Ecocentric

Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap

Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likely—not less

  • Share
  • Read Later
Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

Fans in Green Bay suffered through frigid temperatures, thanks to Arctic air that has come south

It’s polar bear weather today for much of the Midwest. Temperatures are in the -20sº F (-28º C) and -30sº F (-35º C) in eastern Montana, North Dakota, northeast South Dakota, Minnesota and northern Iowa. With the stiff wind, it’s even worse—wind chills in the -40sº F (-40º C) and -50sº F (-45º C) are common across Minnesota and North Dakota, cold enough for exposed skin to suffer frostbite in just five minutes. By tonight, the freeze will reach the East Coast, where temperatures from Florida to Maine are expected to be 30º F to 40º F (16º C to 22º C) degrees below normal, extremes that haven’t been seen in decades. The National Weather Service isn’t kidding when it calls the cold “life-threatening.”

Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

(MORE: Arctic Blast: The Northern Air Mass Bringing Record-Breaking Cold to the U.S.)

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold, as you can see in this weatherbell.com graphic:

Graphic showing a simulation of the polar vortex over the Great Lakes on Monday night (weatherbell.com]

That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden stratospheric warming event, a phenomenon Rick Grow explained at the Washington Post a few days ago:

Large atmospheric waves move upward from the troposphere — where most weather occurs — into the stratosphere, which is the layer of air above the troposphere. These waves, which are called Rossby waves, transport energy and momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere. This energy and momentum transfer generates a circulation in the stratosphere, which features sinking air in the polar latitudes and rising air in the lowest latitudes. As air sinks, it warms. If the stratospheric air warms rapidly in the Arctic, it will throw the circulation off balance. This can cause a major disruption to the polar vortex, stretching it and — sometimes — splitting it apart.

(MORE: November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming)

What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet stream—the belt of fast-flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer southern air—is driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further south than it usually would.

Still, this research is fairly preliminary, in part because extreme Arctic sea ice loss is a fairly recent phenomenon, so scientists don’t have the long data sets they need to draw more robust conclusions about the interaction between Arctic warming and cold snaps. In fact, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it was likely that the jet stream would shift towards the north as the climate warmed, and that the polar vortex would actually contract, even as a 2009 study found that sudden stratospheric warming events are becoming more frequent, which in turn seems to be driven by the rapid loss in Arctic sea ice.

And while a muddle like that would seem to make the science less rather than more reliable, it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real. Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.

(MORE: November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming)

1035 comments
kmk358
kmk358

i agree with don.kwasny. Why did the last ice age melt,where all the cave men and dinosaures driving around in cars to disrupt the ozone?

don.kwasny
don.kwasny

There used to be dinosaurs in Alberta 100 BC or so . This has been the coldest winter in years and still people are talking about "global warming" . Give me a break . The earths climate changes . It has done so for centuries .  No I do not want to pay a carbon tax to make Al Gore even richer .

pasquale.argenio
pasquale.argenio

I see all of the paid trolls are out, along with some poor mislead people.

Folks, we ignore climate change at our peril.  There is enough evidence to warrant immediate action, and yes, the best way to do that in a capitalist system is through a tax on what we are producing too much of: carbon dioxide.

Such a carbon tax is not the end of the world, or even the worst thing that could ever happen.  Government taxes us all the time, and it could even reduce other taxes -- which is actually a pretty popular idea being discussed now.  That's called "revenue-neutral", because it shifts incentives without increasing revenues.  It could even be a boon to some who are willing to reduce their fossil fuel consumption and pocket the difference.

The pain will be minimal to consumers, especially if the tax is increased gradually, and as we shift into renewable energy which will be encouraged as these means become more economically competetive -- which is already happening.  The tax will reward innovators and their customers who choose to switch over.

Those who do not, well they are free to consume to their hearts content -- as long as they pay for the privilege of dumping their waste into everyone's air.  Simple concept.  Economists even have names for it: the CO2 is called an "economic externality" and the tax is said to be a "Pigovian Tax".

