Did climate change have anything to do with Superstorm Sandy?
Climate change made Storm Sandy more intense. Climate change is responsible for dozens of deaths and billions of dollars of damage. And it is going to get worse.
Until this week, climate change has not received much attention but it is a very important issue for America for this election.
On November 6, voters get to choose how we, as a nation, deal with climate change in the future There are enormous differences in the way Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, and the Republican and Democratic Parties, deal with climate change and the greenhouse gases that unquestionably increased the devastation caused by hurricane Sandy... and will continue to cause havoc with our weather.
What, exactly, Bill, is the science on this?
Let's be clear on the science. Climate change does not cause hurricanes and storms like Sandy... but climate change makes them worse -- no question. The Scientific Journal, in an article on Tuesday, October 30, by senior editor Mark Fischetti says it clearly:
Climate change amps up... basic factors that contribute to big storms... The oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms, and the Earth's atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture which is drawn into storms, and is then dumped on us.The basic mechanism of climate change is very, very simple... Gases in our atmosphere allow sunlight to pass through easily on the way down from space. But, after the light warms the Earth, these gases hold heat like glass in a greenhouse. That's why it's called "the greenhouse effect." It's what keeps our world warm enough for liquid water to flow and all of us living things to survive.
But in recent decades, it has become clear that we humans are causing the release of certain gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, into the atmosphere much faster than any time in the past tens of thousands of years. Burning carbon-based substances like oil, gas, and especially coal produces billions of tons of extra carbon dioxide each year. Methane gas from cows and pigs and other animals on our large farms ends up in the atmosphere as well, trapping more of the sun's energy as heat.
What's your sense of the differences between Gov. Romney, President Obama and the Republican and Democratic candidates for Senate and The House of Representatives on the issue of climate change? There is a very big difference between the candidates and the parties on this issue.President Obama, Vice President Biden and the Democratic Party's position is consistent with what 90 percent of scientists say -- that humans significantly cause the world to warm and climates to change and that, in order to slow climate change and eventually control its effects, we must slow down and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane... and develop clean, alternate forms of energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and biomass.
Governor Romney, Congressman Ryan and the vast majority of those in the Republican Party, however, strongly disagree and they cite a small number of researchers who say that any warming and any climate change is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has been occurring on Earth for millions of years and that human activity is not a significant factor.
Gov. Romney and the Republicans are wrong. It's just not true. At the Republican Convention in Tampa, Gov. Romney re-stated his position by saying, "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family." The audience laughed.
At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, President Obama responded by saying, "More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They're a threat to our children's future."
Look at what has just happened to our Eastern seaboard. Every scientist that I respect says that this will not only continue, but will continue to get worse, unless we stop pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the environment.
America is going to vote in a few days. Is there evidence, beyond general statements, that Democrats are more serious about addressing and solving the problems of carbon emissions and climate change?
The Republicans, almost exclusively... the Republican members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, stand in the way of any attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions or to get away from our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.
Two examples:
No. 1: Just last year the Republicans introduced The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 in the House and the Senate to stop the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, from making ANY regulations regarding greenhouse gases and climate change.
A hundred percent of Republicans voted for the bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, and 90 percent of Democrats against the bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
And there is a huge difference between the parties on whether we should spend taxpayer money to subsidize oil companies or companies that are developing the clean solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy of the future that doesn't contribute to climate change. For example, just a few months back, in March of this year, legislation came up that would give oil companies $4 billion, $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Gov. Romney and 96 percent of the Republicans in the Senate said "yes," while President Obama and 92 percent of the Democrats in the Senate said "No."
Democrats and Republicans really do have very different views on climate change and on the promotion of oil vs. clean energy in The United States.
What's your Call to Action to the American people between now and November 6?
If climate change and clean energy are important issues to you, you have to have your voice be heard and vote on November 6!
