I was looking over Oklahoma's tornado climatology and noticed that prior to 1999, the frequency and the intensity of the storms that have hit the OKC area was lower than it has been since. OKC has gone several years before without getting hit period, let alone by an F4/F5. If I recall back in 1999, I remember people having said it had been at least 50 years since the OKC area had seen a tornado of that magnitude. In the 15 years since 1999, there has been five of them (5/3/1999, 5/8/2003, 5/10/2010, 5/24/2011, 5/20/2013). Does anybody think global warming has anything to do with this or has it just been an unfortunate weather pattern over the past decade and a half that have brought these "storms of the century" into OKC every few years? Does jet stream patterns make Central Oklahoma less of a powder keg some years over others? For instance, there was quite a placid period during the 1980s and another one during the 1990s. Or is it all random coincidence?

Really simple answer here: Absolutely Not.

There's really a false sense of science in selecting an arbitrary period of time and defining the notion that something "caused" the storms that have occurred in that partitioned time period.

Not sure if you're actually going to get much to work with Chris. This forum isn't full of scientists, but a lot of people who think they know more than 99% of all scientists.

Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change)

Science, fortunately, is not achieved through majority vote.

Science, fortunately, is not achieved through majority vote.

Umm...yeah...it is something close to that that. It's called a scientific consensus.

Worse than what? The storms the planet experienced last week? Last year? Last decade? Last millennium?

I won't argue whether man has altered our atmosphere. Anyone that says we haven't is really naive. Whether we have altered it for the good or the bad of the planet? Well that's really subjective.

I suppose if you live on a coast line you might argue it's for the bad. If you don't quite live on the coast line and always wanted to.... Well then it's for the good.

What I do know is we don't live on a static planet and as a species we adapt or we die. Didn't turn out so well for the dinosaurs.... Here's to hoping we can adapt faster.

We have touched on this in pretty much every thread that encompasses a severe thunderstorm/tornado event that verifies.

My quick take is everything averages out.

Longer explanation is something along the lines of:

OKC proper is a large land mass.
Population and land occupied has increased significantly.
Tornados ratings use a combination of factors, including using damage assessments. (more things to destroy, more "damage", higher ratings)
Chasers/Spotters and overall storm reports have increased significantly.
Media coverage and fearcasting has increased significantly.
People forget about boring weather. (does anyone remember May, 2005 in Oklahoma?. Zero tornadoes)

Et cetera

Here's where the whole global warming thought process gets tricky. As someone who majored in the field of science, as a scientist the only thing you can use to make your conclusions is the data you have available to you. And based on all the available data we have (the last few hundred up to maybe even a thousand years) one would have to say yes.

But there are so many unknowns as to what is and is not normal over the entire temperature/climate history of the Earth. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and seeing as how nobody has the data for that entire range, nobody can really be 100% positive about the answer to your question. But, again, based on the data we have available to us I would have to say yes.

I would also say that because of mass media and the internet, people around the world are much more cognizant of what is going on outside of their immediate surroundings. Not saying it is a reason for the answer to your question to be no, it's just something I think some people take for granted and don't think about.

Whoops, sorry Bchris. I didn't see your initial comment up there on my iPad. My answer was more along the lines of addressing severe weather across the globe, not just in OKC.

My 7 year old got quite the laugh. Thanks for that. :)

So funny.

No (to the OP).

The real scientific answer: we don't know. There seem to be conflicting signals in how things are going to change, and the severe weather record is insufficient to determine if changes have already occurred due to a number of issues.

For those of you interested, I encourage you to read the work of Harold Brooks at the NSSL, who has done a lot of work related to the subject and has some very fair conclusions to be drawn.

Severe thunderstorms and climate change (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809512000968)

http://www.essl.org/ECSS/2011/programme/presentations/10_1.pdf (Good presentation, but perhaps harder to follow without having a speaker leading it)

We have touched on this in pretty much every thread that encompasses a severe thunderstorm/tornado event that verifies.

My quick take is everything averages out.

Longer explanation is something along the lines of:

OKC proper is a large land mass.
Population and land occupied has increased significantly.
Tornados ratings use a combination of factors, including using damage assessments. (more things to destroy, more "damage", higher ratings)
Chasers/Spotters and overall storm reports have increased significantly.
Media coverage and fearcasting has increased significantly.
People forget about boring weather. (does anyone remember May, 2005 in Oklahoma?. Zero tornadoes)

Et cetera

This too. You have to think... with near continuous development from Edmond down through Norman in a north-south fashion, when supercells/tornadoes move northeast up I-44 into the region there is an increasingly large change of them impacting neighborhoods. No way around that, really.

I can't really add anything else to what Anon and Loco have already said. To me, nature is the law of averages - it will balance out at some point.


This too. You have to think... with near continuous development from Edmond down through Norman in a north-south fashion, when supercells/tornadoes move northeast up I-44 into the region there is an increasingly large change of them impacting neighborhoods. No way around that, really.

You'd think there would be a movement to rip out I-44 so the storms don't know which way to go. ;)

For a lot of us, Weather has become entertainment - like a sport or fantasy sports league. We've gone from, "Hot enough for ya?" to "Looks like we may set a new low dew point record this Saturday - could shatter the one set in Durant in 1941!"

But maybe that's just at my house.

Whatever is or isn't happening, so often every single weather event is used to prove or disprove global warming. I'm not sure how all that works but my personal weather station - which I believe to be on the money based on many/multiple comparisons to other thermometers in my yard - is almost always off by 1-2 degrees and frequently 3-5 from the nearest NOAA spot, Mesonet or the airport. And depending on if a front is coming through or it is cloudy, it may wildly differ for a little while and then agree once the front has gone through. I don't know how someone can really make much of a big deal about this or that shattered record. But I'm no weather expert, just a fan.