Who it will hurt are fossil fuel interests, predominately, like the large coal producers, the oil companies and OPEC.  Yes, did you know that the Arabs are funding denial?  Stands to reason doesn't it?  So you patriotic Americans chanting "USA, USA,...", as some Romney supporters did last election cycle, are actually playing into the hands of OPEC.

I hope we can wake up and take action today, before we get too close to any tipping point.


ScottWebsterWood
ScottWebsterWood

Yes, global warming is to blame for cold weather! Obviously! 

You know that the whack-job pseudo-scientists have run out of ideas when record cold is because of global warming.

KatherineAlexander
KatherineAlexander

There is one clown here on this forum, jpmiller99, and I think that clown is YOU.   Once you have achieved a degree in climatology and meteorology, then you will be eligible to comment, but not before. 



jpmiller99
jpmiller99

Interesting theory, but I think that weather is very unpredictable. It doesn't justify taxing us more like the clown democrats want to do. Come to think of it, since we emit carbon dioxide, they are close to taxing the air we breath

progressco68
progressco68

Another ridiculous theory by desperate global warming proponents with absolutely no evidence to back it up. The global warming community is becoming increasingly pathetic in their desperation.

rlcina71
rlcina71

                                                    Climate Change Skepticism in 2 Easy Steps


1.   If the science behind man-made global warming is so sound, and human CO2 emissions are indeed the primary forcing agent for warming temperatures, why is it that the IPCC authors had to admit in their last report (AR5, 2013) that 111 of their 114 climate models (97%) overestimated the amount of warming we'd have received by now due to the dramatically rising CO2 levels we’ve seen in the last few decades?  [“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a)."]   How does a 97% admitted failure rate for the AGW hypothesis compute to supporting its validity?


Similarly, in their first report (FAR, 1990), the IPCC's authors' "best" prediction for warming temperatures was +0.3 C per decade.   Their "high" prediction (and they did use the word "prediction" in FAR) was that we'd warm by +0.5 C per decade.   And yet, according to (pro-IPCC) peer-reviewed authors Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) who looked at five temperature series, we've only warmed by 0.14°C to 0.18°C per decade since 1990.  In other words, the IPCC FAR authors' "best" predictions were off by about 90%, and their "high" predictions were off by about 300%.  In science, isn't a hypothesis that has these kind of (abysmal) failure rates when tested again and again (114 times!) supposed to lead to rethinking of the hypothesis ?


2. But not only hasn't the man-made-CO2-as-primary-climate-forcing-agent hypothesis worked out all that well for the last few decades, it really hasn't worked for most of the planet's climate history.   I regularly read claims about 2003 or 2010 being the “warmest years on record,” with the implication that they’re the warmest in the history of the earth because CO2 levels are also the "highest they’ve ever been."   And yet 2010, the "warmest-ever" year, can only be ranked as around the 9,100th  warmest year in the last 10,500 years.    The past few decades of warmer temperatures have still been cooler than most of the temperatures from the last 10,500 years.

http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/ice-core-temperatures_1_zpsb1741d7a.jpg

http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/VostokTemp0-420000_BP1_zpsb8172769.gif


Why is it that all the humans and animals (polar bears!) and plants that exist today didn't die off in the last 10,500 years of even higher temperatures than now if it's said that the catastrophic warming we are perpetrating on the planet now will cause mass extinctions and biosphere destruction?  


How did the earth's temperatures get so much warmer than now in the last 10,500 years if global CO2 levels were both relatively stable and much lower (around 250-280 ppm) than they are now (400 ppm) during those 10,500 years?   If man-made CO2 is the primary climate forcing agent, why hasn't this theory worked during almost the entirety of this interglacial?


