Friday, April 21, 2006

Peter Heck on Global Warming

Remember when the Bush administration was trying to silence the scientists at NASA about global warming? Hmm?
Mr Heck has a different take. You'll find it here:
http://peterheck.com/betasite/fullBlog.php?entry=154

17 comments:

dave said...

Heck is clueless. George Bush doesn't want anyone who doesn't toe the party line to speak. Global warming is happening. Look at the hurricanes, look at temperature readings, look at the size of the Arctic. The evidence goes on and on. You and Heck can bury your heads in the sand, but when the earth is destroyed because of our ignorance, our gas-guzzling SUVs, our technological "(non)advancements," there won't be anyone left to tell you how wrong you were. So I'm telling you now. Hansen's right, Heck is wrong.

Peter W. Heck said...

Dave, thought you might be interested in this quote from a piece by Jonah Goldberg today at the National Review. It regards who is really being silenced and "censored" in this debate.

"Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, recently lamented in the Wall Street Journal: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"

SkyePuppy said...

Dave,

Here's a quote from the April 9, 2006 London Telegraph:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.


The temperature readings are static. They've dropped, but not enough to notice. The quantity of hurricanes fluctuates each year, and last year's high number of hurricanes that made landfall in the US does not prove global warming.

Climate change is long-term. Here's how dictionary.com defines climate (emphasis added): "the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time."

I'm sorry, but you're going to need better evidence than "Look at" this or that to convince me global warming is scientific fact and not just hysterics.

dave said...

Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, they are all indications of an earth that is not ecologically balanced. The earth has existed for millions of years, so what could possibly be causing this massive destabilization of the earth's weather if it is not the introduction of man and his devices? We threaten ourselves if we don't take the threat we pose seriously. You all don't seem to and I am aghast at that. Especially since the only defense of your positions seems to be, "Because Jonah Goldberg says so."

Andrew said...

Dave, reliable scientific evidence does not support your claims. Nonetheless, I understand the need for many in the scientific community to do the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" routine. After all, if they didn't make us all think that soon there "won't be anyone left to tell you how wrong you were," they wouldn't receive any more funding for their leftist agenda.

You say: "Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, they are all indications of an earth that is not ecologically balanced. The earth has existed for millions of years, so what could possibly be causing this massive destabilization of the earth's weather if it is not the introduction of man and his devices?"

If that is the case, how do you explain the following hurricanes (see http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html):

"Colonial Hurricane of 1635--Was a powerful New England hurricane that struck the Massachussetts Bay Colony in 1635 some fifteen years after the Mayflower struck land at Plymouth Rock. This storm had reminded many of the pilgrims and settlers of past hurricanes that struck in the West Indies or Caribbean. Many of the pilgrims believed that this storm was apocalyptic.

Great Hurricane of 1780--This storm was one of several that year, which was one of the worst hurricane seasons in the era prior to record taking. Winds were estimated to be Category Four strength at 135 mph. This storm, which affected the Southern Windward Islands including Barbados, St. Vincent, Grenada, Martinique, St. Eustatius, and near Puerto Rico and Grand Turk Island, is believed to have killed approximately 22,000 people. Of that total, between 4,000 and 5,000 people were killed on St. Eustatius. Martinique had an estimated 9,000 people killed including 1,000 in St. Pierre, which had all of its homes destroyed.

Great September Gale of 1815--Was the last hurricane to strike New England before the Long Island Express of 1938. The storm struck on September 23, 1815, and brought an 11 foot storm surge to Providence, which was the highest storm surge in the Rhode Island captial prior to the Great Hurricane of 1938, which had a 17.6 foot storm surge. This storm was the first hurricane to strike New England in exactly 180 years.

Cape May Hurricane of 1821--The last major hurricane to make a direct landfall in the Garden State of New Jersey. This storm, which was a Category Four Hurricane, struck Cape May, New Jersey on September 3, 1821, and had hurricane force winds go as far west as Philadelphia while folks in New Jersey experienced wind gusts of up to 200 mph. The storm cut a path of destruction that is similar to that of the Garden State Parkway.

