Tech | January 09, 2012 | 58 comments

Climate Extremes 2011 -Part 3- Global consequences of forcings on the hydrologic cycle

JanforGore
Disclaimer: The events depicted in this video and the previous two parts are of global climate extremes for 2011 that were unusual or extreme in scope and fit the trend that suggests the strongest link between anthropogenic global warming and weather events through extreme precipitation events, floods and droughts. Nothing was inferred by this video and any such inferment placed on this by the viewer is based on their own preconceptions and biases. All photos depict the events and all information was gleaned from public sources for educational purposes as noted at the conclusion of the video.
~~~~
Previously I had posted two parts of this video series that I put together of climate extremes for 2011. Seeing just this one year in totality is an eye opener. With all three parts put together there is close to a half hour of information and pictures depicting the world we are making for our children and it is not a good report on the human species.

There is no mistaking anymore that we are affecting the cycles of this planet that provide the two most basic needs for our survival: food and water. The willful damage we are inflicting on our lifeline is irresponsible, arrogant and immoral regardless of what you think is the cause. This year requires REAL action. So please, pass this on and thanks for watching.

This was for me a labor of love and my heart goes out to all in this world who lost loved ones and who stilll deal with the effects of this crisis daily. May we collectively find the moral courage we need now to make this right as much as possibly can be done at this point.

CLIMATE CHANGE KILLS.
``
I thought this fit here based on the events covered in this recap video:

"Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS climate scientist, emphasized the varying levels of scientific certainty when it comes to links between extreme weather and climate change. “In some cases, the links between extreme weather and climate change are crystal clear,” she said. “In other cases, the picture is murkier.”

Ekwurzel said scientists see the strongest links to extreme heat and shifts in precipitation away from lighter and toward heavier events, meaning longer periods of drought punctuated by heavy flooding. "

Link to enitre article is in the thread.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Tech,   Green,   16 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Climate Change,  Education,  Information,  22 more
  3. recommended by:
    unimatrix0
  4.     
    |

58 comments // Climate Extremes 2011 -Part 3- Global consequences of forcings on the hydrologic cycle // Video

  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  

    • The Arctic is melting, that's why a Russian ice-breaker was able to blast its way through fifty feet of thin rotten ice yesterday.

      "Update Jan. 10, 5:30 p.m. from Capt. Carter Whalen, president of Alaska Marine Pilots

      Today's progress is about 50'. Healy is trying to free Renda right now from an ice ridge.
      There is better, more favorable ice ahead.
      Many factors at work out there. A tough day for all.
      That's fifty feet progress today."

      Alaska Dispatch. Er, isn't Alaska the fastest warming place on the planet, or the canary in the coal mine of global warming, or was that somewhere else? Forgive me, it changes week by week, it's hard to keep up.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  

    • Abstract:
      Solar Radiation income (R) increases Sea Surface Temperature (SST), that in turn decreases the solubility of the greenhouse gases and increases the Evaporation (E), responsible respectively of the increase of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and water vapour (WV) both increasing the global air Temperature (T). This paper shows that the variations of SST, related to R, explain all the examined past cycles of T and that the mankind activity contributes to the recent global warming by much less than 15%.

      Part of an email sent to Phil Jones in 2009. Even then they knew that man's contribution to so-called "global warming" was minuscule and probably totally insignificant.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  

    • "An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us."

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385

      Oh dear... An extensively peer-reviewed study comes to a different conclusion to the extremists. How could this possibly be? Gasp! Shock!
      Quick Jan, post another video of a flood, that'll change their minds ;)

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Sorry, I thought you might have read and understood the entire document. Obviously not.
      Never mind. I do remember you saying at some point that you didn't understand scientific charts and graphs, don't worry about it, I know science isn't really your thing anyway.

      Obviously the paragraph: "An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us." means nothing to you. Who are the real deniers, eh Jan?

