On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War

Sep 9, 2011 Full story: American Reporter 56

There is virtually no doubt that global warming exists. Aside from a few cranks and those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, the scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing faster than ever before.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#1 Sep 9, 2011
Global warming may exist but cyclical climate change has always been the norm. The fact is the whole science of global climate is relatively new and there are more questions about how the earth climate works than there are answers.

There is a big difference between saying there is global warming (we are still operating within historical temperature ranges) and saying that man is the cause of any recent increase in global temperatures. One is and easily measureable event and the other is prone to subjectivity and accordingly politics.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#2 Sep 9, 2011
"Prof. Salomon Kroonenberg (ret.) at Delft U. of Tech:'We are, in fact, living at the peak of summer between ice ages, and, like one experienced between 1350 & 1800...I don't deny climate has been warming & I also do not deny humankind has emitted large quantities of CO2. I only challenge importance of that for climate change. To assume we human beings have a golden key to keep the world at zero position, is arrogance'-- Kroonenberg calls himself a climate relativist'"
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#3 Sep 9, 2011
"The problem with focusing on the use of a so-called “climate sensitivity” as the holy grail of climate to communicate to policymakers is that it has essentially frozen the adoption of effective adaptation and mitigation responses to the real climate issues.

The real climate issues should be on how climate variability and longer term climate change (from both human and natural forcings) affect risks to our key resources of water, food, energy, human health and ecosystem function. The narrow definition of the so-called ”climate sensitivity”, while of interest as a science question, is essentially worthless as a metric to use in order to reduce the threats faced by these key resources.

Instead of the vitriolic debates on weblogs and media on the Spencer and Braswell (2011) and Dessler (2011) papers, lets move towards a bottom-up, resource-based perspective such as we have proposed in our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairuku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2011: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. AGU Monograph on Complexity and Extreme Events in Geosciences, in press."
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#4 Sep 9, 2011
The bottom line conclusion is that the assessment of risks to key resources, including threats from climate variability and climate change, based on the magnitude of a so-called “climate sensitivity“, is a fatally flawed framework for developing effective adaptation and mitigation policies to reduce those risks.

The reduction of risks using the bottom-up, resource-based framework, in contrast, is a much more valuable and inclusive approach. With this perspective policymakers can adopt effective mitigation and adaptation methodologies to deal with the diversity of complex threats to society and the environment that will occur in the coming decades, regardless of the extent that humans are altering the global average surface temperature.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#5 Sep 9, 2011
A vulnerability paradigm, focused on regional and local societal and environmental resources of importance, is a more inclusive, useful, and scientifically robust framework to interact with policymakers, than is the focus on global multi-decadal climate predictions which are downscaled to the regional and local scales. The vulnerability paradigm permits the evaluation of the entire spectrum of risks associated with different social and environmental threats, including climate variability and change.

Especially when the reactive proposals when projected to conclusion do little to nothing to reduce potential warming scenarios.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#6 Sep 9, 2011
Seth Borenstein Displays His Spectacular Ignorance Once Again

Posted on September 4, 2011 by Steven Goddard



Disasters in US: An extreme and exhausting year
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer – 16 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP)— Nature is pummeling the United States this year with extremes.

Unprecedented triple-digit heat and devastating drought. Deadly tornadoes leveling towns. Massive rivers overflowing. A billion-dollar blizzard. And now, unusual hurricane-caused flooding in Vermont.

http://www.google.com/

Borenstein has no idea what he is talking about.

In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#7 Sep 9, 2011
Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011

Flooding in 1927 was worse. Are these reporters too lazy or too dumb to do any research?
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#8 Sep 9, 2011
"There is virtually no doubt that global warming exists. Aside from a few cranks and those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, the scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing faster than ever before."

And Randy Holhut, liberal jounalist from Dummerston Vt knows this how?
NobodyYouKnow

Orangeville, Canada

#9 Sep 10, 2011
stardust1 wrote:
And Randy Holhut, liberal jounalist from Dummerston Vt knows this how?
Maybe he can acutally read and understand the science. Unlike you who confuses a regional drough from overtilling the soil (1934's America) with a GLOBAL warming from GHGs.

You similarly get a number of other issues confused such as 'climate sensitivity' which is the 'amplification' of climate forcing from persistant facts such as CO2 levels, primarily though changes in water vapor driven by the primary warming.

We have a very good understanding of the warming from the 'persistant GHGs' and the cooling from suphate aerosols but there is a major uncertainly in how much amplification we get which is the reason that the warming total is a wide range. And we have very little evidence other than paleoclimatology as to what effect some long term feedbacks will add. What we DO know is that once we have crossed that bridge, it WILL burn behind us.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#10 Sep 10, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe he can acutally read and understand the science. Unlike you who confuses a regional drough from overtilling the soil (1934's America) with a GLOBAL warming from GHGs.
You similarly get a number of other issues confused such as 'climate sensitivity' which is the 'amplification' of climate forcing from persistant facts such as CO2 levels, primarily though changes in water vapor driven by the primary warming.
We have a very good understanding of the warming from the 'persistant GHGs' and the cooling from suphate aerosols but there is a major uncertainly in how much amplification we get which is the reason that the warming total is a wide range. And we have very little evidence other than paleoclimatology as to what effect some long term feedbacks will add. What we DO know is that once we have crossed that bridge, it WILL burn behind us.
Of couse everything...warming, cooling, droughts, floods...are all caused by man. You are the "man is bad" cult and you completely ignore the fact that climate science is in it's infancy and that there are dozens of natural phenomena that even the warmists admit they don't understand enough to explain the affect on climate or weather.

And then on top of that you just flat out make up calamitous predictions for the future without a clue if they will happen. Why? Because instead of using science (which you don't really have yet) you think you can use politics and fear tactics.

And that is your undoing.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#11 Sep 10, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe he can acutally read and understand the science. Unlike you who confuses a regional drough from overtilling the soil (1934's America) with a GLOBAL warming from GHGs.
You similarly get a number of other issues confused such as 'climate sensitivity' which is the 'amplification' of climate forcing from persistant facts such as CO2 levels, primarily though changes in water vapor driven by the primary warming.
We have a very good understanding of the warming from the 'persistant GHGs' and the cooling from suphate aerosols but there is a major uncertainly in how much amplification we get which is the reason that the warming total is a wide range. And we have very little evidence other than paleoclimatology as to what effect some long term feedbacks will add. What we DO know is that once we have crossed that bridge, it WILL burn behind us.
It is you alarmists who claim that regional weather is proof of AGW. Shumlin has said that last winter's heavy snow in Vermont was because of it and he said that the extreme weather of Irene was because of climate change. Both statements are false. And it isn't only Shumlin...it is a host of climate scientists like Hansen who trot out the same tripe.

I think at last check it was not just a few "cranks" who had problems with the alarmist. And with good reason. Climate science has only been funded for a couple of decades and we don't even know all the questions we should be asking let alone the answers.

Fact is a huge number of intelligent and science educated people who just happen to be off a college campus who aren't buying into the alarmist theories and the number of realists is growing everyday.

The uber liberal chant that the science is settled is dead.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#12 Sep 10, 2011
stardust1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of couse everything...warming, cooling, droughts, floods...are all caused by man. You are the "man is bad" cult and you completely ignore the fact that climate science is in it's infancy and that there are dozens of natural phenomena that even the warmists admit they don't understand enough to explain the affect on climate or weather.
And then on top of that you just flat out make up calamitous predictions for the future without a clue if they will happen. Why? Because instead of using science (which you don't really have yet) you think you can use politics and fear tactics.
And that is your undoing.
<Yawn>

Find a new trolling technique, this one is getting boring.

Perhaps you really believe what you typed. In that case, you are an idiot and a hypocrite.

At least you think that earth is getting warmer, unlike ~20% of the teaparty that is more ignorant than you.
media

Europe

#13 Sep 10, 2011
Bush lied about 9/11
terror attacks' Sat, 10 Sep 2011
08:57:29 GMT Mahathir Mohamad says
it is not unthinkable for
former US President
George W. Bush to lie
about who was
responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on the
American soil. In a post published in
his personal blog chedet
on Friday, former
Malaysian prime
minister said that the
attacks on the World Trade Center in
downtown Manhattan,
New York City, and the
Pentagon in Arlington,
Virginia, could not have
been carried out by Muslims. The acts of
violence could have
rather been the work of
other groups. The Malaysian politician
pointed out that “for
some Americans, the
deaths of nearly 3,000
people was not the
scariest thing about 9/11. It was realizing
who carried out the
attack: yes, the
American Government.” Mohamad said although
Arab Muslims are angry
enough to sacrifice their
lives and become
bombers, they are not
capable of planning and strategizing attacks
similar to the 9/11
ones.“The planning [for the
9/11 attacks] must have
taken a considerable
length of time. The
candidates had to learn
to fly in tiny aircrafts…. Planning to hijack four
aircraft simultaneously
would require great
precision in timing and
logistics. One aircraft
maybe. But four simultaneously!! I don't
think extremists from
Saudi Arabia can carry
out this highly
sophisticated operation
with such success,” former Malaysian prime
minister commented. Turning to the collapse
of the World Trade
Center twin towers, he
said,“They came down
nicely upon themselves
without toppling against the other
buildings close by. It
looks more like planned
demolition of buildings
than collapse
consequent upon being hit by aircraft.” Mohamad stated,“A
third building also
collapsed in the same
fashion; although it was
not hit by any aircraft.
What is the explanation for this untouched
building, which
collapsed upon itself
and did not damage
other buildings
nearby?” He also questioned the
total disappearance of
the aircraft, which hit
the Pentagon building
in Arlington, Virginia.
“There was no debris of any kind, no broken
parts of the aircraft, no
black box, and no
human bodies flung
into the surroundings.
Is it possible for an aircraft to vaporize
totally after a crash?”
former Malaysian prime
minister said. Mohamad further raised
questions over the loss
of the fourth aircraft,
which was supposed to
have crashed in an open
field.“Again no sign of any debris. No big
crater. Did it vaporize
into nothingness? Did
the innocent passengers
also vaporize?” he
stated. The Malaysian politician
noted that the
American press was
strangely silent about
9/11 attacks. He also emphasized that
Bush is the one that lied
about Saddam's
weapons of mass
destruction.“The legacy
of the former US president is that two
countries (Iraq and
Afghanistan) have been
devastated, and
fratricidal wars have
become endemic. Hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis, Afghans and a
few thousand of young
American soldiers have
died. Thousands more
are wounded, maimed for life, and suffering
from mental
breakdowns,”
Mohamad pointed out. Former Malaysian prime
minister also said that
human lives do not
seem to mean much to
the former US president.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#14 Sep 10, 2011
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
<Yawn>
Find a new trolling technique, this one is getting boring.
Perhaps you really believe what you typed. In that case, you are an idiot and a hypocrite.
At least you think that earth is getting warmer, unlike ~20% of the teaparty that is more ignorant than you.
Yes it has been getting warmer since the mid 19th century...long before man was putting co2 into the atmosphere.
NobodyYouKnow

Orangeville, Canada

#15 Sep 10, 2011
stardust1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of couse everything...warming, cooling, droughts, floods...are all caused by man.
Of course NOT. Are you just trying to convince us you are stupid?

But warmer temperatures DO lead to increased evaporation and thus to drier area where it is dry (more evaporation but NO more water influx) and more flooding where it is wet (increased absolute humidity from more evaporation so increased rainfall)

You seem to be clueless about the fact that a change in GLOBAL factors is going to have different REGIONAL effects depending on local conditions. Each regional change has to be evaluated in terms of those local conditions.
stardust1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the "man is bad" cult ..
More ingorant diversion. I have never BLAMED man for using fossil fuels. It is nothing to do with BLAME as if that mattered. It is about our future prosperity and safety. That is why it is a problem. And only DENIALISTS like you try to avoid responsibility by finger pointing, blame gaming, political polling, etc.

PHYSICS doesn't give a rats ass about your hangups. Reality is not an elected office.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#16 Sep 10, 2011
stardust1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it has been getting warmer since the mid 19th century...long before man was putting co2 into the atmosphere.
What's next, volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans.

