Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington's Snowstorms, Brought to You by Global Warming
RIPTON, VERMONT -- You want to hear my winter weather story? No, really, I know you do.
The cross-country ski race I've been training for, set for today high in the Green Mountains: cancelled, lack of snow.
Meanwhile, across the continent, backhoes and helicopters are moving snow down British Columbia's Cypress Mountain in an attempt to cover the Olympic ski courses, and technicians are burying cooling pipes beneath the moguls to keep them from melting. Some climate-conscious jokers put out a video pushing the sport of "bobwheeling" for future snow-challenged Olympiads.
And apparently there was some snowfall in the greater Washington area last week.
When you're trying to launch snowboarding tricks on dry ground and simultaneously shutting down the U.S. government because the snowbanks are casting shadows on the Washington Monument, something odd is going on. This isn't a good old-fashioned winter for the District of Columbia, not unless you're remembering the last ice age. And it doesn't disprove global warming, despite Sen. Jim De Mint's cheerful tweet: "It's going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries 'uncle.' "
Instead, the weird and disruptive weather patterns around the world are pretty much exactly what you'd expect as the planet warms. Here's how it works:
In most places, winter is clearly growing shorter and less intense. We can tell, because Arctic sea ice is melting, because the glaciers on Greenland are shrinking and because a thousand other signals send the same message. Here in the mountains of the Northeast, for instance, lakes freeze later than they used to, and sometimes not at all: Lake Champlain remained open in winter only three times during the 19th century, but it did so 18 times between 1970 and 2007.
But rising temperature is only one effect of climate change. Probably more crucially, warmer air holds more water vapor than cold air does. The increased evaporation from land and sea leads to more drought but also to more precipitation, since what goes up eventually comes down. The numbers aren't trivial -- global warming has added 4 percent more moisture to the atmosphere since 1970. That means that the number of "extreme events" such as downpours and floods has grown steadily; the most intense storms have increased by 20 percent across the United States in the past century.
So here's the thing: Despite global warming, it still gets cold enough to snow in the middle of winter. It even gets cold enough to snow in Texas and Georgia, as it did late last week. And the chances of what are technically called "big honking dumps" have increased. As Jeff Masters, the widely read weather blogger, pointed out last week, a record snowstorm requires a record amount of moisture in the air. "It is quite possible that the dice have been loaded in favor of more intense Nor'easters for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, thanks to the higher levels of moisture present in the air due to warmer global temperatures," he wrote.
The climatalogical climate is only part of the equation. The political climate counts, too -- and there's no question that it's harder to make legislative progress when Sen. James Inhofe's grandchildren are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says "Al Gore's New Home." The timing here is particularly tough, for the snowstorms come against the backdrop of renewed attacks on the pillars of climate science -- charges that hacked e-mails show some researchers to be venal or that key scientists have financial ties to energy industries.
Looked at dispassionately, those political attacks essentially buttress the consensus around global warming. If that much money and attention can be aimed at the data and all anyone can find is a few mistakes and a collection of nasty e-mails, it's a pretty good sign that the science is sound (though not as good a sign as the melting Arctic). The British newspaper the Guardian just concluded a huge series on the "Climategate" e-mails with the words: "The world is still warming. Humanity is still to blame. And we still, urgently, need to do something about it."
Looked at dispassionately, the round of snowmageddons crisscrossing the mid-Atlantic carries the same message. But it's hard to be dispassionate when you're wondering, six hours of shoveling later, if there's a good chiropractor in the neighborhood and what kind of dogsled you might need to reach her.
It's almost like a test, centered on ground zero for climate-change legislation. Can you sit in a snowstorm and imagine a warming world? If you're a senator, can you come back to work and pass a bill that blunts the pace of climate change? If the answer is no, then we're really in a world of trouble.
- Posted in




46 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps Washington DC and Vancouver BC could work out some kind of NAFTA "free trade" agreement. I'm sure the British Columbians would be happy to relieve Washington of some of its snowy overburden in exchange for reconsideration of the illegal US restrictions on their lumber.
I'd like to know how the Guardian concluded that the world is still warming while covering Phil Jones' scandal where he just said, 'there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995.' Obviously, a crackpot denier is he.
According to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment
-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data
-organised.html#ixzz0fZhSVAB7,
Phil Jones said the climate had not cooled 'until recently - and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.
Is this your 'smoking gun'? LOL.
