An Inconvenient Truth

[Snowguy716]

One of the biggest climate change stories around this region has been the changes seen at Devils Lake, North Dakota. The lake is part of the remnants of Lake Aggasisz that covered a large part of the northern Great Plains after the last ice age. The lake has fluctuated being dry at 1400 above sea level and over flowing completely into the Cheyenne river at 1460 a.s.l. During the drought of the 1920s/30s, the lake fell to a historical low of 1402 feet deep. Much of this fall was caused by farmers pumping water from the lake to irrigate their fields.

After 1940, the lake began to rise again with the end of the drought. Increase precipitation, however, has caused it to rise a lot. During the 1970s and 1980s, the lake basically stabilized at around 1430 feet deep.

In 1992, the lake was about 40,000 acres large. Record setting rainfall during the summer of 1993 and heavy spring snows in 1994 caused the lake to rise 5 feet in 6 months. This may not seem like much, but in North Dakota, that represents quite a bit. Between 1993 and 1999, the lake rose 24 feet and devoured 82,000 acres of privately owned farmland/recreation land.

The lake hit a record high in August 2005 of 1449.5 feet. When the lake reached 1447.5 feet, the lake began draining into Stump Lake, causing stump lake to rise a total of 40 feet, flooding surrounding farmland.

Entire roadways are now small causeways navigating through the lake. Many many homes have been lost and the town of Devils Lake is slowly but surely becoming a lakeshore town.

If the lake rises a further 10 feet to 1459 feet, the lake will breach into the Sheyenne River and begin pouring into the Red River and thus flow into Hudson Bay.

That further 10 feet would represent the loss 120,000 more acres of land, the loss of all routes into and out of Devils Lake (the city), and represent an event that has only happened 3 times since the last ice age.

Here is Devils Lake in 1973:

In 1988: Notice the addition of the "West Bay" due to rising waters.

And in 2000. You can see the formation of new islands and the overflow into Stump Lake on the right side of hte map. You can see the Sheyenne River to the south which it would flow into with a further rise of 10 feet.

[intcvlcphlga]

I have a simple question for all of the naysayers. What are your credentials to question the validity of the scientific community's conclusion about global warming? When you go to the doctor and get a diagnosis that you don't like do you tell him/her that he/she's being alarmist and proceed to ignore his/her advice simply because it's not the news you wanted to hear? It seems that your refusal to acknowledge what the vast majority of credentialed scientist say is happening is rooted in your own selfishness. You don't want humans to have to take responsibility for our actions. Has it not crossed your mind that there is someone else and some other species on this planet besides yourself and that there will be future generations who will suffer the consequences of your refusal to take action in the face of overwhelming evidence?

[Snowguy716]

It's different, though intcvlcphlga...

It would be like going to the doctor and the doctor telling you you had cancer but your pastor and boss were standing there yelling "cancer schmancer.. you don't have cancer... and even if you do, it's not going to do anything bad to you, and if it does, oh well.. cancer is just natural, we'll just have to deal with it."

That doesn't stop it from being incredibly frustrating.

[Captain Worley]

It loks like Mars is warming up, too. Increased energy output from the sun is the suspect.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

[Bill Mocarsky]

So what do you want? When all of the leading scientists in the world are saying it is happening at the hand of man and they ought to be the ones who know, that isn't enough for you? Are you saying that because you don't believe it is happening then nothing needs to be done about the increasing use of fossil fuels being burned?

[Captain Worley]

^ Ha, that's pretty good. I wouldn't consider him a credible source, either.

[JDC]

I don't know what can compel people who are on the fence of this issue. I have been taken aback at the number of my peers who believe that we have in "No Way" contributed to global warming and that this is a normal cycle of our planet. The signs of our involvement are all around us and the vast majority of respectable scientists, politiciants, even religious leaders are all in agreement that we are to blame for what's going on.

Maybe because most people have yet to really suffer any adverse effects besides some slightly warmer temps., they find this hard to believe. I just hope the next generation will be more embracing of this so the planet won't be ruined by our short-sightedness.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Has anyone seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? If you have an hour to spare, it's a decent use of time. Some of my friends who thought Global Warming was a big issue, are more doubtful.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

One of the conclusions of the documentary is that the earth is warming, but because of solar activity. They also claim there is no correlation between CO2 and climate change.

Other interesting points:

- The livelihood of hundreds of thousands of well paid people depends on promoting global warming science.

- Prominent scientists have had their names included on the UN reports against their will

- Major drivers behind environmental movements are using them for neomarxist political ends.

- There was a period right before the middle ages when vineyards covered the UK, it was warmer than it is today.

--

I say we just wait and see what happens and adapt. It's too easy to be an alarmist, because there is no penalty for being wrong if in the end, everything is alright.

[monsoon]

^It's amazing how stuff such as this gets created when there is no basis for it in fairly simple science. This documentary basically justifies it contention there is no such thing as human created global warming with the use of a long set of insults against environmentalists and scientists by comparing them to fanatics.

It's the politics of character assassination.

[sfmartin]

I say we just wait and see what happens and adapt. It's too easy to be an alarmist, because there is no penalty for being wrong if in the end, everything is alright.

[Captain Worley]

I'm just not convinced that we're making that big of an impact. There was a climatologist who spoke in Columbia SC, and te local paper did a short article on him. He said that the changes were really being overblown. he said global warming was a real phenomenon, but would cause the huge changes many alarmists are predicting. As an example, he said hurricanes would get stronger over the next 20 years, but only by about 1%. So a 100mph hurricane in 2007 will become a 101 mph hurricane in 2027. For all intents and purposes, not a huge difference.

[monsoon]

I'm just not convinced that we're making that big of an impact. ...

[cinco]

I say we just wait and see what happens and adapt. It's too easy to be an alarmist, because there is no penalty for being wrong if in the end, everything is alright.

[Captain Worley]

I think you have already said this endless times on this forum. One wonders why you continue to participate in this thread when you refuse to believe in global warming or in fact any cause that we advocate for on this forum. Why don't you give us a link to your source so we can determine if this is indeed something valid or just another example of someone who won't admit that global warming exists, because it puts credibility in the hands of the people they are trying to discredit.

It's a waste of out time here to continue to get these posts, "I heard from so and so that it doesn't exist". I will tell you that if there was some scientific evidence to support it, we would be seeing more than videos on google and hearsay evidence laced with insults.

[Snowguy716]

Christopher Landsea has a lot to say about global warming's effect (or lack of effect) on hurricane frequency and intensity, but he certainly does NOT deny that global warming is happening, which is what you have been denying the whole time in this thread.

The idea that anthropocentric global warming is having a strong effect on hurricanes is a controversial one and much research remains to be done. After Katrina in 2005 when Germany's environment minister was telling the U.S. that we wrought Katrina and wanted to deny any aid to us, I thought his ideas were completely baseless. But then again, Germany is doing more right now than pretty much any other nation, even with a "conservative" chancellor in power, to reduce global warming and its impacts.

The U.S is waking up and beginning to do a lot more about climate change, though mostly because we understand that oil doesn't have much time left to be an economical source of energy.

It is rather telling that our Republican governor (Tim Pawlenty) was very supportive and eagerly signed new legislation into law that requires 30% of energy consumed in Minnesota to come from renewable sources by 2020. This was a strongly bipartisan effort with support from utilities.

The reasons behind the bill? To combat global warming, promote home grown energy, and promote a cleaner environment.

Most of the people that deny global warming are very uneducated on the issue and actively seek out sources that confirm their views and these views often come from people who are themselves very uneducated on the issue.

[erdogs]

The question isn't whether global warming is happening, it's whether we are the cause and if this is just a normal fluctuation in the earths climate or not. The facts we do know, is this type of thing has happened before. We have been in periods of warming and we have also been in periods of cooling in the past 1000 years. For either side to call out the other as having an agenda, is childish.

[Captain Worley]

Christopher Landsea has a lot to say about global warming's effect (or lack of effect) on hurricane frequency and intensity, but he certainly does NOT deny that global warming is happening, which is what you have been denying the whole time in this thread.

[cinco]

The question isn't whether global warming is happening, it's whether we are the cause and if this is just a normal fluctuation in the earths climate or not. The facts we do know, is this type of thing has happened before. We have been in periods of warming and we have also been in periods of cooling in the past 1000 years. For either side to call out the other as having an agenda, is childish.

[Gusterfell]

Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Center was the speaker...

[Recchia]

There is evidence that global warming is a human-induced problem and a sun-induced problem. I would think both are valid. Since we can't help what the sun is doing, logically we should do everything we can to stop our human contribution.

[erdogs]

yes, but we have never seen the temperature rise so sharply - in such a short time. that is, if you believe what the "scientists" say.

[cinco]

I don't see how that is a valid arguement. The fact that there was no real way to measure the extent of what happened in the past, tells me it's just a guess on their part. I have nothing against changing the types of energy we use, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Alternative fuels are being developed and will be put to use when ready. As oil prices continue to rise, the free markets will dictate the use of these new fuels. We lost a lot back in the 70's and 80's with so many being against nuclear power. That alone could reduce pollutants in the amosphere. We all need to be sensible about this and not jump into hysteria.

[runawayjim]

yet you believe that the earth has been warming and cooling for the last thousand years. is that, too, just a "guess" on the part of scientists... or are you picking and chosing the science that you want to hear?

unfortunately, ice core samples are one of the few ways scientists have determined the fast spike in temperature and it's unfortunate b/c it means nothing to some.

my point was very valid. instead of scoughing @ selective science... which does as little to help this issue as my trying to get my opinion across... i propose action.

perhaps the U.S. and other major economic/industrial nations could initiate a global moratorium. for 10 years pass the toughest mandate on pollution possible (stronger than kyoto) and enact proposed counter measures. @ the end of the 10 years - let's see where we are? that could help prove or disprove man's involvement and how it corrulates to "fast spike" theory. so, imo the arguement could be very valid. what isn't valid, is constant dismissing and changing nothing.

we could call it the "inconvenient moratorium".

[erdogs]

Let me be clear, there is no concrete evidence that man is causing global warming. However, I'm all for alternative fuel sources. I'm also for cleaning up the environment. Scientific evidence is almost always a guess, or hypothesis. There are almost no absolutes when it comes to climatological or geological sciences. You have to use some critical thinking when it comes to science or just about anything else. Jumping to wild conclusions helps no one.

[monsoon]

I don't see how that is a valid arguement. The fact that there was no real way to measure the extent of what happened in the past, tells me it's just a guess on their part.