You're a joke.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#17 Sep 10, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course NOT. Are you just trying to convince us you are stupid?
But warmer temperatures DO lead to increased evaporation and thus to drier area where it is dry (more evaporation but NO more water influx) and more flooding where it is wet (increased absolute humidity from more evaporation so increased rainfall)
You seem to be clueless about the fact that a change in GLOBAL factors is going to have different REGIONAL effects depending on local conditions. Each regional change has to be evaluated in terms of those local conditions.
<quoted text>
More ingorant diversion. I have never BLAMED man for using fossil fuels. It is nothing to do with BLAME as if that mattered. It is about our future prosperity and safety. That is why it is a problem. And only DENIALISTS like you try to avoid responsibility by finger pointing, blame gaming, political polling, etc.
PHYSICS doesn't give a rats ass about your hangups. Reality is not an elected office.
Warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation? Since when? Relative Humidity plays a role too.

I am not the one who is claiming that our weather is being influenced by AGW...so how am I the one who is... "clueless about the fact that a change in GLOBAL factors is going to have different REGIONAL effects depending on local conditions." I definitely think that is true. La nina, el nino and the jet stream all play a bigger role than your claims of AGW. Scientists don't have a clue how it all fits together but the alarmists keep hammering on this idea that we are all going to die if we don't slash the world economy and the number of people. Pure specualtion and when challenged they answer with the classic "what if I am right"? Instead of taking radical actions which we have no idea will do anything let's just work a little harder to figure it all out.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#18 Sep 10, 2011
Do you know that climatologists don't know if the relative humidity is causing the temperatures to rise or if the rising temperatures are raising the humidity?

They do not know.
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#19 Sep 10, 2011
"One of the biggest confounding issues is that of man caused changes in humidity. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado river now goes across the content by air, rather than flowing into the Gulf of California as it did 100 years ago1. Water vapor is also a green house gas - it differs from CO2 in an important way in that it is limited to the lower part of the atmosphere - if it goes higher it condenses, dumping heat in the upper atmosphere. If the temperature is higher, water vapor rises higher and pumps heat to a higher altitude thus forming a negative feed back system that should tend to stabilize temperatures. On the other hand, water vapor is a potent 'green house' gas that blocks the heat flow from the earths surface even better than CO 2. Further complications are due to the fact that the altitude of condensation are effected by dust and even cosmic rays. Much of the water used in irrigation evaporates and only stays in the air for a number of days before being rained out - yet this rain evaporates again continuing the elevated humidity and the heat that is pumped to the upper atmosphere is a climatic effect..On the other hand, CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, but once it is removed from the atmosphere tends to stays out. Water vapor in the form of clouds blocks the warming of the earths surface by the sun. Temperature can effect humidity and humidity can effect temperature. This total process is played out in the clouds, something that is not at all well modeled at this time."
stardust1

Brattleboro, VT

#20 Sep 10, 2011
"Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Water vapor, a potent green house gas, averages 25,000ppm of the lower atmosphere compared to CO2 which is only about 360 ppm. The Atmospheric CO2 change is only about +60 ppm. Realize that we are talking about a change in CO2 from 0.030% to 0.036% or a 0.006% change as a percentage of the atmosphere. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead 'warmers' say it increased 30%(for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased several percent and could be a change of 25,000ppm to 26,250ppm or 2.5% to 2.6% or a 0.1% change. This change in water vapor (probably due to irrigation) is about 16 times larger than the change in CO2 near the ground.(remember in the stratosphere is possibly cooling and has very little water vapor)."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Africa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sierra Leone's Ebola-hit Freetown is a city on ... Aug '14 Hannah 1
Africa Must Rise and Be Free Aug '14 DREAMWEAVER 26
Old flaws in Obama's new foreign policy May '14 Eli 1
Promote African Music May '14 africanmusicjehad 1
Out of West Africa May '14 blahblahblAH 1
Kerry urges steps to ensure democracy in Africa May '14 yep 3
Zaragemca Top Experience (Apr '14) Apr '14 Gerry Zaragemca 1

Africa People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE