Maria brushes Bermuda; 24-hour blitz by Climate Reality Project underway

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:27 PM GMT on September 15, 2011

Share this Blog
31
+

Tropical Storm Maria is roaring past Bermuda, bringing winds near tropical storm force. At 11 am local time, winds at the Bermuda airport were sustained at 36 mph, just below the 39 mph threshold of tropical storm strength. Outer spiral bands of Maria have brought a few brief heavy rain squalls to the island, as seen on Bermuda radar. The core of Maria is now at its closest point of approach to the island, about 150 miles (240 km) to the west, and the island may yet see an hour of two of sustained winds of 40 - 45 mph. Maria is headed north-northeast, and will brush Newfoundland, Canada on Friday afternoon. Since Newfoundland will be on the weak (left) side of a rapidly weakening Maria, I'm not expecting much in the way of wind damage from the storm in Canada, though heavy rains may cause isolated minor to moderate flooding. Top sustained winds in St. Johns will probably be in the 25 - 35 mph range Friday afternoon, though a few hours of tropical storm force winds of 40 - 45 mph are possible if Maria ends up tracking farther west than expected.


Figure 1. Radar image of Tropical Storm Maria taken at 10:13 am EDT September 15, 2011. Image credit: Bermuda Weather Service.

Elsewhere in the tropics
Even the busiest of hurricane seasons have lulls, and we're hitting one this week during what is traditionally the busiest week of hurricane season. A westward-moving tropical wave a few hundred miles south of the Cape Verde Islands, off the coast of Africa, has a modest amount of poorly organized heavy thunderstorm activity. This wave is under a moderate 10 - 20 knots of wind shear, is in a moist environment, and is over warm waters, so has the potential for some development, though NHC is currently not mentioning it in their Tropical Weather Outlook. The UKMET and NOGAPS models predict this wave could develop into a tropical depression 5 - 6 days from now. The NOGAPS model continues to predict the Western Caribbean off the coast of Nicaragua could see the development of a tropical depression 6 - 7 days from now, but the other models are showing little support for this scenario.


Figure 2. Heidi Cullen of Climate Central introduces Boulder, Colorado teacher John Zavalney, one of the presenters of the Climate Reality Project's 24-hour live streaming special.

The Climate Reality Project
The Climate Reality Project (climaterealityproject.org) is a little more than halfway through their live, 24-hour streaming video effort that features 24 different presenters for 24 hours, representing every time zone around the globe. The presentations began last night at 7 pm EDT, and will end tonight at 7 pm EDT. It's worth checking out; there have been some interesting presentations and some dull ones. Interspersed with the presentations are panel discussions with some slick Google Earth graphics; last night's discussions were led by Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, who is a rarity--a very personable and well-spoken scientist, and someone you'll be seeing on TV much more in coming years. The Climate Reality Project showed one excellent video tracking the history of industry-funded denial of science that began with the tobacco industry, something I've discussed as well in post called The Manufactured Doubt Industry and the hacked email controversy. Also shown were two cute 15 - 30 second comedy videos. But while the Climate Reality Project's 24-hour blitz has already gotten 3 million people to tune in, its documentary-style tone and Powerpoint lectures will not be engaging enough to keep most visitors around for more than a few minutes. Ph.D. oceanographer Randy Olson, who left a tenure-track professorship to become a Hollywood film maker, has written an excellent book called Don't be Such a Scientist, about the failure of scientists to communicate in way that will engage people (I thought so highly of the book that I bought 20 copies of the book to give away to students at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric Science this year.) In the latest post in his blog, The Benshi, Olson outlines how the climate community has failed in the main way needed to engage an audience: create a likable voice through the effective telling of stories, which is a less literal means of communication and is less cerebral and thus reaches a mass audience. Future efforts at communication by the climate science community really need to work on using the telling of stories by likable voices in order to get their message across, and I highly recommend that all climate scientists who do public outreach read Olson's book "Don't be Such a Scientist."

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 217 - 167

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Quoting Cotillion:


14-3-2. Still a remarkable total.
We're still behind in Hurricanes and Major Hurricanes and with Cape Verde Season coming to an end soon, one might imagine the Caribbean will open up for business. I'm thinking 7 more named storms, 4 more Hurricanes, and 2 Major Hurricanes are left on the table.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cajunkid:


If you believe what was shown in "Gasland", you are severely insulting your own intelligence.

