Does global warming cause extreme weather?

[Karlis]

Opinions and discussion regarding info. in the article, anyone?

And ... please ... do not shoot the messenger, aka American Thinker.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters are in the midst of a big propaganda campaign leading to a global "Connect the Dots" day on May 5. Their goal is to convince the public that recent extreme weather events are due to global warming and that global warming is man-made.

They are preparing public opinion for the huge economic sacrifice involved in curbing carbon dioxide emissions, a process which they will demand at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development from June 20 through 22.

So far, their propaganda campaign has been succeeding. In fact, the New York Times reported on April 17 ("In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to Climate Change") that the public now believes stuff that the scientists who adhere to AGW theory don't even claim to be true: -- ... (snip) ...

Source:

http://www.americant...me_weather.html

[questionmark]

The comment is that, except for temperature difference related phenomena,like hurricanes and tornadoes, we don't know what warming causes. But we will find out and most probably not like it.

Edited April 29, 2012 by questionmark

[Doug1029]

Q: Why doesn't "the messenger" post stuff written by global warming experts? Why always post stuff from the lunatic fringe?

I suspect that the wild weather of the last few years probably is related to anthropogenic global warming, but there just aren't that many dots to connect. Personally, I will wait for the research to support that conclusion before I jump off the deep end.

As for mitigation being expensive: that's denier propaganda. How much does it cost to fill up your car right now? I just filled up my truck (diesel, 35-gallon tank): $152.00. How much would it cost to recharge an electric battery for the same amount of driving? About $5.00. Once the technology becomes widely available, wind-powered electricty will be extremely cheap. The deniers know it's coming, but are trying to delay implementation as long as possible to protect their profits.

How do you generate base load (For times when the wind isn't blowing)? Either natural gas or nuclear. We have a thousand years of recyclable nuclear waste we are paying money to store. Why not use it? Yes, natural gas is polluting, but it would only be used to generate base load, so we wouldn't be using nearly as much.

But building new systems will be expensive: no more so than replacing the aging power plants we already have. They are wearing out and keeping them running will cost more than building new ones.

Now to answer my question about why nothing by global warming experts is being posted: did you ever read any of that technical stuff? It's about as boring as it gets. It's much easier to pretend you know something and sound off than it is to do the work needed to get it right.

I've been on both sides of that issue.

Doug

[+and-then]

The AGW crowd might be taken a bit more seriously if there wasn't such a profit incentive in their goals. Most thinking people become a tad suspect and concerned when someone tells them the sky is falling and they need for you to mortgage your home to stop it from happening.

[spud the mackem]

The planet has been around for millions of years and is getting brassed off with the micro organisms (humans) on its surface for a few thousand years ,messing about with nature,so its retaliating by giving them a hard time with the weather..

[Doug1029]

The AGW crowd might be taken a bit more seriously if there wasn't such a profit incentive in their goals. Most thinking people become a tad suspect and concerned when someone tells them the sky is falling and they need for you to mortgage your home to stop it from happening.

So, would you mind telling me where this profit is? I'd like to get in on it.

Doug

[ninjadude]

it is precisely because there is little initial profit that they want to deny the whole thing and focus of non-renewable overpriced fossil fuels.

[JayMark]

We already have a carbon tax here in Québec. We pay about two cents per liter of fuel and industries that sell or buy fossil fuel also pay. The money is invested as "green funds". We are currently about to invest $4.7 billions in environmental purpose. We are also about to replace 95% of our city buses for electric ones. I don't see how this is a bad thing at all.

A carbon tax is a wonderful idea if you ask me. It's all about how it's done and how it is invested. If done fairly, responsibly and honestly, it could be benefical for everyone.

Here in Québec, $4 billions a year is spent on health care as a result of poor air quality (and we are certainly not the worst place on earth). 2500+ people die prematurely also as a result of air pollution and many others develop or aggravate health problems and it results in hundreads of daily visits to the hospital as a result of a human-made scrap that we could help. Now immagine that on a global scale.

As much as wind power is concerned, we have the potential, here in Québec, to satisfy the electricity needs of half north america. We have gigantic territories with high velocity winds and have many massive powerlines and stations running across northern territories where wind generators could be erected. In terms of electricity, Québec is the place to go. We have all the expertise and ressources needed. In 2009, we had an installed capacity of 37 GW of hydro-electricy and sold 189 TWh. Cheapest electricity on the planet.

