Thursday, May 26, 2011
Say, How About That Weather?
In a nutshell, we're screwed.
What's up with the weather?
Scientists say there are connections between many of the severe weather events of the past month and global warming.
"Basically, as we warm the world up, the atmosphere can hold more moisture in it," said Anne Jefferson, an assistant professor in the geography and Earth science department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
"Weather patterns that used to be limited to the South move farther north now," she said. "Both of those things together will increase the frequency with which we see these big rainstorms, and those are likely to increase flooding in the future.
I read recently (no link, sorry) that as we put more energy (as expressed by rising temperatures) into what is essentially a chaotic system (weather) we expand the parameters of what we can expect. Not only will we see more storms and tornados, we'll see a greater frequency of exceptionally strong weather events. What was once rare, starts becoming more frequent. Buckle up, looks like we're in for a bumpy ride.
What's up with the weather?
Scientists say there are connections between many of the severe weather events of the past month and global warming.
"Basically, as we warm the world up, the atmosphere can hold more moisture in it," said Anne Jefferson, an assistant professor in the geography and Earth science department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
"Weather patterns that used to be limited to the South move farther north now," she said. "Both of those things together will increase the frequency with which we see these big rainstorms, and those are likely to increase flooding in the future.
I read recently (no link, sorry) that as we put more energy (as expressed by rising temperatures) into what is essentially a chaotic system (weather) we expand the parameters of what we can expect. Not only will we see more storms and tornados, we'll see a greater frequency of exceptionally strong weather events. What was once rare, starts becoming more frequent. Buckle up, looks like we're in for a bumpy ride.
Labels: climate change, global warming, weather
Monday, April 04, 2011
Shooting The Messenger
What happens when you go off the conservative script. Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.” Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality. For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage. But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. I'm paraphrasing here, but I recently read somewhere that the Republicans deny basic science for political reasons. AS its been said before, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Labels: climate change, enviroment, global warming
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
More On Fox
It was just a few days ago that I posted the information from MediaMatters For America on how Fox's news editors instructed news staffers to use language favorable to the Republican party's agenda in reporting on health care reform.
Looks like they did it with climate change as well:
In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
Looks like they did it with climate change as well:
In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
Labels: climate change, global warming, SCLM
