In response to a question about cap and trade a couple of days ago, Obama said this:
"I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. ... If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,' that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi chided the President and offered this obvious explanation for the flooding: "Fargo's problem was it was too cold and snowy this winter, and that is why there is flooding coming. In addition, a major problem is the Red River flows northward, to colder areas, so that what is melting can pile up if the pattern is cold and still leading to ice downstream, ..." Bastardi also said this: "The point is there has been a lot of cold and a lot of snow in the areas that feed the rivers around Fargo. It's only in the bizarro world of climate idealists that too much cold and snow can be attributed to warming, as any result is the right answer to that ilk."
Bastardi, like most meteorologists and climatologists who actually study weather and climate, said that the increased moisture and coolness in the center part of the continent the past couple of years is precisely where it started in the past when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) swung to its cool phase. As in the past, it is a prelude to three decades of colder temperatures in the U.S. It is also the kind of pattern that leads to major hurricanes along the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coasts. Undoubtably, they will be blamed on global warming by the President and others who are either ignorant or agenda-driven.
President Obama expects the nation to pony up hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, in higher taxes and energy costs to fight "global warming", a topic he clearly knows nothing about. As he and other members of his Administration continue to put their glaring ignorance on full display, perhaps enough people will wake up and put a stop to a very costly, myth based agenda.
"I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. ... If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,' that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
The two posts to this point on this thread are typical of people who confuse the issue of Global warming with their politics. Global warming is cyclical event. What confused most people is the issue of "is there a human interaction element that is speeding up the process or not?" . Assuming there is not a human element but is just part of the cycle of nature doesn't negate the problem created to civilization by global warming. If a change of just two degrees higher temperature average will bring enough change to cause the ocean to rise wreaking havoc to coastal and low lying areas. Desert and arid areas will grow, agriculture production aras will change. These will occur if global warming comes not matter what the cause or reason.
Bastardi, like most meteorologists and climatologists who actually study weather and climate,
The correct statement would be" like some meteorologists...
Look at what Obama said "I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating..." Any change of climate brings a new set of problems that require some action on the part of society to adjust to those changes. Assuming Bastardi position, the colder winters have occurs twice in recent years bringing devastating flooding to North Dakota. Some action needs to be taken by the state [ND] and the cities involved. Maybe the cities need to be moved or higher levees to be built. If flooding is going to regularly occur something needs to be done. If more hurricanes are going to occur the cities on the coasts need to prepare. Global warming, and other environmental questions a have to be addressed and studied. Saying
"Al Gore is wrong" and not addressing any environmental issues is not the correct response.
I make up my opinions from facts and reasoning, and not to suit anybody but myself. If people don't like my opinions, it makes little difference “I[seldom]make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Without the benefit of context, I would venture to say that Obama was not claiming that global warming was causing flooding in North Dakota, but rather that the flooding in North Dakota was a good indication of the degree of human misery that can be caused by a relatively small amount of displaced water.
Which would be exactly my viewpoint.
Has it been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that human burning of fossil carbon will cause the ice caps to melt, the sea levels to rise, the North Atlantic to become less saline, stopping the gulf stream, and the oceans to become so acid that shellfish cannot produce shells?
No.
Does it have to be?
No.
Even the possiblity that these things might happen is cause for serious effort to retool the world's industrial base to make use of renewables. We spend money on lots of things that are not a 100% surety. And money spent on new industries, with many potential technological spinoffs, is not money wasted; it is money invested.
Bastardi, like most meteorologists and climatologists who actually study weather and climate, said that the increased moisture and coolness in the center part of the continent the past couple of years is precisely where it started in the past when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) swung to its cool phase. As in the past, it is a prelude to three decades of colder temperatures in the U.S. It is also the kind of pattern that leads to major hurricanes along the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coasts. Undoubtably, they will be blamed on global warming by the President and others who are either ignorant or agenda-driven.
President Obama expects the nation to pony up hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, in higher taxes and energy costs to fight "global warming", a topic he clearly knows nothing about. As he and other members of his Administration continue to put their glaring ignorance on full display, perhaps enough people will wake up and put a stop to a very costly, myth based agenda.
The fact that the PDO model turns out to be predictive actually supports climate science. The same modeling techniques that explain it generally predict human-caused global warming.
Obama does not claim that cold periods explained by climate models prove global warming. The only thing that Obama is saying here is that even relatively small weather events can be quite devastating. I do not think any of us would argue with that.
"I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. ... If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,' that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
The two posts to this point on this thread are typical of people who confuse the issue of Global warming with their politics. Global warming is cyclical event. What confused most people is the issue of "is there a human interaction element that is speeding up the process or not?" . Assuming there is not a human element but is just part of the cycle of nature doesn't negate the problem created to civilization by global warming. If a change of just two degrees higher temperature average will bring enough change to cause the ocean to rise wreaking havoc to coastal and low lying areas. Desert and arid areas will grow, agriculture production aras will change. These will occur if global warming comes not matter what the cause or reason.