Oh, and a lot of houses hit by recent tornadoes used to be fields. Plus, the ability to track and plot tornadoes has just exploded and I'm sure we missed a lot of them not that long ago. For that matter, absent the news, based on my own experience and eyes, there never even was a tornado in Oklahoma City for the past 45-50 years. I personally know one person who lost his house and four (including the one who lost his house) who have actually seen a tornado on the ground in this area. Two saw the Moore a Tornado and two watched the one in Union City forty or so years ago. Obviously there were more tornadoes but I can't help but think they just seem to be more common/severe. And don't they rate tornadoes based on damage? One dead cow does not translate to an F5 even if it would have wiped out a neighborhood that got in its way.

But dunno. Like I said, I'm no expert.

This too. You have to think... with near continuous development from Edmond down through Norman in a north-south fashion, when supercells/tornadoes move northeast up I-44 into the region there is an increasingly large change of them impacting neighborhoods. No way around that, really.

Clearly, what we need to do, then, is to relocate I-44 to dead end in an unpopulated area or raise the tolls for things that are generating high wind speed.

So the consensus is that global warming has taken a 20 years hiatus so wouldn't that mean any extreme events taking place over the last 20 years would be a result of NOT warming. Maybe some of those early attempts to slow/stop global warming actually worked better than expected.

Is global warming making severe weather worse?
Of course global warming is doing that.
Primarily due to all of the forests displaced by cellphone towers.

(frankly, i'm more concerned about all the ozone layer destroying Freon from whenever it was invented and put into general use, like, before i was born, making its way to enlarge the ozone hole over the south pole, that takes, like forty years to get there, to do the damage. Cellphone traffic is even worse. For the environment.)

Really simple answer here: Absolutely Not.

There's really a false sense of science in selecting an arbitrary period of time and defining the notion that something "caused" the storms that have occurred in that partitioned time period.

In reality, isn't there a qualitative difference between what a person in, say, for example, Calgary (Canada), Minneapolis (MN, USA) and Oklahoma (OK) perceives as "'severe' weather"?
My guess is that there is. (a real difference)

Humane caused warming is booyah. In the distant past it was much warmer and no human had arrived on the scene 65 million years ago. The earths climate runs in fairly predictable cycles.

Here's where the whole global warming thought process gets tricky. As someone who majored in the field of science, as a scientist the only thing you can use to make your conclusions is the data you have available to you. And based on all the available data we have (the last few hundred up to maybe even a thousand years) one would have to say yes.

But there are so many unknowns as to what is and is not normal over the entire temperature/climate history of the Earth. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and seeing as how nobody has the data for that entire range, nobody can really be 100% positive about the answer to your question. But, again, based on the data we have available to us I would have to say yes.

SoonerDave would foolishly disagree with you.

Humane caused warming is booyah. In the distant past it was much warmer and no human had arrived on the scene 65 million years ago. The earths climate runs in fairly predictable cycles.

People constantly throw this out there as if it's a known fact, yet your own post illustrates why it's such a foolish assumption. You've been around for less than 100 years of something that you say is 65 MILLION years old. We really have no idea about Earth's "predictable cycles."

Tree Rings and Ice Core samples don't lie

Tree Rings and Ice Core samples don't lie

No one is saying they do. But across Earth's history, we're only seeing a relatively small sample of things so it's difficult to make statements about Earth's long term trends because we have such a short glimpse into that window. PWitty really said it best in my opinion - there's a LOT of data, and we only have so much available to us to make our assumptions, but the numbers don't lie.

Too bad we don't know what happens when radiation hits carbon in the atmosphere or anything like that.

Seriously, guys, we know there's more to learn but to then make a sweeping generalization about our knowledge about systems we do know quite a bit is just reaching for straws. We've got tons and tons of data about our atmosphere and at very micro levels, we're learning to understand the effects of certain particles in it. Particles that are in fact fairly easy to measure in historic terms thanks to ice, trees, and rock preserving this for us. We don't know it all but we're not clueless.

Sid, I don't think any of the recent posts were disagreeing with you. At least I'm not. Rock cores most definitely hold a ton of knowledge about the past. That's my go to when someone I'm talking to refuses to acknowledge that the Earth's surface temperature has never been static.

No one is disputing if it has been static. That's kind of my point. It isn't the fact that temps change on earth that is so interesting, it is the fact that we, for the first time, have a lot of evidence as to why. Temps will change and for many different reasons. We're witnessing a time when we've created our own greenhouse effect. Not one that was created due to a volcanic eruption or some other ecological event. If another cause exists, we're not really seeing it.

If we did find another cause, it would have to both mitigate what we do know about carbon emissions and then surpass them. Such a massive mitigating and greenhouse gas forming cause hasn't been discovered.

I agree with you. When I said nobody can answer the poster's question with 100% accuracy I was referring to whether or not global warming is increasing the frequency of severe weather, not whether humans were the cause of global warming. We can estimate temperatures through Earth's past, but it's a little harder to estimate past storm patterns.

WARNING: LANGUAGE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about. See? Marco has it covered....

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10300904_10150408745199975_7711077136519304398_n.p ng

Umm...yeah...it is something close to that that. It's called a scientific consensus.

Any time you start adding up the numbers of believers on different sides of a question to try to define science, you've pretty much abandoned science.

Any time you start adding up the numbers of believers on different sides of a question to try to define science, you've pretty much abandoned science.

