Hurricane Limbaugh

Since Rush Limbaugh is the king of Global Warming deniers, I think it’s only fitting that there are three major potential hurricanes headed right for the Limbaugh Southern Command. As most all of the climate research proves, warmer ocean temperatures increase the ferocity of hurricanes. Two climatologists say this will be a very busy season.

Add to that the fact that water temperatures are slightly warmer than normal, Klotzbach and Feltgren said. Warm water serves as fuel for storms.

And finally, Klotzbach factored into his forecast how the season has already been so far this year: Extremely busy. That means the atmosphere is unstable, which is good for storm development. He said the atmospheric pressure in the hurricane formation area is among the lowest it has ever been and storms are giant low pressure systems.

Hey Rush, deny this.

This entry was posted in Energy Policy, Entertainment, Journalism, Politics, Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Hurricane Limbaugh

  1. doug newhouse says:

    it may be warmer but it’s not clear that it’s man made–besides its better then having another ice age!–looking forward to palm trees here in Connecticut!!

  2. Chip Thompson says:

    You must be a rocket scientist.

  3. Chip Thompson says:

    What is waiting moderation mean? Does it mean that you’re afraid to talk to people with whom you might disagree?

  4. zak says:

    Chip,
    the first time you leave a comment on any wordpress blog, you’re comment is held for moderation, so that the blogger can make sure you’re not a spammer or troll.

    If you took 3 minutes to skim some of the discussions here, you’ll see there’s ample debate and disagreement.

  5. zak says:

    whoops, that should be “your” comment.

  6. Chip Thompson says:

    Actually I saw very little discussion, as most blogs had zero posts. I assumed the bobbyg guy who called me a idiot, whose post has been removed, had turned me in or something because he didn’t like what I said.

  7. zak says:

    we’re still beating eachother up several posts back. visit the recent comments section to the right to see where people are currently congregating

  8. Chip Thompson says:

    I’m with Rush Limbaugh on this. There must be something lacking spiritually in the lives of these people who blindly believe every reference to global warming put before them. The weather moves in cycles as do sunspots, and hurricanes. There is science on both sides, so don’t express to me that the science is there with such adamance. Global whiners new tactic is to rush you like a dog and stomp their front feet down and throw up some dirt and say that global warming is a fact. Well it ain’t. The whole premise of this blog was poorly presented and just rather childish. It reminded me of a 4th grader picking on some kid. Nannynannybooboo.

  9. BobbyG says:

    It was the newhouse comment, Chip -”it may be warmer but it’s not clear that it’s man made”

    Not you.

    As one who cut his professional teeth in forensic level environmental science in the service of the most eminent of scientists, and who has subsequently studied anthropocene era issues in some detail, I have no patience for the kind of willful ignorance.

    But, Jon was right to delete my irascible pejorative retort. My Bad.

  10. Chip Thompson says:

    You must be a pommerainian.

  11. Rick Turner says:

    And you guys must not want to talk real talk.

  12. Greg says:

    Chip, the way that people see it who believe in global warming is that science trumps ignorance, the vast majority of scientists have already confirmed the base claims of a “global warming”. Attacks against global warming, I think commonly mistake the scientific part for the liberal part. Liberals just get it, because it is in their nature to think that the natural changes of the earth trump human reasoning. And that deficiencies in human reasoning actually are actually capable of having measurable and lasting effects.

    Conservatives, on the other hand, think that it’s some kind of liberal ploy, some manifestation of tree hugging or hearts bleeding. I can see where both points of view are coming from, EXCEPT, all of Rush’s claims have been researched and dis-proven, and the science is irrefutable.

    I’ve never criticized Jon before, but the way the post is constructed does sort of meld two separate things together, in perhaps a leading fashion. Either way, I agree with both assertions. The only way I would actually disagree would be to dig through ship’s logs from the mid-17th century and try to get an estimate of the number of hurricanes per season. For all I know, it’s always like this out there.

  13. Seth says:

    Global warming is a fact. Not much more complicated — in principle — than reading a thermometer. Lots of thermometers in a lot of places over a long period of time, but pretty simple.

    The ‘anthropogenic’ part — that our greenhouse gas emissions are substantially to blame — is maybe slightly controversial. The case for our influence involves a more ambitious intellectual effort to build climate models that can’t achieve perfect accuracy. Most of the ‘denial’ arguments amount to ‘gotcha’ criticisms of those models.

    If they were economic models — and gave predictions that we’re randomly scattered around the actual path of the climate — I’d be more sympathetic to ‘deniers’. But far from simply being ‘in love’ with their models and forgetting reality, the modelers keep needing to adjust their models to make worse predictions just to keep up with actual events. Reality has a pronounced ‘global warming alarmist’ bias.

    The motivation behind most of the persistent denials has to do with vested energy interests. Let me recommend the wisdom of former Bush economic advisor Greg Mankiw on the subject. He and Al ‘Ozone Man’ Gore agree on taxing carbon use — though Al was there in 1993 when it might have made a big difference.

  14. Rick Turner says:

    Limbaugh’s idea of global warming in the Caribbean is smuggling Viagra into the Dominican Republic.

  15. B says:

    for all who don’t believe in human influenced Global Warming:

    Think about all the automobiles, power plants and machines in this world burning fossil fuels while sitting in your car, windows open, engine running and have all the garage’s doors closed. Take a few deep breaths and perhaps this idea of Global Warming may be a bit clearer?

  16. Brian says:

    Those of us in Florida just loooooooove hurricane season.

  17. ncarnes says:

    I would disagree with Greg, there are as many scientist that say Global Warming does not exist as there are scientist that say it does exist. How does something become a fact when there is evidence on both sides of the argument being used? How do you determine which set of evidence is factual and which is not? How do you disprove the argument that we are seeing natural weather patterns? I don’t get your “factual” statement.

    I just love how the Global Warming Expedition was canceled recently due to the weather being too cold.

  18. Jon Taplin says:

    Chip and ncarnes-Exxon has always been able to find some quack at North Alabama Technical College, who is willing to take their money to write a paper saying global warming doesn’t exist. And Rush limbaugh is there to publicize that paper in service to Exxon. So you and Rush keep driving your SUV’s and putting more money into Exxon’s and Putin’s pockets, like suckers.
    WTF-Don’t you realize you’re getting played, man?
    Check out my new post on this very subject.
    http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/right-wing-on-red-bull/

  19. len bullard says:

    Actually Jon, that is Dr. John Christy. He is a Professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and UAH is not a technical college.

    Christy gets a lot of press. I think the evidence is overwhelming but he disputes it and here is his rebuttal.

    http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291

    Note factually that he doesn’t get grants from the energy oligarchs. He gets Federal and State funding.

  20. Greg says:

    ncarnes, just because it’s called global warming doesn’t necessarily mean that everything is just warmer by a few degrees. It means that the core temperature has been pushed away from steady state. This causes a whole array of stuff, not just warmer temps. This year, just in the US, we’ve had record flooding and record forest fires; droughts and record low snowfalls occasionally punctuated by spike years that set snowfall records. The weather is being altered not just heated up.

    My mother’s museum in Cedar Rapids was 16 ft. under water in June. The highest the river had ever gotten before that was up to the sidewalk in 1996. That’s beating the old record by 16 feet!

  21. seattle steve says:

    Jon,
    Did you ever consider perhaps you’re the one being played? There are quite a few respected scientists who disagree with you…
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/

    I think we desperately need to develop alternate energy sources and end our dependence on OPEC, but we need to do so for economic and national security reasons, not environmental ones.

  22. Greg says:

    seattle steve- It looks like there were a number of problems with that petition, and that it got disavowed by the Oregon Institute. Of it’s 30,000 supposed signers, many could not be verified, some having names like Michael J. Fox, and Perry Mason.

    Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review.” Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of “half-truths”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

    After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.”[14] It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

  23. seattle steve says:

    Thanks, Greg. I thought I had heard something about that, but didn’t bother researching. Still, it appears there are more than just a couple of quacks on big oil’s payroll that dispute the role humans play in global warming. Personally, I don’t think I’m a global warming denier, but I am skeptical of all sides. I think Al Gore could help his cause if he was less hypocritical by lowering his own carbon imprint (fly commercially, modest sized homes, etc) and if he wasn’t profiting by inducing hysteria.

  24. Greg says:

    Hell, a carbon footprint like Gore’s isn’t even a drop in the bucket compared to the effect that his movie’s had on our awareness, as well as the huge rise in green business thats resulted from it. I think he’s entitled to whatever he needs. He’s earned it.

  25. Seth says:

    seattle steve:

    Skepticism is healthy, but so far you haven’t produced any arguments about the science or policy choices that aren’t pretty directly taken from ‘talking points’: point at the big (31k ‘scientists’ can’t be wrong!) petition calling Kyoto bad, call Al a hypocrite, etc.

    I’m not entirely sure what the right policy response is, but I’m pretty sure a conversation based largely on rhetorical sleight-of-hand isn’t going to help us get to a useful policy. Edward O. Wilson tried a more constructive approach with The Creation. Seems to me like that’s a better model for the dialog.

  26. Alex Bowles says:

    For a compelling report actually published by the NAS, wait until next Tuesday, when they’ll be releasing a study based on a methodology broader and more detailed than any supported by the NAS to date.

    Their conclusion is that the decade ending in 2006 was the warmest in at least 1,300 years.

    The findings do not include speculation, one way or the other, about the influence of human activity on this trend. It is simply providing the best data we can gather about what is actually happening, and making it available to those developing theories about the particular nature and extent of human influence.

    A larger point, not subject to debate, is that the planet has experienced a number of very dramatic climate shifts over the course of its existence. All evidence points to the fact that when these shifts take place, they are swift and radical, leading to catastrophic effects for whatever life has evolved since the last major change.