      Go ahead, post more videos, only about six people watch them anyway.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      Oh, I understand it. I also understand it is ONE report out of over a thousand peer reviewed reports that concede anthropogenic global warming is occurring and again only compares to the IPCC report and nothing else. So again, cherrypick all you wish, it only shows how desperate you are to serve your own agenda. And of course we know YOU will be one of those watching anything I do here. You just can't help yourself. And gee, spending a lot of time here aren't you? Don't you have a life? Pathetic hypocrisy.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      And this is one of many reports that discredit the theory that man is causing bad weather.
      Hurts, doesn't it, when "An extensively peer-reviewed study" concludes with a different view to that of a few extremists who peer review eachother and then get bloggers to back them up. But hey, if Romm says man did it then who am I to argue? /sark

      I do have a life Jan, more of one than you who spends hours and hours looking for weather videos and posting propaganda.
      So, have you managed to calm down from your tantrum earlier? Sad to watch you let things get under your skin so much, but I'm sure you'll live to preach another day. Still, it is yet another dent in your shell-shocked armour, isn't it?

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      As we all know, (but you would never admit) the IPCC is only a small group of people, as the contents of this email clearly shows:

      "[Bradley] I see this as following the IPCC approach where a small set of leaders does the dirty deed and then sends it out for review. We could solicit input on certain topics, but I think we know the field well enough to make that an unnecessary burden on others...what do you think? "

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
    • +2
      Johnny_Los_Angeles  

    • People in this country wont take it serious until u.s. cities start going underwater, of course it will be too late by then, and that should start happening pretty soon now

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • Johnny_Los_Angeles:

      Yeah, any minute now... even though sea levels have been rising for centuries, all of a sudden they're going to shoot up and swamp the earth and sweep away all those nasty deniers and oil men.
      Sorry to throw cold water on your theory, but there has been no acceleration in sea level rises, much to the annoyance of those extremists who predicted it (along with everything else imaginable) and in fact multi-agency data shows a decrease in sea level rises. Damn!!! Where's all the rapidly melting Arctic ice going to? Maybe it's going to Alaska (the fastest warming place on the planet, apparently) where they've had a snowy time recently:

      "Extreme winter weather has left one Alaskan town battling huge snowdrifts and forced another to seek fuel supplies from a Russian tanker.
      The Alaskan National Guard has arrived to dig out the town of Cordova, which has seen 10ft (3m) of snow in a week."

      How long before some [I'm not allowed to use the word I'd like to use here] person attributes all that snow to global warming?

      "ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The pace of a seagoing fuel convoy slowed on Monday as thick ice threatened the hull of the tanker carrying an emergency shipment of diesel and gasoline for the town of Nome.
      "The worst case scenario is the ice becomes too much for the progress, and we aren't going to make it to Nome," said U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer 1st Class David Mosley. "
      "I would be happy if we never ship through ice again," Sitnasuak Native Corp. chairman Jason Evans told the Alaska Dispatch.
      The Native corporation is a major fuel supplier to the city, with between 800 and 1,000 customers including the hospital and schools."

      Imagine that, using fossil fuels in this day and age!!! Surely they should rely on wind and solar power, those nasty people. Maybe this is why they are sweltering, I mean freezing, it's all because of global warming!!!
      Altogether now - "It's worse than we thought"
      Oh, and in case your alarmist in chief didn't tell you, Greenland is getting whiter, more snow is falling, the trend is up. Something to be happy about, eh, along with the fact that the U.S is cooling at around 0.6F/decade. Hey, deny it all you want, it's true and verifiable. You see, real-world evidence and data trumps extremists' predictions any day.

    • 5 months ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • IceKat:

      Into the air. "Where's all the rapidly melting Arctic ice going to?" It's going into the air, and it's a Greenhouse Gas head-in-sand man!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Next summer you fry sitting in your chair when the overloaded AC quits.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Problem with that theory is the world is cooling. Latest satellite data shows an anomaly of around +0.1C. Hardly an inferno of catastrophic proportions, is it? You need extremely sensitive sensors to measure it and yet we're supposed to believe the world and its inhabitants are all slowly frying? What does it take to believe crap like that?

