Posted on 05/12/2008 9:18:13 AM PDT by cogitator
GW bump
Cogitator, you're a smart man... Mistakenly? Unequivocally is not a simple word like "cat". It requires significant neuronal involvement on the part of the writer and it belies a level of conviction which cannot be misconstrued into a simple mistake.
Having said that, it's true that I have no proof that they are peddling this GW crap on purpose, but we have no proof they are mistaken either. The only thing we can say for a fact is that in this case, he is peddling a lie.
“even though any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming… nevertheless… the trend toward stronger more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”
Just to keep the record straight...according to Gore, this particular storm might have happened anyway but it is one of several that are related to global warming.
So buy those offsets right away so the storms will go away.
Except for this one and maybe a few others.
But be of good cheer because McCain has now signed onto the panic...we may not need Gore anymore.
Three (small) spots since January. Some have argued that two of them may have been from cycle 23.
The problem with this debate is that both sides are so heavily invested in their positions. I am willing to listen to arguments that there is global warming that is caused, at least in part, by man-made CO2. The problem I have is with the radical changes the enviros want to make to our lifestyles and their unwillingness to compromise on solutions. They are for energy rationing by any means necessary and that is it. They will support alternate energy only until someone actually tries to do it on a meaningful scale. Just look at the Cape Wind Project. Environmentalists have been fighting this alternative energy project tooth and nail for 7 years. And nuclear? Forget it. On the other hand, many conservatives are GW skeptics because they have seen over the last 40 years how we have gone from one environmental “crisis” to the next. No matter what we do it is almost never enough and if it is, 10 more crisis pop up to take it’s place. Enviros want the personal automobile and suburban/rural lifestyle eliminated. Liberalism is largely a urban phenomenon and would therefore be relatively unaffected. Conservatives know this, and because they want to ban OUR lifestyle, we instinctively fight back. I think someone has to budge, and IMHO, it should be the enviros. When they want to trade a few nuke plants for increased CAFE standards, then I will take them more seriously.
This Cyclone was a complete freak of nature since the ocean temperatures that spawned it and the ocean temperatures over the path it took, were well below normal (more than 1.0C) at the time. This cyclone had no business forming in the first place.
So perhaps global cooling actually causes greater cyclones, not the other way around.
And any global warmer who blames this cyclone on global warming needs to be called to account for their complete lack of knowledge about the subject ...
... (although Cogitator seems to understand a few things about the science and perhaps that is why he is trying to deflect Al Gore’s comments now.)
SST on May 1
Whether or not the SSTs are above or below normal is irrelevant to TS formation. SSTs have to be 82 F or above, simply put. I think the Bay of Bengal is that warm most of the year.
If nothing was doctored, why did the Web site post a "corrected" version? (See the Editors note: basically they say that two clips were posted in the "incorrect order" -- as one clip, they neglect to say. Now they are posted in the correct order as two separate clips.) If this was a liberal Web site everybody here would be blasting them for a CYA maneuver.
Kerry (Emanuel's) take on his own new study was that it didn't prove his previous study wrong. Somehow I tend to believe his interpretation of his study.
The writer of the piece shouldn’t have used “unequivocally”. It’s not an accurate statement, and that’s why I said it was a mistake. I could also have said it was a stupid word to use.
Figure 3 -- Monthly irregularities in ice area from November 1978 to February 2008 are shown. The overall trend is -4.4 percent per decade but there appears to be an acceleration in the decline from 1996 to 2008. The trend from 1978 to 1996 (in green) is shown to be -3 percent per decade while that from 1996 to 2008 (in blue) was -10.7 percent per decade. The last three data points represent the winter months of December 2007, January 2008 and February 2008 and are shown to be all below the zero anomaly line, indicating that the values are still less than the average value. The addition of the three data points did not significantly alter the trend.
The most likely cause of variations in the size of our polar caps from year to year is the cyclical nature of our planetary weather patterns, that have been occurring for billions of years.
Certainly.
Well, I support putting as many nuclear power plants online as the system will bear. Regardless of global warming concerns, we need to diversify our energy production capability (or drill like mad in the Bakken Formation).
Ok so you believe that global warming is a certainty and that it is man made ....so what do we do with that hypothesis ? Panic ? quit burning fossil fuels? Move away from the equator? What do you suggest?
Got a fact of mine in particular that you don't think stands up to much scrutiny? Remember that it's got to be something I stated as fact, not somebody else.
Only by implication could Gore's remarks be construed to blame a stronger storm on global warming. He clearly did not attribute Nargis to global warming, and clearly distanced himself from any idea that a single storm can be attributed to global warming.
I listened to the original clip again, and now I'm clear on it. In that clip, Gore talks about storms, consequences, and then storms again. In the original interview, Gore talked about storms, consequences, and then gave Arctic ice meltig as an example of consequences.
So, BMI originally put out an erroneous clip, and their article indicated that Gore blamed global warming for this particular storm. Now they've corrected it. Good for them. The other Web sites that followed their lead should note the correction, too.
There are plenty of good reasons outside of GW to diversify energy production as much as possible. Nuclear, wind solar and so on should all be part of the mix.
Although Al Gore has been twisting the truth for years now about GW, this kind of tactic, if it was intentional, is simply unacceptable. We should all refuse to stoop as low as the hysterics on the Left.
I think that is a very important point that is often lost here. By opposing alternative energy choices simply because the Greenies like it, we are cutting off our noses. While I am one of the few who buy into the AGW hypothesis, although I am quite a bit more skeptical than most "believers", I think that conservatives ought to look into alternative energy sources for the reason you state above. It can be a win-win for everyone, yes, even the enviroweenies.
Of course I still suspect that for the hard Left, its not about saving the Planet, its about destroying Capitalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.