This *is* global warming, says environmental chief

[zimv20]

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314510.ece)


Super-powerful hurricanes now hitting the United States are the "smoking gun" of global warming, one of Britain's leading scientists believes.

The growing violence of storms such as Katrina, which wrecked New Orleans, and Rita, now threatening Texas, is very probably caused by climate change, said Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Hurricanes were getting more intense, just as computer models predicted they would, because of the rising temperature of the sea, he said. "The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme storms is very likely to be due to global warming."

In a series of outspoken comments - a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, Sir John hit out at neoconservatives in the US who still deny the reality of climate change.

Referring to the arrival of Hurricane Rita he said: "If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation." As he spoke, more than a million people were fleeing north away from the coast of Texas as Rita, one of the most intense storms on record, roared through the Gulf of Mexico. It will probably make landfall tonight or early tomorrow near Houston, America's fourth largest city and the centre of its oil industry. Highways leading inland from Houston were clogged with traffic for up to 100 miles north.

There are real fears that Houston could suffer as badly from Rita just as New Orleans suffered from Hurricane Katrina less than a month ago.

Asked what conclusion the Bush administration should draw from two hurricanes of such high intensity hitting the US in quick succession, Sir John said: "If what looks like is going to be a horrible mess causes the extreme sceptics about climate change in the US to reconsider their opinion, that would be an extremely valuable outcome."

Asked about characterising them as "loonies", he said: "There are a group of people in various parts of the world ... who simply don't want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate."

"I'd liken them to the people who denied that smoking causes lung cancer."

With his comments, Sir John becomes the third of the leaders of Britain's scientific establishment to attack the US over the Bush government's determination to cast doubt on global warming as a real phenomenon.

Sir John's comments follow and support recent research, much of it from America itself, showing that hurricanes are getting more violent and suggesting climate change is the cause.

A paper by US researchers, last week in the US journal Science, showed that storms of the intensity of Hurricane Katrina have become almost twice as common in the past 35 years.

Although the overall frequency of tropical storms worldwide has remained broadly level since 1970, the number of extreme category 4 and 5 events has sharply risen. In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year but, since 1990, they have nearly doubled to an average of about 18 a year. During the same period, sea surface temperatures, among the key drivers of hurricane intensity, have increased by an average of 0.5C (0.9F).

Sir John said: "Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun. It's a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes."

(emphasis in title theirs)

[solvs]

And here I thought this was all because of those darn environmentalists. Or was it an act of God. I forget which. Either way, I'll wait for further proof before I make up my mind. ;) (cuz, you know... that's what Bush has been saying about global warming for years now)

[LethalWolfe]

Zim, yer right, but yer wrong. These 'canes are man made, but not in the way those tree hugger psueudo-scientists think. Specifically, Katrina was made by the Yakuza Mafia using a Russian-made electromagnetic generator in an obvious attempt at revenge for Japan getting nuked 60 years ago.

link (http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/09/23/news/local/news05.txt)


Lethal

[zimv20]

wow. at first, i thought it was a joke link. but then... wow.

[Blue Velvet]

wow. at first, i thought it was a joke link. but then... wow.



It is my humble opinion that Katrina was, at some level, an inside job. Possibly planned and carried out by the power Elite, not necessarily the Bush Administration but certainly knowledge was held by elements within, to introduce an element of change into American society; only time will tell as to the full extent of changes that they desire.

http://www.weatherwars.info/katrina.htm

:confused:

...and of course, every conspiracy theorist's favorite scientist, Nikola Tesla is roped into the mix as well.

What irritates me about this sort of stuff, is that it's difficult to rebut unless you know something about meteorology. Many people will accept this as gospel truth because it sounds impressive. He shows a picture of a cloud and states that its shape is an impossible natural phenomenon — who am I to know better?

[iGary]

I don't know what to think about global warming either way, but holy smoke Batman, this guy is definitive:

is very probably caused by climate change

"Very probably!!!!"

OMG WTF!!!

[scem0]

And on the eve of the storm all Americans can think of is "will I be able to drive my car tomorrow??!??". Cars, pollution (among other things), and this state of mind being what is causing global warming in the first place.

Sigh... :rolleyes: :(

_Emerson

[greatdevourer]

After all this "global warming is a myth" from Bush, they finally figure it out :rolleyes:

[skunk]

I don't know what to think about global warming either way, but holy smoke Batman, this guy is definitive:



"Very probably!!!!"

OMG WTF!!!How would you suggest obtaining positive proof?

[iGary]

How would you suggest obtaining positive proof?

That's one side of the argument, isn't it then?

How do we take this as gospel?

Again, I'd be an idiot to suggest that global warming was a hoax or a myth...but "very probably" did not sound very "scientific" to me.

[Blue Velvet]

The most recent study on the issue, published this month in the journal Science, found that while the incidence of hurricanes and tropical storms has remained roughly constant over the last 30 years, there has been a rise in the number of intense hurricanes with wind speeds above 211km/h (131mph).

The leader of that research project, Dr Peter Webster, believes there may be a link to climate change.

"What I think we can say is that the increase in intensity is probably accounted for by the increase in sea-surface temperature," he told the BBC News website, "and I think probably the sea-surface temperature increase is a manifestation of global warming."


"Based on recent research, the consensus view is that we don't expect global warming to make a difference to the frequency of hurricanes," explains Julian Heming, from the UK Meteorological Office.
"The problem is," observes Julian Heming, "that we can only look back about 35 years with satellite data; before that the record is somewhat unreliable, and 35 years isn't long enough to draw a definite conclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4276242.stm

[Dont Hurt Me]

Warmer Oceans = bigger storms its not rocket science. Here is something interesting though, over at Fox yesterday they asked their readers(right wingers) if they thought that global warming was happening and over 60% of them said no? I guess since its not in the Bible and George denies it they ignore all science. Thats scary. They deny warmer oceans just as they deny the glaciers are shrinking? what kind of science is that?................................................ its spin science paid for by the MegaCorporations, Fed to all who will listen by the Republican Party.

[greatdevourer]

How do we take this as gospel? You don't :rolleyes: Since when is a destructive hurricane good news?

[feakbeak]

http://www.birrd.net/linked/images/macrumors/pirates_vs_global_temp.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

[mactastic]

Are you saying there are less pirates because there are more hurricanes (which in a way makes sense), or that there are more hurricanes because there are less pirates?

[~loserman~]

http://www.birrd.net/linked/images/macrumors/pirates_vs_global_temp.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)


Your data MUST BE WRONG....
There are way more Pirates today than ever in History.

Just ask the RIAA

[rockthecasbah]

Your data MUST BE WRONG....
There are way more Pirates today than ever in History.

Just ask the RIAA
hahahahaha that was awesome, loserman i love thee. :)

[JesseJames]

It's been said that the earth goes through climatological changes every tens of thousands of years. Global warming seems to me more of an interpretive art than hard science.
We tend to forget our planet is incredibly dynamic. First it was El Nino, then La Nina. Now global warming.
I'm not saying humans aren't contributing to the fray; but, this science has been around for just 200 years. We need to think more on a geological scale. And that's thousands of years.
In that perspective, what is happening isn't all that surprising at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we're overdue for a catacalysmic planetary event. The tsunami in the Pacific is just a reminder.

[Sun Baked]

It's the dirt, some studies say that dirt has been releasing carbon dioxide ...

So if we eliminated the dirt, and live on a frozen ball of water -- we won't have global warming issues.

But that may mean relocating to one of Jupiters moons. :(

[zimv20]

It's been said that the earth goes through climatological changes every tens of thousands of years. Global warming seems to me more of an interpretive art than hard science.
We tend to forget our planet is incredibly dynamic. First it was El Nino, then La Nina. Now global warming.
I'm not saying humans aren't contributing to the fray; but, this science has been around for just 200 years. We need to think more on a geological scale. And that's thousands of years.

i don't fully understand the pain mechanism, so i'm keeping my hand on this burning stove until i do.

i believe there is a fallacy of logic to claim 1) global warming is natural, and then conclude 2) therefore, we don't have to change our habits.

if 1), then it is even more imperative we change our habits, if we believe those habits exacerbate the problem.

so, do you believe that man has zero effect on temperature? it sounds like you don't.

[Ugg]

It's been said that the earth goes through climatological changes every tens of thousands of years. Global warming seems to me more of an interpretive art than hard science.
We tend to forget our planet is incredibly dynamic. First it was El Nino, then La Nina. Now global warming.
I'm not saying humans aren't contributing to the fray; but, this science has been around for just 200 years. We need to think more on a geological scale. And that's thousands of years.
In that perspective, what is happening isn't all that surprising at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we're overdue for a catacalysmic planetary event. The tsunami in the Pacific is just a reminder.

Skepticism is a healthy state of mind and yes, the planet is incredibly dynamic but take a look at the polar ice situation. If half of it melts, a good third of the world is doomed. It's been melting pretty rapidly these last few years.

200 years isn't much but by looking into the planet's past it's pretty obvious that there have been cataclysmic events and that life for us poor homo sapiens wasn't too comfy after the fact. It would seem prudent to start preparing for the inundation of coastal cities and the desertification of midwest farm land WHETHER OR NOT this current phase has been caused by humans or not.

I would add that the burning of fossil fuels should also be curtailed but since the supply is running out we'll not have much choice before long. Curtailing consumption in general would also be a good idea but that would certainly destroy the US economy and send us into another Great Depression, so I guess we'll just let nature take its course and let the "Left Behind" crowd go into paroxysms of joy that their myth is finally turning into reality.

[eva01]

But now i read an article on the BBC stating that after a hot summer all these plants are releasing CO2 so it isn't humans fault at all its those damn freaking plants.

Kill them all

Plant genocide

[zimv20]

But now i read an article on the BBC stating that after a hot summer all these plants are releasing CO2 so it isn't humans fault at all its those damn freaking plants.

my degree's not in science (oh wait, yes it is), but i'd always understood that plants, the vegetation kind, consumed CO2 and released O2.

or are you talking about plants, the factory kind?

[greatdevourer]

It's been said that the earth goes through climatological changes every tens of thousands of years. Global warming seems to me more of an interpretive art than hard science.
We tend to forget our planet is incredibly dynamic. First it was El Nino, then La Nina. Now global warming.
I'm not saying humans aren't contributing to the fray; but, this science has been around for just 200 years. We need to think more on a geological scale. And that's thousands of years.
In that perspective, what is happening isn't all that surprising at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we're overdue for a catacalysmic planetary event. The tsunami in the Pacific is just a reminder. Yes, we have had climate changes before, but nothing on this scale in the past 3 million years

[eva01]

my degree's not in science (oh wait, yes it is), but i'd always understood that plants, the vegetation kind, consumed CO2 and released O2.

or are you talking about plants, the factory kind?

sorry for the lack of the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269066.stm

(i am a science major too ;)

A new study shows that during the 2003 heatwave, European plants produced more carbon dioxide than they absorbed from the atmosphere.

[JesseJames]

Firstly, I'm not a scientist. But I do consider myself analytically knowledgeable and a healthy skeptic. I am wary of alarmist junk science. I do believe a lot of it is out there.
Is global warming junk science? No, I don't think it is. Many scientists around the globe say that it is a reality. So it does bear validity.
What I believe is that mankind is just a component of the dilemma, and is ignoring long-term ramifications for short-term benefits much to his detriment (Bush administration *cough*).
How far can man alter his environment? Dramatically. The evidence is overwhelming. I proffer though that, the earth has its own will and we may be just compounding on a natural cycle that the globe goes through every thousands of years and we are misreading data. Or we are looking at an elephant from one inch away when we don't know what an elephant is.

The earth can take care of itself. It always has and always will. It's our own asses that we're concerned about here. To be able to live comfortably and without fear of calamity.
With the American lifestyle burgeoning in places like India and China, the need is becoming more urgent to find a viable and sustainable means of supporting developing economies with environmental responsibility. I believe this is going to be the core issue in the first part of this century.
Political instability further complicates the issue. I don't want to get into that though.
Mobility is the key to robust commerce. Mobility at what cost though?
Are you willing to give up your automobile for the planet? Are the millions of other people willing to? Therein lies the fundamental problem.

[pseudobrit]

my degree's not in science (oh wait, yes it is), but i'd always understood that plants, the vegetation kind, consumed CO2 and released O2.

or are you talking about plants, the factory kind?

Plant respiration is the same as animal respiration. It's only during photosynthesis that they produce oxygen. It ends up being kind of a spiral.

We have hotter summers, plants stop growing because of the heat, photosynthesis stops and the plants produce carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse gases which further raises temperatures.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[zimv20]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269066.stm

yikes! so the hotter it gets, the less we can rely on plants to reverse the damage.

nice going, us.

[pseudobrit]

The earth can take care of itself. It always has and always will.

I would proffer the notion that, in the face of humanity it has not. The current die-off of diverse species and ecosystems is a terminal pattern. The biosphere is unable to correct for us.

If we're caught up in the natural ice age pattern and die off, it's not the global ecosystem correcting the balance, that's just chance.

If we kill ourselves by triggering massive climate change, that's not the earth "taking care" of itself either, that's just us doing our impersonation of a suicide bomber.

[solvs]

Well, the Earth might just take care of itself by ridding itself of the thing that's hurting it. :cough: humans :cough:

I think there is some truth to global warming. I mean, why make it up? Seriously, with all the real problems out there, why would scientist and environmentalists bother? Those who seem to think it's all made up, usually have ulterior motives. Who do you trust, fame-seeking scientists and smelly hippies with no life, or greedy big business execs and lying politicians? It's all about the motivations.

[Ugg]

Mobility is the key to robust commerce. Mobility at what cost though?
Are you willing to give up your automobile for the planet? Are the millions of other people willing to? Therein lies the fundamental problem.

I could pretty easily give up my car, yeah it would hurt more than I like to think it would but if the tradeoff is decent mass transit then it would be ok. What would bother me the most is giving up flying. I'm not a pilot but the act of going from one continent to another is pretty darned quick on an airplane. The idea of traveling by boat is ok but to get to Europe from California would take about 3 days on the train and then another 6 or 7 on the boat. That's a long, long time.

The world would instantly become a much larger and much more inaccessible place. I'm not so sure I like that idea.