PDA

View Full Version : Irene Obama's Fault??? WTF???



Sev
08-28-2011, 07:26 AM
Ok. I am not bashful when it comes to my perspective of the Obama administration but this is just ridiculous.

Nature happens. Get over it.
<span style="color: #000000">
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Global Warming’s Heavy Cost</span>
Aug 25, 2011 9:29 PM EDT
<span style="color: #CC0000">Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.</span>

Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should—boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what’s a “tropical” storm doing heading for the snow belt?

Category 3 Storms have rarely hit Long Island since the 1800s; one was the great unnamed storm of 1938, which sent 15-foot storm waters surging through what are now multimillion-dollar seaside homes. Normally, says Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, it’s “difficult for a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane crossing north of North Carolina to maintain that intensity, because wind shear rapidly increases and ocean temperatures plunge below the 26°C (79°F) level that can support a hurricane.” The high-altitude wind shear may help knock the storm down a little this year, but the ocean temperatures won’t. They’re bizarrely high—only last year did we ever record hotter water.

“Sea surface temperatures 1° to 3°F warmer than average extend along the East Coast from North Carolina to New York. Waters of at least 26°C extend all the way to southern New Jersey, which will make it easier for Irene to maintain its strength much farther to the north than a hurricane usually can,” says Masters. “These warm ocean temperatures will also make Irene a much wetter hurricane than is typical, since much more water vapor can evaporate into the air from record-warm ocean surfaces. The latest precipitation forecast from NOAA's Hydrological prediction center shows that Irene could dump over eight inches of rain over coastal New England.”

Remember—this year has already seen more billion-dollar weather-related disasters than any year in U.S. history. Last year was the warmest ever recorded on planet Earth. Arctic sea ice is near all-time record lows. Record floods from Pakistan to Queensland to the Mississippi basin; record drought from the steppes of Russia to the plains of Texas. Just about the only trauma we haven’t had are hurricanes plowing into the U.S., but that’s just luck—last year was a big storm year, but they all veered out to sea. This year we’re already on letter I—which in a normal year we don’t get to until well into October. Every kind of natural system is amped up, holding more power—about ¾ of a watt extra energy per square meter of the Earth’s surface, thanks to the carbon we’ve poured into the atmosphere. This is what climate change looks like in its early stages.

But you’d never guess that anything was amiss if you asked the Obama administration. In one of those ironies of timing, Friday saw the release of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the most contested energy project in many years, the so-called Keystone Pipeline that would connect the tar sands of northern Alberta with the Gulf of Mexico. Those tar sands are the second-biggest pool of carbon on the continent; if we tap into them in a big way, says the federal government’s premier climate scientist James Hansen, it’s “essentially game over for the climate.”
Bahamas Tropical Weather

But the EIS—full of detailed discussion of exactly how many times it’s acceptable for the new pipeline to spill its freight of acidic bitumen from Alberta, or how much natural gas it will take to heat the oil out of the ground—does not even mention the climate change that would result from helping ramp up the exploitation of this Saudi-scale ocean of carbon. The Obama administration mostly stopped talking about climate change years ago; when the president talks about the environment, which is rarely, he’ll discuss green jobs, or a clean energy future. But if he signs the certificate allowing the pipeline to be built, he’ll make it clear he’s not serious even about that. One more huge oil field is one more way to prevent making transformative change for another generation, and it means hundreds of thousands of windmills and solar panels will go unbuilt.

Warm ocean temperatures will make Irene a much wetter hurricane than is typical.

That’s why more than 300 of us have been arrested outside the White House in the last week, the largest civil disobedience demonstration in a generation for the environmental movement. They’re trying to get the president to see the danger of climate change. Irene will be a distraction in the short run from our efforts, but in the long run it underlines what the fight is all about. If the president goes for business as usual, we’re going to get planet weird.

</span>

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:03 AM
The hurricane? Ridiculous.

The earthquake? Much better evidence for that one.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 08:11 AM
I thort that GW did little in the way of inkreecing cyclones. According to cyclone experts.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 08:17 AM
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
"According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way." (Paul Bedard)

What the science says...
There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.

The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish.

What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:

But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

What can we conclude from these studies? About hurricane frequency – not much; the jury is out, as they say. About climate change, we can say that these differing approaches are the very stuff of good science, and the science clearly isn’t settled! It is also obvious that researchers are not shying away from refuting associations with climate change, so we can assume they don’t think their funding or salaries are jeopardised by research they believe fails to support the case for AGW. The scientific method is alive and well.

Never mind the frequency, feel the width
So far, all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet. But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 09:10 AM
Never mind the frequency, feel the width
So far, all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet. But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.

I think this observation/prediction is sound.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 09:15 AM
Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.


Scientific illiteracy run amok. Nothing anybody can do in any short time frame can prevent what's already baked in the cake from taking place. The fondest hopes for the largest policy changes imaginable may perhaps hold down future increases to some limit, but that would still be much greater than what obtains today.

That is, had he done it all, whatever is the wish list, as of inauguration day, none of it would have made a wit of difference now.

LWW
08-28-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thort that GW did little in the way of inkreecing cyclones. According to cyclone experts.
mac. </div></div>

That's the leftist junk science mantra when a democrook is POTUS ... when a rethuglican is POTUS it turns out that GW causes all weather problems.

The thinking among us realize that storms care not a whit about politics.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2011, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.


Scientific illiteracy run amok. Nothing anybody can do in any short time frame can prevent what's already baked in the cake from taking place. The fondest hopes for the largest policy changes imaginable may perhaps hold down future increases to some limit, but that would still be much greater than what obtains today.

That is, had he done it all, whatever is the wish list, as of inauguration day, none of it would have made a wit of difference now. </div></div>

Yes, years of Republicans, The Grand Oil party, blocking stricter regulations, blocking spendig for more research and development for cleaner, renewable fuels, and more conservation subsidies for saving energy, etc., etc., and we end up with the baked cake, to which you refer.

Much the same thing hapened, when the Dems won the majority, in january, of 07, after the Blank Check Republilcan spenders/borrowers, ignored the warnings of the coming economic collapse, and had spent us into impoetence, it was baked in the cake, and it was already too late to prevent it.

At least, that is what my research tells me. Repubs don't heed warnings, as a general practice, they just let the mess happen, and then deny anyone warned them in advance.

Of Course, it's not difficult to prove they are liars, about these things, and hence, the vast majority know and still blame Bush for our economic problems, just as Dick Cheney, the LIAR, without conscience, is the most hated man in the world.

G.