Assuming that it can be acknowledged that natural climate-forcing factors like the sun, clouds, ocean cycles, etc., used to cause all the planetary warming (and cooling) prior to the onset of humans burning fossil fuels en masse during the middle of the last century, how is it that those natural climate-forcing factors could have just ceased to be factors anymore in the last few decades, and instead of natural climate-forcing factors warming the earth's surface, we now only have one main variable that is forcing nearly all the climate change: human beings burning fossil fuels.  Exactly how does this one-causal-variable-wholly-replacing-all-the-other-causal-variables phenomenon (in the span of a decade or two) work scientifically?


rkra42
rkra42

We are ignoring the additional impact of the diminishing ocean currents.

Reduction in ocean currents brought on by global warming with low solar activity for the next 100 years will increase the chances of an Ice Age. We do have green house gases but there has never been the combination of low solar activity along with reduced ocean currents.  

MarlenaHIrsch
MarlenaHIrsch

I wish more people were taught how the science principle, matter expands when heated,  causes warm air to rise and colder air to sink and take its place.  These circular cells form the basis of global circular currents of air which consist of several belts at intervals around the globe.  At the bottom of these bands of moving air, we experience wind.  (Look up Hadley cells if you want to find out more.)  These forces drive our weather patterns.  When temperatures warm, air movement/ weather is affected.  

   Perhaps if we teach science in a way that connects to our lives, more people will understand the responsibility we have to help the Earth maintain the systems that support us.

WishyWashy
WishyWashy

And the Lord said, "Let there be stupidity" and AGW adherents stepped up to the challenge.

PhilosoScience
PhilosoScience

A fundamentalist religion Climate Scientology is.

machzeee
machzeee

this article is another complete hack piece put forth by the extreme element of the religious rebels of man-made global warming. it just appears to the normal person as though we are experiencing the wonders of the ever changing moods of mother nature. no need to form a crowd move on with your daily business!

Tanit
Tanit

Time to move on,,,,,,, turn up your thermostat, get a warm blanket and let the global warming alarmists talk among themselves.

VEarlforchange
VEarlforchange

I've been seeing and hearing the word "arrogant" by people who don't believe we could be causing global warming.  Folks, let me tell you, arrogant is believing that we couldn't be causing climate change.  It's this simple, if the people who do believe we are causing the problem are wrong, which includes nearly all scientists, the earth will be fine or do whatever nature dictates.  For those that don't believe and want to do nothing to reduce the pollution, well, you are betting away our future - that's arrogant and, quit frankly, stupid!

jodyschmidt2010
jodyschmidt2010

Not saying it's impossible, just that it's counter intuitive and unlikely that wave after wave of brutal cold and snow is caused by 'global warming'. It is a hard sell to all but the fervid believers who agree with every explanation of how each extreme cold event is actually caused by planetary warming. Collapse of thermal cycles, sudden stratospheric warming, etc. etc. Were these phenomena causing extreme cold events during the Little Ice Age as well? That period had all sorts of extreme cold events, but nobody is saying they were caused by global warming at the time! Don't you see how ridiculous it sounds?

My opinion is that the planet may be warming...by the most miniscule infinitesimal amount. Certainly not enough to end winter in the temperate latitudes.

Question: How much global warming would it take to end snow events in Boston? 15 degrees of planet warming? 20? How many? Just curious. Cause the amount that has happened thus far, if any, is not even close to enough to end extreme cold for most of the world.

My hunch is that the planet has actually cooled over the past 15 years and that a mass bias in interpreting statistics and data has crept over us all (wont be the first time) causing such erroneous interpretations such as concluding that the planet is warming. Oh well.

surfphillips
surfphillips

Yes its cold because of the warming.  No warming in 17 years, why?  Because we are cooling!  Good luck with your warming religion which refuses to objectively look at the facts.


94% of c02 is natural.

400 ppm co2 is low historically.  2000 max!

PDO osillation is in beginning of 30 year cool cycle.

Solar activity is falling off a cliff.

