iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Heat Waves Could Be Common By 2039 In U.S., Finds Stanford Study

Heatwave

First Posted: 07/13/10 12:39 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:00 PM ET

Devastating heat waves that result in fatalities and crop losses may increasingly become a common occurrence in the United States over the next three decades, according to a team of Stanford University researchers.

"Using a large suite of climate model experiments, we see a clear emergence of much more intense, hot conditions in the U.S. within the next three decades,: Noah Diffenbaugh, the lead author of the study, told the Stanford Report.

"In the next 30 years, we could see an increase in heat waves like the one now occurring in the eastern United States or the kind that swept across Europe in 2003 that caused tens of thousands of fatalities," said Diffenbaugh, a center fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. "Those kinds of severe heat events also put enormous stress on major crops like corn, soybean, cotton and wine grapes, causing a significant reduction in yields."

The group studied the hottest U.S. temperatures from 1950-1999, then fed them through multiple forecasting models that can simulate daily temperatures in the U.S. The forecasting models were based on the likely occurrence that carbon dioxide could raise temperatures 1.8 degrees Celsius.

Even if countries around the world meet the climate change goals put forward at the Copenhagen Climate Accord, and stop the world from warming by 2 degrees Celsius, smaller temperature increases could still contribute towards extreme weather.

To Diffenbaugh, the findings mean that to avoid severe heat waves, governments must look at the possibility that even a two degree increase is too much. "It's up to the policymakers to decide the most appropriate action," Diffenbaugh told The Stanford Report. "But our results suggest that limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius does not guarantee that there won't be damaging impacts from climate change."

In the past few days, a record heat wave in Russia has killed five people and prompted the government to call for siestas. During the month of June, high temperatures in the U.S. killed five seniors in Maryland, four people in Philadelphia, four people in Dallas, and three people in Tennessee.

On Sunday, train passengers in Germany had to vacate three trains after air conditioning broke down and temperatures reached 122 degrees Farenheit. Some were hospitalized.

Also this week, NASA data shows that global temperatures recorded from January through June 2010 were the highest ever.

Climate scientist Joe Romm notes:

It's all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming "because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect," as a recent NASA must-read paper notes. [...]


It still seems likely that 2010 will be the hottest year on record, but NOAA now predicts that "La Niña conditions are likely to develop during July - August 2010." If the La Niña comes fast and deep (as in 1998 and 2007), that could make it a close call in the NASA dataset -- and even more so in the satellite record, which is much more sensitive to ENSO ( El Niño Southern oscillation).

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Devastating heat waves that result in fatalities and crop losses may increasingly become a common occurrence in the United States over the next three decades, according to a team of Stanford Universit...
Devastating heat waves that result in fatalities and crop losses may increasingly become a common occurrence in the United States over the next three decades, according to a team of Stanford Universit...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,036
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (81 total)
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
06:47 PM on 07/27/2010
Note to moderator. Some dip stick has been going through and systematically flagging all posts by Publicola. Publicola is one of the great contributors on the subject of climate change, offering numerous patient posts with a scientific basis.

Moderators, if you know who is flagging Pub, I wish you would take action.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:55 AM on 07/22/2010
If you are an old gardener, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you are an old farmer, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you are an old woodsman, hunter, or fisherman who spends a lot of time outdoors and knows how to observe, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you are a climatologist, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you are a pentagon planner, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you are any one of the vast number of scientists in international academies of science around the world, you know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you listen to and believe college drop outs Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, you don’t know that the climate is getting warmer.
If you listen to and believe Richard Lindzen, “Lord” Christopher Monckton, Senator Inhoffe, Mark Moran o or any one of a number of people or web sites with known links to Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, or the “Competitive”Enterprise Institute, you will come to the wrong conclusion about the planet’s climate.
IMO,when people are comfortable in their belief system, they tend to defend it tooth and nail, even when it is absolutely, completely wrong. "This lifestyle of mine is so comfortable... how can it be wrong? From its cosmology to its daily details,its abundant food and drink, its SUVs, it all makes me happy, therefore.... it must be right...!"
01:09 AM on 07/21/2010
It could also get really cold, or stay the same...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:44 AM on 07/22/2010
Support your claim with scientific evidence.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:08 PM on 07/16/2010
SanDiegoView: "Eco-worship- The latest 'new' fraud in global religious frauds. "

That's pretty ironic, given that your source to "demonstrate" as much - Edward F Blick - is a Young Earth Creationist:

http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong

Are you a Young Earth Creationist too, SanDiegoView?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:53 PM on 07/16/2010
More from SanDiegoView's science denier source Dr. Edward F Blick, "proving" that the Earth is far younger than the ~4.5 billion years that real science indicates that it is and that Creationism is real:

---------------------------------------

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. The total amount is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were billions of years old. Salt is pouring into the oceans much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not salty enough for it to be billions of years old. Radioactive dating methods have been found to be totally unreliable. Volcanic rocks formed in 1986 during the Mount St. Helens eruption were dated by the potassium-argon method to be 0.35 million years old. Similar anomalies were discoveries in other volcanoes in the Pacific.

