RSS Feed
July 21st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
IT HAS been yet another week of extraordinary weather. Torrential rainfall caused chaos across the UK. A record-breaking heatwave drifted across the US, broken by freak thunderstorms that left a trail of destruction from Chicago to Washington DC. Meanwhile, in India and Bangladesh more than 100 people were killed and half a million fled when the monsoon arrived with a vengeance.
We have become used to reports of extreme weather events playing down any connection with climate change. The refrain is usually along the lines of “you cannot attribute any single event to global warming”. But increasingly this is no longer the case. The science of climate attribution – which makes causal connections between climate change and weather events – is advancing rapidly, and with it our understanding of what we can expect in years to come.
From killer heatwaves to destructive floods, the effects of global warming are becoming ever more obvious – and we ain’t seen nothing yet. Our weather is not only becoming more extreme as a result of global warming, it is becoming even more extreme than climate scientists predicted.
Researchers now think they are starting to understand why (see “How global warming is driving our weather wild”). Human activity cannot be held solely responsible for all of these extreme events, but by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we have loaded the climate dice. Only political leaders and corporate masters have the power to do anything about that – but they are doing little to help.
Those opposed to cutting emissions sometimes argue that we will simply adapt to a warming world. That is fast becoming a necessity, rather than a choice, but we are doing a lousy job of it. Take the recent devastating forest fires in Colorado. Recent weather conditions have been ideal for them, but they were worsened by forest-management practices that led to a build-up of combustible fuel (see “Humans and nature turn American West into a tinderbox”). Elsewhere in the US, subsidised insurance encourages development in coastal areas that are increasingly at risk from storms and flooding.
China, too, is failing. Most of rapidly growing Shanghai is barely above sea level. The land is sinking and the sea is rising. In a century or two, it will be another New Orleans.
And what sort of extreme events will we have to endure by 2060, when the planet could already be 4 °C hotter and counting? We need to start planning for a future of much wilder weather now, to prepare for ever more ferocious heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts.
For example, building codes should be toughened so that homes and offices can withstand whatever is thrown at them. Vital infrastructure should be situated in areas far from the risk of floods and other natural disasters, as Thailand learned the hard way last year when an economically important industrial site was destroyed by floodwater.
We are in this position as a result of decades of foot-dragging over emissions cuts and clean-energy investment. That was perhaps understandable given the distant and abstract nature of the threat. Now the threat has become a real and present danger. Those who offer blithe reassurances of our ability to adapt need to start putting their money where their mouths are.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
No Excuses
Thu Jul 05 10:03:44 BST 2012 by Eric Kvaalen
“Human activity cannot be held solely responsible for all of these extreme events, but by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we have loaded the climate dice. Only political leaders and corporate masters have the power to do anything about that…”
That’s called passing the buck. If enough people of their own free will start cutting their fossil fuel use drastically it would make a difference. It’s true that your own effort won’t do much, but perhaps you will set an example and others will follow.
No Excuses
Mon Jul 09 15:10:32 BST 2012 by adiousir
I don’t understand why this has not been predicted long ago. The climate is a Chaotic system, and the normal behaviour of Chaotic systems when disturbed from a stable equilibrioum is to fluctuate wildly until becoming captured in the orbit of the next stable equilibrium. Think of those desk toys made up of a pendulum and several magnets that oscillate wildly until falling into a stable pattern.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
No Excuses
Tue Jul 10 09:35:50 BST 2012 by adiousir
Hi. I agree with your sentiments. But we are all coming from different sets of assumptions; for example I believe in God, many who post on NS don’t. So what looks like ‘intellectual posturing’ may be just politely trying to come to a consensus without falling into the trap of bringing up fundamental differences.
Climate Change is a problem that will destroy the whole of our shared reality that we call Civilisation. Maybe we will survive, maybe we won’t, but certainly we will not be unchanged.
Namaste.
No Excuses
Tue Jul 10 10:39:57 BST 2012 by ibats
Strange isn’t it that geologists studying ancient weather patterns have found that, without exception, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been high when the planet was colder.