    • 5 months ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • IceKat:

      I'm looking for a worldwide earthquake swarm, one triggering the next like a row of dominoes. My ticket is punched with Jesus and yours isn't. I play through.

      You scream through. I like my plan better.

    • 5 months ago
  • unimatrix0
  • MSII
  • artemis6
  • IceKat
  • Gravity_Man
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  

    • Like a child at a party who screams and screams until they get what they want, notice how some people post story after story after story to get noticed.
      She who screams loudest and longest must be right, right?
      It's fairly sad to watch, but still fun nonetheless.

    • 5 months ago
  • unimatrix0
  • IceKat
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/09/10/costs-of-extreme-weather-rise-amer...
      As Costs Of Extreme Weather Rise Americans Cannot Afford Denial

      "Climate change denial and ideological opposition to measures that would slow climate change and prepare for its impacts have left the U.S. with no coherent climate change policies. We face the growing threat of climate disruption unprepared and facing ever escalating impacts and costs, raising concerns about the implications for local, state and Federal government budgets, and costs to the private sector. In contrast, in countries where the denialists have not been as influential, coordinated national initiatives to curb emissions and to prepare for climate change have been underway for years.

      The demand for Federal disaster assistance driven in part by a rise in climate extremes is complicating efforts to contain the Federal deficit, and increasing pressure to offset disaster relief with cuts elsewhere in the budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee on 7 September approved a Fiscal Year 2012 budget for Homeland Security that included $6 billion for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, $3.35 billion above FY2011. “We recognize that additional funds may be required to cover damages which have not yet been estimated based on recent flooding in the Midwest, the Northeast, and the South,” said the committee chairman, Senator Daniel K. Inouye (Democrat, Hawaii), in a prepared statement on 7 September. “Accordingly, the amounts could be adjusted as the affected bills continue to move through the legislative process if and when additional cost estimates are confirmed.”

      On 28 July, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, held a hearing on Federal Disaster Assistance Budgeting: "Are We Weather Ready?" [webcast], chaired by Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois). According to a press release issued by Senator Durbin’s office:

      “…Durbin argued that the federal government should follow the lead of the private sector and begin to focus strategically on the long-term budgetary impacts of increasingly severe weather events. “We are not prepared. Our weather events are getting worse, catastrophic in fact,” said Durbin. “The private sector is prepared, but the federal government is ignoring the obvious. We need to do more to protect federal assets and respond to growing demands for disaster assistance on an increasing frequency.”

      Five years earlier, Eugene Linden said in the preface of his book, The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations (2006): “If there is a message to take away from a look back at past predictions of potential calamity, it is that the risks of erring on the side of caution tend to be fewer than the costs of dismissing predicted threats out of hand.” In his excellent op-ed piece, Betting the Farm Against Climate Change, in The Miami Herald on 28 August – the day of Hurricane Irene’s landfall in New Jersey, he again warned of the costs of denial:

      “Leon Trotsky is reputed to have quipped, `You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.' Substitute the words `climate change' for `war' and the quote is perfectly suited for the governors of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, all of whom have ridiculed or dismissed the threat of climate change even as their states suffer record-breaking heat and drought.”

      He says that while they “dismiss climate change, a changing climate imposes costs on their states and the rest of us as well.” Linden warns that there are “real economic costs of mispricing this risk” and that influential deniers -- including those governors -- are “betting the farm” that global warming is a myth. “In the states governed by climate-change deniers — and in the nation as a whole, where we are doing too little to address the threat of a warming globe — nature seems to be calling that bet,” Linden concludes."

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/science/earth/climate-scientists-hampered-in-s...
      They don't want to fund it because it steps on the toes of their OIL masters.

      "At the end of one of the most bizarre weather years in American history, climate research stands at a crossroads.

      Scientists say they could, in theory, do a much better job of answering the question “Did global warming have anything to do with it?” after extreme weather events like the drought in Texas and the floods in New England.

