January 1, 2009 — Research Meteorologists found that the temperature changes brought on by global warming are significant enough to cause an increase in the occurrence of severe storms. Severe storms are those that cause flooding, have damaging winds, hail and could cause tornados. Their study revealed that by the end of this century, the number of days that favor severe storms could more than double certain locations, such as Atlanta and New York. Researchers also found that this increase would occur during typical stormy seasons and not during dry seasons when it may be beneficial.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm
For another perspective on the severe weather see this related story:Question: If corporations are willing to spend billions attempting to water down and defeat legislation on climate change, then why shouldn't they also be just as eager to pay for the clean up after tornadoes and hurricanes and floods? Tea Party events - sponsored by Koch through organizations like Americans for Prosperity- are demanding limited government, reduced taxes but who then is going to pay for the clean up, the search and rescue the rebuilding, the maintenance of flood plain levies, disaster preparedness, early warning sirens?
Oh they did, did they? In spite of the fact that (now fired, disgraced, suicidal and possibly facing a 10-year fraud conviction) Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the main datafeed to the IPCC) has gone on record that there has BEEN NO WARMING FOR OVER 15 YEARS (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)? Will wonders never cease?
ReplyDeleteSo if it's not warming, why is the weather changing? Well, try this: the weather isn't changing. Or, the weather is always changing. Take your pick. You can't make a trillion dollars off of the El Nino Southern Oscillation or solar cycles, so we have this BS to deal with, the biggest global scam in world history. there are literally thousands of articles out there by skeptics, many expert, none `big oil funded` - yet people like you persist in perpetuating the scam. Shame!
Please don't waste my time. There is plenty of evidence outside Phil Jones. Google for yourself and stop watching Fox or listening to everything Koch brothers puts out there.
ReplyDelete"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece
"There is a broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, caused in large part by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and if left un-checked will likely have disastrous consequences.
Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that we should act now on climate change, and this is reflected in the statements by these definitive scientific authorities. Supported by Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005 by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India."
You can believe whatever you want. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese and that man didn't walk on it. You can believe that God created the world in seven days and Eve was created from Adam's rib. Nobody forbids you to believe in such things. BUT the shame- as you put it- is destroying the world because you refuse to face facts.
If nothing else the most compelling evidence for climate change comes from the corporations who are most guilty. They are spending billions of dollars to fight against any kind of legislation that will limit their god-given right to make profits at the cost of the environment.
Well, could be.. prove it!
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I made my own investigation about HAARP a few years ago. It is very interesting. I went from scalar weapons, Nikola Tesla, the Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, to Lights in the Australian outback. Having studied all that, I still think there is more evidence to prove that carbon from man-made sources is heating our atmosphere.
carbon dioxide is a very weak and sparse green house gas. Water Vapor is much more prevalent. Too bad global warming has to be a political issue instead of scientific. Is the world hotter today then before, sure, but the climate changes in cycles. I don't think that man has done enough to make serious changes to the earth's climate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about how unfortunate it is that the debate has become so politicized. In a perfect world, we would all just sit down and look over the data, set a time-limit for discussion and decide what (if any) steps should be taken. But that's not how the world works I guess. Since I am not a scientist I will not dazzle you with the facts. The studies are numerous and come from many sources. (The truth is out there but believing it is your choice)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can only say that, after flying over a large expanse of the Earth's surface and looking at all the terraforming that we have done, it really wouldn't surprise me if we have altered the environment. Also, it isn't just the carbon we are adding but we are also reducing the systems that help remove the carbon too.
Anyway, thanks for being the reasonable opposition. You might find these graphs interesting, by the way. http://goo.gl/Y88OQ