exploding targets aren’t legal in all places. Just like fireworks.
Bottom line….in some cases, people were being idiots. Some of those have been caught and charged