At one site the found there had been about 40 years of drought followed by about 40 years of rain, resulting in the destruction of that particular civilization.
No one found evidence that hair sparys, motorcars, or package holidays, were part of day to day life.
There has always been freak climate episodes, there just wasn’t TV and news personal, and pseudo scientists to tell us about it.
The fact is that the northern hemisphere is still recovering from the last ice age and is actually colder than it should be.
Promoting global warming is a lucrative project, follow the money and use your brains
No Excuses
Tue Jul 10 11:32:06 BST 2012 by adiousir
Very strange that you should have an opinion that is contrary to all the reliable evidence. Our world *may* be ruled by conspiracies, but to assume the worst is the councel of despair.
No Excuses
Tue Jul 10 19:05:08 BST 2012 by Eric Kvaalen
A couple quotes from Wikipedia for you, “Ibats”:
“In the early Phanerozoic, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been linked to driving or amplifying increased global temperatures.[11] Royer et al. 2004[12] found a climate sensitivity for the rest of the Phanerozoic which was calculated to be similar to today’s modern range of values.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology)
“The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[6] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[32][33]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2)
No Excuses
Wed Jul 11 18:13:48 BST 2012 by ScotLot
ibats
I don’t agree with your viewpoint and I believe that climate change is a reality (AGW or not). I am quite amused by your inference that AGW is a money-spinning idea. If we ‘follow the money’ as you suggest, we find it leads us to corporations with vested interests friends in government that are doing everything possible to rubbish AGW in order to keep their polluting cash-cows producing.
No Excuses
Tue Jul 10 11:58:49 BST 2012 by Eren Buglalilar
The corporations suck the majority of electricity, fuel and all kinds of natural resources.
Plus the impact of the weapons and of the machinery and resources that are used to produce them.
Tones of resources and volts of energy are wasted for the consumption habits of the big heads. They are pumping advertisements for more and more consumption of cars, electricity and resources.
U.S. alone consumes %25 of the world energy.
Are you talking about individual efforts? Free will of the people whose desires and minds are completely shaped by big corporations that urge the governments to buy more weapons, to employ more police forces and controlling tools.
This is not passing the buck. This is finding the guilty.
Besides, political leaders and corporate masters cannot do anything. It is in vain to expect a progress from them. Because they are, their existence is the problem itself with their unsatisfiable hunger for profit.
Progress will come through their destruction. The contradiction between the system and the nature can be solved by the destruction of one of the sides. That’s the truth.
What About The Current State Of Our Atmosphere?
Fri Jul 06 01:17:03 BST 2012 by Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
Adapting strategies should be considered, since we are unlikely to reverse the trend within a century or two. However, we do need to address the causes as well – at the same time. And that means not only a reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide, but also heat pollution that is increasing with ours, ever growing energy use…
Heat pollution prevents condensation of atmospheric water vapour – the most powerful greenhouse gas. It is obvious that we need to help nature to provide more water vapour condensation conditions. That may also help us to bring more precipitation to continental interiors. It is, therefore, quite surprising that New Scientist and other science related (Western) publications shy away from the work of Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva: http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump2.php.
Personally, I have bridged the gap between scarcity of fresh water supplies and growing new, coastal forests: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html. The article was well received, reproduced and translated…
It is obvious that we need to absorb and convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into (preferably) carbohydrates and release the trapped oxygen. We should not forget that in three tonnes of carbon dioxide we have more than two tonnes of oxygen – oxygen we need to breathe. We also need to provide more geographical surfaces that will propel water vapour into upper (cooler) layers of atmosphere to condensate – preferably over continental interiors…
We also need to reconsider some of our strategies to reduce usage of fossil energy sources. Wind farms, for example, may disrupt current wind patterns that are bringing precipitation to continental interiors…
Since we do have fires all over the place, we do need fire fighting measures. However, prevention is always better than cure…
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
What About The Current State Of Our Atmosphere?