(btw: has there been statistically significant cooling since 1995? If not, then you just used Phil Jones to confirm the last decade has been the warmest on record. Congratulations. And, if its 'only the sun' then we should definitely be cooling, as the sun has been cooling for 15-20 years now.)
Phil Jones seems to have no more respect for principles of scientific research than Bush and Obama have for American principles of justice. As quoted in a Guardian article of Feb. 9, 2010, Phil Jones responded to Warwick Hughes' request for monthly temperature data from 3,000 weather stations described on the CRU website as follows:
"... even if WMO [the World Meteorological Organization] agrees, we will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
The Guardian, which seems to have a better understanding of the scientific method than Jones does, commented:
"The statement is damaging nonetheless, because the entire purpose of scientific replication is to try to find something wrong with existing data and theories. That is how science advances."
The Guardian article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/weather-stations-china
I would cut Jones some slack: he has good reason to feel preyed upon unfairly by GW deniers. In fact, I would say he's been the victim of a character assassination scheme, financed by some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. What, after all, has all this brouhaha proven? That Jones is a flawed human being? I could have told you that at a moments notice and saved you the trouble.
95% of climatologists, when polled, say GW is real and human caused. The comparable figure among scientists in general is around 80%. Needless to say, these thousands of PhD's aren't all Phil Jones. But the forces arrayed against GW science know that the general public wallows in personalities: so its the 'Phil Jones' show. The original poster mentioned a Phil Jones 'quote' he made in an interview with the British tabloid 'The Daily Mail', and that they subsequently blew up into more 'controversy'. All I really have to say about that is this observation: that when you start getting your 'science' from a British tabloid most famous for the frequency by which they are sued for libeling movie actresses, you are seriously damaging your own mind. Check out www.skepticalscience.com for the real story, if you can stomach the real story without all that deliciously entertaining 'politics of personal destruction.'
The important question is not whether Phil Jones is a flawed human being - we're all flawed in some way - but whether his past behavior shows a lack of scientific integrity. I think it does. I understand that he felt himself to be under attack, but science, to maintain its authority, must adhere to certain basic principles, one of which is the open sharing of information. It seems clear that Phil Jones lost sight of that principle somewhere along the way. Given the situation, that's perhaps understandable, but the leaders of climate change research must be held to higher standards of behavior if the world is to have confidence in their pronouncements.
Regarding your second paragraph, my earlier comment concerned Jones' scientific integrity, not the question of whether climate change is real and caused by human activity.
I don't care what the temperature trend has been or will be because in so far as it being man-made that has been demonstrated to be a hoax! Nature will do as it does, so that puts an end to the eco-tyrants attempted power-grab over our lives...for now, maybe.
Lets assume the 'hoax' you mentioned was 'outed' by the CRU email hack. What did CRU do? They integrated global temperatures for the last thousand years. So, if they fibbed, what does this prove? That the temperature trend is not what they say it is. However, it in no way proves, as you claim, that GW 'being man-made [is] demonstrated to be a hoax!' In fact, their work makes no claim about the 'man-made' quality of recent warming at all. Let me repeat: CRU's work is to chart temperatures... period. If those temperatures show warming, CRU has no (official) opinion about whether man is the cause or not. They certainly couldn't prove such a cause just from their temperature charts.
Hey BBW, try your bs at Truthdig or Truthout. Here on CD trolls are quickly recognized for what they are.
Current weather events are not a good way to judge such a long-term process as global warming. If we are seeing signs of global warming allready, we are really in trouble. What will things be like by 2050? or 2100?
It is stunning that oil people and other deniers would take the risk of causing such upheaval in the future. Our grandkids might see the human population drop by 50% before they grow old if global warming is real, and we are still INCREASING out CO2 emissions. How selfish.
That being said, these freak storms are certainly NOT a sign of a stable climate. The deniers are scratching the bottom of the barrel to claim Snowmeggedon as evidence that global warming is not real.
"It is stunning that oil people and other deniers would take the risk of causing such upheaval in the future."
It is not stunning, it is predictable. The oil companies, like all corporations, are required by law to look out for their shareholders, not to be concerned about the consequences of their activities.
And the men (nearly always men) who run the companies did not get their jobs by being concerned for anything except the next fiscal quarter's return.
Now we have a Supreme Court decision telling the men who run these corporations that they can spend as much as they want to deflect any legislation that will curtail their activities.
" If we are seeing signs of global warming allready, we are really in trouble."
The signs have been around for well over a decade. The mountain pine beetle that has devastated BC forests started its population explosion in 1995, when the absence of 2-3 week winter periods of severely cold weather that kill larvae started.
Our ecology is finely balanced and I'm sure others can relate similar changes in plants and animals in their area. Our crocuses came into bloom last week which is 2-3 weeks earlier than last century.
Snow geese travelling the Pacific flyway used to be seen in October/November going South and March/April going North. For the last several winters many have overwintered in the Vancouver area.
This winter has been particularly warm in the Pacific Northwest due to the El Nino phenomenon.
The northern jet stream is undergoing huge N-S oscillations compared to usual. This allows tropical N Pacific water vapor to travel all the way to Canada, cool down, and then all the way back down to Florida and fall as snow.
I have followed GW since around 1980 when the first warning bells reached the media.
Since then the science, which is not exact, but which is continually extended and refined has increasingly confirmed the original data to the point that very few climatologists have any doubt over what is happening.
Given that there are numerous independent streams of data, how on earth a couple of emails and an erroneous time frame on a single glacier retreat (put in by a non-scientist) disprove anything (other than science trumps emotion) is beyond me.
I used to work for geophysicists and geologists and I was told that in the search for hydrocarbons using sub-surface seismic traces that only 3% of the signal that returned was a true reflection. The rest was noise and echoed reflections off the surface and every layer that the sound waves hit.
Nobody seems to have any problem with that science that can be thought of as 97% erroneous.
And another snowy day out here at the nation's capital !
you'd think it was February, or something...
It has snowed in February before but not this badly. It feels like January, the month that Washington usually sees snow in any given year.
Actually, the strongest nor-easter winter storms in the mid-Atlantic are in February or even March. Recall the St. Patrick's Day storm of '93?
I wasn't in Washington at that time. In terms of snow, January is usually the month to get it. Usually, if it snows in December, it won't in January but if it doesn't in December, then we have to watch out for snow in January. February has seen snow in some years. In 2007, there was snowfall in both Feb and April. In April, one day it was 75 and then the next day a big 40 degree drop and then it was winter all over again.
I was on another website where I was trying to prove to a disturbingly large number of people that we really did land men on the moon. These people held the belief that we did not land on the moon and used some of the most bizarre reasoning to find "proof" of fakery in pictures where no fakery existed. I offered proof after proof, and explained away their evidence but they would not budge. They held their BELIEF, and no FACTS were going to change their mind.
And the same problem exists with convincing some people of climate change. If people have a fundamental belief that it is not possible for man to have an impact on the environment no amount of proof or reason you provide them will budge them one inch. Trust me, don't waste your time, you will just aggravate yourself and will accomplish nothing.
I'm sure you're right, but I'm equally sure that argumentative efforts to refute faith with logic (and vice versa) will go on endlessly just the same. In many cases there isn't even common agreement on defining the terms of the debate.
I just wanted to let you know that I agreed with your comment. It has taken me a long time to come to the place where I can accept that on some topics that no matter what you say or what proof you provide that people will continue to believe what they want to believe. They will twist what you say to justify why they are right and you are wrong. Maybe the time has come to not try and waste my time, effort and energy in fighting or debating those who will never see or understand the truth? I am finding that trying to debate some people on the issues is a waste of my time, effort and doesn't accomplish anything except maybe expose their stupidity at best and them knowlingly deceiving themselves and others at worst. Climate Change isn't the only issue this happens on.
If we are not willing to accept the truth, seek to find the truth, stand for the truth, and be willing to speak the truth than we are apt to be like those who inspite of what proof is provided deny the truth until they are blue in the face.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. Alexander Hamilton I think of that quote and in my life I have found that to be true. Maybe that is why I keep fighting because even though I know in my head it is a waste of time; I can't get my heart to give up fighting for what I believe and love. So then I continue to try and find a way to achieve what I feel I must do.
Extreme weather is one of the hallmarks of global warming. I have no doubt global warming has been an ongoing process for the last few hundred years; human activities have increased co2 by 35% since the beginning of the industrial age. You can not pour millions of tons of co2 into the air every day and not expect some drastic impact. It is completely ignorant to think otherwise.
This warming effect does not include other greenhouse gases such as methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2, and will drastically increase warming as it is released into the atmosphere due to increased warming. Not to mention, as well, that as polar and glacial ice melts the warming will increase even more due the the additional warmth or heat that is absorbed into the earth because of the lack of the whiteness of the ice.
The earth's ecosystem is in a downward spiral. Mass extinction is now occurring and will increase. In short, the earth is a dying planet. I would give human culture no more than 50 years left until complete chaos reins. The animal kingdom will be much better off without humanity...I only hope there will be some left after our well-deserved self induced demise.
I just hope I'm not here on this ship of fools when this happens...
Earth is not dying frankhammer.
Once the human virus has been put in its place by nature, which may include extinction, Earth will mend, bring forth new species to replace those we have exterminated and continue to evolve as it should.
The anthropocentric arrogance of Homo sapiens is one of the main factors that will contribute to our demise.
To equate the end of human civilization, a phrase which is itself a non sequitur, with the End of the World, is the height of hubris and absurd on its face.
Earth will live on for a very long time after the brief infestation by the human parasite is over, however disruptive it may have been.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
You are forgetting atomic radiation, 100,000 year half life.
Our gift to a dying planet.
You're being anthropocentric harrylime.
The living Earth will simply adopt a new paradigm: Earth plus radiation. Gaia has survived far worse over billions of years.
The temporary damage inflicted by people is utterly inconsequential to Earth in the long view. The human race however, will suffer greatly before joining the dinosaurs in extinction.
Rapacious consumption, arrogant self-interest and mindless abuse will have dire consequences, not for Earth, but for humanity.
Thanks ColdWarBaby for your comment! You are correct. As a matter of fact, most plants love CO2. It is their food. I can already observe this when I take a group of geology students on a field trip. In many places where we were able to observe a specific geological formation some 20 years ago we no longer can because it is overgrown with lichen and other CO2-loving species. Eventually many regions of Earth which are now in moderate climates may become sub-tropical and sub-tropical regions such as the Texas Gulf Coast may actually become tropical.
Record amounts of moisture in the air makes for record hurricanes too.
The rightwingers are disassociated from reality and the leftwingers cannot imagine the task of clueing them in. According to leftwingers, the government should guarantee almost everything, a living wage, an education, healthcare, economic opportunities, on and on. But mass enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the leftwingers' agenda. It would seem that the leftwinger believes that given a living wage, skills, opportunities and healthcare, that enlightenment will follow. I tend to believe that given enlightenment, the people will know how to achieve/demand the rest for themselves. It may be that leftwingers like the business associated with the more tangible entitlements, and haven't figured out how to profitize mass enlightenment. In fact, mass enlightenment is absolutely opposed to profit, or wealth concentration. So it would seem that our so-called leftists are not so leftist after all, but rather looking for a "righteous" profit.
Define "enlightenment" to a homeless family or one living solely on food stamps -- then get back to us.
Gary
“A hungry man is not a free man.”
-- Adlai E. Stevenson
Not that much longer. The earth is probably a bit past it's most clement times. The gradual long-range warming of the sun will render large life forms impossible in another 600 million years and will be completely sterilize the earth in another 900 million years.
"The gradual long-range warming of the sun will render large life forms impossible in another 600 million years ..."
Shoot, I was hoping to retire by then.
howdy, rtdrury!
how many have heard one generation say of another: I'm trying to make sure you don't have to work as hard as I did...
Or, as Sly Stallone had Apollo Creed say in Rocky: Be a Thinker, not a Stinker...
How often are comments like these related to farming?
Can this sentiment not invert to: have other people do your work for you? feed you?
What if individual hard work, resulting in the sustenance of one's self and loved ones, is the key to enlightenment, and sustainability?
What if this abdication of our own provisioning, and that of our loved ones, to a laboring other, while we rationalize our intellectual earning, is causing our philosophical collapse?
Let's get those gardens growing!
Any minute now, we'll probably be hearing from the "Pat Robertsons and Tim Haggarts" that the plethora of storms plagueing the South are part of God's punishment for their racist past(and present), as well as, their wanton disregard for the wellbeing of their fellow man in resisting healthcare, banking, lobbying, and election reforms etc.
But, don't hold your breath waiting for such "enlightments" from this unholy bunch.
(LOL)
Climate may be the more minor problem. CO2 emissions have already made the oceans more acid than any time in the last 75 million years. If acidification continues, the oceans will largely become an anoxic, dead, sulfurous soup. This could then render the atmosphere so high in H2S and low in oxygen as to be unbreathable by most current life forms.
There will come a time, that our descendants will wonder why we didn't pick up guns and kill all of those who are preventing the urgent action needed.
My suspicion is that it is too late to reverse global warming or climate change. We were warned circa 1970 (Earth Day) and politically we pretty much disregarded it (although in retrospect Nixon was surpringly responsive...). We have had wave after wave of warnings since then, yet remained in denial. (If the northern tundra methane burp---some call it a fart---is real, look out.)
If I am correct, then any serious mitigation of the effects of climate change has to start with pollution countermeasures. If heat is introduced into nearly any potentially toxic chemical reaction, for example, it is likely to increase the toxicity.
Then there is the insect issue. DDT. The entire line of industrial Big Chem offering to give you an emerald green lawn! And kill Nature in the process.
Related, to get kind of esoteric, we ought to be paying more attention to fungi, which have as much to do with the evolution of the soil as do any other life forms. Without the rot the soil could not exist. We western humans sequester our rot and take it out of the Natural Cycle. Flush your toilet!
But perhaps that is a good thing, since we are so chemically adulterated that we represent a threat to most other life forms.
Beware the clever virus! Pogo...
-30-
"The rightwingers are disassociated from reality and the leftwingers cannot imagine the task of clueing them in. According to leftwingers, the government should guarantee almost everything, a living wage, an education, healthcare, economic opportunities, on and on. But mass enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the leftwingers' agenda. It would seem that the leftwinger believes that given a living wage, skills, opportunities and healthcare, that enlightenment will follow. I tend to believe that given enlightenment, the people will know how to achieve/demand the rest for themselves. It may be that leftwingers like the business associated with the more tangible entitlements, and haven't figured out how to profitize mass enlightenment. In fact, mass enlightenment is absolutely opposed to profit, or wealth concentration. So it would seem that our so-called leftists are not so leftist after all, but rather looking for a "righteous" profit."
Say what????
Herman Schmidt
We are, indeed, in a world of trouble.
The mainstream goal to peak at 450 ppm is insufficient. All these climate related events should not be happening already.
The Cap and Trade plans are insufficient to stop us at 450.
The deniers/delayers are doing their best to wreck even that modest plan.
Some time after 2050, maybe 2100, calcium carbonate shell ocean organisms go extinct, large ice sheets fall and sea level greatly rises, and arctic and sub-arctic methane releases take the green house effect past the point of no return for millennia.
More good, clear words from Bill McKibben. One of my favorite folks. Problems of CO2 buildup are still there and intensifying. Inhofe still has his igloo. DeMint is still making his inane comments about Al Gore (god they hate Al). People are still voting these clowns and many others like them into the circus that is the US Legislature.
And all the commentators here are preaching to the CD choir - good for us. And so much of the rest of the US citizenry is dumbing further and further down, overwrought with fear and laziness and sense of entitlement, replacing the laws of physics and facts of the world around us with skepticism and conspiracy theories and belief in corporate and institutional propaganda and the grace of god. Climate change and weather are not the same thing, it's basic science.
How will it all end up 50 or 100 or 150 years from now? Those are very frighting thoughts for conscious beings who sense what is coming and give a damn. Human overpopulation will take care of itself. All the toxins and filth and poisons that a remaining and diminishing human population pour into the Earth's environment will diminish too but the heat will be with us or them or whatever living things survive for well into the distant, unfathomable future of this Earth.
We'll have to wait for the 110 degree days of summer in D.C. before our dumb ass legislators are motivated to do something. But that day is coming soon enough. With any luck it will turn Oklahoma and Texas into deserts--and give the enlightened citizens who elected these Jim Inoff climate change denying blow hards some really sun burnt Red Necks.
One of the sad things about human race is that exactly half of the population is below average intelligence. Thus, it is nearly impossible to sway them, once their heroes have filled their minds with garbage.
Another sad part is that those heroes are often more interested in taking advantage of their flock than they are in educating them to reality... as is the case with most of the people leading the fight against doing anything about global warming.
Both the radical right AND the radical left are at fault in most of our current problems. Fanatics of any stripe are dangerous to the human species.
What we need as leaders are level-headed moderates with open minds... people willing to look at the various arguments and make reasonable judgements... not be swayed by the argument that a freak occurence like a blizzard in Washington, D.C. is a sign that global warming is a nothing but a hoax.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe we should summarily execute those who are arguing AGAINT doing anything about global warming in order to save the human race. They refuse to recognize that their radicalism actually works against their cause.
"One of the sad things about human race is that exactly half of the population is below average intelligence."
And anyone who would find significance in such a trivial tuatology, might be in that lower 50 percentile too!
The opening paragraphs recite the latest "weird weather" stories, from Vermont to Vancouver to Washington DC. Yes, it's all the result of "global warming," but it strikes me and many others with whom I have spoken, that we need to start calling it by another name.
The term "global warming," though perhaps scientifically accurate, plays into the right-wing's attempt to confuse the public. Witness all the jokes made about the snowstorms that have blanketed D.C and the east coast. "Climate change" doesn't capture the imagination either. Here in Minnesota when the temps are in the minus 30's, plenty of folks will joke about "needing a little climate change about now."
The term needs to elicit a more visceral response. I was struck by a term I heard on a recent PBS show (I can't recall if it was NOW or Bill Moyers program). The show included an interview with Bangladesh's environmental minister. He said that what we are facing is not something as benign sounding as "global warming." Rather, he used the term "catastrophic climate instability."
I got me thinking about this. People don't respond to a cause of a problem (as in "the furnace is on"), no matter how scientifically accurate the statement. People respond to an effect (as in "man, am I warm right now"), particularly an effect that is dramatic and personal. Though global warming is a cause of the strange weather patterns, the effect that people will experience is climate instability. They don't directly experience "global warming" as such, particularly when there's six feet of snow on the ground.
Everyone will continue to experience the weird weather patterns of "climate instability." Climate instability will dump massive snowfalls on the south and cause cancellations of ski races in the north. Catastrophic climate instability will ultimately call into question whether we will know what sort of crop to plant - drought resistant or flood resistant - and where to plant it - Kansas or northern Minnesota.
Perhaps if we begin to use words that elicit a more immediate and visceral response, we can begin to convince our fellow citizens to take this issue seriously.
I agree, though one would have to stress that "climate instability" is the beginning of a process that will lead to "catastrophic climate instability" which could be a synonym for "global climate tipping point."
Interesting points, MikeRB.
I tend to use climate change and global warming pretty much interchangeably depending on the context of the point of my argument. When speaking of the atmospheric impact of those terms, however, I tend to use the term, turbulence, because it seems nearly certain that this is what will most impact civilization, and in fact already is. It certainly is studied by homeowner insurance company actuaries. Also, as you suggest, it is more evocative than, for example, "it's gonna get windier."
Meanwhile, there are, it seems, nearly always unintended consequences of how we respond to what we think is happening. For example, in 2003, a huge maple tree was felled by 60 mph winds during an extremely cold March. It fell onto my property, destroyed two cars and punched a huge hole in my garage roof. The insurance company paid out $1600 on my claim and then refused to ensure at all. The next year the Town cut down ALL the old maples along a four block stretch while doing a sidewalk project and planted no new trees.
Trees---esp. forests---tend to moderate turbulence. But if the turbulence becomes too great it destroys the trees, so your insurance company may suggest you cut them down if they're near your house or your rates will go up, if they will insure at all.
On Sept. 14, 2008, the "remnants" of Hurricane Ike came through southern Indiana and wreaked havoc on the forests all around where I live. I was in my back yard that Sunday picking up tree debris during the event, when one of my big pine trees snapped at its base and slammed to the ground. That'll set your hair standing.
Right after the big Xenia, OH tornados back in the early 1970s I was dispatched there as an emergency housing provider and had a chance to review the damage. It was the proverbial picture of, say, a whole block of two-story and split-level homes being either half leveled or turned into splinters, while one house on that block was UNTOUCHED. Same thing with the tornado that hit big in Cincinnati in the late 90s.
That's what happened here with Hurricane Ike. It had become ten thousand little tornados. After it, you could see in the state parks how swaths of trees had been felled while those next to them were UNTOUCHED. (Ike wasn't strong enough here to do Xenia-style damage, but it did huge damage to rural roofs and a few silos.)
Turbulence. I suspect that the laws of fluid dynamics might profitably be applied to such atmospheric events. I suspect that there are times when air stops acting like air. If it keeps taking down the forests the turbulence will increase and pretty soon the forests will be gone and we'll have to replace them with windmills, which also slow down turbulence, by creating resistance!
Of course, scientists aren't supposed to use emotionally charged language in their formal disquisitions, but Faux "News" is not similarly constrained, and given the enormity of the problem, neither should we be. The alternative may be life in underground concrete bunkers...
Thanks.
-30-