Dave Stancliff AS IT STANDS: Overheard: A conversation about climate/global warming blogarama.com

Sunday, July 15, 2012

AS IT STANDS: Overheard: A conversation about climate/global warming

           By Dave Stancliff/For The Times-Standard
   Overheard at Mom & Pop’s Café USA:
   First diner - “Climate change catastrophes are becoming common nowadays.”
   Second diner: “Oh no! Here we go with the liberal global warming conspiracies.”
   Story on open newspaper (Associated Press June 8) between the two diners:
  “The first six months of 2012 accounted for the warmest January-through-June period on record for the contiguous U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced on July 9th.” 
  First diner - “Who said global warming? I try not to use that term because your conservative hackles flare up every time I do. I’m just saying climate changes are obvious right now.” 
  Second diner - “Of course they are. The earth’s climate goes through continual changes. It has since the start. We‘re in a lousy phase right now, that’s all.”
Same story on open newspaper between the two diners:
   “Climate models indicate the hot temperatures are not expected to ease anytime soon. ‘It looks like it’s going to stay above normal, for much of the remainder of the summer,’ said Jon Gottschalck at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.”

  First diner - “Okay. What about the U.S. National Academy of Sciences claim that
Climate change is occurring, most likely increasing global average surface temperatures worldwide about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century?”  
Second diner - “Sounds like change at that rate won’t make a difference to mankind for at least another thousand years.”
   Same story on open newspaper between the two diners:
   “In 2011, the U.S National Academy of Sciences concluded in a final report on U.S. global warming effects that ‘Climate change is occurring, and very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks.’" 
  First diner - “Can we at least agree that the recent climate changes in our country have been devastating, and that manmade pollution contributed to it?”
  Second diner - “I have to admit that was something when that derecho (editor’s note: a pattern of thunderstorms racing in a straight line)  struck Washington on June 29th . I was hoping a few Democratic Congressmen might get swept up… no seriously, playing the Al Gore card isn’t going to get it.”
    Another open newspaper (AP article June 7th) between the two diners: “At least 30 deaths were blamed on the heat, including nine in Maryland and 10 in Chicago, mostly among the elderly. Three elderly people found dead in their houses in Ohio had heart disease, but died of high temperatures in homes lacking power because of recent outages, officials said. Heat was also cited as a factor in three deaths in Wisconsin, two in Tennessee and three in Pennsylvania.”
    First diner - “Had to get that partisan shot in didn’t ya George? This climate change business is no laughing matter. We should be looking at ways to prepare for what’s happening to our environment right now and in the future.” 
Second diner - “Are you aware that some climate scientists, such as Georgia Tech's Judith Curry, dismiss connections between global warming and U.S. heat waves? She says on her website, Climate Etc. ‘We saw these kinds of heat waves in the 1930s, and those were definitely not caused by greenhouse gases.’ I don't think what we are seeing this summer is outside the range of natural variability for the past century." 
Another open newspaper ( Associated Press June 9) between the diners: “June's derecho, that unleashed 80 mph winds that knocked out power for millions from Ohio to Virginia, has been seen as a consequence of global warming. ‘Derechos don't happen very often, but with heat waves more common under climate projections, they would most likely increase in frequency and severity,’ says forest ecologist Chris Peterson of the University of Georgia in Athens. He pointed to likely extreme-weather effects on forests in a 2000 study.”
   First diner - “Looks like we aren’t going to solve anything today George. I gotta go to work now. See ya tomorrow…”
  Second diner - I guess not Pete. We can take this conversation up again. Same time. Same place. It’s your turn to buy, though!”
   As It Stands, until the great partisan debate about the reason for rising world temperatures is set aside and actions taken, we might as well join George and Pete at Mom and Pop’s Café USA.  

Websites that have picked up this column:

1) Topics – Mendocino News -

2) Doing it Green -

3) Global Warming News Blog – Daily Global Warming News

4) Year 8888 – Climate Change

5) Event Earth -

6) The Basics of Global Warming -

7) Global Warming – Articles about Global warming

8) The Global Warming Diet

9) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

10) The History of the Movement to Stop Gobal warming

11) Taking It Global -

12) Environment News

13) Al Gore News

14) Citizens Climate Lobby -

15) Pros and Cons about Global Warming -

16) Energy Destiny -

17) Hub Pages -

18) Squidoo -

19) Citizens Climate Lobby -

20) Dream Catalyst

21) Ian McPherson blog -

22) Fast Company -

23) Understanding Climate Change -  Energy Education Foundation

24) Total Wealth Essentials Elite Group Inc.

25) Pepper Groups

26) Energy Federation -

 

 

3 comments:

Dave Gray said...

A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

[...] In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3 degree Celsius per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

Dave Stancliff said...

Thanks for stopping by Dave.

Thanks for sharing this new study too.

Does that mean, however, that you don't feel we should do anything about the new climate challenges being poised?

Citing a study is not exactly a proactive thing do do about the current droughts, etc.

Dave Gray said...

Let me turn the question around, Dave, and then I'll respond. Exactly what "actions" do you propose vs. "joining George and Pete at Mom and Pop’s Café USA?"

Are you willing to require - by force, if necessary - that burgeoning economies such as China, India and Brazil follow any actions or rules that you would promulgate for the USA? If you think any positive result can occur without the current worst offenders agreeing to your actions, you're an ostrich.

How much do money do you think we will need to spend on your plan/actions? How much of that money will need to be borrowed and added to the current $16,000,000,000,000. of US debt? What will we no longer spend money on in order for your actions to be implemented? No more military spending while China and Russia are increasing military capabilities? No more social services for those who can't or are unwilling to work? No more junkets for government employees?

Are you personally going to plan the new world environmental order or are you willing to hand the chore off to the morons who approved Solyndra?

Tell me your plan that won't jeopardize the economic health and well-being of those living in the US and other developed countries versus throwing them back to the
3rd century a la present day Afghanistan.

Will your proxies guarantee the citizens of the USA that your actions will make the world the perfect place you envision? What about population growth? Will we need to kill off some folks so we keep our carbon footprint within the parameters you and your ilk define?

The purpose of my post was to show that a legitimate scientific study (I'll take tree ring studies to climate modelling any day of the week) has found that the earth's climate changes with or without mankind's involvement, and has done so for millennia.

My surmise is that whatever solutions the climate change gurus might come up with will merely allow the government to piss away money to their campaign funding cronies - regardless of the political party in power.