As far as weather extremes are concerned, as Doug pointed out, it's hard to establish a very clear connection. Estimating how global warming will affect the thermodynamics of climate is no easy talk. Sure thing is that waiting to see in no option. I don't think we will like what's coming at all.

Peace.

Edited April 30, 2012 by JayMark

[Doug1029]

We already have a carbon tax here in Québec. We pay about two cents per liter of fuel and industries that sell or buy fossil fuel also pay.

A carbon tax charged at the pump is not a great idea - too many products evade the tax. Too many industries don't have to pay it. Charge it at the well-head, the border crossing or the mouth of the mine - that way, ALL users of carbon-based products have to pay it, not just those who don't have special-interest groups in Parliament.

Also, a better way than "taxes" is to rebate all carbon-based payments to people equally. That gives individuals more flexibility in adapting to the new market conditions engendered by the carbon fees.

Here in Québec, $4 billions a year is spent on health care as a result of poor air quality (and we are certainly not the worst place on earth). 2500+ people die prematurely also as a result of air pollution and many others develop or aggravate health problems and it results in hundreads of daily visits to the hospital as a result of a human-made scrap that we could help. Now immagine that on a global scale.

A good part of that is coming from the Ohio Valley. Trade agreements need some changes.

As much as wind power is concerned, we have the potential, here in Québec, to satisfy the electricity needs of half north america. We have gigantic territories with high velocity winds and have many massive powerlines and stations running across northern territories where wind generators could be erected. In terms of electricity, Québec is the place to go. We have all the expertise and ressources needed. In 2009, we had an installed capacity of 37 GW of hydro-electricy and sold 189 TWh. Cheapest electricity on the planet.

If you could figure out a way to sell some of that to the US, we'd all benefit. Ontario Hydro may not be too receptive, though.

[JayMark]

A carbon tax charged at the pump is not a great idea - too many products evade the tax. Too many industries don't have to pay it. Charge it at the well-head, the border crossing or the mouth of the mine - that way, ALL users of carbon-based products have to pay it, not just those who don't have special-interest groups in Parliament.

Agreed. I was refering to what has already been going on for a while. We do have a brand new plan for carbon taxation. It just hasen't been voted yet. I'll try to get some infos and come back to you.

Trade agreements need some changes.

Indeed.

If you could figure out a way to sell some of that to the US, we'd all benefit. Ontario Hydro may not be too receptive, though.

That could be done. Here is the Wikipedia article about our transmission system. It is absolutely amazing. I know that we have a HVDC line of 450 kV able to transmit about 2 GW to northerneast USA to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia....smission_system

We also have 11,000+ km (7,000+ miles) of 735 / 765 kV lines.

Peace.

[Ashotep]

I think global warming does cause extreme weather. Whether its caused by man, which I'm sure a lot of it is, or is natural it messes with the weather patterns.

[Simbi Laveau]

According to Chinese theory,absolutely.

Nothing lumatic fringe about it at all.

Age old addages about heat hitting sudden cold,causes wind.

One of my sifus explained this ,in terms of global warming(as we also use to it explain disease processes in the body),last year.

Sudden storms ,tornados,hail,all have to do with global warming.

Information about global warming,from as far back as 15 years ago or more,all stated this was going to happen,if we didn't wise up,and all of that info,has long since been squashed,and replaced with global warming is all a lie ,propaganda.

The powers that be,do this with a lot of what is true.They wipe it out,before the public can get their hands on it,and put out what they WANT us to think.

sheeple

[JayMark]

Sure thing is that the warming has an effect on the dynamics of climate (d'uh).

For instance, in the last decades, we have observed quite a change in the El Nino/La Nina-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO.

From observation, we have noticed that the El Nino phenomenon (hot phase) happens more frequently and with greater ampliture whereas the La Nina phenomenon (cold phase) is less frequent and of lesser amplitude.

The El Nino phenomenon is a significant cause of extreme weather episodes. Since the trend in on the rise, my guess would be that we are going to see more and more of these extremes. The amplitude of El Nino increased by about 60% in the last 50 years.

Now big question is; are they simply random fluctuations or normal instances caused by global warming? I think it would be fair to say the lastest anwser is far more probable, even most likely.

Further research need to be conducted before jumping to absolute conclusions though. Sure thing is that current results do not exclude the possibility of dramatic changes in the near future. Many climatologists are seriously monitoring those changes and some of them very well think that the ENSO could become a "tipping point" if future evolution of global climate.

Peace.