Penny, It's called part of scientific methodology, peer review that does - or does not - move toward a consensus. It's a long and very tedious process. Research scientists have a thankless job, they bury themselves in study after study and compare, rinse and repeat. There's no escaping "adding up the numbers." That's how a consensus is recognized, reached and published. It's how we made the connection with cigarettes and lung disease. There were still scientists claiming there was no connection right up to the bitter end. Of course, as we know now, it was a case of follow-the-money. Speaking of rinse and repeat, we're seeing it again. Anybody who can deny the obvious (and ominous) climate changes with a straight face is receiving cash - to sit on boards, to make presentations, to lobby, etc. Before you say, "Why doesn't it work the other way, too?" It's because the evidence is overwhelming. Not to mention that's a fairly basic assumption before you even begin the process with research. The planet has never been populated with humans who were able to "progress" to the point of industrializing, and been in a position to wreck havoc. To not believe these changes are not caused by humans doing all of this (which was not possible before)...with all due respect, that's what seems far-fetched.

Penny, It's called part of scientific methodology, peer review that does - or does not - move toward a consensus. It's a long and very tedious process. Research scientists have a thankless job, they bury themselves in study after study and compare, rinse and repeat. There's no escaping "adding up the numbers." That's how a consensus is recognized, reached and published. It's how we made the connection with cigarettes and lung disease. There were still scientists claiming there was no connection right up to the bitter end. Of course, as we know now, it was a case of follow-the-money. Speaking of rinse and repeat, we're seeing it again. Anybody who can deny the obvious (and ominous) climate changes with a straight face is receiving cash - to sit on boards, to make presentations, to lobby, etc. Before you say, "Why doesn't it work the other way, too?" It's because the evidence is overwhelming. Not to mention that's a fairly basic assumption before you even begin the process with research. The planet has never been populated with humans who were able to "progress" to the point of industrializing, and been in a position to wreck havoc. To not believe these changes are not caused by humans doing all of this (which was not possible before)...with all due respect, that's what seems far-fetched.

Follow the money is right - we can agree on that.

I used to have a much more open mind about this and hadn't given it much thought because. I figured it was way above my pay grade. A couple of years ago my son brought the subject up (he's no denier) and I didn't really have much to say one way or the other. Because of that, I've been trying to get a feel for it.

At this point, I reject most of the arguments but if it makes you feel better, it isn't because I'm anti science. I just don't think the case has been proven. They are relying on mathematical formulas that aren't standing up to real world conditions. I have no problem insisting I don't see "proof." None - NONE - of the horrible predictions have come to pass. The credibility of the spokespeople is shot, IMO. We aren't getting hit with more significant or frequent storms. The polar ice is coming back - even records set. Tying the rise in global temperatures to the rise in CO2, IMO, is way too simplistic to overcome the multitude of factors present in the world, not the least of which is the role of the ocean. And this business of the heat going into the ocean? Please. That's desperation. Further, Peer review, IMO, has been pretty much corrupted when it comes to this. And this is a side issue, but it is like fingers on a chalk board to preach consensus of belief - history tells us that's no test, the grant money and political pressure favors global warming (now called climate change to make it more palatable), and the people preaching consensus are doing just that - preaching. That's not science and I can't imagine "real" or serious people latching derisive labels on skeptics.

But regardless, what are we going to do? Bomb the Chinese and Indians back to the Stone Age? Because We aren't the problem - if it is a problem. They are. I personally am not prepared, even if we could, to damn them to a low tech world with what would result in massive loss of life and poverty while we hang onto our high tech one. We're nowhere near able to replace their Fossil fuel needs with alternative energy. And people in our own country are going to be screaming bloody murder when their winter fuel costs skyrocket. I don't give a flip about saving ocean front property. They should move. As to the poor people living on coasts reliant on fishing who would be hampered by rising oceans? Again - we can't fix that. We are already leading the world in switching over to alternative fuel while developing countries are demanding their share of the pie. I don't blame them. And over time, more poor nations sill join them. Sometimes I wonder what in the world people are thinking when they act like we can wave a magic wand and fix this. We can't. Fossil fuel has been the single most important reason we've managed to get so many people on this planet. If the warmists are correct, it isn't like we have a lot of time to switch over. To hear them tell it (before they started pushing back dates), the end was near if we didn't repent. Even if true, we all know China and India have zero intentions to switch to alternative fuel on a massive scale anytime soon.

This planet is going to shrug us off, eventually, no matter what. I don't want to pretend we can "fix" the problem without sacrificing literally billions of people. And even if I was willing, I darn sure would need better proof than a mathematically based theory that isn't hitting it's predicted benchmarks.

Follow the money is right - we can agree on that.

I used to have a much more open mind about this and hadn't given it much thought because. I figured it was way above my pay grade. A couple of years ago my son brought the subject up (he's no denier) and I didn't really have much to say one way or the other. Because of that, I've been trying to get a feel for it.

At this point, I reject most of the arguments but if it makes you feel better, it isn't because I'm anti science. I just don't think the case has been proven. They are relying on mathematical formulas that aren't standing up to real world conditions. I have no problem insisting I don't see "proof." None - NONE - of the horrible predictions have come to pass. The credibility of the spokespeople is shot, IMO. We aren't getting hit with more significant or frequent storms. The polar ice is coming back - even records set. Tying the rise in global temperatures to the rise in CO2, IMO, is way too simplistic to overcome the multitude of factors present in the world, not the least of which is the role of the ocean. And this business of the heat going into the ocean? Please. That's desperation. Further, Peer review, IMO, has been pretty much corrupted when it comes to this. And this is a side issue, but it is like fingers on a chalk board to preach consensus of belief - history tells us that's no test, the grant money and political pressure favors global warming (now called climate change to make it more palatable), and the people preaching consensus are doing just that - preaching. That's not science and I can't imagine "real" or serious people latching derisive labels on skeptics.

Except that you are anti-science, apparently. Lordy... not even sure where to begin with this post. Too much to even tackle, and I honestly expected you to be above typical denier talking points.... But if making up stuff helps you sleep at night, I support your right to do it.

Except that you are anti-science, apparently. Lordy... not even sure where to begin with this post. Too much to even tackle, and I honestly expected you to be above typical denier talking points.... But if making up stuff helps you sleep at night, I support your right to do it.Personal insults are a great way to get this thread shut down, if that's what you want.

Consensus, even of educated scientists, is no guarantee whatsoever of actual truth. In the 15th century, the consensus of educated westerners was that the earth was flat and the sun and stars revolved around it. Galileo was persecuted for claiming otherwise and forced to recant.

There's no denying that the climate of our planet is changing, and that the change is causing drastic alteration in the human lifestyle. China has not yet paid the price for its massive pollution of the atmosphere, but the experience of London and Los Angeles in the past assures us that it WILL do so in the not so distant future.

And the study of sunspot cycles, for instance, shows us that similar drastic climate changes have happened in the past, before the industrial age began. One example is the "year without a summer" in the early 19th century. Others, farther past, include the two Ice Ages that saw all of what is now North America covered by glaciers.

As Penny noted, this planet will eventually cast us off. Our hope is that we can advance technology far enough to permit us to leave under our own power and find other homes, rather than regress to the Stone Age and perish as did the dinosaurs...

Those who decry our technology are free to reject it and go back to the tropical jungles any time that they wish. Meanwhile those of us with hope for the future need to be doing our utmost to speed its arrival.

Personal insults are a great way to get this thread shut down, if that's what you want.

Consensus, even of educated scientists, is no guarantee whatsoever of actual truth. In the 15th century, the consensus of educated westerners was that the earth was flat and the sun and stars revolved around it. Galileo was persecuted for claiming otherwise and forced to recant.

There's no denying that the climate of our planet is changing, and that the change is causing drastic alteration in the human lifestyle. China has not yet paid the price for its massive pollution of the atmosphere, but the experience of London and Los Angeles in the past assures us that it WILL do so in the not so distant future.

And the study of sunspot cycles, for instance, shows us that similar drastic climate changes have happened in the past, before the industrial age began. One example is the "year without a summer" in the early 19th century. Others, farther past, include the two Ice Ages that saw all of what is now North America covered by glaciers.

As Penny noted, this planet will eventually cast us off. Our hope is that we can advance technology far enough to permit us to leave under our own power and find other homes, rather than regress to the Stone Age and perish as did the dinosaurs...

Those who decry our technology are free to reject it and go back to the tropical jungles any time that they wish. Meanwhile those of us with hope for the future need to be doing our utmost to speed its arrival.

Good post, and I apologize for coming off nastier than I necessarily intended. It is just immensely frustrating to constantly have to repeat yourself and not be listened to while people deny some fundamental tenets of your profession, and in doing so implicitly accuse atmospheric scientists of being corrupted by money or purposely misleading people. It is extremely insulting, not to mention dumbfounding to us (and this isn't just about Penny, but those who deny climate change in general). I'm just not sure how I can let blatant lies be posted about such an exceeding important topic in current society, but I will try to be more cordial in the future.

I've been mostly quiet on this and here is the reason. Climate change and anything around it is so tainted by political interests and blinders on both sides, that you can't let the actual science speak and discuss it on that level. Those on one side will blame the oil companies for examples, those on another side will blame a conspiracy of tree huggers.

This topic is just too politically charged anymore that I don't know if people can stick to more scientific talking points over involving unrelated items that should be left out.

I feel like the weather is worse now than when I was a kid. Even though I did move around a bit as a Navy brat. But on a cosmological scale I don't even rate as one tick of the big clock. Humans can effect their environment. I see videos of folks in really big cities that have to wear breathing filters to slow down their death from respiratory problems. I notice parts of the Earth that will not be habitable for generations if at all. Even in OK. Our planet has gone through phases it's whole existence. I think the more extended family you have the more you worry. I worry about the world I am leaving my Grandkids. "Man shall come and go but Earth abides".

People who are generally ignorant of science and scientific method and who are too lazy or unable to understand tend to think that their opinion is as valid as scientific reasoning. And, they tend to seek out others who are as uneducated about it but who agree with their opinions as validation that it is true. So, no matter how much fact is presented, there are those that will continue to believe it is just a political position to take. These are the people who believe that everything evil is caused by whichever group they aren't a part of. This is in essence the tea party simplistic thinking. These are the ones who are anti intellect in most things. If you have shaky knowledge and/or reasoning, make every issue "opinion". If you can't win with facts, baffle with b.s.

Those on one side will blame the oil companies for examples, those on another side will blame a conspiracy of tree huggers.


...and then you have people like me who think the 1%ers like GE are playing both sides of the net (buying politicians and funding research on both sides) and getting rich at the expense of everyone else while solving nothing. Then we give them tax credits to boot.

So there are people who are just anti progress in everything? Those are the 1%......or less. Those that believe that free enterprise and business are the root of all evil. LOL

...and then you have people like me who think the 1%ers like GE are playing both sides of the net (buying politicians and funding research on both sides) and getting rich at the expense of everyone else while solving nothing. Then we give them tax credits to boot.Well, of course! What else would you expect?

As Venture said back up the thread, the issue has become so politically charged that it has become dangerous for those who really know whereof they speak to voice any opinion. I had serious misgivings about posting my rant against "consensus" being equal to proof, but as a philospher once observed: "The only requirement for evil to triumph is that good remain silent." I don't claim to have any answers myself, or even that my opinions are "good" (I'll leave the judgment of that up to the consensus). I know only that remaining silent is a guarantee that the outcome will not be favorable to my descendants -- and that delaying a decision is, in itself, a decision that's almost certain to be less than optimal. As my gunnery instructor at Fort Sill was fond of shouting sternly, "Do something, lieutenant, even if it's wrong!"

I look back to the old school Science Fair experiment of putting together a terrarium and seeing what happens after you start adding C02 to its atmosphere. I mean, scientific methods and advanced physics aside, it's rather elementary. We take care of the earth, it takes care of us. We don't take care of it, then what's left for future generations?

Sometimes things are just pretty darn simple.

I look back to the old school Science Fair experiment of putting together a terrarium and seeing what happens after you start adding C02 to its atmosphere. I mean, scientific methods and advanced physics aside, it's rather elementary. We take care of the earth, it takes care of us. We don't take care of it, then what's left for future generations?

Sometimes things are just pretty darn simple.

I've always kind of approached this in a few ways. The more carbon producing organisms you add, obviously the higher amount of carbon you'll have in the atmosphere - especially if it is isn't balanced out by an increase in carbon consuming plants and such. Sure the planet has normal swings in the environment and typical warming/cooling cycles. However, to think we can't have an impact is just silly.

I also look at it from this stand point. Do we want to live in an environment similar to that of Beijing and LA with heavy pollution that is unhealthy? I think that would be a big enough motivator to change what we do to just have clear air to breath, quality water, etc.

So there are people who are just anti progress in everything? Those are the 1%......or less. Those that believe that free enterprise and business are the root of all evil. LOL

Straw man. For those developing countries currently using fossil fuels, "new technology" won't save them. If we expected them to use it or rely on it, billions would die. Before fossil fuel use, man's population stayed low. Since it's use population has skyrocketed in areas using them.

For what it is worth, I believe in climate change (not man made) and that there is nothing wrong with seeking new technology. But it is NOT anti science to say that we aren't even close to being able to significantly switch over absent a plummeting of our standard of living, fewer/more expensive pharmaceuticals, lack of affordable building materials, decreased food production and spotty distribution. It gets wearying to hear people name call and deride skeptics and lump in the people who believe we've got a tiger by the tail with no realistic means to back out of our reliance on the fossil fuels. For that matter, check out a map of major exports of various countries. Significantly Limiting fossil fuels to try to save the planet would not only be futile, billions would die and whole economies would be destroyed. If it is a race to cut carbon emissions, that race is already lost. I have fantastic solar lights in my garden. That's about as useful a consumer function as they have. Even if new commercial buildings suddenly began using alternative fuel, retrofitting private housing, schools, etc. would be impossible in time to avoid catastrophe. We just don't have the infrastructure or technology. It would be one thing if we had a couple of hundred years to figure out new technology AND get it to consumers. According to the ones claiming man made global warming, it needs to be done by next April. If that was perhaps hype and over selling, don't blame people for being skeptical.

Americans aren't using less energy, these days. The energy waste is astonishing and other than tossing plastic containers in a recycling bin most of us are complete energy hogs. Riding a bike but supporting Apple products or items manufactured or built in countries using fossil fuels is hypocritical. Don't agree with fossil fuel use? Quit encouraging its use.

The people who find it easy to call others anti science if they are skeptics, to my way of thinking, ought to be voluntarily dropping off the grid and living the life we'd actually be living if we cut back on fossil fuel enough to make a difference. They're hogging energy with the best of them which suggests to this skeptic that even they don't buy that there is anything man can do. If they really believe we should be moving away from fossil fuels, they need to start living the life that envisions and figuring out ways not to replicate a fossil fuel lifestyle (other than nuclear, that's not happening), but how to survive - and I mean survive - an alternative fuel lifestyle. They would not be equivalent.

IMO, correct or incorrect, we have quite a few more pressing problems - the planet, an asteroid or some micro organism will drop us into the dustbin of history just like it has nearly every other organism even if man made global warming occurs.

I look back to the old school Science Fair experiment of putting together a terrarium and seeing what happens after you start adding C02 to its atmosphere. I mean, scientific methods and advanced physics aside, it's rather elementary. We take care of the earth, it takes care of us. We don't take care of it, then what's left for future generations?

Sometimes things are just pretty darn simple.
The planet isn't nearly that simple and, no offense, but I find that analogy rather frightening if you think that is how the planet works. That sort of experiment doesn't factoring in the enormous impact of our huge oceans, the movement of air, seasons, temperature changes based on topography, plants, the sun, volcanoes, plus so many other factors.

I don't disagree that we need to take care if the planet but CO2 doesn't hurt the planet one bit. It even helps many plants.

Oh good grief. ::eyeroll::


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The failing of most people is the assumption that only one branch of science has looked into this and come to this conclusion. Astronomy offers some interesting lessons. For example, even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun, Venus is actually the warmest planet by far in the solar system. It has been observed by multiple probes to be in the throws of a runaway greenhouse effect. Spectroscopy has shown its atmosphere is 95% CO2....

Venus is actually the warmest planet by far in the solar system. It has been observed by multiple probes to be in the throws of a runaway greenhouse effect. Spectroscopy has shown its atmosphere is 95% CO2....

Man-made Global Warming?

Man-made Global Warming?

Where do you think all our heat goes when it bumps up against the hole in the ozone?

Seriously, I would like to see more studies done that actually describe in detail what our lives would look like if man did what the warmists say must be done to avoid climate disaster. All we ever hear about are fat cat fossil fuel energy companies paying reasonable fines, solar panels, wind energy, bikes and electric cars. As if that is the worst of it. I want a realistic picture of a post fossil fuel world. How many millions/billions die? How would moving beyond fossil fuel impact the spread of disease, hunger, economic/social mobility/political stability? How much will consumer energy use need to drop, assuming they could even get alternative energy to homes? Sometimes I get the feeling the warmists envision no real changes in lifestyle as if the far, far, far less efficient alternative fuel sources could remotely match how we live, now.