Blenderhead
Blenderhead

Thanks for publishing this great article.  When will people wake up to reality and begin doing something real? Until their children are dying of starvation? Until the things they take for granted are no longer accessible?  People that are actually connected to the climate in a real way, farmers, and people living hand to mouth, can tell that something has changed about the weather in the past 40 years. It was predicted before there were any real symptoms decades ago. Now the symptoms and the serious effects are everywhere and still Americans are pretty much the only humans in denial.  Must make things easier to be able to buy your way out of the problems.  Didn't really work for Hurricane Sandy, though, didn't work for the 2012 drought, and it's not working for this polar vortex shift.

JonPOgden
JonPOgden

Then how, pray tell, do you explain that the polar vortex was first described in the 1850's, hmmmm?

rlcina71
rlcina71

@pasquale.argenio  


The same people who pay for and are hurt most by a "carbon tax" are the same people who now pay $4.25 for a gallon of gas that they paid $1.25 for in the 1990s: middle and lower class Americans.  Taxing "fossil fuel interests" really just means taxing "regular Americans," because the fossil fuel industries will a) raise their prices to offset any new costs (taxes), b) cut employees and lay off hundreds of thousands (or millions) of American workers, c) take their companies elsewhere where there are fewer taxes and less regulation, and/or d) close up shop and allow fossil fuel energies to be produced in less eco-friendly countries (the Middle East).    In other words, a carbon tax only serves to hurt the average American family.


The vast majority of energy subsidies---$billions of dollars worth---are given to renewable energy companies as it is.   Wind, solar, and biofuels can't drive the nation's economy.  They're not nearly as efficient as fossil fuel combustion when it comes to producing energy.    We haven't got a replacement for fossil fuel energies yet.  Until we do, taxing them won't make the emissions "problem" go away.   All it will mean is we regular Americans will have to pay more to drive, fly, heat, cool, and power our existence..  


Look at the below graph:  http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/CO2emissionsreduction_zps2185b04d.jpg


Notice how the U.S. has led all other nations in reducing its CO2 emissions since 2005---without a carbon tax.   In fact, the U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions more than all of Europe combined.   


But look at China.   There's a new coal plant built every week there.   From 2000 to 2010, the number of Chinese who owned cars doubled.   By 2030, it'll double again.   In fact, by the year 2030, there will be more cars driven in China alone than the number of cars that existed in the entire world in 2000.   And every single day, 95,500 new cars are added to the world's roads, with nearly half of those additions in China.   


Levying taxes on energy companies in America is going to do what, exactly, to curb *worldwide* CO2 emissions relative to what's happening in places like China (and India and Russia)?


Fortunately, CO2 is not a primary driver of temperatures or climate.   It's a trace gas (just 1/100ths of 1% more CO2 has been added to the atmospheric content in the last 115 years), and it's thoroughly outweighed by natural climate-forcing factors like sun variations, cosmic rays, ocean cycles, water vapor/clouds, etc. in determining weather and climate change---just like it has been for millions of years before humans came along.   That we humans think we can dramatically (and catastrophically) change the earth's weather and climate by burning more or less fossil fuels is quite naive.   

CarbonFooledYa
CarbonFooledYa

@KatherineAlexander "...a degree in climatology and meteorology" would rule out almost every AGW believer, including high profile ones like Bill McKibben, Al Gore etc.  Your demand is just a form of elitism, trying to shut down debate, and silence your critics.

ScottWebsterWood
ScottWebsterWood

@KatherineAlexander  ooooooooooooooo some university gave someone a fancy piece of toilet paper, so now everyone else in the world has no common sense and the person that passed a few tests is the only person that can determine reality.

how's about this, for the pseudo-whack-job-climate-change anti-industrialists statists to be taken seriously by anyone with 'a brain' they need to actually meet four criteria:

1) they have to prove the climate is changing, and doing so in a way that has never ever ever happened before in the history of the planet.
2) they have to prove that it is definitely and unquestionably going to mean something predominantly bad for either mankind or the planet and have little or no benefits.
3) they have to prove beyond question that mankind is playing a significant enough role in whatever they are alleging is causing 1 & 2 to justify ANY change in human behavior.
4) they have to prove that ANY AND ALL changes they are suggesting in 3 will actually DO SOMETHING about 1 and 2.