The Hurricane of 1846--Referred to as "The Great", used its northeast quadrant that caused havoc on the Delaware all the way up to Camden, New Jersey. This storm revealed the fact that Delaware Bay is open to southeast winds in the right quadrant, and water in the Bay would go upriver into cities such as Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Camden.

Indianola Hurricane of 1886--Destroyed what had been the leading port city in Texas at the time on August 19-20, 1886. Indianola, which was located in Matagorda Bay, was hit by this storm, and another one a bit more than a month later. As a result, business that previously came into that port, moved up the coast to Galveston, which became the prominent port city in the Lone Star State until it was devastated by the Great Hurricane of 1900.

Sea Islands Hurricane of 1893--A major hurricane of Category Three strength that made landfall in Savannah, Georgia on August 27th, but its northeast quadrant hammered Sea Islands in Beaufort County, South Carolina. As a result, approximately 2,000 to 2,500 people were killed and upwards of 30,000 people were left homeless.

Galveston Hurricane of 1900--The deadliest natural disaster in United States History, this Category Four Hurricane moved through Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico before slamming ashore in Galveston, Texas on September 8, 1900 killing 6,000 people.

Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928--Carved a path of destruction throughout the Atlantic, and over the north shore of Lake Okeechobee during the period from September 6th to September 20th, 1928. This particular hurricane, which had a central pressure of 27.43 inches, was fifth all time to strike the United States in terms of intensity. It was responsible for an estimated 2,500 deaths, and some $25 million dollars in damage (equivalent to $300 million 1990 U.S. dollars). Now ranks behind Galveston as the second deadliest natural disaster in United States History.

Chesapeake Bay Hurricane of 1933--A powerful Cape Verde Storm that reached Category Four strength at one point before weakening to Category Two strength. The storm ended up striking on August 23, 1933 causing 79 million dollars in damage according to 1969 estimates, and left some 18 people dead. It also knocked out service to about 79,000 telephones as well as uprooted some 600 trees in Virginia Beach. The storm also set a record for storm surge with one that was 9.8 feet above normal in spots.

Major Hurricane of September, 1933--1933 was a very active year for tropical storms and hurricanes with 21 named storms, and 10 of them becoming hurricanes. In addition to the Great Chesapeake Hurricane of 1933, the Mid-Atlantic was hit by another hurricane almost exactly a month to the day later when a Category Three storm emerged from a disturbance in the Bahamas, and came up the coast to make landfall at Cape Lookout, North Carolina. The storm ended up causing about a fraction of the damage caused by the Chesapeake Bay storm. Only about 2,000 telephones were knocked out by the storm, and only two people died in Virginia.

Labor Day Hurricane of 1935--The most powerful hurricane to make landfall in the United States. A very small storm, this Category Five Hurricane tore through the Florida Keys with 180 mph winds, and a low pressure of 26.35 inches of Hg.

Long Island Express of 1938--A classic east coast hurricane, this Category Three storm moved rapidly from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina into New England in a matter of just six hours killing 600 people.

Great Hurricane of September, 1944--Is perhaps a forgotten storm in light of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, and the Long Island Express of 1938. However, this was a memorable storm in its own right. Cape Henry in Virginia was hit with sustained winds of 134 mph, and gusts up to 150 mph. Meanwhile, in Norfolk, winds reached close to hurricane force while gusts went up to 90 mph. The powerful storm caused tremendous damage along the coast from North Carolina to New England with some 41,000 buildings damaged, and a death toll of 390 people. The storm cost some $100 million dollars in damage including $25 million in New Jersey alone, where some 300 homes were destroyed on Long Beach Island."

With a cap tip to Bryan Alexander's "Right Thinking" blog for first making me aware of these storms, I would simply point out, Dave, that all of these storms (which are just a small number of those that have occurred) happened before "our gas-guzzling SUVs" and our other "technological (non) advancements."

In addition, SkyePuppy presented you with evidence from "the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease...)."

These are scientific facts, Dave. That is the defense of our position, not just an assertion that "Jonah Goldberg says so." Interestingly, however, your argument has not contained any scientific fact. Instead, it primarily has consisted of "Hansen's right, Heck is wrong," a "shame on you" attitude and an egotistical point of view that suggests that we, as humans, can destroy in a few years something that we did not create.

