Thousands of records broken: Jet stream pulled up towards Canada, out of whack says meteorologists

The 30's were very similar. Seems the North Atlantic has warmed which in turn has pushed the jet stream far north, and the air to the south is left stagnant until storms come though.

Melt in Greenland could cause this by putting excess fresh water into the Atlantic which would cause the sinking currents to slow thus allowing the sun to warm the area more. Does anyone remember all of the black crud that was seen all over the Greenland ice fields? At the time I thought it was done to cause melt so that the search for new diamond fields would be easier, but now I wonder if it is not an engineered heat wave.

Siberia is also a major weather regulator, and it has seen areas larger than Texas burn in the past couple years. It is also being quickly developed and clear cut etc... When in doubt blame Russia!

There is no better way to push an AGW agenda!

P.S. This is the worst weather I have ever seen. Swimming holes and springs in my area that never dry up are bone dry. Folks are selling cattle for pennies on the dollar because there is no way to feed them etc...

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

i could not agree with you more. it's a combination of things and sped up at a rate we can't keep up with. humans are partly to blame and i do think we could have slowed things down if we had really tried but it's too late now. crazy weather is going to be the new normal.

Eh...I think it's still POSSIBLE to reverse it...just not very PROBABLE until the baby boomers die off.

I think what we will see is that in the latter half of the 2020's there will be an ENORMOUS push to mitigate these effects by global efforts of govt's, and the peasantry alike in planting bamboo.

It probably sounds fairly nutty...but bamboo is one of if not THE most efficient carbon sink on planet earth and also has the added bonus of stabilizing soil from eroding as well as providing raw materials for everything from paper to building supplies. One acre of bamboo is the equivalent of roughly 17-18 acres of woodlands. To put this in perspective, if all of the 200 million households in the US planted 1/10 of an acre patch of bamboo as a privacy hedge or decorative landscaping, it would be the atmospheric equivalent of approximately 1/2 of the Brazillian Rainforest. Best of all? Most strains of Bamboo are "mature" in a single season....you don't have to wait 80 years for it to grow like you would with pine trees or oaks.

In short...it really would be pretty do-able to add another 1-2 "brazillian rainforests" back into the Earth's equation as far as the atmosphere is concerned. We just need a global citizenry who don't view working together as being inherently evil and/or indicative of "communism".

reply to post by milominderbinder


In relation to carbon sequestration, how quickly does bamboo decompose (and then release its carbon), in relation to native conifers?

Your idea is an interesting one. I see the potential, but the idea of mass planting of such an aggressive species worries me a bit. It would have a lot of negative consequences as well, that would obviously need to be accounted for in advance, depending on region. But its a very interesting thought.

Originally posted by tw0330
BP OIL SPILL

I believe this has disrupted the gulf stream. Many people predicted this would happen back in 2010, but since the prediction has shown to be right, everyone has been quiet about it.

yes there are probably other contributing factors, but come on guys lets look at the timing of all of this.

Cold winters in Europe
Warm winters in the US
Cool rainy summer in Europe
Hot Dry summer in US

And just how does the Gulf stream work?
It brings the warm waters of the south to the northern areas (Europe specifically) while bringing the cooler waters back south to regulate things out a bit. So if it is not working correctly then you will get colder water on the Eastern side of the Atlantic while the warmer waters stay on the western side of the Atlantic.

By what mechanisms do you believe the BP spill has effected the Gulf Stream?

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by tw0330
BP OIL SPILL

I believe this has disrupted the gulf stream. Many people predicted this would happen back in 2010, but since the prediction has shown to be right, everyone has been quiet about it.

yes there are probably other contributing factors, but come on guys lets look at the timing of all of this.

Cold winters in Europe
Warm winters in the US
Cool rainy summer in Europe
Hot Dry summer in US

And just how does the Gulf stream work?
It brings the warm waters of the south to the northern areas (Europe specifically) while bringing the cooler waters back south to regulate things out a bit. So if it is not working correctly then you will get colder water on the Eastern side of the Atlantic while the warmer waters stay on the western side of the Atlantic.

By what mechanisms do you believe the BP spill has effected the Gulf Stream?

He has a point as the spill is still leaching out methane. Methane is a very effective greenhouse gas.

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


Okay, so a very large methane leak./seep could effect the Gulf stream or Jet stream? How, specifically?

Originally posted by murkraz
reply to post by benrl

 

The weather here in NFLD has been great this summer.

Half of the days are a nice bearable dry heat, the other half are full of rain or mild temperatures.

We are some of the lucky ones. Still I'm noticing that the weather is off quite a bit.

All this goes to proof.Is that global warming is a bunch of bad crap.These are normal global shifts.Mother nature causes 97% of co2 gases our 3% mean nothing.This just the way our world works people we know next to nothing about it.

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


You do realise that by far the largest danger to the Gulf is caused by agricultural pollutants coming downriver and spilling into the Gulf? That is what is causing all the huge dead zones.

That is not negating the damage caused by the BP spill but lets be realistic at least please.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

In relation to carbon sequestration, how quickly does bamboo decompose (and then release its carbon), in relation to native conifers?

Your idea is an interesting one. I see the potential, but the idea of mass planting of such an aggressive species worries me a bit. It would have a lot of negative consequences as well, that would obviously need to be accounted for in advance, depending on region. But its a very interesting thought.

edit on 10-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

Pretty much like any wood, the rate of decomposition will vary with climate, exposure to the elements, maintenance, etc. However, there is a common misconception that bamboo is an inherently soft type of wood. Certain strains are commonly used for hardwood floors due to the fact that they are harder and more durable than red oak and hickory. Indeed, many of these varieties are superseded only by a handful of exotics such as Brazillian Cherry or Ipe (the latter commonly referred to as "Brazillian Walnut"). However, these are truly rareities...Ipe is so incredibly dense and hard that it doesn't even BURN. It will char on the outside...but won't fully combust under normal conditions. (Napalm and blast furnaces notwithstanding).

As far as risks go...the big one would be in uneducated people planting the "running" variaties of bamboo which have a tendency to spread outwards at prodigious rates. However...assuming that most people don't want a bamboo forest in their front yard, I'm guessing that even if people DID make a mistake...most would promptly pull it up once they saw bamboo shoots popping up all over the place.

Again...I'm NOT advocating that we reseed wildfire areas in the National Parks with bamboo. This would wreak havoc on the ecosystem and no doubt result in a die-off of epic proportions. However...what's the harm with a little landscaping in the suburbs? The stuff really does make a super cool-looking privacy hedge. Is it "invasive"? Sure...but so are rose bushes and apple trees.

In a perfect world we would all plant only those species which are native to our region. Unfortunately, none of these will ultimately grow FAST enough by the time the majority of the world's population wakes up and decides to do something.

The only other thing that can absorb carbon as quickly is algae. However this requires everyone to either have some sort of cool-looking enclosed tank in their home for growing it like they do for the biofuel algae plants...or a scum-filled pond full of stagnant water, mosquitos, and maybe even a little bit of giardia in the back yard. It's just not really feasible that people will invite this into their lives.

I see it as the only real option on the table, assuming that civilization continues pretty much as it has for the last three hundred or so years and there is no major "game-changer" in terms of power production that the banksters and the oil cartels allow to get loose in the marketplace. Obviously, a $2,000 cold-fusion reactor in everyone's basement would likely make planting bamboo largely unnecessary, as we could heat our homes and run our electric appliances and cars without any fossil fuels.

If you have any other ideas, I'm all ears.

If a person burns wood gotten from a tree that died and keeps the woods free of a lot of these dead trees it is actually good for nature as long as all the wood is not removed from the woods. The release of carbon from burning this wood is about the same as it decays naturally. As long as you don't go crazy and try to heat an area you don't need to heat. Taking live trees is another thing. That is releasing carbon early. Thinning a few trees out of the woods isn't bad though, too much clearcutting is bad. Trees cool the surrounding area and it makes the need for watering of gardens and fields mandatory. I have only had to water my gardens three times this year so far because I have small clearings within the woods. Any carbon released from my little campfire will be gobbled up by the surrounding trees to help them grow. The carbon dioxide at ground level is good for trees growth, they eat the carbon and turn it into oxygen. Everyone probably knows this. It's the CO2 that's in the upper atmosphere that causes problems. That comes from two things usually. Jets flying around burning tons of fuel and concentrated carbon emissions that are too high to be effectively absorbed by nature. This last case happens around big cities where everyone is driving to work for hours.

How do we fix this. Number one is to reduce the number of flights. These airline miles are killing the earth, they get people to fly all over the place to vacation using miles they accumulated. Our government subsidizing the airlines is bad, they contribute to CO2 emissions on a national scale. Everyone wanting to fly somewhere else to vacation is another contributor. The grass is evidently greener everywhere else than home. That's because all our green money is there

Why are people so blind? Why do they listen to others that profit from their deceit? Why do people think they had fun on a trip when in essence they are wore to a frazel when they return. It's hard overeating on that cruise trip to make you feel that you got your money's worth. It also gets you used to eating more than you need. We don't have to listen to that saying "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The saying that we need to give away or use up our money before we die to teach our kids to work is another thing created by those who want us to work for them. It's all a lie, the Powers that be want us to always be their surfs. They want us dependant on them. They want us to feel guilty so we can't challenge their ways. Let the man without sin throw the first stone. The big polluters are all of us because of our spoiled ways but the ones in power push us to pollute in the name of the Economies. Then they want to charge us to fix it.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Struck a nerve, huh? Fact remains there is zero proof, just as I said. There is an interpretation or two out there of the data set that is present.

Why the hell are you bringing apes and evolution into this thread? Most of your post goes straight to support of my position. PURE hyperbole and strawman argumentation.

I have been dealing with this crapola for over fifty years. And yes, the environmentalists are making a KILLING over this, so do not try to pawn them off as penniless and pristine paupers who want nothing to do with filthy lucre. This is the biggest bunch of crap. There is ZERO true science in support of global warming and there is ZERO true science supporting the position that mankind has had deleterious effect on the climate.

You keep saying "no proof, no proof, no proof" and plugging your ears as if repeating a lie over and over makes it true. IT DOESN'T. Here's some reading material, you are probably incapable of understanding it, but who knows, maybe you'll learn something about a topic you seem so idiotically sure about...

www.sciencedaily.com...
www.ucsusa.org...
www.skepticalscience.com...
www.realclimate.org...
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
climate.nasa.gov...
www.ipcc.ch...
www.bbc.co.uk...
environment.nationalgeographic.com...

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

We've ALREADY CHANGED THE CLIMATE. Only the stupid/ignorant suggest that we just continue what we're doing and try to ride it out. The intelligent say, "Hey... we're altering the climate, it's going to have mostly negative consequences, we should probably stop." It's called making a wise decision. Just because climate changed in the past doesn't mean that it's all fine and dandy when humans rapidly cause it now. We're playing with serious fire and I don't think you've ever sat down and truly pondered the seriousness of what we're doing... it's real, IT'S REALLY HAPPENING, and this is the only planet we have.

Oh really...How? How has mankind changed the climate? Be specific. As far as anyone actually sitting down and truly pondering the seriousness of anything, I would think it is you that has failed in this regard.

You must have been living under a damned rock for your entire life if you seriously believe humans have had no impacts upon the planet's ecosystems.

Here, this alone should be enough:

www.actionbioscience.org...
www.livescience.com...


PS- Your username is quite fitting for your Capitalist/industrialist/denialist shilling.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


So you give the readers and participants here sources relating to extinction? And these are just opinions of the writers, with ZERO data to back up their claims.

Read my post again. Why are you throwing crap? Because that is what you guys do.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Again, the issue remains unanswered, and this is what you do not understand. It is simply offering the opportunity for money grabbers to exploit simple minded, emotionally driven people like you.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Again, the issue remains unanswered, and this is what you do not understand. It is simply offering the opportunity for money grabbers to exploit simple minded, emotionally driven people like you.

Only if you also consider the theory of Evolution 'unanswered.'
You should go sit in on a high school level biology class sometime.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Again, the issue remains unanswered, and this is what you do not understand. It is simply offering the opportunity for money grabbers to exploit simple minded, emotionally driven people like you.

No, it's been answered. You just ignore the answers because they come from nasty evil scientists (who are obviously lying because they are scientists) rather than good, godly, prophets of the Almighty

www.nasa.gov...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.nasa.gov...

ehp03.niehs.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

for example

(and no CO2 in sight!)

Midwest here.. record temps. The problem is the length of days without rain here. Farmers are mowing their fields because no kernel production and etc due to the heat and drought. Ponds drying up and causing issues for cattle. Grass gone. farmers have to haul in hay now which will drive up the price of beef. So much is happening here due to the whole jetsttream out of whack.

My yard is dead and my 100 yr old trees are dropping leaves like its fall.

reply to post by Advantage


No consolation to you, but the problem here in England is the number of days with rain.

It's pretty certain that your hot/dry weather has caused our cool/wet weather. Another year it could work out the other way around.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by Advantage

 

No consolation to you, but the problem here in England is the number of days with rain.

It's pretty certain that your hot/dry weather has caused our cool/wet weather. Another year it could work out the other way around.

LOL Yeah, Id read that the UK is waterlogged and its causing problems. Last Id read it was predicted to last a few more months.. is that what youre hearing? When the husband and I were in London for a year, we were there in winter.. and it was grey and drizzled rain every day. Thought we'd off ourselves from the lack of sun! LOL!

reply to post by stanguilles7


Your argumentation is fallacious. Nobody gives a damn if you accept global warming the same as you accept evolution. Crap throwing at its height.