So far, the scientists I have seen are stuck in #1 and avoiding addressing #2 beyond a desire to play chicken little and run around screaming 'they sky is falling' because they saw a few things in one place while completely ignoring many things in other places (they call that confirmation bias btw). And when you look under the surface, the noisiest voices doing the screaming are often tied to other 'agenda' style ideologies such as luddite behaviors, socialist ideologies, etc.
Meanwhile, beyond the 'carbon-dioxide-is-the-poison-of-the-earth' myth, attempts to try to link man to warming are about as credible as trying to link alien visitation to rectal sores on trailer park residents. There's this problem - no one can show a significant alteration in the ratio of energy into the system vs. energy out of the system - yet they can show a change in over time of the overall energy in during the period of alleged warming. That hard to ignore fireball out there that is something like 1,295,000 more voluminous than earth and has a temperature of 10-27 MILLION degrees.
And of course, of all four of those, it is the fourth one on the list that is entirely ignored by anyone pretending to be a 'climate scientist' while proposing radical political and economic changes. In my experience, if you smell an agenda, it's agenda driven. If it's overtly involved in politics, it's political.

KatherineAlexander
KatherineAlexander

@progressco68  ... how could an idiot understand scientific evidence, "progresso68"?  If you know anything, at all, you know that the culmination of "global warming" is an ice age!.  That's earth science 101 and if you haven't watched earth phases on the Science or History Channel, then you should really do so before you attempt to make the first literate comment about climate change!

pasquale.argenio
pasquale.argenio

@rlcina71  2 easier steps:

1 -- close your eyes very tightly

2 -- jam fingers in ears and start singing!

jpmiller99
jpmiller99

@rkra42  Yes, I loved The Day after Tomorrow, as well. Interesting theory though. Not a justification for more taxes.

KatherineAlexander
KatherineAlexander

@WishyWashy  ... someone here is stupid, WishyWashy ... and I think your name says it all.  You aren't qualified to say what is or what is not "man-made global warming".  Once you get your degree in climatology and meteorology, then you come back and tell us all about it!



KatherineAlexander
KatherineAlexander

@machzeee  ... you aren't qualified to say what is or what is not "man-made global warming".  Once you get your degree in climatology and meteorology, then you come back and tell us all about it!

jpmiller99
jpmiller99

@VEarlforchange "Foolish" is the term that I use to describe those that think we can combat "global" warming with higher taxes in the US. That's just a red herring for more government spending.

b-aware
b-aware

@VEarlforchange Nearly ALL scientist?????....wonder exactly what is your definition of scientist then....OHHHH yes these somewhat scientifically training fools educated beyond their intellect who do what they're told even when the evidence points in the opposite direction....The fact is that MOST scientists DO NOT agree with the theory (not fact) of anthropomorphic climate change.  Now who is really stupid and arrogant.

machzeee
machzeee

@VEarlforchange - it seems only the science community which is beholden to the mighty government dollar are pushing this agenda. when their only worry is if there next study will be subsidized then of course the will follow the narrative. will they push for an increase in the burning of fossil fuels when the next impending ice age is upon us?

rlcina71
rlcina71

@surfphillips  


Actually, the CO2 concentration has been 8,000 ppm in our geological history, which is 20 times higher than now.  The 2,000 ppm concentration is just the average level in earth's history.   That is, 2,000 ppm is "normal."   We're very much below normal atmospheric CO2 levels now.   


If CO2 levels were to rise into the 550 ppm range, it would be great for the planet, not bad, as it would significantly improve crop yields and green the earth even more than it's doing now.    We already have more vegetation, plants, and trees on the planet than we did a few decades ago.   The planet is greening much more than it's browning.   Recent research has shown that of all the earth's vegetated area, 20.5% has become greener in the last few decades, and just 3% has gotten browner...at least partially because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.   Even our deserts are greening (see second link below).   More CO2 is a great benefit to the planet.   

http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/03/how-fossil-fuels-have-greened-the-planet/

The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world’s vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/


rlcina71
rlcina71

@Blenderhead  


Humans do not cause weather events.    Nor do they cause climate.    They didn't cause weather or climate 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago either.   


This completely unscientific and ridiculously arrogant belief that we can and do cause hurricanes and tornadoes and warm the oceans by driving our cars is akin to the belief that we can make it rain by dancing.   

 

Something has changed about the weather in the past 40 years?   Yes, it's called natural climate cycles, just like the natural climate cycles changed the weather in the 40, 400, 4,000, 40,000...years before that.    Natural climate cycles have been happening for millions of years.   


The earth has endured "volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages..."   And we have the conceit to think we can cause irreversible catastrophic harm  to the planet by using too many incandescent light bulbs and driving Hummers instead of Priuses?!      


machzeee
machzeee

@JonPOgden- A polar vortex is a large pocket of very cold air, typically the coldest air in the Northern hemisphere, which sits over the polar region during the winter season. and is not a weather pattern or result of man-made global warming. it is what it is and has been for millenia.

twinkletoes2035
twinkletoes2035

1. It's naive to think that humans CAN'T affect our environment.


2. It doesn't matter how high a carbon tax is if we eliminate CO2 production by using CLEAN energy.


I would rather breathe fresh, clean air, than the crap that is produced by burning fossil fuels!

twinkletoes2035
twinkletoes2035

Yeah. Like the burden of proof was on the cigarette smokers dying of cancer to prove the tobacco companies were LYING to everyone! GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

CarbonFooledYa
CarbonFooledYa

@KatherineAlexander @progressco68"... the culmination of "global warming" is an ice age!" Wow. So, when we're in the next ice age, with ice sheets two miles high, it was caused by global warming.  Is that what caused the past ice ages too?


That made me laugh. Then you accuse others of being an idiot. WOW! Now tell me what's this Science channel show called "earth phases", I've never heard of it? Oh wait, you mean actual earth phases, as though that can be shown on Science channel, which was founded in 1996. 

"earth phases" have been happening for 4.5 billion years, how is that shown on TV? Are you drunk? You're embarrassing yourself.

rlcina71
rlcina71

@pasquale.argenio @rlcina71  


So do you have anything substantive to say in response to the brief challenges I presented (this is just the tip of the iceburg), or are insinuations and personal attacks the best you've got?   Looks like the latter from this vantage point.

KatherineAlexander
KatherineAlexander

@jpmiller99  that's not a "theory", jpmiller99 and until you're literate enough to make a valid remark about weather and the climate, you should really keep your comments to yourself.

CarbonFooledYa
CarbonFooledYa

@KatherineAlexander Do you personally know @machzeee? How do you know without asking that they don't have a "degree in climatology and meteorology"? And do all people with such degrees automatically agree with you?

AnthonyGallucci
AnthonyGallucci

@KatherineAlexander @machzeeeHe has as much right as the author, considering that the author is a journalist with no scientific training or credentials. Kinda dumb there aren't you Kat?

It is safe to say that neither you nor the author above has a climate related degree or any scientific credentials or training. By your own rules, you should shut up. But you can't because you're an inferior libtard and a member the The Cult of the Warmists.

progressco68
progressco68

The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control

twinkletoes2035
twinkletoes2035

@rlcina71 @twinkletoes2035 Who said you had to get rid of oil based products completely to drive a hydrogen powered car? It just means we are not burning fossil fuels and releasing all that "brown crap" into the atmosphere. Oh I forgot.....you LIKE breathing all that "brown crap" Explains a lot. Evidently the people in China like it so much they have to wear masks just to walk outside. Thanks to our law makers they have curtailed the problem here to the point that is a little bit more tolerable. But not my much. 

NightStriker
NightStriker

What is your plan when we run out of oil on this planet?

