The Friday Question

Peter Gliek has posed an interesting question on Huffpost. Insofar as rather than bang on about global warming and its human causation we consider the bigger picture of climate change.. a clip:—

Climate science tells us unambiguously that we are changing the climate and trapping more energy on the planet. Trapping more energy will cause more extreme events and worsen extreme events that would otherwise happen.

In support PG cites climate science’s Jeff Masters who I understand recently suggested a link between increased atmospheric water – circa +4 percent – from raised atmospheric temperatures ( commonly accepted, warm air holds more water vapor than cool air ) and higher precipitation, or rains. With more intense storms etc.

In addition it has been pointed out that the Gulf of Mexico’s sea surface temperature(SST) has recorded a 10 higher than average this past season. The significance of this being greater water evaporation and relatively greater release of sea- holding CO2 capacity.

The one attempting cool the atmosphere, I’d figure, and the other reweight its energy-holding capacity.

And the matter of energy-holding capacity has produced a somewhat different response from, among others, Fox News.

Newsworthy and indeed focal to many American minds presently are the devastating tornadoes this April hath brought through the southern and middle american states. Why so strong? So frequent? So deadly? Is it—could it be—?—(what we’re denying exists!!)

So FoxNews filtered out a NOAA scientist and put him on the spot. For a big ‘global no’ to the question of local climate events. Climate change, he argued, was so big and so global that it was inconceivable it had solely caused these local american events.

Navel gazing? Yes, quite possible, almost certainly by those among their audience both able and willing adopt any position in self defense. Or justification. Which might include FoxNews: the broader scientific consensus after all might have its uses, as far as they are presently concerned.

Unmentioned, however, when hot air meets cool air they spin. That’s the hot air left after precipitation from say GoM sources, and cool from Arctic downdraughts. Operating per some huge dance and for the same purpose—energy discharge.

Mebbe thus — the matter of energy — is capable of having significant consequences. Which, even if subliminal, will have FoxNews more positively engage audiences of different political persuasion in the reality of what is. And now. Before those climate science ‘forcings’ so ably described take over and eliminate mankind’s ability to moderate or mediate matters in its own interests.

Consensus can be a media thing: given appropriate grounds. For risk management. Even in the USA.


About imho

witnessing the world..
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s