In a stunning rebuttal of Lamb’s 65 million years for the youngest age of dinosaurs, Mary Schweitzer, of Montana State University found red blood cells and soft fibrous tissue in the leg bone of a T. rex dinosaur. (New Scientist, 24 March 2005). This blood and soft tissue could not have lasted more than a few thousand years.

There are no proofs of life arising from inorganic material. The Urey-Miller experiments were found worthless and discarded years ago. There are no proofs of macroevolution. Darwin tried. ...

continued...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:58 PM on 07/16/2010
The Nobel Prize winner for penicillin, Sir Ernest Chain, scornfully denounced [Darwin's] “Survival of the Fittest” theory as nothing but a truism and not to be taken seriously.

Haeckel (one of the founders of the Nazi party) in 1868 attempted to rescue Darwinism with his embryo drawings but they were discovered to be fakes. Prof. Richard Goldschmidt failed to prove macroevolution after 25 years of mutation experiments on fruit flies in Berlin and University of California. His book “The Material Basis for Evolution” (1940) literally tore to pieces the mutation theory of evolution. He proposed a new theory he called the “Hopeful Monster Mechanism” (i.e. an alligator laid an egg and a turkey hatched out!). Of course it had to happen twice in order to have male and female. Harvard’s Stephen Gould (1972) and John Hopkins Steven Stanley (1972) dressed up the “Hopeful Monster Mechanism” with more scientific names, “Punctuated Equilibrium” and “Quantum Speciation.”...

Since evolution has never been proved scientifically, it must be believed by faith. Hence it is a religion. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum spent a lifetime studying fossils. In 1981 he stated that after 20 years of research he was ready to give up on evolution, because he had not been able to come up with one thing that proved it. Dr. Lynn Margolis... predicted that history would judge neo-Darwinism as a minor 20th century religious sect.

http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:30 PM on 07/16/2010
So the same guy -- Edward F Blick -- that SanDiegoView has repeatedly cited here as "proof" that global warming is a "religion" has by his same "scientific" standards also "proven" that:

1: Earth is less than 10,000 years old

2: Dinosaurs walked the Earth a few thousand years ago

3: Evolution is a religion.

I wonder if SanDiegoView believes Blick's "proofs" here, too.

What say you, SanDiegoView - are you like Blick a young Earth Creationist too?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:00 PM on 07/17/2010
Me: "What say you, SanDiegoView - are you like Blick a Young Earth Creationist too?"

SanDiegoView: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:02 PM on 07/16/2010
Edward F Blick, Young Earth Creationist: "The 0.6 Fo warming of Earth during the twentieth century"

Lie. The earth warmed ~0.7 C over the twentieth century, ~1.3 F.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-graph-that-should-be_b_582434.html

Edward F Blick, Young Earth Creationist: "was due to large increases in sunspots and solar irradiance (Fig. 1)."

Lie. That "Figure 1" shows a warming trend until 1960; from 1960 to 2000 the trend is essentially flat.

[ Note to SanDiegoView, who has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand what a statistical trend is:

Again, the trend over that time period is essentially flat, the solar cycle variation within that time period notwithstanding. ]

I could go on, but Blick is a demonstrated liar who also uses "science" to assert that the Earth is under 10,000 years old . These are the types of sources that global warming deniers rely on to mislead and misinform the public about the science of global warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:28 PM on 07/16/2010
Question: Is there any evidence of man-induced global warming?

Answer: No. The 0.6 Fo warming of Earth during the twentieth century was due to large increases in sunspots and solar irradiance (Fig. 1). The Sun caused the warming. During this time period, astronomers observed the Sun warming Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto. The evidence: the shrinking of CO2 ice caps, moons changing from solid ice to liquid, frozen nitrogen turning to gas etc. Man’s activity on Earth did not warm the planets. During this time period CO2 bubbled out of the warming ocean (just as it bubbles out of a warming glass of carbonated beverage) and increased the amount of atmospheric CO2. The active Sun caused both an increase in temperature of 0.6 Fo, and atmospheric CO2. There has only been a 3 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 due to man’s use of fossil fuels.

