Comments on: Did global warming cause the Atlanta flood?

By: Bill Dillard

Bill Dillard — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:25:35 +0000

It is ironic that the same people who solemnly intone that 11 straight years without any increase in atmospheric temperatures does not disprove global warming routinely jump at the opportunity to attribute a single weather event to global warming. They are nonetheless correct that 11 years of cooling does not disprove the possibility of AGW, but what it does disprove is the entire scientific argument that has been marshaled in support of the theory. That argument is based on models, and though climatological models and meteorological models have vastly different time horizons, they all share this one characteristic with every other model attempting to predict future events. And that is this: the further you get from the date of the model, the less confidence you can have in its predictions, as variables either improperly accounted for, or unaccounted for altogether, increasingly exert their influence over real world results. So yes, AGW isn’t disproven by 11 years of cooling (or no-warming), but the models on which so much of the hysteria is based, and which did not predict this 11 year hiatus, but instead predicted continued warming, have been shown to be seriously flawed. It would seem to me that the burden of proof should be on those who insist upon such dramatic sacrifices. The case they have erected, model by model, has (pun intended) slowly melted into a puddle as Mother Nature simply refuses to cooperate with agenda-driven social engineers who, having suffered through the rejection of socialism on the economic merits in the 20th century, try to resurrect the shopworn case for statism by environmental imperative in the 21st.

By: Midwest Mark

Midwest Mark — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:33:29 +0000

Excuse me Earl, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Are you suggesting that the only reason I was able to drive to work today was because the U.S. military is in Iraq and Afghanistan? You DO know that we get only a very small fraction of our oil from Iraq, correct? Most of our oil comes from Canada, then Saudi Arabia, then Mexico and Venezuela. Iraq actually comes in down the list–somewhere below Brazil. If we’re deploying our military to secure the flow of oil, then we’re doing a pretty lousy job (unless we have troops in Canada and Mexico!).

By: Earl_E

Earl_E — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:49:05 +0000

Institute socialism? What a childish perspective. Socialism is all about us. We pay a very low price for gas at the pump because we have a tremendous military component in place worldwide to keep it that way.

If Exxon had to pay for military support, the cost of a gallon of gas would exceed the value of an ounce of gold. Half of the entire medical community works for Medicaid and Medicare. The entire coastal region of the USA has government insurance because private insurance companies won’t cover them anymore.

If you think your green peppers are cheap because they are grown in Chile and shipped 3000 miles to your local grocery is logical, you fail to understand how the cost of gas is the basis of our entire way of life.

You commute 45 miles a day to work because our military has been hijacked by oil, gas, and weapons manufacturerers.

This socialism has been entrenched since WWII and your inability to see that is the cataract of our demise.

By: Sarge

Sarge — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:48:29 +0000

I am duly impressed…(yawn)

Could the flooding have had anything to do with the topography…you know…low-lying areas generally get wet while higher elevations just get damp. I don’t know, kinda makes sense to me.

By: Midwest Mark

Midwest Mark — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:44:37 +0000

Just curious…did global warming also produce our record cold July (”Record,” as in coldest since weather records were first collected–in the late 19th century)? And has it caused temperature levels in the Midwest to remain below average for most of the year? Man! That global warming is one tricky phenomenon… I suppose you’re going to tell me that GW is also responsible for the increase in Arctic ice extent this year (which was more extensive than 2008…which was also more extensive than 2007).

By: Tara

Tara — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:09:33 +0000

Global Warming is real. Look it up. Even though there may not be a such thing as Global Warming we should always be caring for the Earth.

By: Roald A

Roald A — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:51:44 +0000

Jim,

Global WARMING caused the drought you had last year.

Global COOLING caused the flood you had just now.

Everybody knows this.

By: Buzz Bernard

Buzz Bernard — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:43:54 +0000

Enter your comments here Sorry Mr. Galloway, but I agree with Mr. Freedman, the answer is NOT “yes.” “Setting the table” is not the same thing as “causing.” Here’s some more of what Mr. Ostro said: “…the atmosphere is very complex, and with any weather event there’s a combination of factors rather than a single one for an outright cause. Additionally, there’s no way of knowing what would have happened without the climate having changed.”

By: Jack Poynter

Jack Poynter — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:10:33 +0000

Um, excuse me for posting yet again, but I know the answer to PK’s question, because I’ve been following the NOAA website at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov all year. The people on the site, who monitor and predict tropical storms, say that there are three reasons for the low tropical storm count in the Atlantic basin this hear:
1. Lower than normal temperatures in the “hurricane conveyor belt,” which runs from the Cape Verde Islands to the Caribbean,
2. Prevalent Saharan dust, which dries the atmosphere, and
3. Meteorological conditions which promote “wind shear,” which tends to blow tropical storms to pieces before they can get started.

My opinion, as opposed to the above which are statements from the website, is that the lower temperatures in the Atlantic basin are caused by the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation, which if I remember correctly, has a thirty-year period. It runs opposite to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so when temps are falling in the Atlantic, temps are rising in the Pacific. And the Pacific is having some real problems with typhoons this year.

The point is that there is a lot more to tropical storm frequency than just temperature. You need sea-surface temps greater than 27 degrees centigrade, but you also need relatively linear air flow and moisture in the atmosphere. So counting the frequency and magnitude of tropical storms is a loser as regards global warming, unless the results are weighted by those other factors.

By: PK

PK — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:48:56 +0000

And weren’t all the Hurricane “experts” calling for bigger and badder Hurricanes going forward because of this “Global Warming” ? What have we had, 2 Hurricanes all year ? And the end of the season is pretty near.