It’s difficult to deny that super storms are simply getting larger, more ferocious and more devastating. Tornadoes in Oklahoma were on the ground for 40 minutes and created a path the size of 23 football fields. Unbelievable! Typhoon Yolanda, (Hiayan)) which hit the Philippines last week had winds in excess of 225 miles per hour. What could be left standing after winds that speed? Many scientists see this super storm phenomena as stemming from the climate warming up. Warmer climates lead to warmer water in the oceans.
All the climate change deniers have raced out to deny yet another time that this recent bout of storms has anything to do with climate change or the earth warming. Tell that to the people in Tacloban City, Philippines who are now being advised just to leave the city. Tacloban was ground zero for the typhoon strike. So far about 4,500 dead bodies are presenting a health hazard of mammoth proportion as rescue workers race to bury them in mass graves. It has been impossible to get food and water to the victims. The U.S.S. George Washington has arrived and sits off the coast as a hub for rescue efforts. It can also purify over 100,000 gallons of water per day. Still people say too little too late.
What is it going to take for us to accept that perhaps mankind might just have a little to do with earth changes?
There’s no need to deny “record” storms.
We’ve had record storms before. I lived through Camille. It had gusts estimated to be 250. Recorded speeds…around 20o-210+. The measuring gauges were destroyed.
What we do have is FEWER storms….meaning fewer hurricanes are growing out of the tropical storms. And 2012 and 203 has been “quiet” in relation to other years for tornadoes.
As the facts come in….. Haiyan had speeds ranging from 145 mph per the Phillipine measuring standards and 164 per the Atlantic. Our measuring is over 1 minute while theirs is for sustained winds over 10 minutes. Estimated gusts in either case were probably running about 200+
So yes…it was a huge storm. There are comparable storms every couple of years…they just don’t make landfall.
Just because storms are happening doesn’t mean that we caused them.
Presumably you want countries to stop developing at their current rate, just in case we’re somehow to blame for the storms? This is not unlike the older times when people would leave blood sacrifices on altars to Gods hoping to change the weather. Let’s leave a few more children cold and starving because we might possibly be causing warming, or causing cooling, or causing storms?
If you pusue that line of reasing down to a personal level you’ll be incapable of functioning in modern society. The difference between using electricity or using candles in your home could be the difference between a species living or dying.
We are not meaningfully changing the Earth’s warming and cooling. We are not capable of casually doing that, i.e. without setting off nuclear reactions. A false picture was painted 10-15 years ago, which has been debunked, but your worldview is still framed in those terms. CO2 does not trap heat to the degree once feared.
I wouldn’t presume I want coountries to do anything.
The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat is not a new one.
When accusing others of creating a hoax, one has to look at motive. Why would 95% of those who study earth sciences, chemistry, physics and climate believe that global warming is real? What’s in it for them?
On the other hand, is there anyone who believes that carbon emissions are good for humans or animals? Hell, they aren’t even good for plants.
I very much believe the earth is being poisoned. I also know what man does if no one is watching. It isn’t nice.
(Even though there’s a cottage industry of “climate scientsis” incentivized to slant evidence to intimate that we kight be causing warming).
Do you feel paranoid when you say things like that?
Where is the proof? Scientist are incentivized to fake scientific data?
I see this issue as one where people’s opinions are going to diverge based on their faith in their own ability to interpret science and faith in their own reasoning.
To me, it’s plain as the nose on your face that the “global warming” movement is and has been hysteria, and the avidence is routinely misinterpreted by its spokespeople. The evidence is out there – we KNOW the Sun’s output waxes and wanes, and the Earth’s orbit has two cyclical wobbles that will cause long-term warming and cooling.
My friends who believe in this hoax usually speak in terms of “well all these scientists studying it know more than I do. So I’m inclined to listen to them”. Watch and learn … there was once consensus that the Earth was flat, and that angels pulled the Sun around it. There was a large-scale consensus on those matters, because they fit into people’s preconceptions, but they’re not true. I think it’s actually amazing that in the Information Age, a hoax of this magnitude is able to be pulled off, in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence against it, by a coterie of politically motivated buffoons. Time will tell.
@Moon-howler
Follow the money to get the answer you want that justifies more money.
Yes, those people were not scientists who believed in those false premise’s Rick. If this is such a grand hoax, what is the ultimate goal?
I am pretty sure Stephen Hawking is not a “political buffoon”.
http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/05/27/stephen-hawking-carl-sagan-on-global-warming-now-400-ppm-and-counting/
“…One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming brought about by rising levels of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The danger is that the temperature increase may become self-sustaining, if it hasn’t done so already. Drought and deforestation are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide recycled into the atmosphere and the warming of the seas may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide trapped on the ocean floor. In addition the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will reduce the amount of solar energy reflected back into space and so increase the temperature further. We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C and rain sulphuric acid. The human race could not survive in those conditions.”