Edward F Blick, PhD
Former USAF Weatherman
Retired Prof. Engineering & Meteorology
Univ. of Oklahoma

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PrimeronGlobalWarming.pdf

Eco-worship- The latest 'new' fraud in global religious frauds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
06:31 PM on 07/16/2010
Spam spam spam spam spam eggs and spam.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
06:42 PM on 07/16/2010
Oh, and factually incorrect spam at that.

Perhaps you or the good Dr. can explain why the isotopic signature of the added CO2 matches what you get when you burn fossil fuels and not what "bubbles out of the ocean".

Or why we're still warming far into a period od historically low solar activity.

Or how two temperature readings the Plutonian equivalent of 14 weeks apart constitutes evidence of global warming there. Or why we wouldn't just think, "Maybe it's warming because it's springtime there"--which it is. Or why we wouldn't think the same about Neptune. Or why Uranus is cooling. Or why we are at ALL suprised that some portion of the 100 or so large bodies in the solar system are warming. They're all either warming or cooling, you know.

It is, however, good to see that you've added retired weatherment to British tabloids as your source of climate science information.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:17 PM on 07/16/2010
NASA, NOAA, NIS, and the world's national academies of science understand that the globe is warming, and that CO2 is a major contributor. Skeptics.... please stop embarrassing yourselves with the grandiose belief that you are smarter than the world's best scientists... You are not! Do you constantly check yourself to see why you believe what you believe? Do you constantly check and re-check your sources of data to make sure they are right? Or do you grab the first headline that supports your view, regardless of where it comes from ? Do you ever question your own viewpoint? Many of us on the Global Warming side do so constantly. And the more we look, the more pieces of the puzzle come together and indicate that burning fossil fuels is rapidly warming up the planet. And as one might expect, the fossil fuel lobbyists are fighting this fact as if it were the end of their gravy train. Which it well might be.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:05 PM on 07/16/2010
Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010.

This must be a result of that famous "Global Cooling" that Fox News and company were crowing about in February.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:02 PM on 07/16/2010
SanDiegoView: "The Daily Mail did not lie as you suggested."

So what part of my previous post - reproduced here - are you still not clear on?

========================================

Again, the Daily Mail tabloid outright lies.

Example:

---------------------
The Economist

Journalistic malpractice on global warming

Feb 22nd 2010

....Rather than 'taking a stance', newspapers should do [a] better job of describing the nuances of scientific findings. I know I'm being delusional, though. I mean, how many science/engineering graduates go into journalism?

Good point. For example, a week ago Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, gave an interview to the BBC that was widely described as a debacle. The main reason was that the BBC reporter asked Mr Jones whether he would concede that global warming since 1995 has not been statistically significant. Mr Jones replied: "Yes, but only just," and went on to note that there was a measured global warming of 0.12°C per decade since then, and that it tends to be harder to get statistical significance out of shorter time samples.

This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
08:07 PM on 07/16/2010
I would wager very few engineers and science students go into journalism. They are probably biased toward an exactitude that does not encourage spin.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:01 PM on 07/16/2010
Hey trolls. What part of this sentence are you failing to understand:

" Also this week, NASA data shows that global temperatures recorded from January through June 2010 were the highest ever."

Oh, I see, NASA faked the moon landing so you can't trust them.

What a bunch of tinfoil hat lunatics. Moon bats.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:55 PM on 07/16/2010
Latif did not renounce his statements in the above piece, but rather the conclusions that some choose to draw from them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

Can you specifically cite and link where Latif renounces that he made those specific statements to David Rose at the Daily Mail?

"...which Latif says misreported him...'

Misquoted is different then your use of 'misreported'. Misquoted is a specific claim concerning specific statements while your use of 'misreported' backs Latif's problem with those who draws different conclusions.

Can you specifically cite and link where Latif renounces that he made specific statements to David Rose quoted at the Daily Mail?

==============

Again, the Daily Mail tabloid outright lies.

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie....
Publicola

==============

The Daily Mail did not lie as you suggested. They simply drew different conclusions than Latif would accept about his study. A difference of opinion is not lying. Unless your religion has become environmental extremism and fanatical devotion to fear mongering CO2 fixation blaming of mankind for insignificant 'global warming'.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:05 PM on 07/16/2010
Again, the Daily Mail tabloid lies on global warming - see above.

And again:

Gotta love your deceptively selective quoting. Or not.

The Daily Mail tabloid article starts with:

-------------------------------
The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
-------------------------------

That statement is deceptive on two levels:

1: As Latif noted "we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years" - not the next 2-3 decades

2: The claime that one of "global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished belief: is "that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013" is a lie - that is not scientific consensus, and never has been.

Did I mention that the Daily Mail tabloid lies about global warming?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:24 PM on 07/16/2010
Thanks for your additional endless inability to answer simple questions. Specifics are dangerous things to those of you living in eco-worship fantasyland.

When you can answer the question with direct facts and instead of your efforts at claiming the opinions of others are lies...then you yourself will become only slightly less deceiving.

The question still stands-

Can you specifically cite and link where Latif renounces that he made those 'specific statements' to David Rose at the Daily Mail?

You are about 0 for 20 in your postings here Publicola, even the aid of others cannot help you as a deceiver.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:52 PM on 07/16/2010
"Can you specifically cite and link where Latif renounces that he made those 'specific statements' to David Rose at the Daily Mail?"

Your question is misleading. What part of the following are you still not clear on?
------------

The Daily Mail tabloid article starts with:

-------------------------------
The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
-------------------------------

That statement is deceptive on two levels:

1: As Latif noted "we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years" - not the next 2-3 decades

2: The claime that one of "global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished belief: is "that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013" is a lie - that is not scientific consensus, and never has been.

Did I mention that the Daily Mail tabloid lies about global warming?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:25 PM on 07/16/2010
Part 1

Q. & A. Anthropogenic (Man-Induced) Global Warming
July 11, 2009

Question: What is Anthropogenic (Man-Induced) Global Warming?

Answer: It is the theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels since the mid 1800s released carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, which increased the Earth’s average global temperature and is causing a climate catastrophe. (Excerpted)

Question: Is there any evidence of man-induced global warming?

Answer: No. The 0.6 Fo warming of Earth during the twentieth century was due to large increases in sunspots and solar irradiance (Fig. 1). The Sun caused the warming. During this time period, astronomers observed the Sun warming Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto. The evidence: the shrinking of CO2 ice caps, moons changing from solid ice to liquid, frozen nitrogen turning to gas etc. Man’s activity on Earth did not warm the planets. During this time period CO2 bubbled out of the warming ocean (just as it bubbles out of a warming glass of carbonated beverage) and increased the amount of atmospheric CO2. The active Sun caused both an increase in temperature of 0.6 Fo, and atmospheric CO2. There has only been a 3 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 due to man’s use of fossil fuels.

Edward F Blick, PhD
Former USAF Weatherman
Retired Prof. Engineering & Meteorology
Univ. of Oklahoma

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PrimeronGlobalWarming.pdf

continues-
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:55 PM on 07/16/2010
Speaking of science denial, Edward F. Blick: is not only s global warming denier but also an evolution denier/Young Earth Creationist.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist too, SanDiegoView?

--------------------------------
January 26, 2007

Creationism is not wrong

By Edward F. Blick

,,,One of the 20th century’s most cultured and scientific countries, Nazi Germany, had evolution as their national policy. Hitler hated Christianity and was a ruthless hyper-evolutionist whose admiration of Darwinism and Nietzsche caused him to murder of millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and mentally defective people. Hitler’s evil book “Mein Kampf” is full of the word Entwicklung (evolution)...

By the early 1960s there was a full court press on teaching high school and college students evolution. As one newspaper columnist wrote, if you teach kids they evolved from animals they will behave like animals. That is the fruit of evolution. ...

Concerning Lamb’s statements of billions and millions of years for the age of the earth, man and dinosaurs. No one knows for certain any of the ages. I have in my book (“A Scientific Analysis of Genesis”) a list of over 80 Uniformitarian Estimates of the earth’s age, all are less than billions of years. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than 10,000 years old....

Continued...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:20 PM on 07/16/2010
...continued

Radioactive dating methods have been found to be totally unreliable. Volcanic rocks formed in 1986 during the Mount St. Helens eruption were dated by the potassium-argon method to be 0.35 million years old. Similar anomalies were discoveries in other volcanoes...

In a stunning rebuttal of Lamb’s 65 million years for the youngest age of dinosaurs, Mary Schweitzer, of Montana State University found red blood cells and soft fibrous tissue in the leg bone of a T. rex dinosaur. (New Scientist, 24 March 2005). This blood and soft tissue could not have lasted more than a few thousand years...

Since evolution has never been proved scientifically, it must be believed by faith. Hence it is a religion. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum spent a lifetime studying fossils. In 1981 he stated that after 20 years of research he was ready to give up on evolution, because he had not been able to come up with one thing that proved it. Dr. Lynn Margolis... predicted that history would judge neo-Darwinism as a minor 20th century religious sect.
------------------------------
http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong

The same guy that SanDiegoView cites as "proof" that global warming is a "religion" has by his same "scientific" standards "proven":

1: Earth is less than 10,000 years old

2: Dinosaurs walked the Earth a few thousand years ago

3: Evolution is a "eligion.

I wonder if SanDiegoView believes Blick's "proofs" here, too.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:06 PM on 07/16/2010
SanDiegoView: "Eco-worship- The latest 'new' fraud in global religious frauds. "

That's pretty ironic, given that your source to "demonstrate" as much - Edward F Blick - is a Young Earth Creationist:

http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong

Are you a Young Earth Creationist too, SanDiegoView?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:23 PM on 07/16/2010
Part 2

Scientists have computed the global warming in the 20th century, due to increases in CO2, to be a miniscule 0.09 Fo. This is too small to measure since it is much less than the natural temperature fluctuations due to the variation in clouds and water vapor. The increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 levels is very small since it varies logarithmically. Hence any temperature increase in the next 100 years due to mans activity will also be too small to detect.
Fig.2 shows the distribution of all-time high temperatures for each continent. Except for Antarctica, all continents had their record high temperatures before 1943. Fig.3 is a chart of the distribution of all-time high temperature records of our 50 states. Twenty-four of the 50 states had their record high temperature in the 1930s. Thirty-three (2/3rds) of the states had their record high temperatures in the 1880s-1930s. For this time period, far less CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels than in the last 60 years. Both figures show there is no evidence of man-induced global warming. Fig. 4 shows that since 2002, we have entered a global cooling period due to a less active Sun (fewer sunspots). Note the falling temperatures occurred in spite of increasing CO2, which directly contradicts the Gore/UN man-induced global warming theory.

Edward F Blick, PhD

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PrimeronGlobalWarming.pdf

continues-
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:06 PM on 07/16/2010
SanDiegoView: "Eco-worship- The latest 'new' fraud in global religious frauds. "

That's pretty ironic, given that your source to "demonstrate" as much - Edward F Blick - is a Young Earth Creationist:

http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong

Are you a Young Earth Creationist too, SanDiegoView?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:22 PM on 07/16/2010
Part 3

Q. & A. Anthropogenic (Man-Induced) Global Warming
July 11, 2009

The 1995 UN IPCC chart (Fig 5) indicates it was 4 Fo warmer during the “Medieval Warm Period” (900 to 1300 AD). During this period Vikings colonized a green Greenland, the great cathedrals of Europe were built, and the Chinese navy sailed in the Arctic with little sign of ice. Fig.5 also shows a “Little Ice Age” occurred from 1350 to the 1800s. This period was the result of low sunspot activity. Millions died by famine and disease.

Question: What climate catastrophes are occurring due to Global Warming?

Answer: None. Hurricanes and other Tropical Cyclones; lowest activity for 30 years. Sea Level; rising at 1 ft/century since satellite measurements began in 1993, and no sea level rise in 3 years. Pacific Atolls; not at risk, coral grows upward ten times the rate of sea level rise. Polar Bears; population up 5 fold since the 1940s. Antarctic Sea Ice; growing for 30 years. Greenland: average ice-sheet thickness grew by 2 in/yr from 1993-2003. Northwest passage; Amundsen sailed through it in 1903. It was also open in the mid-1940s when a U.S. submarine surfaced at the North Pole. Sahara Desert; greening so fast that 115,000 sq. miles have become habitable by nomadic tribes. Drought and Floods; variable as usual.

Edward F Blick, PhD
Former USAF Weatherman
Retired Prof. Engineering & Meteorology
Univ. of Oklahoma

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PrimeronGlobalWarming.pdf
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:07 PM on 07/16/2010
SanDiegoView: "Eco-worship- The latest 'new' fraud in global religious frauds. "

That's pretty ironic, given that your source to "demonstrate" as much - Edward F Blick - is a Young Earth Creationist:

http://normantranscript.com/columns/x518975456/Creationism-is-not-wrong

Are you a Young Earth Creationist too, SanDiegoView?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:46 PM on 07/16/2010
bd7769: "ok if I am wrong"

No "if" about it - see below.

bd7769: "then how do your points support the need for the Cap and Trade Bill"

Not cap and trade per se, but substantial reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, most notably CO2.

The following global warming science facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in two thousand years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the Earth would be covered in ice from pole to pole.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:57 PM on 07/16/2010
... anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.