The 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes -- 537 out of a country of 300 million... and elections of senators and congressmen are often decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. I believe Sandy made it clear that climate change has to be a critical issue in this election and I want you, everyone, to get out and choose your America!
Don Kraus: Sandy's Climate Conversation
Paul Douglas: Sandy's Legacy? Vote As If Future Generations Depend On It
Secondly, climate change or not, there were storms before and there will be storms again. Reckless overdevelopment of low-lying coastal areas is a problem regardless of climate change.
Third, Obama does not have a stellar record on addressing climate change. In fact, I can’t think of one thing he did. It appears both parties consider it a taboo subject in tough economic times. Surely, Obama does not appear to be a savior.
Finally, what will Obama do differently? Do you think we will all go solar and everything will be fine? Climate change is an immense GLOBAL problem that, unfortunately, is not readily solved for economic and political reasons. Modest steps in the US won’t do squat to solve the problem. Even if there were zero emission, we’d have climate change a long, long time - decades, centuries, maybe millenia.
Saying Obama will save us is ridiculous. And guess what, even if climate change were eliminated (which is not at all likely), we’d still have storms and low-lying coastal areas would flood. Blaming the problem on climate change just kicks the can down the road and misdirects attention from the obvious elephant in the room. Think twice about overdevelopment of high risk areas.
So what is heating the oceans?? (Any heating contractor can tell you that hot water heats air much more efficiently than hot air heats water. It is simple thermodynamic density). Solar radiance has been decreasing since 2001.
Some have noted that the number of earthquakes is up worldwide along with a rise in low level volcanic unrest, both coincident with the ocean warming trend. This suggests more lithospheric motion caused by increasing core temperature.
Human civilization is not helping things by adding even more CO2, poisoning oceans, depleting fisheries, cutting rainforests, paving, (etc. ad nauseum). Nonetheless, if humans all died tomorrow this process would continue. We CANNOT stop it.
The best those who want their children/grandchildren to survive can do is to adapt. Adapting means at a minimum: 1. Personal responsibility. 2.Moving from coasts, floodplains and cities. 3. Finding ways to supply your family's food and energy locally.
The "program" appears to be a PR charity contest, wherin one (Monsanto qualified) farmer-"winner" per (Monsanto approved) county gets to designate a (Monsanto approved) local charity program to receive $2.5K from Monsanto. Maybe more to it, IDK, IDC
I'm not suggesting folks get involved with big AG, rather grow and/or source their food and other necessities locally.
Solar radiance has been identical to within 0.2% for many decades.
Earthquake frequency is unchanged over many decades.
If human CO2 production ended, assuming it was not in a huge nuclear inferno, then the CO2 content of the atmosphere would return slowly to its pre-1800 level.
Your suggested points are valid, but if you want to make any difference you need to add another: use less energy and buy less $r^&.
The distance that food travels is chickenfeed in the total picture, and good luck getting all the energy your family use locally, unless your family has either a 2000-square-meter solar array or a 20kW wind turbine, that can each work 30% of the time.
Before you know it these darn sciencenistas will be taking their superstitions away!
" When it comes to global warming The United States of America IS NOT the problem. There are more pollution and environmental controls in place here in the state of Ohio than in the countries of Russia, China, India and Mexico combined."
Just saying (the emperor has no clothes)
Without being certain of the specifics, it seems to me that any serious harm reduction plan is going to need to begin in the home, with parent's educating their children on the benefits of a vegetarian - or nearly vegetarian diet and Dads forgoing the gas powered lawn mowers for the old-fashioned push style... or better yet, doing away with the immaculate green lawn altogther and planting something like Pachysandra for green "lawn" cover.
Get out of town....It would take some doing to getting folks now a days to get back to the future
I have heard that there are parents teaching the theory of fire-breathing dragons to their children. If you live in Kentucky you would know more about this than me -- their governor believes this stuff and even gave tax breaks for Ken Ham's Ark Adventure amusement park thing-ey. Look it up.
~~~(^.,.^)
.......d..b...