Nor is Michia Kaku
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/the-climate-change-debate-is-over/
Fish have been moving further from the equator since the 70’s and tropical fish are not being replaced as there isn’t a species that tolerates the newer warmer temperatures. That a not an opinion.
I sure didn’t know that. I am hung up over the glaciers in Glacier National Park.
@Elena
The thing is that the CO2 went over 400ppm. And the temperatures have not acted as predicted….at all.
And the ice sheets are NOT melting.
Glaciers are melting. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Who says ice sheets aren’t melting?
OK Cargo, you and Rick argue with some of the greatest scientific minds, be my guest 🙂
@Moon-howler
Well since the Arctic has regained its ice two weeks early this year….its not melting.
The Antarctic is not melting. In fact, sea ice is at record levels.
I’d like to read about that ice coming back. Is it in a reputable scientific journal?
The glaciers in North America sure aren’t coming back.
The Pine Island Glacier has shrunk and continues to do so.
I don’t read conspiracy.com for information and I’m not liberalphobic. I’ve seen enough of this country to realize there’s a heck of a lot of green space. But I do know a bit about oceans. Enough to know they are what is to be watched with regard to climate change.
Tropical fish are no longer living in warmer waters near the equator.
The Pine island Glacier in Antarctica is melting from beneath due to warmer waters under the ice shelf. At a fast pace. I’d better let the scientists know that a guy called Cargosquid found out they’re wrong and they can pack up and go home now 🙂
So if everyone stops blowing so much hot air then maybe the melting will subside! (sorry, couldn’t pass it up)
You could be right.
Funny.
I’m sure this won’t change Rick Bentley or Cargo’s minds, but there is virtually NO dissent by actual climate scientists that the earth is warming and that it is warming because of human activity:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
It’s particularly interesting that Bentley said this:”there was once consensus that the Earth was flat, and that angels pulled the Sun around it. There was a large-scale consensus on those matters, because they fit into people’s preconceptions, but they’re not true.” This quote is interesting because Bentley is the “flat earther” in this situation. SCIENCE is what proved the earth was round, that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth, etc. Now, it is SCIENCE that is telling us that we are causing the planet to warm, but those who refuse to adjust their preconceptions for whatever reason still cling to their “flat earth” mind-set.
Maybe the angels will intervene and stop the warming…
@Middleman, I have been told they will flap their wings to cool things down,.
Pretty good. Magellan helped.
@middleman
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/15/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-santer-17-update/
Not so much. Hasn’t warmed for about 17 years.
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
—————————
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
—————————
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
That was years ago.
And that consensus?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
I dare anyone here to go scroll through the largest read climate site in the net with an open mind: http://wattsupwiththat.com
If a theory can be proved falsifiable…the theory is null and void. And so far…AGW has huge holes in it.
@Elena
We use other scientists to argue. We just find the data and reports.
@Lyssa
“The Pine island Glacier in Antarctica is melting from beneath due to warmer waters under the ice shelf. At a fast pace. I’d better let the scientists know that a guy called Cargosquid found out they’re wrong and they can pack up and go home now.”
Nope. Its melting.
Here you go. The science that I saw long ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/21/new-research-sheds-light-on-antarcticas-melting-pine-island-glacier/
And here’s one reason why it might be melting.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/
Or this one:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100385
The west Antarctic has active volcanoes.
Well my goodness Cargo,
Thank you so much for educating me. I surely will take the knowledge of a blogging weatherman over the simplicity of renown scientists like Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan.
How stupid could I be to think that the plethora of the world scientific community would dismiss such incredible wealth of knowledge from the weatherman.
Cargo, just curious, who exactly is the “we”. You aren’t suffering from Multiple Personalities are you 🙂
Also..if the Pine Island was “melting” it would retreat. It is still strongly entering the ocean. Thus, the ice is being replenished.
@Elena
I and Rick were mentioned. Thus….”we.”
@Elena
Really…..are Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan considered to be climate scientists? Last I heard…they are astrophysicists, whereas actual climate scientists report and discuss climate science at that site.
Also…. I noticed that I put “nope. Its melting.” Then I contradicted myself.
It is “melting” in the idea that it is moving more rapidly to the ocean. Not actually melting.
@Elena
By the way….did you even check those sites to see what the information was before the snark?
Or were you too closed minded to check? One of them is a .gov site… not a “blogging weatherman” site.
Jeepers….there’s just nothing to discuss. NASA satellites (hoaxes, I’m sure), scientists from the navel postgraduate school – are they figments of collective imaginations…?
Pine Island Glacier IS melting and tropical waters are NOT seeing new types of fish that can thrive in the warmer waters near the equator.
Here’s the reality–if there is climate changed because of carbon then the climate change folks will have attempted to clean up the atmosphere. If they are wrong, what’s the harm? How can a cleaner atmosphere really hurt anyone?
If the climate change deniers are wrong, serious changes could affect the earth, even to the point of making it unfit for human habitation.
I am not going to bet on the deniers. Strange, the very same people who continually warn us about the financial legacy we will be leaving their grandchildren think nothing about leaving them a polluted earth that might become uninhabitable.
Go figure.
I agree, let’s take the word of a TV weatherman over the National Academy of Sciences, the International Academies, the American Meteorological Society and even the American Chemical Society!
After all, they must all be part of Obama’s “secret” plan to use global warming to re-distribute wealth. Thank God for people like Watts to blow the whistle! He should be back on TV!!
@Lyssa
I didn’t discuss the tropical fish.
Pine Island is not retreating. It is advancing faster to the sea. Which definition of “melting” are you using. There are active volcanoes near that glacier.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/volcano-under-antarctica_n_4295985.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D407657
@Moon-howler
If the climate changers are wrong and we implemented the Kyoto protocols, which demanded that CO2 output to levels from the late 90’s, though we have a billion more people….we’ve just reduced economic development enough to cause mass starvation and energy deserts. The policies have consequences. The very same people that say we have no money are the ones trying to improve the economy so that we can afford to clean up the world. Poor people have pollution. CO2 is NOT pollution.
@middleman
Or…you can also go look at the objections yourself. Objections by climate experts, geophysicists, etc. Your little blanket statement ignores the fact that not every member of those groups agrees with AGW. That’s the point. As long as a theory is falsifiable….. its still open to interpretation. And the AGW models have all failed.
I never said diddly squat about Kyoto protocols.
I think you are being dramatic.
CO2 from petroleum most certainly is pollution. So is CO. Poor people need to have less pollution.
AGW is going to continue to land anyone in moderation who uses it. I don’t know how many warnings I have issued. That isn’t what we are talking about. find another less politically charged expression.
“If this is such a grand hoax, what is the ultimate goal? ”
Social justice, quote-unquote. It’s a matter of record that some people, who wish for developed nations to slow their pace of growth, made a conscious decision to use this issue/premise.
As to Stephen Hawking, he’s been wrong before. He lost a bet as to whether the Higgs-Boson would ever be discovered. He also lost a bet about loss of information in a black hole.
Do I think that Stephen Hawking knows things that I don’t? Yes. Do I think that he’s got some particular insight that makes him more able to interpret general evidence about climate better than me? No.
Let’s keep the big picture in mind. By all accounts there is more CO2 in our atmopshere than ever before. Yet temperature is going down, not up. So global warming advocates have started saying “THE HEAT MUST BE HIDDEN IN THE SEAS”. If that passes your smell test … you can believe it. I’ll keep believing that while our poillution causes some level of heat containment, it’s not as dramatic as Al Gore once promoted it as being, and we’re as likely to get colder and warmer in the short or long terms.
Why do you keep going back to Al Gore? I certainly don’t consider him the authority.
Heat is held in the seas. Japanese current, Gulfstream are all examples of transferring heat from one place to the other. Vancouver Island gets the Japanese current and is a temperate rainforest. What would England be like if the Gulfstream didn’t just happen by?
I will agree, heat isn’t hidden in the seas. Its pretty obvious.
(I’m not denying that CO2 goes into the seas. But “the heat” is not hidden in the seas).
From Cargo: “Your little blanket statement ignores the fact that not every member of those groups agrees with AGW.”
And not every ex-TV weatherman is a denier, which proves nothing. That’s the way science works- people try to disprove each other’s theory’s and if they can’t the theory becomes accepted. That’s what has happened with climate change- the proof just keeps getting stronger.
Do I think the projections are 100% accurate? Absolutely not- that’s why they’re called projections. Anything done with computer modeling is only as good as the data fed in and the assumptions made. But this modeling has been checked and re-checked (and checked again) and the general trends always hold. The earth is warming and the cause is human activity.
Think of it the relationship of global warming to the “super storms” (the original topic of this thread) like cigarette smoking to cancer. You can never absolutely say that one person’s cancer was due to cigarette smoking- many people smoke and never get cancer. What you can say is that the science clearly shows that there is a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, just as you can say there is a causal relationship between warming and stronger and more frequent storms. Yes, there are other causative factors, just as there is with cancer, but that doesn’t change the science that establishes causation between warming and storms.
Incidentally, the fight against climate science is eerily similar to the cigarette companies fight against cancer causation in the 60’s and 70’s. The major difference is that the oil/coal/gas industries have a LOT more money to fight with!