      But for many reasons, efforts to put out prompt reports on the causes of extreme weather are essentially languishing. Chief among the difficulties that scientists face: the political environment for new climate-science initiatives has turned hostile, and with the federal budget crisis, money is tight.

      And so, as the weather becomes more erratic by the year, the public is left to wonder what is going on.

      When 2010 ended, it seemed as if people had lived through a startling year of weather extremes. But in the United States, if not elsewhere, 2011 has surpassed that.

      A typical year in this country features three or four weather disasters whose costs exceed $1 billion each. But this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has tallied a dozen such events, including wildfires in the Southwest, floods in multiple regions of the country and a deadly spring tornado season. And the agency has not finished counting. The final costs are certain to exceed $50 billion.

      “I’ve been a meteorologist 30 years and never seen a year that comes close to matching 2011 for the number of astounding, extreme weather events,” Jeffrey Masters, a co-founder of the popular Web site Weather Underground, said last month. “Looking back in the historical record, which goes back to the late 1800s, I can’t find anything that compares, either.”

      Many of the individual events in 2011 do have precedents in the historical record. And the nation’s climate has featured other concentrated periods of extreme weather, including severe cold snaps in the early 20th century and devastating droughts and heat waves in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s.

      But it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for so many extremes to occur in such a short span. The calamities in 2011 included wildfires that scorched millions of acres, extreme flooding in the Upper Midwest and the Mississippi River Valley and heat waves that shattered records in many parts of the country. Abroad, massive floods inundated Australia, the Philippines and large parts of Southeast Asia.

      A major question nowadays is whether the frequency of particular weather extremes is being affected by human-induced climate change.

      Climate science already offers some insight. Researchers have proved that the temperature of the earth’s surface is rising, and they are virtually certain that the human release of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major reason. For decades, they have predicted that this would lead to changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, and statistics show that has begun to happen.

      For instance, scientists have long expected that a warming atmosphere would result in fewer extremes of low temperature and more extremes of high temperature. In fact, research shows that about two record highs are being set in the United States for every record low, and similar trends can be detected in other parts of the world.

      Likewise, a well-understood physical law suggests that a warming atmosphere should hold more moisture. Scientists have directly measured the moisture in the air and confirmed that it is rising, supplying the fuel for heavier rains, snowfalls and other types of storms.

      “We are changing the large-scale properties of the atmosphere — we know that beyond a shadow of a doubt,” said Benjamin D. Santer, a leading climate scientist who works at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “You can’t engage in this vast planetary experiment — warming the surface, warming the atmosphere, moistening the atmosphere — and have no impact on the frequency and duration of extreme events.”

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/2011-extreme-weather-climate-0571.html
      2011 Breaks Records For Extreme Weather Damage

      "2011 has been an incredible year of climate extremes for the United States.

      On Monday, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) hosted a telephone press conference to discuss links between climate change and extreme weather and consequences for businesses and local communities. Meanwhile, on Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to release a report on climate change and weather extremes and ways that countries can build resilience.

      So far, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the nation’s extreme weather score-keeper, has recorded 10 disasters between January and August that each inflicted more than $1 billion in damage. Recent events could drive the 2011 total to a record-breaking 14 weather disasters, adding up to an estimated $53 billion in costs, according to a preliminary analysis by Jeff Masters, chief meteorologist at Weather Underground.

      “Mother Nature has made it abundantly clear this year the gloves are off,” he said. “And, with climate change likely to boost the destructive power of storms, heat waves and droughts, we can expect an increasing number of these bare-knuckle years in the decades to come.”

      Insurers often are the ones who cover the costs of weather disasters and they’re becoming increasingly interested in how risk from climate change alter the insurance landscape, according to Rowan Douglas, Chairman of Willis Research Network and CEO of Willis Analytics, both part of Willis Group Holdings, a U.K.-based global insurance brokerage.

      “There is an emerging and very important link developing between climate science and finance and relevant areas of financial regulation,” he said. “And it’s being driven increasingly by the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.”