Take a ride through Northwest Louisiana one day and ask those folks about natural gas production.
My suggestion is to take a drive around North Texas, and look at all the urban AND rural NG drilling sites. Then, just for fun, have a long cool drink of some local well water, since we have all been assured by those 'trusty' folks working for Devon Energy and Chesapeake that the process of fracking does not affect our water supply.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
215. Jax82
Im gonna somethin crazy and post this graphic. Note the cooling of the GOM the last few frames.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:


Three more hurricanes needed now to reach the average of 6.


Possible, though part of me would not be surprised to see it fail to reach that.

Quoting ncstorm:
Well, I just read Levi's blog and Atomaggie has left WU too, if anyone know of any weather blogs without GW, please WU mail me.


Why get so wound up by it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's not the GW discussion that's bringing down the blog, it's always been there. It's the fact that that's all that is left.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cotillion:


14-3-2. Still a remarkable total.


Three more hurricanes needed now to reach the average of 6.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well, I just read Levi's blog and Atomaggie has left WU too, if anyone know of any weather blogs without GW, please WU mail me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting seafarer459:

To say the climate is changing Is debatable. To say man caused it, is even more so.


No. No it isn't. You see, from a scientific perspective there are mountains of peer-reviewed evidence and research that show the climate is changing. Regardless of the primary source of the change, the evidence of warming (and thus, a changing climate) is about as solid as it gets. Unless someone or some group out there has some extraordinary evidence and rock-solid research that contradicts this, then any "debate" on the matter is basically opinionated nonsense built on non-verified claims.

There's also a large amount of evidence and research demonstrating how the recent changes are mostly induced from anthropogenic activities. Again, unless someone or some group has some solid research demonstrating otherwise (which so far, there has not been), then any "debate" is at best a useless exercise.

Science is not political debate. The winner isn't the one who comes across as being the most "genuine" about the "truthiness" of their claims. It is not about who has the most charisma or who makes you feel the best about yourself. It is not about what you believe or have faith in. It is about facts. Cold hard facts that, when examined by other experts in the field, are found to be accurate and thoroughly researched.

It is up to whether or not you accepts the facts, evidence and research. But don't pretend for one instant that anything on this blog comes even close to a real scientific debate on the subject.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
Maria is a hurricane per 18z Best Track.

AL, 14, 2011091518, , BEST, 0, 338N, 666W, 65, 987, HU


14-3-2. Still a remarkable total.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
I do realize that many on here wish to discuss only the tropics. I wish there was more to discuss concerning the tropics, at the moment. As we all know, there is little to discuss in this area, for now, and I wish to make this one post that I do not ask anyone to respond to. Food for thought, one might say.

What is the worst possible outcome, if the "alarmist are wrong?

What is the worst possible outcome, if the "deniers" are wrong?

Who benefits the most from a conservation strategy?

Personally? I wish to avoid the extremes, if at all possible. The easiest way for me to do this is through conservation. I cannot speak for Skyepony but, I believe should could attest to this.


I suppose you are essentially framing a Pascal's wager scenario.

If those who are not convinced by the climate change argument are wrong, then the worst would be runaway global warming at the most extreme.

If those who are convinced by the climate change argument are wrong, then there could be serious economic implications as well as deep issues with the credibility of science and the scientific fraternity later down the road which could be crucial.

Neither extreme is likely. It all depends on how bad GW/CC could get and depends on the methods you take to correct the balance.

If it is mostly about using green technology and a push for near absolute recycling, then the worst you get... is a cleaner planet for your kids. Win-win.

If it's something more extreme, it would depend on what the trade off would be. A bit like medicine from your physician, one of the first questions is: 'What's the side effects?'
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maria is a hurricane per 18z Best Track.

AL, 14, 2011091518, , BEST, 0, 338N, 666W, 65, 987, HU
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My stance on GW. Take note GW hypsters. I'm not alone...

"I trust science, but I don't trust the scientists." - StormHype

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Depends on which technology you're talking about. Plants that do not use breeder technology would burn through the Uranium supply in about 100 years or so. By also using breeder technology to recycle spent fuel this can be extended, possibly significantly so. If we develop and deploy thorium based reactors, there is enough Thorium on Earth to last for up to 10,000 years.


Yeah and by the end of the 10,000 years, and a number of nuclear disasters later, none of the planet will be inhabitable due to nuclear fallout. None of those worries exist with renewables.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aprinz1979:


I bet you there's at least 40% of Americans who believe in AGW. Why don't they take the lead! If they start doing this, maybe other countries will follow and will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce all kinds of harmful emissions to the environment, therefore saving Mother Earth.

That could be start in the right direction, don't you think?


Going green is expensive. No matter how much you believe in the "cause" it takes MORE money to make it come about.
The economy is not good here in the USA and many other countries. Some of us do what we can and make informed choices about what we do to help.
Have you priced a solar panel system or a wind generator? The greedy dealers charge more now because they know they can get the price. One battery designed for storing household type power, a popular brand is $1100.00 US. It takes 8 of these to run a normal house, not counting full time air conditioning when the units are more than 400 watts per room.
There are also alternatives for the petroleum powered internal combustion engine. Imagine how much THAT would cost. Imagine how much the infra structure would change, imagine gas stations selling powdered coal.

It isn't a grass roots thing, it has to have some heavy support from some deep pockets.

And deep pockets are not worried about AGW and it's effects as much as they are worried about what is in their deep pockets.

Doing something about it may be doing very little, when it is all you CAN do or all you are allowed to do. Don't think for one moment an industry (such as the petrol industry) will let someone just pull the rug out from under them and kill their goose that laid the golden egg. Look what happened to the inventor of the Diesel engine.

We all know how mankind is: Something has to come along and do some serious damage before they will act. Even then, politicians and the press will spin the occasion for their benefit. For instance look at Fukishima, not much in the press here, but it is getting worse by the day and soon we will all be affected.

What we say here is a drop in the ocean. Even more so as readers of this blog seem to be fading. We can have the solution to all the worlds problems here, but without official recognition and funding, it will die here. And this place smells more and more like a morgue every day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
no, those people are talking about chemistry and physics. that's what "AGW" is about. the "science" of it is a result of researching what chemistry and physics do in our atmosphere. we have significantly altered the chemistry in a short period, physics of that alteration follow. how tactless of researchers to make a connection between massive increases in CO2 and the atmosphere's physical responses to that increase.

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing. My point was, from the beginning. The tact with which the whole argument, was introduced.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
Good post Pott..You know I never discuss the subject of global warming, but suffice it to say that it is has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the climate as a whole is warming. I saw a show on PBS that actually explains a phenomenon called "global Dimming". The scientists were contemplating that the man made pollution being injected into the atmosphere were causing the clouds to reflect much more of the suns radiation back into space than previously thought, therefore reducing the green house effect. The name of the the program is called Nova. Link
this goes to show my point precisely... let the science speak folks, not the politicians. when politics becomes involved, just put your ear to to the research and consider how you will vote, based on what the candidates say for their solutions, or lack thereof. but don't attack the research happening.... it will reveal the reality if we allow it to, and that reality very well could be a stemming of warming due to dimming, which undoubtedly also occurs in our atmosphere as the data has shown. the research is not a religion, it is a process of discovery.. the same process that gave us our modern age.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobinTampa:



I've learned to ignore the AGW debates. People have picked their sides and no amount of typing in the comments section on a blog is going to change that.

The problem is that when the tropics are quiet, Dr. M discusses AGW in his update, AND they've banned most of the people who can actually make these lulls entertaining -- this place really sucks.


I understand where you're coming from.
That's why when I created my weather site I only allow weather discussion there. I have a Green site for the climate change discussions. I find it keeps friction and politics to a minimum.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I do realize that many on here wish to discuss only the tropics. I wish there was more to discuss concerning the tropics, at the moment. As we all know, there is little to discuss in this area, for now, and I wish to make this one post that I do not ask anyone to respond to. Food for thought, one might say.

What is the worst possible outcome, if the "alarmist are wrong?

What is the worst possible outcome, if the "deniers" are wrong?

Who benefits the most from a conservation strategy?

Personally? I wish to avoid the extremes, if at all possible. The easiest way for me to do this is through conservation. I cannot speak for Skyepony but, I believe should could attest to this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737




Global Climate Change Indicators

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming.

It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.




Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.


Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127546
Your computer is causing Global Warming

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting surferjoe5899:
"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.-Dr. Ivar Giaever

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Digust Over GoreBull Warming


Gee, thanks for the completely unbiased news source. Gimme a break dude. Are you really serious coming on here with that junk?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting twincomanche:
not to break in with a weather thought but it looks on the radar like parts of Texas might be getting some rain.

Texas getting rain is not a break. It's a requirement
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JLPR2:


That's why the GW discussion took over, people gave up.

Come on weather!


The tropics aren't doing much other than Maria. Maybe in the next week we'll see more.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Midland-Odessa

Nexrad radar

Base Reflectivity 0.50° Elevation



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127546
Quoting seafarer459:

Aww....Jeeze... Ya got me. Chemistry and Physics determines the next "IDOL" winner. We are talking people here.
no, those people are talking about chemistry and physics. that's what "AGW" is about. the "science" of it is a result of researching what chemistry and physics do in our atmosphere. we have significantly altered the chemistry in a short period, physics of that alteration follow. how tactless of researchers to make a connection between massive increases in CO2 and the atmosphere's physical responses to that increase.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting debaat:


Right from the beginning you can see that this is spin, not a blatant fact oriented article. They are SELLING this to an unsuspecting public. I haven't made a personal decision on right or wrong, but the methodology reeks of the same stuff we have been sold in the past...


Watch Gasland. Very informative and interesting. Then try to obtain a list of the chemicals those companies use to frack with and see how far you get. The list of chemicals that are able to be determined by analysis would make your skin crawl. To think they're pumping that toxic mess into the ground is disgusting. No shame in their game though. T. Boone Pickens is leading the charge for natural gas and I thought he was spot on with his Pickens Plan until you realize he doesn't really have any concern about fracking or its environmental effects and he was a former oil guy which makes sense. The nonchalant attitude about something as environmentally harmful as fracking reeks of oil company mentality. Or as you said, "the same stuff we have been sold in the past..."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
190. txjac
Quoting twincomanche:
not to break in with a weather thought but it looks on the radar like parts of Texas might be getting some rain.


You can break in with a comment like that anytime!!! Rain, rain ..come my way!
Member Since: April 24, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 2455
Always a winner and a loser:

'UK waters may become more productive fishing grounds as climate change brings new species in from the south, according to researchers.

Fish such as red mullet, hake and sole have become more abundant in the last 30 years, as the waters have warmed.

But established favourites such as cod and haddock may be on the wane.'

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting seafarer459:


I have pondered this idea for a while. Every time I go to water my garden I see my ac dripping. Sump pumps. used toilet floats 5 gallon buckets rain barrels.


I am fortunate enough to where my condensation line drains within the tree line of one of my pecan trees. No catch basin or pump required!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting pottery:
Here is Potts TWO, for right now...

Fair to Foul comments persist and will become more vitriolic as High Pressures dominate the craniums of posters and lurkers bringing the latter out of their holes and encouraging counter-productive circulatory spin of a notably damp kind.

These conditions are expected to persist as long as there is Garbage and Gore to wallow in, while the most up-to-date models keep trying to encourage a decent debate.

Outlying models are hesitant to accept the Reality, and keep stressing the need for an increase in the levels of CO2 emissions, because it was once written, ( in Hebrew or Sanscrit or something and translated 12 times) that we are pre-detirmined to be gonner's anyway.

The above Weirdness expected to persist indefinitely.
There are no other areas of interest in the Tropics.

Forecaster..

DUH.
Good post Pott..You know I never discuss the subject of global warming, but suffice it to say that it is has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the climate as a whole is warming. I saw a show on PBS that actually explains a phenomenon called "global Dimming". The scientists were contemplating that the man made pollution being injected into the atmosphere were causing the clouds to reflect much more of the suns radiation back into space than previously thought, therefore reducing the green house effect. The name of the the program is called Nova. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Well, yeah...if you ignore all the evidence, I suppose that's true.

Evidence? Do Tell. Don't just throw it... Show it! Evidence has been shown on both sides. Tell me (Only You) why?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OviedoWatcher:
I have been following the back-and-forth on AGW on this blog for a long time (or at least it certainly feels like it) and now I feel like stiring the pot...


uh..stirring and smoking are two different things...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RobDaHood:


I know you don't like the idea of big defense budgets, but without the military there's no one to keep the bad guys from coming in and blowing up all your shiny new technologies.

Also...remember that a huge proportion of the technologies you need to solve these problems come either directly or indirectly from research funded by the military and NASA.


I knew there had to be at least one person who would cry foul about the defense budget. As I said previously, our defense budget is bigger than the next 16 largest countries' defense budgets COMBINED. How about we knock it down to say, the next 8 or the next 4 countries? Cutting our defense budget in half would free up almost 400 billion a year. We've got so much waste and pork in defense it's ridiculous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
181. DVG
Here’s the complete text of his letter of resignation:


Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobinTampa:



I've learned to ignore the AGW debates. People have picked their sides and no amount of typing in the comments section on a blog is going to change that.

The problem is that when the tropics are quiet, Dr. M discusses AGW in his update, AND they've banned most of the people who can actually make these lulls entertaining -- this place really sucks.
I miss them also.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting txjac:



Hey Pat, is that cloudiness in the NW corner of Texas the cold from that is coming down?




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127546
Quoting seafarer459:

To say the climate is changing Is debatable. To say man caused it, is even more so.

Well, yeah...if you ignore all the evidence, I suppose that's true.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aprinz1979:


I bet you there's at least 40% of Americans who believe in AGW. Why don't they take the lead! If they start doing this, maybe other countries will follow and will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce all kinds of harmful emissions to the environment, therefore saving Mother Earth.

That could be start in the right direction, don't you think?


sitting behind a computer and copying and pasting other people ideas and works makes them think they are helping the cause but it only makes them more annoying..I havent seen any pictures from them of these alarmists at conferences, their published works, or even their own blog set up here at WU..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Depends on which technology you're talking about. Plants that do not use breeder technology would burn through the Uranium supply in about 100 years or so. By also using breeder technology to recycle spent fuel this can be extended, possibly significantly so. If we develop and deploy thorium based reactors, there is enough Thorium on Earth to last for up to 10,000 years.

Thanks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Yes and they have congressional dog and pony show hearings where oil and gas execs and bought and paid for politicians (on both sides!) sit there and lie thru their teeth with a straight face all for the sake of a bit more profit. Save it. Go watch Gasland to see how real people have been affected.


If you believe what was shown in "Gasland", you are severely insulting your own intelligence.

Take a ride through Northwest Louisiana one day and ask those folks about natural gas production.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Gulf and Tropics updated ~ 1/2 hour

Click Image for Loop








Well, as you can see, it's Raining here.
:):))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AllBoardedUp:
That is because they still have to operate under government (state level) mandates.

Don't think for a minute they get that money with no strings attached.


Charter schools don't have nearly as many government restrictions as public schools do but they still get taxpayer money. There are strings attached but the profit factor is then introduced into the educational process which leads to a whole different set of issues.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
172. txjac
Quoting Patrap:
Gulf and Tropics updated ~ 1/2 hour

Click Image for Loop










Hey Pat, is that cloudiness in the NW corner of Texas the cold from that is coming down?
Member Since: April 24, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 2455
Quoting ncstorm:


I posted this question to one of the bloggers last night and got zip..I guess he was away from his computer heating up a hotpocket in his microwave..


I bet you there's at least 40% of Americans who believe in AGW. Why don't they take the lead! If they start doing this, maybe other countries will follow and will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce all kinds of harmful emissions to the environment, therefore saving Mother Earth.

That could be start in the right direction, don't you think?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Sorry if I made the mistake of saying EVERY climate scientist agrees, it's actually just an overwhelming majority. Sorry. As for broad brushing, there is much of that on here and not from me. I am not saying my opinion on climate change is the only one. I have respect for those who question whether we are having an influence on it or to what degree but to ignore the signs of climate change seems rather obtuse.

To say the climate is changing Is debatable. To say man caused it, is even more so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aprinz1979:
A thought for all the AGW believers:

Why don't you do something about it then?
If you believe we are destroying mother earth, why are you in a computer? Why don't you sell your electric / gas powered gadgets and just live off the earth like the AMISH?

You people preach AGW AGW & more AGW but you're still driving your V8's, consuming as much energy as the person who doesn't believe in AGW, and "hurting" mother earth. Heck, some of you even have fuel powered boats so why be hypocritical and keep on preaching?

Just a thought, not insulting anybody so please don't slam me upside the head trying to make excuses for not following what you believe in.


I posted this question to one of the bloggers last night and got zip..I guess he was away from his computer heating up a hotpocket in his microwave..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting seafarer459:
Thank you! For people who want to engage in an intelligent debate, the fact that they can't seem to look past the two words global warming to what it actually entails makes me question why they should even have a voice in the conversation. When you come to a debate armed with nothing but misinformation about climate science you heard on Fox Noise or Glenn Beck's radio show, I think your credibility goes out the window.

Debate? Seems like my way or the highway. EVERY climatologist agrees? Broad brushes cover much, detail nothing.


Sorry if I made the mistake of saying EVERY climate scientist agrees, it's actually just an overwhelming majority. Sorry. As for broad brushing, there is much of that on here and not from me. I am not saying my opinion on climate change is the only one. I have respect for those who question whether we are having an influence on it or to what degree but to ignore the signs of climate change seems rather obtuse.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 217 - 167

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
73 °F
Scattered Clouds