A new study points to strong evidence that the Southwest is in an extended drought akin to the Dust Bowl period, and that these drought conditions might be permanent, largely due to global warming, reports the Los Angeles Times in a lead story.
The implications for agriculture and cities in the Southwest are serious and staggering.
"There are going to be some tough decisions on how to allocate water," said Richard Seager, the lead scientist in the study. "Is it going to be the cities, or is it going to be agriculture?"
More evidence that warming is hitting close to home and can’t be ignored by Kansas policymakers.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
170 Comments
Migration of the Ferrell-Hadley boundary to higher latitudes is already having an impact. Areasd that had been ’savannah’ are becoming more arid.
The Great Experiment continues …
Wether global warming is man made or a part of a natural cycle is open to debate. What is not is that we have use our resources wisely. An instance is Los Angeles. Los Angeles steals water from as far away as Sacramento. Then, they charge so litte for it, people water their lawns, admittdly small, every day. And this is an example of the cities/agriculture dilemma?
“Im Dreaming of a White Good Friday—Just to show what Al Gore DoesntKnow —That the weather changes all the time –And that there is nothing new under the sun!”
Sung to the tune of “Im dreaming of a White Christmas!”
We had a dust bowl, previously.Was that dust bowl, that draught, caused by “global warming” — and if so, why did that drought end?
You folks are ridiculous.
What would it take to prove to you that you are wrong?
Overpopulation is the underlying problem with global warming. Each person generates heat for his transportation, food, electricity, heating, cooling, waste disposal, manufacturing and the list of BTU increases resulting from each person goes on and on and adds up, along with the destruction of the ozone layer.
One degree of ocean warming sets the process in motion.
EdThe SUN has much to do with any “global warming” that might be happening.The SUN also has much to do with the Ozone Layer:http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050301_ozone_thinning.html
e-conartist,That’s okay for you not to believe it’s happening. “There is no such thing as smog; there is no such thing as smog; there is no such thing as smog.”
whether Man can’t have any effect on the weather or not may be up for debate, but the fact global warming is taking place is very much a proven fact. Those with their head in the sand will find out many things, should they survive:1: You will find it difficult to find water for drinking, let alone for crops. Water will be both the oil and the gold standard of the future.2: The storms coming through will be far more active than the ones we have had. With a cold upper layer and a higher ground temp, any moisture-laden storms are bound to produce super-tornadoes.3: population shifts will tax this country to the extreme.4: IF we survive, it will be a very different world than the one we’re occupying now.5: Pundits of the present denying global warming will, if they do nothing to plan for the future, will become known as “Darwin award winners” in the future. I suspect that will include most republicans.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“That the weather changes all the time –”
Are you UNABLE to understand the simple difference between “weather” and “climate”? That’s sad…
Paul F. Rosell: “What would it take to prove to you that you are wrong?”
1) The opposite consensus from the huge group of international, peer-reviewed scientists.
2) The observed warming trend, habitat migration, bark beetle outbreaks, etc to have NOT occurred.
3) Brain damage, that caused me to ignore the facts: Greenhouse gases warm Earth, and humans have added a significant amount of GHG’s to Earth’s atmosphere.The observed warming trend matches what our added GHG’s should cause.
Big heat producing culprits are nuclear-powered ships, which use sea water to cool their nuclear power plants 24-7-365, as they recycle sea water. Land based plants do the same.
One Aircraft-carrier supports 5000 people and 100 aircraft.
This planet has never supported as many people as we have now.
O, and econ, you are partially correct about the sun, but linking it to the ozone layer, you are directly contradicting yourself. If the sun weakens the ozone layer, what happens to the earth? Why, darn, all living things can die.
But more to the point:”
If Earth’s climate warms steadily in coming decades, as many scientists predict, heavy smog and extreme weather events could increase health risks in the United States and around the world, scientists said this weekend.
Warmer temperatures could bring increased rainfall to some regions, computer models suggest, as well as heat waves and drought.
The Midwest and Northeast United States could see more frequent stagnation of air masses in the summer, for example. The condition would allow pollution — harmful low-level ozone and tiny particles that damage the lungs — to linger and build.”
This taken from the same site you posted:http://www.livescience.com/environment/050221_warming_health.htmlWho’d a thunk it.
JM
You, yourself, need to hit the books pal!Ozone in our cities is “bad” it is SMOG!However, the Ozone LAYER is “good” it is a bit higher up in the atmosphere.In other words, you bring up smog, which indicates we are producing Ozone.That was not the original point in the thread.It was not even Ed’s point, I dont think. (But I will let Ed speak for himself.)
Make up your mind, Ed.
Are people the culprit - or are nuke-powered ships the culprit?
Should we sink the ships?Or should we drown a bunch of people?
Or try this one:http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041222_permafrost.htmlSeems cherry picking articles is something anyone can do. Problem is, cherry pickers forget how expansive the net really is.
CosmosCO2 is not the most significant “green house gas”The most significant green house gas is water vapor!
Also, Man made CO-2 is less than 4% of the total CO-2.
You are an alarmist.
You are a chicken little.
CosmosCO2 is not the most significant “green house gas”The most significant green house gas is water vapor!
Also, Man made CO-2 is less than 4% of the total CO-2.
You are an alarmist.
You are a chicken little.
Paul - man-made CO2 is closer to 1/3 of total now in atmosphere, not 4%. We have upset the balance.
cosmos is not an alarmist; he seems to be in line with what most professional scientists think.
Of course, I suppose the people who said cigarettes were not good for your health were considered alarmists by the tobacco industry as well.
The drought of the 30s was localized; what is happening today is global.
econguy,Don’t you read your own posts? “The SUN also has much to do with the Ozone Layer:”
You brought it up. Anybody who knows about smog, knows its constituent parts. My pointing out smog was an attempt to prove to you man does have a hand in what happens to this planet.