      Douglas said many insurance companies are required to withstand losses from events that might occur every 100 to 200 years. As climate change shifts the frequency and intensity of weather extremes, the amount of money insurance companies will need to have on hand is likely to shift, he said.

      Local governments, meanwhile, bear the brunt of extreme weather events. Brian Holland, Climate Program Director for ICLEI -- Local Governments for Sustainability shared the results of a recent survey his organization conducted in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology among ICELI’s 298 members. The survey found that 59 percent said they are engaged in some form of climate preparedness work and that reducing impacts from hazardous weather was among their top reasons for doing so.

      “Cities and counties are increasingly engaged in preparing for climate change,” he said. “Many are approaching it from the angle of responding to extreme weather. Despite some real challenges in identifying resources to do climate adaptation, we expect to see continued growth in the number of communities attempting to build resilience to climate change and extreme weather.”

      Holland noted several preparedness measures underway: in Lewes, Delaware, the city council unanimously adopted a hazard plan for dealing with coastal storms that take climate change into account; several states and cities have joined a Western Adaptation Alliance, which will grapple with climate change and water availability; and ICLEI is working with San Diego officials to respond to sea level rise.

      Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS climate scientist, emphasized the varying levels of scientific certainty when it comes to links between extreme weather and climate change. “In some cases, the links between extreme weather and climate change are crystal clear,” she said. “In other cases, the picture is murkier.”

      Ekwurzel said scientists see the strongest links to extreme heat and shifts in precipitation away from lighter and toward heavier events, meaning longer periods of drought punctuated by heavy flooding. "

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2008

      This is also about the economic loss in a world where austerity measures already choke the poorest in many countries of the world. Those who state that cutting funds for environment and climate disaster is prudent are not seeing the big picture. The loss and cost in agriculture alone worldwide is staggering because we on the whole would rather allow polluters to continue polluting and spewing out CO2. It is insanity.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Funds are being cut because even governments who once saw the financial viability of riding along with the climate change scam are now seeing the reality of the situation. The people are also seeing how they have been hoodwinked into believing the world was in danger and how we all must pay for it (and feel guilty about driving, having lights on and being warm). The game is all but over. There are still a few rogue extremists out there who will try to scare people for ideals and politics, but the vast majority of people are now seeing that the climate isn't broken, they aren't going to have to build an ark anytime soon, and there are a hell of a lot more pressing matters to deal with in this world than a few ppm of CO2.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  

    • And once again as usual there is the attempt to hypocritically discredit the person instead of focusing on the reality. Again the distractions about how much time we spend here as if that is even relevant to anything. Again the distractions about who we support and agree with because it fits in with their inability to articulate their own "side" effectively. Again they don't see the devastation of crops. The deaths. The changes to biodiversity. The millions of trees lost in droughts and loss of agriculture. The acidification of our oceans harming marinelife and other ecosystems. The wildlife gone. The effects on water sources that are now effecting life for millions. The millions of refugees already moving from their homelands. The culture affected. Why do they refuse to see all that? Because they don't care about anyone else. Only their agenda. They never stray from the talking points because they don't want you to see the human side to this.

      Humans and other species are dying and we are changing our relationship with this planet because of the effects of our behavior. What REAL scientists have been telling us is coming to pass and we are woefully unprepared to protect this planet and ourselves from its escalation, because we are part of it. There is no time left for those who do nothing here and elsewhere but play on their own psychological and ideological biases and fears of a changing planet and who think they are above it all.