SkyePuppy said...

Dave,

You said, "Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, they are all indications of an earth that is not ecologically balanced."

Well, that's a no-brainer, especially about earthquakes. Are you going to blame earthquakes on SUV-caused global warming too? Somehow I thought earthquakes were caused by shifts in the tectonic plates, which have been moving for eons, since WAY before technology invented the SUV.

Tornadoes have been around just as long. Tornado Alley has been Tornado Alley forever, and not just since the Industrial Revolution. And, as Andrew so thoroughly documented, hurricanes have been here much longer than man-made carbon dioxide too.

The earth has always been ecologically balanced enough to keep supporting life. And it has always been ecologically unbalanced enough to keep life possible (if we had no tectonic plates grinding the earth, then eventually all the topsoil would be washed away, leaving bare rock that can't support life--that was from an astrophysicist I heard on the radio years ago discussing the planetary requirements for supporting life).

Your arguments are many. Your facts are few. Your hysteria is showing.

janice said...

I was gonna jump in here, but I see Andrew has everything under control. Carry on Dave, I want to see Andrew take you down.

Andrew said...

Thanks, Janice - you're far too generous.

SkyePuppy, I think you've been reading Malott's blog too long. I think we all understand that "as Andrew so thoroughly documented," is simply code for: "Andrew is too long-winded and verbose." I have to believe you have reached this unfortuante opinion after reading similar baseless claims from our honorable host. My already poor self-esteem has suffered another blow, but I shall press on.

SkyePuppy said...

Andrew,

You mistake me! I may have been reading Malott's Blog too long, true. But that's not the point.

I'm too straight-forward (and too sleepy most of the time) to expend energy coming up with code. You did indeed document the hurricanes so well that I had nothing further to offer Dave on that topic.

The hurricane winds will blow--and have blown. But when it comes to being long-winded, if I point one finger at you, I still have three fingers pointing back at myself. Just look at my blog, and you'll see.

Malott said...

ANDREW! HEY! Wait a second! What's all this about reading my blog "too long?"

Andrew, are you trying to turn my SkyePuppy against me? I found her. She's mine. Back off!

But I must say that since you've been posting here I do believe the Pupster's posts on her page have been getting longer, suggesting that you may have infected her somehow. They pale in length next to yours, of course, but so do certain books of the Bible.

I'm not saying that the two of you are garrulous, loquacious, pontificating, babbling, pedantics...

I'm not saying that. No one can make me say that. I just won't say it. Not me.

Andrew said...

SkyePuppy, I must apologize. I fear I have read too much into your post. You, like Janice, are much too kind in assessing the value of my contribution. So from one long-winded friend to another, I will simply say: thanks.

Chris, as for "infecting" SkyePuppy, I resent that. While I constantly find myself being impressed and taking notes when reading her posts, I somehow doubt she has been too affected by my ramblings.

As for turning her against you, I fear you may have done that yourself. I have to think that the revelation that you have a deep-seated fear of killer bunny rabbits may have called into question your masculinity (not to mention your fascination with girls twirling ribbons on sticks).

Malott said...

Andrew,

Being impressed? Taking notes? Well let's just all kiss-up to Skyepuppy.

The more you write here, the more Dave's posts are looking good to me.

I would say more, but it might launch you into a rebuttal that would strain the storage capacity of blogger.com.

Andrew said...

Must have struck a nerve...

Was it the ribbons on sticks?

dave said...

Keep self congratulating yourselves, conservative nuts. The simple truth is that if this blog were mainstream enough to be read by the vast majority of the populace, it would be rejected and you all would be given a hearty dose of the truth. The earth is groaning as we continue in our ignorance to mistreat it as our own personal footstool. If we don't learn to live in harmony with nature, we can never hope nature to treat us with respect. The biosphere is the biggest concern we have today, but you keep building your guns and warships and polluting the Mother with your oil and coal and soot. I don't know if that will look like such a great idea when the planet is ransacked in 50 years. And Andrew, as far as your long list of hurricanes, maybe you should go to meteorology school. What you should recognize is that you're citing hurricanes every 20 years apart. Those hurricanes come every year now. As do tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, waterspouts, tsunamis, tidal waves, etc. The Mother is trying to tell us something.

Andrew said...

Okay, Dave, whatever. Still no scientific facts, though. Just more alarmism.

As for the 20 years apart argument: those were just a sampling. If I had the time, or the inclination, I could provide you with a more exhaustive list. First, though, you seem undeterred by facts. Second, everybody else seems to already have a grasp on reality.

As just one example, consider this excerpt from National Geographic online: "Kam-biu Liu, a geology professor at Louisiana State University, discovered ocean sand in core samples from inland lakes on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. From these samples, Liu concluded that extremely powerful hurricanes battered the Gulf Coast and dumped the sand into the lakes.

"Liu thinks the core samples indicate that hurricanes that would be considered catastrophic by modern standards were regularly battering the Gulf Coast thousands of years ago.

"From about 3,400 years ago to about 1,000 years ago, the Gulf Coast was hit repeatedly by very powerful hurricanes, Liu said. The frequency of hits increases by three to five times more than today."

Did he really say "three to five times more than today?" Surely not!

Hurrianes, "tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, waterspouts, tsunamis, tidal waves, etc." have been occurring from time immemorial. "The Mother" isn't trying to tell us anything she hasn't been for a long time. Nice try, though.

Feel free to keep up the "shame on you attitude" and the insults to those who disagree with you. Just recognize that if you want people to take you seriously, you should be prepared to discuss facts and reality.

You criticize this blog as not being "mainstream enough" to be read by the general populace, and suggest that if it were, it would be rejected. First, I think you would probably be surprised by the number of visitors to this cite. Second, I think you are seriously mis-guessing the views of most people on this issue. I think reading the Sierra Club and Greenpeace blogs has given you a warped view of reality.

You say: "The biosphere is the biggest concern we have today, but you keep building your guns and warships and polluting the Mother with your oil and coal and soot."

Fine, let's all join together and sing "Kum Bay Yah" while Iran pursues nukes and radical Islam pursues our annihilation. When I think about your position on this, I'm reminded of a portion of a quotation from John Stuart Mill: "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The bottom line is neither of us will likely ever convince the other. Before you can hope to convince me you're going to have to present more than the same old tired alarmist claims.

Dave, the Earth was around a long time before you and I were here, and, unless a power greater than ourselves decides otherwise, it will be here a long time after we're gone.

SkyePuppy said...

Dave, you said:

Keep self congratulating yourselves, conservative nuts.

I'm afraid your assessment of our reparté is inaccurate. It is not self-congratulation. Rather, it is humor, a quality that seems lacking in your comments. Let me help you out. Here's what the dictionary says about humor:

1. The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness.
2. That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement.
3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.

I'm sure, with much study and practice, you might come to learn how to recognize it when you see it, and maybe even experience it for yourself someday.

In the meantime, I will continue driving my 37mpg car (not an SUV), using power-saving fluorescent light bulbs, and recycling my soft drink cans. Mr. Malott will no doubt continue growing his own vegetables, reducing the need for excess non-biodegradable packaging, and Andrew, Janice, and Peter Heck will probably continue to do their part in keeping the earth free from gratuitous pollutants.

We are not the enemy, Dave. Just because we don't share your alarm doesn't mean we don't care at all.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Dave said, "...but you keep building your guns and warships and polluting the Mother with your oil and coal and soot."

Dave, you do realize that "Mother earth" is the biggest polluter of all don't you? "Her" volcanos send more pollutants into the air than all of man's pollution combined. "Her" underwater fissures spew more oil into the oceans than all of man does.

I also find it interesting that you use terms like mainstream and mother earth in the same post. You picture mother earth as cognitive and in the category of a deity. Since when is religion in the mainstream liberals always point to?

From your arguments my guess is that you went to a University such as Berkley where you were indoctrinated with all of this mish-mash and therefore have no factual foundation to argue from. You would do yourself a favor by dumping the indoctrination and approaching the issue freshly without bias from the so called "mainstream". Try starting out looking at http://junkscience.com

Then if you go to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3362746.html
you will see a story among several showing warming trends on Mars. Are we to believe that there are evil Martians polluting the planet and that Mother Mars is upset and sending them a message?