Is global warming making severe weather worse?

[PWitty]

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.

[Dustin]

WARNING: LANGUAGE

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

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

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[zookeeper]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[LocoAko]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[LocoAko]

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.

[venture]

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.

[Mel]

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".

[Rover]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Rover]

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

[Jim Kyle]

...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!"

[FritterGirl]

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.

[venture]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[FritterGirl]

Oh good grief. ::eyeroll::


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Questor]

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....

[Dubya61]

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?

[PennyQuilts]

Man-made Global Warming?

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

[PennyQuilts]

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?

[Questor]

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.