      After what we have seen slowly building up for the last three plus decades, the only time we have left is time we need to look beyond their distractions and get busy in working to decrease our emissions and work on ways to sequester carbon and decrease our emissions of greenhouse gases as a whole. It is simply the right thing to do to protect our environment from pollution and to keep it as thriving as possible for those to come. To continue to ramp up the atmosphere and load the dice is a fool's errand. Anyone with any caring for this planet at all and those living on it knows that. As far as anything else at this point, it is what is irrelevant. I choose to focus on the relevant.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      "And once again as usual there is the attempt to hypocritically discredit the person instead of focusing on the reality. "

      Whenever I post comments discrediting your scare stories I present data, charts and graphs and relevant information. This is always brushed aside and labelled 'crayon graphs' from discredited or unnamed sources. Strange, seeing as they usualy come from meteorological agencies and the likes of NOAA NASA and other agencies. So any accusations of not focusing on reality fall entirely with people who post weather stories and attribute them to man.

      "Again the distractions about how much time we spend here as if that is even relevant to anything. "

      Again? This is the first time I've mentioned the hours and hours you spend here.

      "Again the distractions about who we support and agree with because it fits in with their inability to articulate their own "side" effectively. "

      I agree, I do label you as being a supporter of known and discredited people such as Hansen and Gore who are little more than extremists in the same camp as yourself. I am labeled frequently as either being a Koch brother or being paid by them, it works both ways. It is you who has on many occasions proclaimed not just your support for Gore, but also your "love" for him. That is exactly the reason why no-one can take you seriously, and the labeling is justly deserved.

      "Again they don't see the devastation of crops. The deaths. The changes to biodiversity. The millions of trees lost in droughts and loss of agriculture. "

      Do 'they' not? Have you asked 'them' whether they've been to some of these places? Some of 'them' have!!! The point is some people have seen the reality and also seen the causes. Yes, some malpractice is happening, something you would do well to get off your own ass and see for yourself, and contribute to personally and tangibly rather than sitting there day after day writing rubbish blaming man for everything you don't like.

      Yes trees have been lost in droughts and floods, but this is nothing new!!! You seem to have the impression that the world began in 1970 and it was all downhill since then. Wake up!!!

      "The millions of refugees already moving from their homelands. The culture affected. Why do they refuse to see all that?"

      Because of man-made climate change? Or are these refugees moving because of wars and politics? How many refugees have we seen swimming from the Maldives recently? Approximately none, even though we were told the islands were under severe threat of sea level rises, and yet they're building holiday complexes with 40 years guarantees and new airports. Something just doesn't ring true there Jan, think about that!

      "Because they don't care about anyone else. "

      We care more about people than you seem to. You seem hell bent on taxing CO2 and any form of energy that isn't wind or solar. A promise of more expensive energy for everyone, including the elderly and those who can least afford it. Nice one Jan! Thanks!!
      And who doesn't care about people, me or your girl-wonder, Coolplanet who couldn't give a **** about human life, "Well i want to know how many kangaroos, koala bears and dingo dogs died.
      Who cares about 10 humans?" - Coolplanet 12th Jan 2011

      So you can go on and on about the weather and how it isn't the way you think it should be, but science, real science says you're wrong. The bottom line is the debate is far from over, in fact it's just beginning and is wide open, and what's more, people on your side are beginning to look very silly as more and more evidence is being discovered that shows CO2 and man was not responsible for the floods, droughts or warmer than usual days.
      Your planet is once again cooling. As the planet cools it does so unevenly. This causes mismatches in the atmosphere, and that is the cause of your weather. Granted, it isn't as simple as that and there are other factors involved, such as multi-decadal cycles and external factors.

      "What REAL scientists have been telling us is coming to pass..."

      Er no Jan, not REAL scientist at all. You man what extremists and doom-mongers have been telling us is coming to pass. And yes, I fully agree with you - their predictions are all coming true... but only because they predicted everything!!! They said there would be warm years, cold years, more floods, less floods. More rain, less rain, more snow, less snow... the list is endless, so yes, they were bound to get something right. And of course when they do, they then say it's down to man-made global warming, entirely without any proof whatsoever, and people like you grab this and run with it because it speaks your (and Gore's) language.
      Man-made global warming remains a theory, and a pretty poor one at that.

      "It is simply the right thing to do to protect our environment from pollution and to keep it as thriving as possible for those to come."

      Agreed. I hate pollution as much, if not more, than you. But CO2 is not pollution. You really need to get that into your head.