That your to ingrained in your head-in-the-sand beliefs to see that is your unwillingness to think for yourself; you are excellent at spouting the limbough line.
And good grief, there goes gs on her daily mind meltdown again. Do you not understand it is man’s use of this planet as a whole, which include nuclear ships, coal fired plants, automobiles, seas of heat absorbing concrete, acidification of the oceans, and a mile long list of “others” that is causing the problem, or do you just cherry pick as usual in an attempt to prove others wrong? I suspect it’s your inability to handle the the problem in an intelligent way that has you hackles up. I suggest climbing on that yellow brick road. Somewhere there may be someone willing to give you a brain.
If water vapor is the biggest green house gas - why wouldn’t a ‘dust bowl’ be a boon to the cause.
A drought seems like the perfect thing to off-set too much waper vapor.
Is that wrong?
econguy,Don’t you read your own posts? “The SUN also has much to do with the Ozone Layer:”
You brought it up. Anybody who knows about smog, knows its constituent parts. My pointing out smog was an attempt to prove to you man does have a hand in what happens to this planet.
That your to ingrained in your head-in-the-sand beliefs to see that is your unwillingness to think for yourself; you are excellent at spouting the limbough line.
And good grief, there goes gs on her daily mind meltdown again. Do you not understand it is man’s use of this planet as a whole, which include nuclear ships, coal fired plants, automobiles, seas of heat absorbing concrete, acidification of the oceans, and a mile long list of “others” that is causing the problem, or do you just cherry pick as usual in an attempt to prove others wrong? I suspect it’s your inability to handle the the problem in an intelligent way that has you hackles up. I suggest climbing on that yellow brick road. Somewhere there may be someone willing to give you a brain.
”
If water vapor is the biggest green house gas - why wouldn’t a ‘dust bowl’ be a boon to the cause.
A drought seems like the perfect thing to off-set too much waper vapor.
Is that wrong?”
Anybody else find this statement and question too stupid to answer?
Some one anyone tell me what the weather will on this day 1 year from now.
5 years from now?
10 years from now?
20 years from now?
I want guaranteed accuracy, no excuses.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You are confused, and/or ignorant. Or deliberately being deceptive?
CO2 alone causes between 9 and 26% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Increasing it from 280 ppm to 380 ppm IS significant.
Water vapor is a positive feedback. Warming caused by human-added CO2 will increase the amount of water vapor, causing MORE warming.
And humans add other GHG’s — methane, CFC’s SF6, etc.
Walker
Sounds like his mind is already made up…
The bottom line in getting the Kansas legislature to start thinking about the major problem headed our way is to replace them with people not beholden to big ag, big oil and big business. Good luck in that department.
JM - it’s your very defensiveness, in fact ALL Global Warming advocates’ DEFENSIVENESS, that undermines this ‘push’ to spread liberal greenie hooey over the entire planet.
I even hear advocates say that we should go ahead and TRY to change things EVEN if we can’t prove GW, because, “what’s the harm in that?”
The harm is in the destruction of some of the most progressive energy sources, millions of jobs, an astronomical cost - and all because it’s better to be “safe than sorry?”
Not good enough.
There are actual Death Threats coming from GW birdies towards scientists who disagree.
If that’s not a red flag - I don’t know what is.
But, forgive me for interrupting your daily meltdown.
Please continue…
Republican,
“Some one anyone tell me what the weather will on this day 1 year from now.”
Are you UNABLE to understand the simple difference between “weather” and “climate”? That’s sad…
ROFL - in other words, JM - you don’t KNOW the answer.
I think Ed might be on to something. Home work assignment for tonight: Find the film ‘Soylent Green’ and watch it. Tomorrow we will discuss it. The answer is there in how to solve this threat. It is a movie made in the early 70’s and stared Charlton Heston.
Get back to me on this.
NEWS FLASH: SCIENTISTS CONCLUDED GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY W.E. BLOGGERS ARGUING OVER CAUSE AND EXISTENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING!
Scientists also express concern over increased methane levels from same argument.
Ben Huie,
Funny you mention the people that deny the dangers of smoking-
“Cigarettes offer real benefits for the elderly, the clumsy, the forgetful, and the easily distracted.”
This is from the Heartland Institute’s web site.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14249
Coincidentally, the same organization just launched an ad campaign challenging Al Gore to a debate on global warming.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sound-science-debate-dismissed-as-so-much-smoke
Can’t make this stuff up.
Now THAT is funny!
Writerdog that was almost as good as my solution.
Sorry, I guess I was slow. My “funny” comment was for writerdog
GSheridan
“Should we sink the ships?Or should we drown a bunch of people?”
Surely there’s a less drastic way to fix whatever is broken.
Problem usually don’t have a single solution or a single cause.
One thing the article writer forgets to mention about the area in question that may suffer a drought…it’s in the desert Southwest. Notice the word, ‘desert.’
Basically, what it’s saying is that the area in question will continue to have the SAME weather it that is typical for it.
And THAT should SCARE THE BEJEEZUS outta you!
Boo!
Okay, who got scared and fell out of their chair when they read that?
JM, certainly, but who else? Cosmos?
KSgrm - I SAW that movie as a kid.
Wanna bet Al Gore secretly is plotting that?
Created the Internet.Saved the planet from destruction.Found a creative source of food.
lol
GSheridan,
“The harm is in the destruction of some of the most progressive energy sources, millions of jobs, an astronomical cost… ”
Falsehoods from the fossil-energy sector, who also spread BS about AGW.
Higher energy efficiency, renewables, new technology, etc. will create more jobs, and help boost the economy. The insurance industry is very worried about the losses AGW could cause.
“There are actual Death Threats coming from GW birdies towards scientists who disagree.”
Any threats besides the alleged 5 emails to Tim Ball? Did the authorities investigate those?
Cosmos,
Okay, give an accurate description of the exactly what the climate will be in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years.
I want no deviations because you claim your Climate Models are accurate and cannot be questioned.
I want no excuses because you claim your Scientist are right and every other scientist is wrong.
Come on Cosmos, tell me exactly how the future is going to be.
Lay it out for me.
The issue here, as I read it, is drought and the lack of water. The drought is believed to be caused by climate change due to global warming.
Trying to put the issue of global warming to one side, the lack of water necessary to sustain both urban development and agriculture presents a dilemma. Should urban development be discouraged in the arid regions now adversely affecte? Should the use of water by the agricultural interests be curtailed? If both urban development are unsustainable in such areas, but one can be supported, which should we choose? Are we, as a society, competent to make this choice?
These are the questions raised in what is left of my mind today by the lead post and the linked article. What are the opinions on these questions of the other posters? My thought is to favor agriculture and conservation of water resources in these areas.
GSheridan,
Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Don’t let Limbaugh think for you.
I note that the study covers the Southwest, from Colorado to California, not all of which is desert.
“JM - it’s your very defensiveness, in fact ALL Global Warming advocates’ DEFENSIVENESS, that undermines this ‘push’ to spread liberal greenie hooey over the entire planet.”
. . . and the prez . . . your idol and mentor . . . didn’t threaten anybody in government jobs to NOT publish anything supporting global warming?
You have been given many answers. That you can’t understand them is not my problem.
“One thing the article writer forgets to mention about the area in question that may suffer a drought…it’s in the desert Southwest. Notice the word, ‘desert.’
Basically, what it’s saying is that the area in question will continue to have the SAME weather it that is typical for it.”
Contrary to the Southwest’s image as a sprawling desert, it is one of the most geographically diverse regions in The United States.It is hardly all desert. Plus it is home to many great cities: Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, to name just a few. I’m sure they would love to know that they have been wrong all these years because gs says so. Arrogance at it’s most blatant.
I know Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet. ARPANET and DARPANET used packet sending protocols way before Gore thought about using a computer.
bloggus,
Ahem….perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote about Gore. I used the word ‘created.’ So did Gore, himself, in the interview, “…I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
Maybe YOU should clean the wax from your ears…..
Just a thought.
Bloggus
“During my service in the United States congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
Maybe a poor choice of words, but his words none the less.I didn’t get this from Rush I got it from you source.
GSheridan,
“Basically, what it’s saying is that the area in question will continue to have the SAME weather it that is typical for it.”
Nope. From the article,”The U.S. and southern Europe will be better prepared to deal with frequent drought than most African nations.
For the U.S., the biggest problem would be water shortages. The seven Colorado River Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California — would battle each other for diminished river flows.”
JM - The SW truly IS mostly desert, minus a few spots around upper AZ and into Utah. Phoenix IS a nice place - I went to school in a suburb there, but it IS the desert, complete with Saguaro cacti. Vegas is similar, and both have had to make creative provisions for water…and ongoing war since both city’s inception.
Trying to make these sound like lush tropics is WAY off base.
But don’t let little me stop you - you’re on such a role and all.
Hey, are you into that Soylent Green thingy, too?
And then there’s this nugget:”There are actual Death Threats coming from GW birdies towards scientists who disagree.”
So, using your convoluted logic: some anti-abortion people have used violence in order to stop abortion, ergo all anti-abortion people are violent. Some religious whackos have used violence, ergo all religious people are violent whackos.
I see you have again failed to find that yellow brick road still. Maybe you can find someone to help you; rush for instance.
The yellow brick road is in Sedan Kansas.
GSheridan,
You’re right, you did use the word create, my bad.
That’s one thing you can claim to be right about.
“Trying to make these sound like lush tropics is WAY off base.”
Nobody has even mentioned lush tropics with the southwest but yourself. Obviously, you have a problem with word comprehension. Yellow brick road, deer.
“The yellow brick road is in Sedan Kansas. :)”
Can you tale gs there this weekend and help her out-:0
Geez, fellow liberals, try to see if from the other guy’s point of view: if peer-reviewed science went against YOU every time, then you’d want your own Right-Wing World of Lies to fall back on, now wouldn’t you?
See? Was that so hard?
It’s like a mental illness, the Right Wing World of Lies, a collective mass delusion.
Actually, that’s all too grandoise. It’s all tribal “I’m right, you’re wrong” argumentation, paid for by Big Capital.
I’m waiting Cosmos. Tell me more about this pinpoint accuracy Climate Control models. No excuses now, I want to know exactly how the future is going to be. You know that model that was put together by those peer-reviewed scientists.
No excuses, no backsliding, I want to see hard scientific climate modeling with precision - no deviation postings.
I’m waiting…
GSheridan,
In Congress, Gore DID take the leadership role in creating the Internet. He wrote bills that funded research, built networks, etc. He pushed the development of fiber-optics, supercomputers, etc.
Republicans blocked Gore’s Internet bill in early 1990’s, until he asked the GAO to do a report. The GAO showed it would provide many economic benefits, and other advantages — the bill passed.
Internet = “Interconnected Networks”, not the earlier, seperate networks.
republicant,No one can say, with precision, what the actual weather will be in 5-10-15-20 years. We can, however, use scientific models, supercomputers, INTELLIGENCE, and common sense to say what conditions will be and what they will most likely produce in 5-10-15-20 years.
Your question is without merit, and deserves nothing more than a glance. It shows a decided lack of understanding in both science and common sense. Kind of like it’s asker
If my question is without merit J M as you say, then why do the GW Alarmists claim complete accuracy what the climate will be in the future?