Fri Jul 06 07:56:21 BST 2012 by Eric Kvaalen
I don’t think the heat we produce is a significant factor. Here is a quote from a 2009 New Scientist article:
“Right now, the waste heating of Earth by its societies is indiscernible. Globally, we use about 18 terawatts, and the resulting increase in the temperature of the biosphere is less than 0.1 °C. But as our power needs multiply and become ever more complex, by the close of the 21st century these energy demands are likely to exceed 100 terawatts. Amazingly, even this figure will not heat our environment appreciably. Only when humankind’s insatiable thirst for energy reaches a few thousand terawatts will significant waste heating of our globe occur.” ((long URL – click here) See also my comment and others.) The article also says that the solar energy arriving to the earth is 120 000 terawatts.
We have plenty of oxygen. We don’t need to start worrying about that!
The editorial (and the article it links to) are saying that we shouldn’t prevent all forest fires because it leads to a dangerous build-up of fuel. (Maybe instead of allowing small fires we should collect the wood and either use it for fuel or store it as wood or charcoal to lower the amount of CO2 input to the atmosphere.)
What About The Current State Of Our Atmosphere?
Sat Jul 07 02:29:11 BST 2012 by Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
Dear Eric,
Removal of this editorial from the first page of the current issue content – indicates that editors did not like my comment. Was this hiding a result of shying away from the work of Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva?
Your reply also seems to be along these lines. You also don’t seem to be particularly concerned about the fact that global temperatures will continue to rise – as long we refuse to tackle the issue of existing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and heat pollution combined. Before, we could afford the luxury of 0.1 Celsius increases – for the heat was easily released to outer space. Today, these increases are not easily released to outer space. Today, these increases are rather cumulative – thanks to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapour…
“We have plenty of oxygen. We don’t need to start worrying about that!”
I’m not so sure. Anyway, I have mentioned oxygen only to emphasise that we cannot continue burning fossil fuels for ever – and forget about retrieval of oxygen from carbon dioxide.
“The editorial (and the article it links to) are saying that we shouldn’t prevent all forest fires because it leads to a dangerous build-up of fuel.”
I haven’t even mentioned preventing forest fires. I mentioned fires as a figuratively. However, since you mentioned forest fires:
The controlled burning of excess fuel at the forest floor is considered as beneficial when humidity is very high – for trees themselves suffered only superficial burns. However, higher temperatures and dry spells are turning trees into very volatile fuel – as demonstrated now by wildfires in US and elsewhere. These fires do not only release huge volumes of carbon dioxide into biosphere. They also release a lot of heat…
In the referred article, we also have a misconception about heat:
“Heat is an unavoidable by-product of the energy extracted from any non-renewable energy source.”
Heat is unavoidable by-product of any energy use – renewable or not. If we take solar panels, for example, we convert solar radiation into electricity – and then by powering our fridge we convert the energy into heat. The difference is in wavelength. The most of solar radiation has much greater chances to be reflected back into the outer space than heat…
All in all, I consider the editorial and your reply inadequate. I have pointed out that adaptation, although necessary, needs to be complemented by other measures that will reduce the current levels of carbon dioxide and facilitate emission of the heat into the outer space…
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
What About The Current State Of Our Atmosphere?
Sat Jul 07 02:33:05 BST 2012 by Damir Ibrisimovic
My apologies. The editorial is now displayed, as it was before, on the fornt page of the current issue content.
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
What About The Current State Of Our Atmosphere?
Sat Jul 07 18:27:09 BST 2012 by Eric Kvaalen
I am concerned about global warming, but not from the heat we generate, which is about 1/7000 of the energy coming form the sun.
Even if we burn all the fossil fuel in the earth, say 2 teratonnes of carbon, that wouldn’t diminish much the approximately 1000 teratonnes of oxygen in our atmosphere.
Even the huge wildfires going on right now do not release heat on a scale that would have a measurable effect on our climate.
When the article I linked to says “Heat is an unavoidable by-product of the energy extracted from any non-renewable energy source”, what it means is that non-renewable energy sources put a net amount of heat into the environment whereas renewable sources do not. But as I commented under that article, we don’t have to worry about that. It’s insignificant. I don’t feel like defending one sentence in an article when I disagree with the whole thrust of it.
Have a cool day.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the “Report” link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