      You can keep on posting your "weather is caused by man" rants, but don't expect me to sit here and give you an easy ride. I know it's difficult for you to cope with people like me who post credible counter-evidence in, what is, your safe haven: a place where you are welcomed and liked by a handful of people, but I'm going to continue to walk straight into your "Current" home and **** all over your posts with real evidence that makes you uncomfortable and shows your propaganda for what it is.

      Do have a nice evening :)

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  

    • Seeing as JanforGore can't stand free speech, I will re-submit my censored entry with the offending bit changed.
      I hope this is more pleasant to they eye:

      Anyone who picks out all the worst extremes of weather, clumps them all together and adds some emotive language in order to make some sort of ideological statement must [be a really nice person].
      If there hadn't been masses of evidence from past centuries of similar or even worse events taking place they may have a point. But this is nothing new by any means, and to assert that this is all happening because CO2 has risen above a level with they consider safe is sheer and absolute idiocy.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      When, exactly, do you sleep and live? Just a cursory look through your page shows activity spanning hours and hours! You must spend the vast majority of your life trawling the internet looking for stories of doom and gloom to re-post here with comments linking them to man's CO2 contributions.
      And as for accusing me of being a stalker, well I am sorry for commenting on your posts in a public forum that invites comments. Maybe I should go away, not participate? Should I go and watch "An inconvenient truth" and come back when I've "learned" something?
      Should I go and read some "green" blogs and come back when I've been indoctrinated?

      "You aren't worth the time."
      Thanks for replying :)

    • 5 months ago
  • lamborghini
    • +2
      lamborghini  

    • Hey Jan I haven't commented on here in months because this place has one downhill. You are one of the only reasons I even look in here. Just wanted to say your too good for this place. Why hasn't Al Gore hired you yet?

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  

    • http://current.com/technology/93464821_climate-communication-the-science-has-nev...

      The Science Has Never Been So Compelling, The Public Never More Misled

      "By 2020 we will see the melting tundra release methane gas which will lead to disaster. Throughout the course of history we were always around 280 parts per million CO2 levels. This is now an undeniable fact. In 1980, we were at 328 parts per million. We are now at 393 parts per million. We must get down to 350 parts per million. Analogy: If you drain a bathtub at the same rate as you fill it, you are OK. But instead, we have and extra straw sized hose that is adding to the bathtub water. Over 100 years, you can see how the bathtub will overflow. There has been a 3 degree centigrade rise in temperature. There is a double digit rise in Alaska. This is a HUGE change, we are desperate and out of time. Everything will peak in 2020."
      ____
      That is a scenario I can actually see based on the rate of Co2 emissions and the fact that it appears the global community is not going to do anything near adequate to counterbalance this. At the rate we are going now I can see action becoming less effective because we waited too long. This is why sustainable agriculture in developing countries and in industrialized countries at a certain percentage to start is so crucial. We don't have time to invent big technological gizmos costing us billions more that only make others rich without knowing for sure they will counter this. I too after reading these reports and watching this unfold know that once you go over 400 ppm you are beyond the danger zone in regards to being able to live in that human comfort zone. The sad thing about all of this is that it is preventable if people have the education, information and tools they need to counter this. We have to face that what we have put there over the last century plus is already having an effect. The point is to lessen that effect for the future to the point that it will not become catastrophic. However, when you have people out here either by design or paycheck telling people that Co2 doesn't even trap heat so there isn't anything to worry about, there is something to worry about.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -3
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Spin it any way you want, and censor my comments if you will, but it makes no difference - CO2 is not causing your planet to heat up, neither is it causing any of the bad (or good) weather we are seeing.
      You really have to keep up with real science and not be so glued to the extremists, small number though they are, who have now managed to corrupt science.

    • 5 months ago
  • MSII
    • +2
      MSII  
    • IceKat:

      I just have to ask how much are they paying you? Cock , err excuse me, Koch brothers, or is it Rove, or the oil companies, maybe Faux Noise channel? Just can't help but be curious.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • MSII:

      Well, how intelligent and mature of you to spew-up a well used and redundant reply.
      It's probably best if you do some growing up, don't you think?

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  

    • POWERFUL stuff!
      Geez, I thought I was on top of all the weather disasters of 2011 but Geez!!!
      Beautifully done!
      You deserve the Current Award for journalistic excellence.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • JanforGore:

      Don't waste your time sending it to any Republicans. They know full well this is real and threatens all life on Earth but they are only concerned about election cycles and hoarding wealth.
      Send it to Senators Franken and Whitehouse to show them support from people like you and me.
      Fuck the Republicans! They are a hopeless case.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • coolplanet:

      It truly opens your eyes when you look at the big picture and I actually left a couple out. That's why some would rather keep us in the dark. And thanks, I think it is imperative this be catalogued. Thinking of sending it to certain members of Congress and or presidential candidates.

    • 5 months ago
  • MSII
    • +1
      MSII  
    • coolplanet:

      Agree, it's all about their precious holy-dollars and mad extreme religious ideology (jezuz is coming soon to destroy the world anyway...). Trying to "reason" with certifiably mentally deranged people is wasted effort. These people are psychologically heavily, deeply invested in their mad dogma.

    • 5 months ago
  • artemis6
  • JanforGore
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • JanforGore:

      It just makes me sick that so few really care about this most important problem all of us face.
      Most people blithely believe that God will answer our prayers or that it's simply evolution or that we somehow deserve to destroy ourselves in some nihlistic frenzy of consumption.
      I see the way the Kock Brothers attack you. It is most disconcerting.
      I just want you to know how very much we at Current appreciate all the hard work and love you have contributed over the years!

    • 5 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • coolplanet:

      That is truly appreciated. It is fairly obvious there is so much truth here that they and their guilt cannot dispute as they have nothing else. To some it is also just a contest or a grudge here because as they stated they find me, "repulsive." I guess to some truth is repulsive. And it is also because this shows that it is a human issue and not one they can relegate to graphs about eras passed eons ago to make it look distant. It shows our behavior is killing people now. It shows a link between fossil fuels/deforestation and destruction, and of course those in the employ of disputing that or those who just don't give a damn about people in these places can't dispute it anymore. But hey, do I wish more people would respond in these threads? Yes, because I particularly put my heart and soul into this and it's important. All some others have to do is post the phone book here and they get to the top. It's bad enough the media is owned by their fossil fuel lords and this is for the most part silenced. I guess you have to be an actor or politician to be listened to otherwise in this world. Oh well, the reality is what it is. Refusing to face it at this point only makes you an ideological fool, or a paid off fool. Thanks again.

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      "All some others have to do is post the phone book here and they get to the top."

      Sour grapes? Maybe other people write about important and interesting things, and don't try to fool others by telling them the weather is bad because their grandfather lit a coal fire a few years ago.
      You wish more people would respond? Sure, but whenever someone questions anything, and I mean anything, you go off and rant on and on and accuse them of either being idiots because they don't agree that man caused the heatwave over Texas, or they're being paid by someone to write the things they do! What's that all about?
      You find it unbelievable that someone can hold a different view to yours, which is fed by a love of Mr. Gore. You admit that much yourself, and because of that, not one single person can take the slightest thing you say seriously.
      Over 1000 followers Jan, where are the +1000 votes?

    • 5 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  
    • coolplanet:

      "I see the way the Kock Brothers attack you."

      Don't you mean individuals who have never received a penny from anyone with an interest in the oil/coal industry?
      Don't you mean people with their own thoughts and beliefs based upon decades of research?
      Don't you mean people who have actually traveled to some of the countries talked about in these pages and seen for themselves real life, and talked to people who have lived there for decades?

      If your best response is to accuse anyone with opposing views as being funded by the Koch brothers, you really need to grow up and join a debate about knitting or something you may have some knowledge about.

    • 5 months ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos