Letter: Lowry oversimplified problem

Rich Lowry makes the statement that no Category 3 storm has hit the United States since 2005 to support his view that global warning is a nonissue. The major storms that hit Mexico, Central America, Philippines, India, China, even Australia don’t count.

As further proof of his view, Lowry mentions intense storms of past decades. But what he fails to mention is the huge size of modern storms. Instead of eye walls 50 miles wide, they now exceed 300 miles, resulting in much-larger storm surges. Katrina’s cloud cover filled the Gulf, while Sandy’s extended from Florida to Canada.

His criticism of Al Gore is typical “kill the messenger.” Because Gore dared show that glaciers are melting, the reason why and what a more energetic, warmer atmosphere means for the Earth.

A buoy in the Gulf of Mexico measured a wave height of 65 feet!

Ninety percent of Earth’s scientists warn that warming is probably the top issue facing human civilization. To put this off as alarmist is an insult, and denial is not the answer.

The gigatons of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere is also having an detrimental effect on our oceans. They absorb this elevated carbon dioxide and our coral reefs (the lungs of the oceans) are being damaged. Carbonic acid is building up where shell creatures simply dissolve.

Lowry’s suggestion of, “Why bother because China and India are modernizing?” is the attitude that will hurt everyone. “Why do something if they won’t?” is the attitude they have about us, too.

Yes, I do drive a car, but I’ve also planted hundred of trees. I’ve educated myself on the issue and know the problem is bigger than one person.

It’s all of us who need to be aware of the problem. And we will not work on a solution if we take Lowry’s easier-to-deny-than-do methodology.

We worry about financial debt and jobs for our children. Shouldn’t we also be concerned about the Earth’s condition? And as far as being an alarmist, it’s about time we all be alarmed and concerned.

Terry Grundmann

sales representative

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 26/11/2012

Pay attention and read more carefully Scrooge! I've never claimed man has no effect on the environment. Nor have I ever claimed that the climate hasn't changed. The point is that there is no serious science to prove that an increase in the temperature is going to cause catastrophe. Several recent studies by serious scientists indicate that the temperature in the last couple of thousand years has been warmer than it is at present. -[***]- Any brown haze around Baton Rouge would not be caused by Carbon Dioxide. It would be from industrial chemicals. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in Baton Rouge would tend to make the forest in your area greener. Since I don't know what has happened to the forest where your house stands I can have no opinion on the matter. Did someone cut it down to create a subdivision or an industrial park? Actually the air in the area is cleaner now than it was when I was attending college. The Spanish moss in the area back then was dying out because of chemical air pollution(not CO2). In and of itself the disappearance of Spanish moss wouldn't be bad since it is an invasive species. But that is a topic for another conversation. The air is cleaner today than it was 46 years ago. It could be cleaner still. But again that isn't really related to the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Sorry but your stated issues only demonstrated that you fail to understand what is at issue here.

2) Comment by Scrooge - 26/11/2012

Alright InPVille, if man has no effect on the environment, then what happened to the forest where my house stands? what is that brown haze around Baton Rouge when one flies in? A consensus of only 82% of scientists?

3) Comment by InPVille - 26/11/2012

Earlier @Straight Shooter dissed a cited reference to 17000 scientist signing off on a petition questioning Catastrophic AGW. Lets look at one of the sources used supporters of Catastrophic AGW to claim overwhelming scientific support of their position, the 2009 Doran & Zimmerman study referenced here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO030002.shtml The study states that 75% of physical scientists and 97% of climate scientists accept the "consensus view". The paper was based on an internet survey that asked two questions: "1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The survey went out to 10,257 Earth scientists. 3,147 scientists completed the survey. The participation level is not uncommon. 79 of the participating scientists claimed climate science as their area of specialization. What is interesting about the response of non-climate scientists to the first question is that only 75% of the respondents agreed that temperatures have risen since 1800. The Earth was at the end of what is known as "The Little Ice Age" in 1800. If the respondents had even a basic knowledge of what was being asked by the first question, the response should have been 100%. Of course the temperature, by definition, is higher after any ice age. What is interesting about the response of non-climate scientist response to the second question is that only 82% responded in the affirmative. While significant is not defined, which could have led to different interpretations by respondents. It is an accepted idea even by skeptics on the question that an increase in atmospheric CO2 and such things as the UHI effect contribute to temperature change. I suspect that as the non-climate specialists in the survey are undoubtedly focused on their own study area, they tend to accept what they hear is the science view and haven't looked into the issue in-depth. The other key issue is the claim that this survey supports the "consensus" claim. Such claims always assert that the consensus view means that the idea that the increase in the Earth's temperature carries with it the belief that there are dire consequences to such a temperature increase. This is not supported by this survey. It is just assumed and asserted. The authors of this study conclude that their problem is "failure to communicate" the science when actually the problems lie someplace else. Faults can also be found with the methodology and claims of the "Oreskes" paper which is another study used to claim overwhelming scientific support for the hypothesis of catastrophic AGW.

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/11/2012

I know this is a stupid request but here goes...agagent, please post a link to this supposed "scientific study"

5) Comment by agagent - 23/11/2012

I recall reading how Al Gore is so well qualified to lead the global warming crusade: He had a “C” and a “D” in his two environmental studies college courses. A scientific study compared global warming "deniers" to supporters showed that man made global warming “deniers” understood the sciences of global warming better than supporters. I think the subject is not a religion to deniers. So much for the uneducated and uninformed deniers.

6) Comment by Straight Shooter - 23/11/2012

There is much debate on global warming because science is forever evolving with new technologies to discover the past and predict the future. Who is right and who is wrong is not problem. It is the general public, who have no trained and educated background in the subject, that blindly follow sources that are biased for monetary and egotistical reasons. For example, you look at a cited reference in these comments about "17,000 scientists" signing off on a petition. The majority of these scientists have never studied climatology. Further, the petition had its founding in the late 1990's, and there are scientists on the petition that have since rejected their approval of the petition. Finally, the petition includes the names of TV attorney Perry Mason, author John Grisham, three doctors from the TV series M A S H, and a member of the Spice Girls. Despite all of this, the petition is still referred to as a valid defense of rejecting global warming. It is no wonder why the issue is constantly confused by the uneducated and the blind.

7) Comment by InPVille - 23/11/2012

@Terry Grundmann: "The gigatons of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere is also having an detrimental effect on our oceans. They absorb this elevated carbon dioxide and our coral reefs (the lungs of the oceans) are being damaged. Carbonic acid is building up where shell creatures simply dissolve." -[**]- More bunkum from Mr. Grundmann! SEE: http://nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/21aug2012a2.html "ocean acidification has been predicted to reduce the ability of marine organisms to produce carbonate skeletons, threatening their long-term viability and severely impacting marine ecosystems," noting in this regard that "corals, as ecosystem engineers, have been identified as particularly vulnerable." However, they state that "these predictions are based primarily on modeling studies and short-term laboratory exposure to low-carbonate conditions." . . . "In the words of the five researchers, "we found little evidence that carbonate under-saturation to at least -30% affected the distribution, skeletal composition, or growth rates of corals and other megabenthos." Indeed, they indicate that "both solitary scleractinian corals and colonial gorgonians were abundant at depths well below their respective saturation horizons and appeared healthy." Likewise, they report that "high magnesium calcite echinoderms were common as deep as we sampled (4011 meters), in water that was ca. 45% under-saturated."" -[**]- Shell creatures evolved when Earth's CO2 atmospheric and ocean levels were well in excess of today's levels. During ice ages atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the world's oceans which is why atmospheric CO2 declines during such times. carbonic acid would also be higher in those times and the shell fish managed.

8) Comment by InPVille - 23/11/2012

@Terry Grundmann: "A buoy in the Gulf of Mexico measured a wave height of 65 feet!" Apparently Mr. Grundmann has never heard of Rogue Waves. There is no evidence that they have anything to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. SEE: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/rogue-wave.htm AND http://earthsky.org/earth/lev-kaplan-rogue-waves-are-not-tsunamis OR just enter "Rogue Wave" in the internet search engine of your choice and have fun. There are a number of sources that discuss the phenomenon. Mr. Grundmann's letter is another of his cite former VP Al Gore as his authority. In college Mr. Gore was hard put to make a C in the general science courses taken by Liberal Arts majors. Not that long ago I saw a news clip of Mr. Gore stating that the temperature at the center of the earth was millions of degrees. http://www.livescience.com/7239-earth-temperature-hot.html - - - If Mr Gore can't tell the difference between the sun and the earth, you can only harm the credibility of your argument by citing him as a source.

9) Comment by [e-mail] - 23/11/2012

"Global Warming" as a chicken little issue is dead; a lot of angst and worry was caused by people who used deception and sensationalism to line their pockets.

10) Comment by agagent - 23/11/2012

One of the greatest increases in the use of fossil fuel was from the 1940's through the mid 1970's and the earth cooled, not warmed.

11) Comment by agagent - 23/11/2012

Leaked emails from the climate change gurus indicated manipulated data to achieve the political aims of those scientists. The UN report on man made global warming was a political document and not a peer-reviewed scientific document. Let’s not pick on Al Gore. After all, he invented the internet.

12) Comment by agagent - 23/11/2012

''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind . . . ''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''--a petition signed by about 17,000 US scientists

13) Comment by agagent - 23/11/2012

Carbon dioxide comprises a trace amount of our atmosphere, and the most of that is from naturally-occurring sources. CO2 is a plant nutrient and is a part of photosynthesis, the most important chemical reaction on earth. We need CO2 for plants to produce food and oxygen.

14) Comment by Wallop - 23/11/2012

@Bighug, isn't that human nature to not change until forced to? I have to admit I share Lowry's dim view of the chances of doing anything about it. Although I'd support efforts to address warming.

15) Comment by Bighug - 23/11/2012

Who are you going to believe, 90% of the world's scientists, or Fox News? In the words of Jackie Gleason, "We will know it is a leopard when it has leapt on us."