    In other words, even if our influence is limited, we should be concerned about any measurable influence at all if there’s reason to believe that the climate system is approaching one of the tipping points it periodically reaches.

    And yes, there is reason to believe that we may be uncomfortably close to one of these points. In other words, we should be treading very carefully indeed.

    http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061137914/Under_a_Green_Sky/index.aspx

  27. seattle steve says:

    Seth,
    You are right. I am not a scientist so I really have nothing to offer except talking points. “The Creation” looks like an interesting read. I’ll check it out.
    I don’t know much about this subject, but it appears there really is not a consensus. That’s why I am turned off by people on both sides who make their assertions so adamently.
    One reason I’m skeptical of human activity causing a global environmental crisis is the ice age. What caused that? It certainly wasn’t too many SUVs on the roads. If anyone has real evidence that we are causing irreversible damage I’m interested in seeing it.

  28. seattle steve says:

    Great. Another book I need to read. Thanks Alex.

  29. Rick Turner says:

    Steve, if by consensus you mean unanimous agreement, you’re not going to get that anywhere on any subject unless you live in North Korea. The nay-sayers on this won’t have to live with the results of what they’re pushing for, but their kids just might have to. Rush will be dead by the time the seas rise another three or four feet, but so will millions of people in low lying areas. The dangers of not heeding the warnings are far greater than the rewards of denying them, besides which the steps that must be taken to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas production are all to the betterment of mankind, anyway. Anything that gets us off of the dependence on foreign oil is a go0d thing.

  30. Greg says:

    Alex, E.O. Wilson’s book looks excellent. Thanks for sharing it.

  31. Greg says:

    er, I meant Seth. Thanks Seth!

  32. MiddleOfDaNile says:

    Well seems to me the this years Hurricane season is right on track. An average of 2 hurricanes make landfall every 3 years… Katrina was 3 years ago and 1995 has the record with 11 total named hurricanes in the Atlantic. If you live below sea level, you might want to consider moving… Global warming or not, hurricanes happen and it’s your choice to live where they have made landfall for CENTURIES.

    http://miami.about.com/od/weather/a/hur_facts.htm

  33. Alex Bowles says:

    Steve, I know the reading lists can get heavy in this quarter, though this book is especially valuable as it establishes a true macro-view context for the entire debate.

    It’s important for exactly the reason you mentioned – even if we’re not sure what effect we’re having, we do know that massive shifts have occurred with some regularity, and we can determine, with some accuracy what has precipitated them (often, changes in the distribution of the world’s supply of carbon, as it moves from being found predominantly under ground into the atmosphere, and back again, in cycles that play out over millions of years).

    We can also conclude, with almost absolute certainty, that these cyclical changes are not things of the past. In other words, the temperate stability of our climate is relative. We’re simply in a stable period right now, which is not incidental, given that the entire course of our evolution has taken place within this period, while our survival depends on other forms of life that have evolved concurrently.

    So, knowing that change is probably inevitable, the big question for the humans is weather we’re doing anything to accelerate its onset. No point in worrying now if we’re talking about something that’s millennia away. And were it not for our influence, it may still be.

    However, serious speculation exists that the rate at which we’re pumping carbon into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude faster than anything that would be likely to happen without human intervention, and that incremental changes that could take thousands of years without the influence of our industrialization, are now taking place in a matter of decades.

    Short story is that our global industrial system, constructed as it is from natural resources, governed by natural laws, and powered by carbon based fuel, is not separate from nature. It IS nature, and – like the rest of life – is a both a part and a cause of the larger cycles that exist on this planet.

    The real question is what KIND of part? So far, the current answer seems to be ‘an accelerant’.

  34. len bullard says:

    Rick has the right stick from where I sit. It’s a zero-sum game where we can’t afford to be wrong. Consider if you live on the continent, at least you can move inland all other things being equal (which they aren’t: arable land, for example). If you live in one the South Pacific archipelagos, there isn’t a lot of climbing room left.

    I don’t think it’s much of a contest that we have to work on other energy sources. The social problems are harder than the technical problems from my estimate. As engineers, we’re pretty good as long as we are fed regularly and bathed with loving care. Convincing the Indians and the Chinese to forgo growth after having profited by being the ones who put the most Co2 in the air, much tougher problem. Buy them off? I don’t think we can. Become their partners in the next generation of technical solutions? It’s an easier sale but we’re promising those jobs to the locals to offset the jobs we’ve sent over seas.

    So we’ve a series of Chinese finger puzzles to undo. One thing is certain: we can’t do it going it alone even if we can make it better that way.

    Somedays a good manager solves the problems at hand and prays at night for another day and a new set of problems. If anything, we need constant application of discipline with a big dollop of patience for the other hominids in their cubes. There is something to be said for pushing the rubber tree plant.

  35. len bullard says:

    Oh, and high marks for citing Ed Wilson. There is much to learn from him on systems theory and creative approaches to solving wicked problems.

Leave a Reply