NightStriker
NightStriker

Well, what you want will get rid of the wage gap between the rich and the poor, I'll give you that. That is because there can't be any wage gap if we are all dead. What you want "helps poor people rise out of poverty", and into the fire! Green energies can help poor people, and economies. When gas prices go up, the price of everything else gets driven up to cover shipping. Because of that, people (including poor people), don't just pay more out of pocket directly at the pumps, but, they also have to pay more, indirectly, for just about everything they buy. At times like these, when oil companies are making record profits, economies get taken to their knees.

twinkletoes2035
twinkletoes2035

Just out of cutlriosity, how much do you get paid to go on and on and on about CO2??? You can't seem to get CO2 off your brain. And I think everyone realizes China is a huge problem when it comes to polluting but since when does that make it OK to contribute even more to the problem??

rlcina71
rlcina71

@twinkletoes2035  


So you want to rid the world of all oil-based products so you can drive your hydrogen-powered car.  If we did that, you wouldn't have a hydrogen-powered car.  You wouldn't have a steel body.  You wouldn't have a plastic body.   You wouldn't have seats.  You wouldn't have tires.   You wouldn't have an engine.   You wouldn't have a vehicle.   


There is no such thing as "clean alternatives" that do not also rely, at least somewhat, on fossil fuel based energy.   Wind turbines, solar panels...rely heavily on fossil fuels to operate.   

A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items) 

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:


Solvents

Diesel fuel

Motor Oil

Bearing Grease

Ink

Floor Wax

Ballpoint Pens

Football Cleats

Upholstery

Sweaters

Boats

Insecticides

Bicycle Tires

Sports Car Bodies

Nail Polish

Fishing lures

Dresses

Tires

Golf Bags

Perfumes

Cassettes

Dishwasher parts

Tool Boxes

Shoe Polish

Motorcycle Helmet

Caulking

Petroleum Jelly

Transparent Tape

CD Player

Faucet Washers

Antiseptics

Clothesline

Curtains

Food Preservatives

Basketballs

Soap

Vitamin Capsules

Antihistamines

Purses

Shoes

Dashboards

Cortisone

Deodorant

Footballs

Putty

Dyes

Panty Hose

Refrigerant

Percolators

Life Jackets

Rubbing Alcohol

Linings

Skis

TV Cabinets

Shag Rugs

Electrician's Tape

Tool Racks

Car Battery Cases

Epoxy

Paint

Mops

Slacks

Insect Repellent

Oil Filters

Umbrellas

Yarn

Fertilizers

Hair Coloring

Roofing

Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods

Lipstick

Denture Adhesive

Linoleum

Ice Cube Trays

Synthetic Rubber

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline



twinkletoes2035
twinkletoes2035

"Would you be willing to start paying $30 for a gallon of gas?"

I wouldn't care how high gas prices are if we use clean alternatives to power our vehicles! For instance, if we all powered our vehicles with hydrogen, then gas prices could be $1,000,000 a gallon and it wouldn't affect me. If we don't use gas, then how are gas prices relevant?


We also add much more than CO2 to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels.

rlcina71
rlcina71

@twinkletoes2035  


I see you are at it again, twinkletoes, with your contentions that CO2 is unclean, unfresh "crap." 


And yes, humans *can* affect the environment.  We *can* pollute.  We can add CO2 to the atmosphere via the combustion of fossil fuels.  But the two of those activities are not the same thing.  Emitting CO2 is not the same thing as polluting.  If it were, plants and trees have easily earned the title of the world's biggest polluters.   As have termites.   


"It doesn't matter how high a carbon tax is if we eliminate CO2 production by using CLEAN energy."


Would you be willing to start paying $30 for a gallon of gas?   How about paying $2,500 per month to heat your home?   Want to pay $150,000 for a car?    Or 5 times as much for petroleum-based products like plastics?   If it "doesn't matter how high," why not?  Right?


And will paying these prices for energy in the US actually make a difference considering China's CO2 emissions are growing almost exponentially in the other direction?   Even if the US were to completely stop fossil fuel emissions right now, the global CO2 emissions would *still* be growing rapidly because our stoppage will be easily outpaced by China's massive surge.