Washers, dryers, machinist tools, microwaves, irons, refrigerators, electronics, blah, blah. China and India busted back to the Middle Ages where hope of social mobility or even escaping poverty would be negatively impacted. None of this even takes into account the taxes routinely paid by consumers buying energy hog items - much of which would go away unless you were wealthy enough to pay higher prices for fuel. Great if you are wealthy - not so great for the poor. And a dip in tax revenue isn't helpful to communities, especially when the poor are having an even harder time keeping up. And btw, what about the workers making these items?

Ever read Dune?

Man-made Global Warming?

The last page of responses had a lot of questioning about the logic of CO2 raising temperatures on a planetary scale. I am pointing out that the logic is accepted by astronomers and that this phenomenon is not theoretical, it has been observed elsewhere in our solar system. It has occurred, it can occur, and it will occur regardless of what the source of the carbon is.

Seriously, I would like to see more studies done that actually describe in detail what our lives would look like if man did what the warmists say must be done to avoid climate disaster. All we ever hear about are fat cat fossil fuel energy companies paying reasonable fines, solar panels, wind energy, bikes and electric cars. As if that is the worst of it. I want a realistic picture of a post fossil fuel world. How many millions/billions die? How would moving beyond fossil fuel impact the spread of disease, hunger, economic/social mobility/political stability? How much will consumer energy use need to drop, assuming they could even get alternative energy to homes? Sometimes I get the feeling the warmists envision no real changes in lifestyle as if the far, far, far less efficient alternative fuel sources could remotely match how we live, now.

Washers, dryers, machinist tools, microwaves, irons, refrigerators, electronics, blah, blah. China and India busted back to the Middle Ages where hope of social mobility or even escaping poverty would be negatively impacted. None of this even takes into account the taxes routinely paid by consumers buying energy hog items - much of which would go away unless you were wealthy enough to pay higher prices for fuel. Great if you are wealthy - not so great for the poor. And a dip in tax revenue isn't helpful to communities, especially when the poor are having an even harder time keeping up. And btw, what about the workers making these items?

Ever read Dune?

This I agree with. I think we/USA are constantly having the wrong argument about this topic. Accept it's happening for whatever reason and start discussing whether or not there is really any practical impact we can have on it. For a problem where the worst case scenario is the end of life on earth we really are not giving it the thought it needs. It is basically like rebuilding in the flood plains of New Orleans, if New Orleans were our entire world.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know that anyone does right now. That's why we should move on to discuss what we can do in all practicality. I do know that we can positively influence the world. In the decade or so since CFC aerosols have been banned from every country on earth the planets ozone layer depletion has already slowed. It is possible for humans to have big impacts.

I edited for clarity.

False dilemma. And a really, really bad one at that. ...snip... And let's be clear, if Earth experiences runaway geothermal warming, the entire population dies.

...snip...

There is a ton we don't know. But we know enough to say, 'hey, this doesn't look good. Guys, we should seriously take a look at what the data is showing us. CO2 is rising at rates never seen before and if it continues on this path, what we do know about CO2 trapped in atmospheres is that things get bad quickly.'

Lots of good reading material out there. Lots of studies.I have no quibble at all with these points. I do, however, feel a need to point out that at this time, the panicky call by some of those trying to deal with the problem asks us to immediately cut off all use of fossil fuels. Right now, the alternatives are nowhere near any capability of filling the gap that would be created. For starters, the "green" balance of the most popular alternatives -- solar and wind -- is negative; creating the panels and turbines results in more environmental pollution than the resulting tools can save, for a net loss.

As our technologies improve, that will no longer be the case, but the improvement so far has been slow and painful. If we made any meaningful reduction in the use of fossil fuels in just North America, our transportation network would cease to operate. Airplanes would stay on the ground. Commuters would not be able to reach their jobs -- but that would not matter because most jobs would vanish. Without massive transport, local and national economies would collapse.

But as you say, things can get bad quickly if we don't cut back on CO2. Not just us, but the rest of the world -- notably China, India, and the former Soviet republics -- and none of them show any inclination to do so.

I believe that the removal of rain forests in South America and Africa is quite possibly at least as damaging to the planet's ecology as is the use of fossil fuels. However, that continues as "developing nations" compete for their places in the sun. I fear that they will find those places, sooner rather than later, because such things as tipping points do exist, and we may have already run out of time.

That being the case, perhaps we should consider maintaining the quality of what little time remains to our species, rather than sacrificing that quality of life in a doomed effort to avoid the unavoidable. Or perhaps not...

This is rather confusing considering the hundreds of studies that have been done. How many studies (what number, I suppose) should be done before PennyQuilts joins the rest of the scientific consensus? I love it when people say "I think more studies should be done" from people who read zero studies and then turn and ignore not just the people reading them, but doing the research and writing them. Is that what you are doing here?



Not true. You may be watching too much 'news'. The scientific discussion is much, much broader and is actually being done respectfully. Which is why energy companies are very deliberately pursuing alternatives as well. It's not just good marketing, teams of scientists and engineers within the companies also, very publicly, recognize the need to pivot.



You want a picture???



False dilemma. And a really, really bad one at that. The companies providing the energy would make the switch and at current kw/hr production rates, hardly would millions or billions be left in the dark. Just like it took a long time to get here, it would take a while to rebuild our energy systems, but companies aren't going to just cut off customers. They will make changes to their technology and the end users wont notice a thing. Unless there is a cost shift which, as we are seeing, is much less of a difference as Moore's law is having its way with alternative technologies -- especially in the last several years. And let's be clear, if Earth experiences runaway geothermal warming, the entire population dies.



Can you clarify what you mean?



Again, not true. And in fact, if you read those studies, you'd see that the major call from the science community is to start working on many different options. It's not like consensus is that we should all just go without electricity until we figure this out. It is that we need to start now building the technologies to get us to whatever those solutions will be. Small, mindful changes in the mean-time is all that is being proposed, seriously.

The challenge with all of this is that some folks are making it really hard to have the discussion about what those options can look like because they're stuck in some really old and/or bad data and insist on making this a political discussion, instead of a scientific one. That's the sense I got from reading your post. You provide no real information or debatable premises. Just lots of political talking points. The science is incredibly clear but that doesn't stop people from injecting doubt where there is none.

Runaway warming is a thing. Very good models show that with too much CO2 in the atmosphere, any planet reaches a point where it wont stop warming. We've DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in the last couple hundred years. The very basic of facts as they relate to thermal mechanics and basic measurements tell us we should be very serious about this discussion.

There is a ton we don't know. But we know enough to say, 'hey, this doesn't look good. Guys, we should seriously take a look at what they data is showing us. CO2 is rising at rates never seen before and if it continues on this path, what we do know about CO2 trapped in atmospheres is that things get bad quickly.'

Lots of good reading material out there. Lots of studies.

Here's a question for you. If you were to be convinced that CO2 levels are rising at an unhealthy rate, what steps would you like to see the human species take to counter the problem?
Sid, you haven't done anything but insist "science will fix and replace." And you act incredulous that anyone would lack faith in this hope. As long as the warmists keep burying their heads in the sand and sending the false message that this is is a fix that's a done deal, they will continue to sound wacky. We have NO alternatives remotely online or even proven to take the place of fossil fuel and even if we had some decent theoretical models, the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive.
The warmists won't even talk about this - you, for example, are doing the typical sneer and claim that the science is settled/technology is there. And you guys don't want to talk about the misery and poverty developing countries would face if their reliance on fossil fuel was restricted in any possible manner

More co2 raises temperature. Got it. The warmists seem dumbfounded that "deniers" can't grasp that simple fact. But thing is, the warmists just don't understand what deniers are saying. Tying global warming to the rise in co2 as if there aren't multiple, significant factors impacting how the planet processes things is just bad science. When the warmists start making some coherent explanation explaining how the impact of the oceans, seasons, the sun, blah blah may be ignored so that a mere rise in co2 will cook the planet, go for it. The best they do is claim the ice caps will melt and once gone, the whole thing can't stop it. Then they ignore the rise and fall of the ice caps and call warmers anti science.

The argument by the warmers is that if we don't do something" we're all going to die. I repeat - how about drawing a realistic picture of what that "something" is instead of telling a fairy tale that life will go on as always based on all these groovy alternative energy sources that, to date, are paltry compared to fossil fuel (except nuclear). Then let us decide if we want to risk a global warming meltdown or damn billions to death and poverty - plus push us back to 1900 energy capacity.

I have no quibble at all with these points. I do, however, feel a need to point out that at this time, the panicky call by some of those trying to deal with the problem asks us to immediately cut off all use of fossil fuels. Right now, the alternatives are nowhere near any capability of filling the gap that would be created. For starters, the "green" balance of the most popular alternatives -- solar and wind -- is negative; creating the panels and turbines results in more environmental pollution than the resulting tools can save, for a net loss.

As our technologies improve, that will no longer be the case, but the improvement so far has been slow and painful. If we made any meaningful reduction in the use of fossil fuels in just North America, our transportation network would cease to operate. Airplanes would stay on the ground. Commuters would not be able to reach their jobs -- but that would not matter because most jobs would vanish. Without massive transport, local and national economies would collapse.

But as you say, things can get bad quickly if we don't cut back on CO2. Not just us, but the rest of the world -- notably China, India, and the former Soviet republics -- and none of them show any inclination to do so.

I believe that the removal of rain forests in South America and Africa is quite possibly at least as damaging to the planet's ecology as is the use of fossil fuels. However, that continues as "developing nations" compete for their places in the sun. I fear that they will find those places, sooner rather than later, because such things as tipping points do exist, and we may have already run out of time.

That being the case, perhaps we should consider maintaining the quality of what little time remains to our species, rather than sacrificing that quality of life in a doomed effort to avoid the unavoidable. Or perhaps not...

I agree with you Jim, especially on the bolded statements. I think for far too many people the ONLY solution is quit using all fossil fuels right now. This is the most shortsighted response possible, yet when you disagree with someone who has that opinion they say you're a Conservative nut job and bury their head in the sand when you try and actually have a discussion with them. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of real Conservative nut jobs who will still deny Climate Change. But there are also just as many Liberal nut jobs who think the only answer is to shut down all fossil fuel use/production by tomorrow and replace their void with renewables. Renewables have their place, and it will continue to grow, but they are nowhere near ready to shoulder the entire nation or world's energy burden. There are very few places, the Pacific NW for instance being one of them, that have the natural amenities to be able to provide the majority of their energy from renewables at this time.

The easiest thing that can be done RIGHT NOW, is for every person to step back and look at their energy usage in their personal life and make strides to be more efficient with what they do and how they do it so that we (as a nation and a world) can continue to reduce our fossil fuel demands. This applies to water use as well. Unfortunately, most people are more bark than bite and when those changes have an impact to their quality of living they do nothing at all. The other big thing that we can do RIGHT NOW is continue to require companies to produce higher efficiency products, especially energy efficient building materials and automobiles. I have a buddy who is an ArchE and he was dropping some figures to me about how much energy is lost due to inefficient building materials and it was pretty staggering. Buildings are something that most people don't think of when they think about Climate Change or fossil fuel demands.

Very nice, PWitty. I agree. I appreciate you pointing out what the warmest are pretending isn't an issue. We can have intelligent discussions about this but only if the warmists don't automatically assume anyone who questions the science and the "solution" is a Neanderthal. IMO, they aren't being honest about what a post fossil fuel world looks like even under the best of circumstances. The notion that we can "supplement" alternative energy sources with fossil fuel until we are weaned off makes no sense economically or within the timetable the warmists have insisted upon. I think they way overplayed their hand to stir up support not realizing that the drop dead date to save the planet would get here so fast. I think 99% of warmists think life will go on pretty much the way it has with minimal sacrifice. That's just not realistic. We may all die from global warming but the "solution" would be to sacrifice billions on the front end and massive political and social upheaval to follow. We In energy rich Oklahoma may take ready energy (no matter what we think about alternative sources) for granted but people in the north will frickin freeze to death if they can't afford fuel or retrofitting. And even if we made the sacrifice that included our own population, developing countries aren't going to. Like it or not, if global warming is coming based on co2 use, better get used to the idea because we don't have the power to stop it.

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

This is incredibly true. I can't for the life of me figure out why OK (in what was described by a friend as ALEC legislation) has now saw fit (please overlook my bad grammar) to tax, fee, charge, whatever you want to call it, low scale energy generators in the form of personal(ish) solar and wind generators .
I realize that OK is firmly in the oil industry's pocket, but what does it hurt to allow people to attempt to do something good? for themselves and their community?

I fail to see the constant call for complete removal of burning fossil fuels from the equation. All I see is a whole lot of companies and industries trying to make meaningful progress and folks like PennyQuilts snarking at the whole process. Are you saying you never saw Al Gore's "truths" campaign?

if all of your information is coming from talking heads on the news, you're probably just going to keep saying the same things...
That's awfully close to an ad hominem attack, and a definite assumption on your part. Penny, PWitty, and I are attempting to have a reasonable look at the situation and at the practical alternatives. To me it's a given that the energy companies are doing their utmost to develop achievable renewables. It's the only way they can stay in business. For example, converting from the use of gasoline or diesel to using CNG to power automotive transport is a step in the right direction -- and is being ignored by many because CNG is still a fossil fuel, and because its production may increase the risk of earthquakes.

I'm frustrated that you are dancing around the realities here. You said you wanted to see more studies. Last night did you go read any or are you just back to toss out more REALLY VAGUE objections to us starting to make change. I never said the science and technology today is perfect. Didn't I say exactly the opposite and that we are trying very hard to make progress but for some reason, SOME PEOPLE are questioning those efforts. And that's annoying. Especially when they say really confusing things like 'we need more studies'.

The scientific, energy, and technology industries are moving towards trying to solve this. No one has claimed it is solved.

However, the topic and point still stands, we all agree that runaway CO2 trapped into our atmosphere is a bad thing and we've all got to start thinking about ways to stop that. However, as you can see in this thread, those who hold the purse strings are still chewing on that first part. The scientific community is playing catch-up now to try to educate people about what's happening and how bad it could get. Again, the jeering audience is just making it harder.
I don't think we're jeering; we're only asking that the rabble-rousing political "leaders" abandon the headlong rush to return the world to the days of whale-oil lamps (while saving the whales) and tallow candles.

I'm not accusing you, Sid, of being one of those. I'm accusing the folk who dreamed up the Kyoto accords and then emasculated the effort by introducing "carbon credits" to be traded like a currency. The idiocy of that approach triggered equally idiotic reaction from opponents, and brought us to the present gridlock condition.

I'll repeat myself. So long as we depend on Asia and its massive pollution of the atmosphere to maintain us in comfort, so long as Brazil and the African nations are charging forward in their destruction of nature's CO2 filter the rain forests, so long as we individuals fail to take what steps we can to minimize our own extravagant waste of energy, so long as those factors persist, there's little hope for a favorable outcome.

However nature is far more powerful than we puny humans, and it's possible that we might not only survive but do so with unbelievably improved conditions. A study conducted years ago attempted to create a metric for human progress by enumerating the amount of energy that could be controlled by a single individual. Plotted over time from the stone age to the middle of the 20th century, it turned out to be a logarithmic curve -- and it went asymptotic in the year 1984. Had the study's predictions been accurate, the amount of energy that one person could control would have become infinite, unlimited, at that time 30 years ago. Obviously that did not happen, and the laws of physics dictate that it cannot ever take place -- but it gives me hope, at least, that some discovery might be right around the corner. Meanwhile, we need to do the best we can with what we have. No person can do more.

This is so far off topic from the original post, is there a need for us to have another global warming debate that hasn't been argued in dozens of other threads?

This thread originated to discuss impacts on global warming on severe weather. This thread probably should have been locked after the first dozen posts when the question was answered before it jumped the shark into the political realm of "human caused warming" and fossil fuel usage debates.

Sid, I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I was just piggy-backing Jim's point that there are a lot of folks who jump to the "eliminate all fossil fuels now" extreme without being open to considering any other options. And I'm not talking about people within the scientific community because they obviously know better. I'm talking about the media and politicians, who a large part of the population base all of their opinions on.

Germany, while they are making great strides, have had plenty of road bumps in their path to ramp up renewable power. I believe they have the highest electricity costs in the industrialized world, and are also burning more coal now than at any point in the last 20+ years to offset their reduction in nuclear power and the intermittent nature of wind/solar. The conventional energy grid needs to be completely overhauled before wind/solar can reach their true potential both in Germany and the rest of the world. You also can't look to Germany and expect every other country in the world to be able to duplicate their successes, or their failures. Like I said in my previous post, everybody is not in position both geographically and economically to be able to make such a quick and large-scale shift to renewable power like Germany (and other areas throughout the US/world) has.