Bastardi, like most meteorologists and climatologists who actually study weather and climate,
The correct statement would be" like some meteorologists...
Look at what Obama said "I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating..." Any change of climate brings a new set of problems that require some action on the part of society to adjust to those changes. Assuming Bastardi position, the colder winters have occurs twice in recent years bringing devastating flooding to North Dakota. Some action needs to be taken by the state [ND] and the cities involved. Maybe the cities need to be moved or higher levees to be built. If flooding is going to regularly occur something needs to be done. If more hurricanes are going to occur the cities on the coasts need to prepare. Global warming, and other environmental questions a have to be addressed and studied. Saying
"Al Gore is wrong" and not addressing any environmental issues is not the correct response.
The climate is always changing, so the phrase "climate change" is meaningless. If the changes are due to natural cycles, then we don't need to spend billions, perhaps trillions, trying to reduce the levels of a trace gas that is having no meaningful impact on climate change.
Also, it's not possible to draw any connection whatsoever between the floods in North Dakota and global warming. The floods are due to cooling, not warming. If the climate were warming, North Dakota would be dry and mild and wouldn't have a flooding problem. If the global warming models were correct, there would be no reason to move to higher ground or build higher levees. It's only if you think the climate is cooling that you would make the preparations necessary to mitigate the effects of the floods in North Dakota.
The same goes for the drought in southern California. The Energy Secretary blamed it on global warming. It's actually due to cooling, which reduces the energy available to activate and maintain a vigorous sub-tropical jet stream. Without a sub-tropical jet stream moisture doesn't make it into southern California.
Also, if the earth is entering a cooling phase then it is also useless to prepare for rising sea levels. There's no point spending massive amounts of money and effort fixing the wrong problems.
If we are misdiagnosing the direction of climate change and its causes - which Obama and Gore are doing - then we have no hope of predicting and preventing its effects.
Bastardi, like most meteorologists and climatologists who actually study weather and climate, said that the increased moisture and coolness in the center part of the continent the past couple of years is precisely where it started in the past when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) swung to its cool phase. As in the past, it is a prelude to three decades of colder temperatures in the U.S. It is also the kind of pattern that leads to major hurricanes along the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coasts. Undoubtably, they will be blamed on global warming by the President and others who are either ignorant or agenda-driven.
President Obama expects the nation to pony up hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, in higher taxes and energy costs to fight "global warming", a topic he clearly knows nothing about. As he and other members of his Administration continue to put their glaring ignorance on full display, perhaps enough people will wake up and put a stop to a very costly, myth based agenda.
The fact that the PDO model turns out to be predictive actually supports climate science. The same modeling techniques that explain it generally predict human-caused global warming.
Obama does not claim that cold periods explained by climate models prove global warming. The only thing that Obama is saying here is that even relatively small weather events can be quite devastating. I do not think any of us would argue with that.
It's not true that the same modeling that predicts human-caused global warming also predicts the change in the PDO. Bastardi has hammered home this point quite often in his columns. The climate models don't put nearly enough weight on natural causes of climate change, such a the PDO. They are heavily weighted toward the presumed effects on climate caused by an increase in a trace gas that humans happen to be adding to the atmosphere. That has led to several predictions that have not verified. One is that the temperatures in equatorial regions at 25,000-30,000' feet should be 4-7 degrees Celsius warmer now than they are. And, of course, surface temperatures should have been rising for the past decade and they haven't.
The same problem arises with NOAA'a seasonal forecasts. There is a CO2-induced warming bias built into the models that overrides natural factors and results in poor seasonal forecasts, particularly in winter. NOAA's winter forecasts, which are never very good, have been horrendous the past two winters. The extreme cold and snow over the northern plains and midwest were not predicted because they failed to give the proper weight to the changing PDO.
Bastardi's point is that nothing we see happening today is unique. Climate is cyclical. It's all happened before; we can predict the future by studying the past. What gets us into trouble is not paying enough attention to past analogues and placing too much emphasis on computer models that don't properly account for the natural variables that impact the climate.
Obama is correct that relatively small weather events can be quite devastating. That is merely stating the obvious. But if he is wrong about the causes of those weather events (which he is), then he will end up spending a fortune fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
Geo - the term is "climate change" NOT "global warming". The term global warming is just oh so very 2002. Now we are concered about climate change. As in the anticipated late March blizzard about to hit Oklahoma. That would be an example of "climate change" not an example of global warming.
Geo - the term is "climate change" NOT "global warming". The term global warming is just oh so very 2002. Now we are concered about climate change. As in the anticipated late March blizzard about to hit Oklahoma. That would be an example of "climate change" not an example of global warming.
Yes, of course it's "climate change". That's because the global warming predicted by the computer models has not verified. Because climate is always changing, they can never be wrong. How convenient. The Florida Everglades can be buried under three feet of snow and they would still be right about "climate change."