So please tell me what the conditions will be like in 5-10-15-20 years.
I may not live to see the 20 years, but I think I can hang on for the first three time sequences.
bloggus,I have had allies of yours, other liberals, on this WEblog, claim that Al Gore did, in fact, invent the internet!
Some cant see the forest for the trees.
Others can see the climate for the weather!
“I’m waiting Cosmos. Tell me more about this pinpoint accuracy Climate Control models. No excuses now, I want to know exactly how the future is going to be. You know that model that was put together by those peer-reviewed scientists.
No excuses, no backsliding, I want to see hard scientific climate modeling with precision - no deviation postings.
I’m waiting…”
What an intellectually dishonest straw man. Pathetic. Cosmos has pointed out the existence of enormous amounts of peer reviewed research that has linked documented increases in carbon and other greenhouse gases to documented increases in global temperature. He never made a claim to be able to tell the future of climate with “pinpoint accuracy”. To badger him to do so is a dishonest and irrelevant red herring, and obviously due to the fact that you have no evidence to counter his (especially since he has demolished your previous attempts).
Sir, you’ve already had your head handed to you on this topic. You The idea that an overhwhelming majority of climate scientists are sounding the alarm about global warming to annoy the myopic branch of American “free market” conservatives is pathetic balderdash transparent and has no connection to reality.
Econ and Republican–
Gore never claimed he “invented the internet.”
He claimed, rightly, that he was instrumental in Congress in getting funding for developing the new technology so that it could become what it is today.
No less authorities than Bennet Cerf and Newt Gingerich acknowledge that this is true.
Give the lies against Gore a rest, would you please?
At least the ones that have been thouroughly discredited.
Even the “complete accuracy” you claim GW “alarmists” make only states what is most likely to happen. Not with precision when exactly it will happen. Only that it will happen is certain. Hell, it could be tomorrow, next week, next year or ten years down the road if the tipping point is reached. But happen it will if the people who have the power to do something don’t wake up and smell the dust bowl.
Your question is STILL without merit.
“I have had allies of yours, other liberals, on this WEblog, claim that Al Gore did, in fact, invent the internet!”
Show us Paul. I have only seen that “claim” from the “right”
Okay J M fair enough.
You know what a S.W.A.G. is? I learned it many years ago, it stands for Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
That’s what Scientists use when the cannot conclusively predict an outcome.
I can make a SWAG and say there will be an extremely dry climate in the next five years. If it happens, I’m a freaking genius. If it doesn’t I can say, well it was just a SWAG.
— And, again, my point is that the SUN is the most imporatant factor concerning hot and cold, weather, ozone, radiation, electro-magnetic distortion of radio waves etc.The SUN dictates what will happen to the Earth.Anything man does is insignificant.
1.) Is warming actually happening?2.) Did man cause any such warming?3.) Can man stop any such warming?4.) Is the cost of any action worth the price?5.) Can the United States have any impact on this issue by itself, acting alone? How can we expect American workers to pay higher energy costs and lose factory jobs if America, alone, is the only country trying to do anything? Won’t any effort made by the Industrialized countries only have the effect of lowering the cost of carbon in the developing world? Why should Americans sacrifice if there will be NO NET POSITIVE EFFECT?6.) How can we get an impoverished world to starve their people on behalf of Mother Earth? How can we trust a world that violates anti-drug treaties, copywrite treaties, arms treaties etc to starve their people over the “global warming” hoax?
Even if you prove the first 2 points (YOU HAVEN”T) — but even if you are right, there is NOTHING that can reasonbly be done.
You are asking for real death, today, in order to save imaginary pain in the future.
Hurting the economy kills people.
BenThis very thread has some dissenting views, from the LEFT on Al Gore and the internet.Start there, why dont you?
Paul - as I recall, as a Congressman (not Senator yet) Gore was instrumental in securing funding for ARPA. That is the anciant precursor to the internet.
A funny - I ‘claim’ to have almost saved society from this beast. One night I crashed the entire net several times. We got a rather nasty call from the folks up at Stanford. they were not pleased.
As for your bogus claims about warming - hurting the environment kills people too. I wager that I have a hell of a lot more econ and accounting than you have science.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
And links therein for a general overview.
By the way - I still don’t see anyone claiming that Gore “invented” the net - except GS.
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed he “invented” the Internet.
Status: FALSE
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Republican,
“then why do the GW Alarmists claim complete accuracy what the climate will be in the future?”
You’ve got it EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
If we had “complete accuracy”, we could just plan for future changes, and slowly adapt.
The main reason for reducing our GHG emissions is that we do NOT know what natural, positive feedbacks will cause.
It’s the “tipping point”, where warming continues, perhaps rapidly, even if humans cut emissions sharply.
Scientists do accurately model temperature rises our added GHG’s cause. It’s similar to making tide charts.
But natural positive feedbacks are difficult, or impossible to model.For example, very large amounts of GHG’s may be released from thawing tundra. How much, and how soon is difficult/impossible to predict.
And there may more unknown feedbacks, like the recently discovered phytoplankton.
Scientists cannot predict things that they don’t know about, or don’t understand.The very unexpected collapse of Larsen-B is a perfect example.
So Cosmos, the title of this topic is “Warming ushering in another Dust Bowl,” as reported by the Los Angeles Times is a lie then?
“The very unexpected collapse of Larsen-B is a perfect example.”
cosmo- You are worse that the one-note anti-abortion people.fap fap fap at the altar of Global Warming. (You know, it will hurt the poor people the most.)
Republican,
This is the title of the LA Times article-
“Permanent drought predicted for Southwest
Study says global warming threatens to create a Dust Bowl-like period. Water politics could also get heated.”
So, cosmo, …………….. which is it, they can or can’t????? Pick one, and, I’ll tell ya the right answer in a minute.
Posted by: cosmos | April 06, 2007 at 04:36 PM
“Scientists do accurately model temperature rises our added GHG’s cause.”
“Scientists cannot predict things that they don’t know about, or don’t understand.”
Cosmos”And there may more unknown feedbacks, like the recently discovered phytoplankton.”
Certainly, phytoplankton isn’t ‘discovered’. That is absurd, as it is pervasive in all bodies of water. fresh or salt.
Diatoms are responsible for 80% of the photosynthesis that occurs on this planet. Yes, read it again. Diatoms. 80%. Learn it, live it.
Well, republican (et al), we are well aware of the fact your no genius, but bringing in SWAG? Kinda grasping at straws, aren’t we? Real scientists don’t make scientific wild ass guesses. That would be left to the people, who have their head in the sand about global warming, ignorant of real science doing that.
The majority of climate scientists are in agreement global warming is happening, and are concerned enough to want to do something about it.
You, and your apologists, when confronted with a wealth of evidence pointing to the problem, use the same logic you did concerning the Ozone layer and CFCs. Hell, even your mentor, Rush, finally conceded the fact CFCs were causing the depletion.
The same thing is happening with global warming, but due to the resistance to the truth by you and your cohorts, the problem just may turn into a global catastrophe. Trouble is, I will be so busy trying to survive, I could care less about saying, “I told you so.”
“I will be so busy trying to survive,…”
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Real scientists don’t make scientific wild ass guesses.”You are correct, Sir.You’re just backing the ‘real’ scientists.You are backing the ‘Chicken Little’, scant data-conclusion jumping crowd.
CORRECTION:
You’re just NOT backing the ‘real’ scientists.
I would expect Cosmos was referring to a new species of phytoplankton?
Problem: If diatoms are responsible for 80% of the photosynthesis on the planet, and the worlds water become more and more acidic due to acid rain, what becomes of the diatoms? And more important, what becomes of the food chain when the diatoms die out due to too high a pH?
Along with drought, Global Warming, acid rain, ozone depleation, killer bees, red dye #40, DDT, and capitalism, I believe we are all doomed!
Let’s start the doomsday clock now.
Actually, I’m invested in an Alternative Energy Company since the mid 1980s. I put my money where my mouth was. They have taken a beating and I’m about 1 percent ahead on my original investment.
As I’ve said before, sure I believe in Climate Change as nature designed it. And I’m all for alternative energy, just not at the behest of the Kyoto Treaty or the UN. I want to be represented and not let US Tax dollars fly out of the country for something that cannot be fixed while giant countries like India and China completely ignore any environmental concerns.
I’m happy with my stance on Climate Change and do not bow down to the GW alarmists. I prefer the calm and collected approach of Scientists who have worked on alternative energy plans for decades. I actually put my money into and don’t continually spout off about using other peoples money to do something. I use my money to do something.
JM ~ I’m very impressed that you are able to see and even correct what someone else posts’. Wow, I’d like to get the winning Lottery numbers from you.
As for the rest of your post, you have no facts, just pure, out of control speculation.Not even a SWAG, but, just a WAG.
“…killer bees,…”
Perfect! Weren’t they supposed to be stinging all of us by now.
“Actually, I’m invested in an Alternative Energy Company…”
Not me. I’m heavily invested in Phillips 66. It gained 22 cents today. Go! dead dinosaurs rock!
Econ101 has the best take above. As for the rest, it’s amusing watching the ignorant “debate.” Almost as good as the Monty Python argument skit.
Sanford,You have been given countless links to global warming, however, it appears you can’t digest the information. Why should I be surprised?
The winning lottery number is 42. Use it wisely: buy some education.
Fleetwood, the only thing your invested in is lunacy. Reality is beyond your understanding.
“”…killer bees,…”
Perfect! Weren’t they supposed to be stinging all of us by now.”
Africanized honey bees in the US.
http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/afrbeep.html
More-
http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/sep/stories/kbees.html
Sanford,Backing real scientists? You mean the ones bought and paid for by big business? The same ones whose only environmental concerns are paved with the almighty buck? O, those are YOUR scientists, not the real ones.
“Africanized honey bees in the US.”
They were in Texas years ago, headed this way. It was another EVERYBODY PANIC, that never happened.
“They were in Texas years ago, headed this way. It was another EVERYBODY PANIC, that never happened.”
If you would bother to check the link, you would see that they are here, and they are still moving north.
Or, you could just sit there with your thumb up your ass.
FleetwoodIs it time for me to turn in my NASD registration?I am on your side, most of the time, but the markets were closed today! LOL
Sanford,
Climate scientists CAN predict the warming that our added GHG’s will cause.The extra radiative forcing from KNOWN amounts of GHG’s CAN be calculated.
The warming caused by UNKNOWN natural positive feedbacks CANNOT be predicted. The warming caused by UNKNOWN amounts of GHG’s from thawing tundra, at an UNKNOWN time/rate CANNOT be calculated.
Should’ve posted “And there may be more unknown feedbacks, like the recently discovered phytoplankton [one].”
‘Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html” “Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere play a big part in global warming,” said lead author Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University, Corvallis. “This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume.That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate MORE rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce MORE warming.” “
“Should’ve posted “And there may be more unknown feedbacks, like the recently discovered phytoplankton [one].”"
I bet you are soooo boring in person it’s not even funny.”How you doing, cosmo?”
“Fine, except for the Global Warming that is going to kill us in 50 years. You want me to tell you all about it?”
“No, thanks. See you later, cosmo.”
The warming caused by UNKNOWN natural positive feedbacks CANNOT be predicted. The warming caused by UNKNOWN amounts of GHG’s from thawing tundra, at an UNKNOWN time/rate CANNOT be calculated.Posted by: cosmos | April 06, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Oh cosmos, I feel all warm and fuzzy now by your exact (cough) peer-reviewed science.
“There is 100% agreement with all of the scientists that agree with us”
This isnt science.
This is Stalinism.
Or Religion.
Kick everyone out that disagrees!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“The SUN dictates what will happen to the Earth.Anything man does is insignificant.”
Paul F. Rosell seems to believe that it wouldn’t matter if Earth was 86 degs. F colder, and had wide temperature swings, day/night.
That’s what the greenhouse effect “dictates” to our Earth — and humans have increased the amount of GHG’s.
Republican,
Does NOT knowing what unknown positive feedbacks will do to Earth’s climate make you “feel all warm and fuzzy”?
It’s both known, and unknown amounts of warming. Did you not read the first part?
“Climate scientists CAN predict the warming that our added GHG’s will cause.The extra radiative forcing from KNOWN amounts of GHG’s CAN be calculated.”
But, Cosmos, don’t you find it even a LITTLE BIT strange that Mars is warming at approximately the same rate - and at the same time Earth is?
What do you make of that?
Just a coincidence?
I’m not a great believer in coincidence.
“Climate scientists CAN predict the warming that our added GHG’s will cause.The extra radiative forcing from KNOWN amounts of GHG’s CAN be calculated.”
——————-
Scientific calculations are not the have all- end all.
Scientific engineers have PROVEN the Bumblebee CANNOT fly.
Thank Gawd all the Bumblebees are NOT LISTENING to the scientists.
Sheesh…..
Cosmos,
I’m not really worried why my body doesn’t fly apart on its own because I don’t under the physics of cells as it applies to gravity. I just know that it won’t.
Fear of the unknown? Sure, when I’ve been on aircraft when it drops a few thousand feet because of unknown air currents; that will get your heart a-thumpin’.
Posted by: cosmos | April 06, 2007 at 06:01 PM”PAUL F. ROSELL,”The SUN dictates what will happen to the Earth.Anything man does is insignificant.”
Bingo. Any plaques available?
The sun dictates everything that has/does happen (weather) on our planet Earf.The sun is vibrant, not static.It lives, breathes, swells, receedes, warms, and, cools.
That is why any anomalies that Mankind think he has ‘figured out’ is bogus.
Sunlight is the face of God.copyrighted, 2005
sheesh - Wrong again GS:
“One favourite subject that people raise is the old line about scientists having proved that the bumble-bee cannot fly. It’s a much loved piece of urban folklore. There it is, the humble Bombus Terristris, plainly flying around us throughout the summer, and those crazy know-all scientists with their noses in their test-tubes say it cannot possibly fly. What utter nonsense! It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. So what is this business about proving bees cannot fly? And who started it?”
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm
“Any plaques available?”
Why, yes, Sanford. I have opened my own Plaque Store. It’s at the corner of Right and Thinking. I have won so many, I thought I might as well get in on it. I sell them at half price. (Not really, but it makes women think they are getting a deal, so they buy two. Kind of like shoes).
Is the Lib plaque store at the corner of Hate and Assbury?
hah Sanford!
:) 
Plaque is indeed correct, isn’t it, fleafood. After all, plaque is what has replaced what passed for brain cells in your head. Nothing of any consequence has left your fingers and found this, or any, post yet. And it obviously never will. Plaque? How about the one naming rush as your official “thinker.” hahahahahahaha
“Actually, this is just urban folklore..no scientists has ever claimed that bumble bees cannot fly..if you trace the statement back to its origin, you will see that a flight machine constructed in the proportions of a bumble bee cannot fly. It is a fallacy to deduce from this that the bumble bee cannot fly. (one simple moment to ponder: bumble bees has mobile wings, all our flight machines have steady wings)”
http://forums.hypography.com/philosophy-science/2085-difference-between-laws-reality-laws-nature.html
sheesh GS - now its your turn. Show me the scientists claiming they have proved a bumblebee cannot fly.
And the CalTech symposium at the Burger Continental does not count!
JM ………. that was pretty lame.I mean, really. It’s not clever, humorous, insightful. It just lays there, ’cause it’s lame.
How many electrons died so you could post that?
Ben~ you got it.They just couldn’t figure out how the bb did it.
“Is the Lib plaque store at the corner of Hate and Assbury?”
There was a Lib plaque store, some time ago, but they paid the employees a “Living Wage”. It was gone in two months.
Actually sanford - they DID.
“After all, plaque is what has replaced what passed for brain cells in your head.”
Ouch, again. These Libs really know how to lay it down.Your mother is so fat….
Ben~ at that intersection did they smoke the plaques? How did they keep ‘em lit?When it comes to plaques, I prefer to mainline.Unless it’s walnut. Never liked walnut.
This is a good site, not boring.
While I am sure that Sanford knows the Latin name for the Bumblebee, he knows better than to say the Bumblebee can’t fly. I am sure he has read Issac Asimofs book, “Book of Facts” and has forgotten.
NO PLAQUE FOR YOU!
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
sanford - ?????
I have no clue what you are talking about.
Ben~ at that intersection did they smoke the plaques?
I was refering to the actual corner of Haight and Ashbury (60’s drug culture). Just a throw away, feeble attempt at humor ………..
OK. I have been at that corner but didn’t see any plaques. Some pretty burned-out looking guys though …
“Some pretty burned-out looking guys though …”
One of them was me. I waved, but you didn’t wave back. Bastard!
GSheridan,
“…Mars is warming at approximately the same rate…”
Who says at the “same rate”? And the warming appears to be only regional.
Mars has a very different orbit than Earth. It’s thin atmosphere and lack of oceans allows changes in orbit, giant dust storms, etc to quickly change the climate.
fap fap fap
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
“Recently, there have been some suggestions that “global warming” has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a “global” change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.”
GS - how is that bumblebee doing?
Republican,
Suppose you notice the tread seperating on one of your car tires.
Do you ignore it, and continue driving as if the tire wasn’t defective?
Do you drive to the tire store, and demand they tell you EXACTLY how many miles you can drive before it’ll fail - so you can drive 1 mile less?
Scientists are unable to predict exactly what GHG’s from thawing permafrost, less CO2 absorbed by less phytoplankton, etc will cause.
Just like a tire expert cannot predict exactly how long your defective tire will last.
But unlike a tire failure, natural positive GW feedbacks could cause serious, irreversible problems for humans on Earth.
Cosmos,Trying to use logic with neo-cons is like trying to feed wild lions by hand: both run on instinct only. Intelligence doesn’t enter the picture. I mean come on, they’re republicans.
Sort of like tire failure…
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around a Global Tire threat.
Should I invest in synthetics - no that’s from oilShould I invest in rubber - no too expensive.
I know, let’s build a rail that uses forces of magnetism, do away with cars.
Oh well, I’m just too tired for this
Why hasn’t the mainstream media ask Al Gore some very basic, but important questions?
Has the temperature of the sun increased over the years?
Has the temperature of other planets increased?
Has the climates of other planets changed?
What happened to the global cooling debate in the ’70s?
What good is the media if they can’t ask the objective questions? Rhetorical question, of course.
So, until these and other common sense questions are brought up and answered in the course of the climate change debate, then there is no credibility in the pro-manmade global warming camp.
I want my PLAQUE!
(Do I sound like the AFLAC duck?)
Wish I could find aBumblebee in the Snow on Easter.
Now that CANT happen, can it?
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
I’m more green than your average latte sipping religous enviromentalist.
I guess the enviromental movement is a great place to join to get laid by some fine honies.
At least that is what Christian Youth Groups are for; Getting laid and smoking pot.
I wish that the WEBlog could put the ID’s BEFORE the posts instead of after them.
That way I wouldn’t have to read the first couple of words of Fleettwood’s posts.
ID,
“Has the temperature of the sun increased over the years?”
1) Only very slightly — the warming from human-added factors is about 10 times stonger than solar’s impact.
2) If solar energy DOES increase, it’s even MORE important to reduce human-added GHG’s. More solar + more GHG’s = worse situation.
Other planets have very different orbits, atmospheres, etc. Questions are NOT relevant, considering solar has increased only slightly.
“What happened to the global cooling debate in the ’70s?”
It was more questions than a “debate”. The cooling idea DIED around 1977, when the scientific agreement shifted to GW, caused by human-added GHG’s.
30 years of intense research, data, real-world observations, etc have greatly strengthened that scientific consensus.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“I want my PLAQUE!”
Then don’t brush your teeth!
Paul F. Rosell, please explain why you believe the greenhouse effect, which warms our Earth by about 86 degs F, is an UNIMPORTANT factor.
Explain why you believe human-added GHG’s have ZERO effect on Earth’s climate.
Explain why you are UNABLE to understand the facts and truth about AGW, and instead keep posting your anti-AGW BS.
I’ll guess that you’re UNABLE to explain. So instead, you’ll just keep posting your anti-AGW BS over and over and over again.
cosmos
You are still stuck on questions #1 and #2.
Lets move on?
How can the US ever hope to reduce world wide carbon use? We cant! So, if you are right, we all die! If you are wrong and force us into carbon restrictions, many poor people will die!If I am right, nobody dies due to this issue!
“How can the US ever hope to reduce world wide carbon use?”
It’s called LEADERSHIP freshman-econ. As the most technologically advanced nation the earth has ever known we SHOULD be in a position to privide that.
BenYou can “lead” a horse to water, but you cant make it drink.
China is starting up one coal fired electric generating plant a month, at least.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“1.) Is warming actually happening?”
Please study these maps and graphs, and then explain why you believe Earth is NOT warming.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
“2.) Did man cause any such warming?”
Refute this graphic.http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“China is starting up one coal fired electric generating plant a month, at least.”
Aren’t you a “financial planner”?The U.S. has the technology and resources to develop better alternatives to coal-fired plants - and then SELL them to China.
Jesus Paulie!
“If I am right, nobody dies due to this issue!”
Indulge your messiah complex much?
Because if you are WRONG, EVERYBODY dies due to this issue.
“you are wrong and force us into carbon restrictions, many poor people will die!”
Maybe I am wrong here, because I admit I scroll past most of Paulie’s spittle flecked rants, but…
Isnt it GLOBAL WARMING that will kill poor people, not the CURES for global warming?
Good grief! And they wonder why we dont take those kind of irrational posts SERIOUSLY?
This record cold just killed my vine.
Weither global warming exist or not 1 thing is going to come out of it, a communist society. Because, Big and small buissiness, will not beable to afford the new taxes to correct global warming. Then all places of bussiness will be closed. Then our lives will be run by the goverment. Isn’t that why we came over here from Europe?
Weither global warming exist or not 1 thing is going to come out of it, a communist society. Because, Big and small buissiness, will not beable to afford the new taxes to correct global warming. Then all places of bussiness will be closed. Then our lives will be run by the goverment. Isn’t that why we came over here from Europe?
Yes, the Greenhouse effect is real and the Earth is gradually heating. I think that the issue should not be so much “why” but “what can we do to mitigate the effects”.
The “problem” with the debate over causation is that the debate is no longer abstract but personal. If you disagree with the idea that the warming is anthropogenic, you are a shill for industry. If you push that warming is anthropogenic, you are a eco-terrorist.
Nothing will change unless and until we start discussing the issue as adults.
farmgirl,My point is simple:
If you greens are correct on point 1, IE: That Global Warming is happening —There is NOTHING we can do!
The messianic complex is on your side!
Global Warming is a religion.
CosmosChina has its own coal.There is absolutely no way any other fuel can be used in China for a cheaper price than China’s own coal.Simple finance!
Farmgirl:People die in financial depressions.People died in the Great Depression that would not have died had our economy been better.People also die in recessions, due to economic reasons.American charity to the third world drops dramatically when America falls on hard times.Same with domestic charity.A good stock market is good for charity.A bad stock market is bad for charity.A carbon tax, as proposed by Gore or KYOTO, will destroy the international economy.People will die due to absurd, abstract predictions of doom.Liberals will accept REAL death today, to assuage their collective guilt about projected, abstract, death in the future!
“I’m Dreaming of a White Easter — just like the greenies to know–That my days will be merry and brightAnd that the sun will treat all of us alright!”
Paul, there may be nothing that can be done about Global Warming in and of itself; but, surely we can do something, as Walt says, to mitigate the effects thereof.
Back to what I consider the point of the linked article: water scarcity and issues of allocation thereof. It appears from what I read that regardless of what we may argue the cause therefor is, there is a long-term drought underway in the Southwest, calling into question the allocation of the dwindling amount of potable water between the urban areas and the agricultural interests competing therefor. Such allocation is a proper subject for a debate over water policies in arid areas, including the Western part of Kansas.
While it may be argued that the ag interests should suffer, as the same shouldn’t be trying to grow crops in arid areas which need irrigation to survive, I like to eat, and have water to drink. Thus, I posit the allocation issues should be resolved in favor of the ag interests; what do others think?
PAUL F. ROSELL,
So you jump straight from denial to despair?
AGW is based on very sound science, not “religion”.
Paul F. Rosell: “There is absolutely no way any other fuel can be used in China for a cheaper price than China’s own coal.”
China doesn’t have sunshine and wind? You’re 100% certain they couldn’t use solar and wind, if we dropped the costs?
They wouldn’t benefit from higher energy efficiency, distributed generation, H2, and other new technolgies?
Are you going to reply to my post to you upthread?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486
Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance?
Dr William Gray calls Gore a”Gross Alarmist”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
And if you read above Freshman Econ you would know how the rest of the scientific community reacted.
For a currently practicing scientist’s review of Gore’s movie:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
cosmos
If you can get God to lower the price of solar or the price of wind, go for it! lol
Seriously, I understand that you meant the technology to use those resources efficiently.
Come on libs, these “magic bullets” you keep comming up with are not ready for prime time.
Solar and wind are GREAT alternatives, but they will never be our primary source of electric power!
Paul - Wind is mature and can take at least a big chunk. And, as you are aware, I also see nuclear taking another big bite.
Remember, the anti-science crowd said JFK was crazy when he said we could put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s.
Oh well, I guess the science-haters STILL claim it was only a Hollywood set.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18526
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/
And this article is actually written by a Phd in Climatology:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Those who claim that science is settled on this issue are lying!
Besides, it DOESNT MATTER if warming is happening and it doesnt matter if man is causing any warming if it cant be fixed.
Global Warming is simply a way to empower the UN, empower government and stop growth.
Global Warming alarmists dont care if they kill off millions of people by killing the economy.
They are pushing global starvation in the name of stopping global warming.
Ben, you sound extremely arrogant when you claim only Phd’s are qualified to disagree with you.
Even by your snobbish rules, where only the inteligentsia rule, you have failed to silence hundreds if not thousands of scientists with more qualifications than you.
Make you a deal, Ben:
Write Gore a letter and tell Gore he is not qualified to speak on this topic.I will then consider you less a hypocrite a more of an expert!
LOL Econ101
Again, you guys don’t want a scientific debate, you just want to open science up to an election for ideological reasons.
For example, evolution. Let’s vote on whether evolution happens, or not. Next, let’s vote on global warming. Does the fact that we as a species mine and burn a ginormous amount of previously buried (approaching the limit of volatility, in fact) petrocarbons each second of each minute of each hour, 24/7/365, have any impact on earth’s atmosphere at all? Answer yes, if yer a commie, or no, if you’re a reasonable person.
LOL
Also:
“100 percent agreement on every subject is not what Democratic Republic is all about.”Posted by: Republican | April 07, 2007 at 04:43 PM
I guess you guys will demand 100% agreement on global warming before you’ll get off your ass, but [christ, I'm chokin' I'm laughin' so hard here] for a Democratic Republic you’ll accept something more reasonable.
Jesus wept or spat, either way there’s some unnecessary and tragic reasoning of yours on display here.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“If you can get God to lower the price of solar or the price of wind, go for it! lol”
So “God” is responsible for lowering the costs of wind farms, developing lower-cost thin film PV’s, etc.? I thought engineers, scientists, more production, etc. lowered costs.
Since you read my post, are you going to reply to my post to you upthread?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/warming_usherin.html#comment-65641486
Or just HIDE in denial, and/or ignorance?
http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0
Record cold — must be global warming!
PedantI believe in the dinosaurs and other, ancient life forms that produced fossil fuels.I beleive in both Genesis and the possibity of Darwin style evolution.I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive!Once again, lefties, you assume far too much for people who attack the right for (what you claim to be) false assumptions.
and PedantAl Bore rarely allows questions from the audience.I want debate, it is the Stalinist defenders of the Global Warming religion that wont allow debate!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You STILL don’t understand the difference between weather and climate??? That’s very sad…
Paul F. Rosell: “And this artic