Tsunamis, Climate Change and Pie

Nearly five years ago my husband (then fiancé) and I were sitting in a 50s style diner in San Francisco, sipping hot chocolates and waiting for slices of pie that never arrived.  Our waiter appeared five or ten minutes later to tell us to leave the café at once. At first, his speech was so hurried that I couldn’t make out what he was trying to tell us, but eventually I made out a word – “Tsunami.” Apparently, a friend had called him to tell him that San Francisco was under a Tsunami warning.

 It was only after we had left the café that I began to understand why our waiter was so afraid. Tsunamis arrive within seconds. There is little time to prepare. We were faced with a difficult choice – did we attempt to walk back to our vehicle, which was at a lower elevation and closer to the coast, or did we attempt to move upward and away from the water? On foot, we would not be able to travel very far, but what if the tsunami hit before we made it to our vehicle – or worse yet, what if it hit while we were in it and trapped us inside? I began to feel very helpless.

As it turned out, no tsunami hit San Francisco that day, but for a few minutes, I knew real fear. So when news of the devastation in Japan hit, I was horrified. Not only because Japan was suffering so greatly, but because there seems to be so little anyone can do to warn or help victims of this sort of disaster.

And I suppose it gives those of us who are skeptical about man-made climate change some insight into what it is that those who are fearful of climate change are trying to prevent. It’s hard to feel helpless and natural, I think, to want to try to make problems manageable. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have stopped the Tsunami by installing low flush toilets and driving Leafs (Leaves?) and Priuses about?

Few seem to be suggesting that Japan’s earthquake was due to global warming, but many are suggesting that others could be. One of the most interesting comments on the subject comes from Professor Bill McGuire of University College London, who claims that if man-made CO2 emmisions aren’t stabilized within five years things like Tsunamis won’t be as notable.  This, he says is because “things would be so bad that the odd tsunami or eruption won't make much difference."

But what makes me skeptical about these things is the way in which they are presented. Even those who have begun to link tsunamis to climate change often feel the need to specify that there isn’t yet enough evidence to back up all their claims (and I appreciate their honesty).

For instance, writers for Mongabay (which bills itself as “one of the world's most popular environmental science and conservation news sites”), write that the earthquake that caused Japan’s tsunami might have been caused by climate change but that “It’s unlikely that scientists will be able to provide a definitive answer anytime soon.” Meawhile, Mcguire and company still feel obliged to point out that many of their findings “still amounted only to hypotheses.” Still, it would be nice to think that we had a significant amount of control over things like tsunamis. And maybe, just in case, I’ll turn the lights off early tonight.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

"We were faced with a difficult choice – did we attempt to walk back to our vehicle, which was at a lower elevation and closer to the coast, or did we attempt to move upward and away from the water?"

I lived on the Kona coast of Hawaii long enough to tell you: In the event of a tsunami warning, you get your living, breathing body to the highest possible ground by the fastest possible means. Aloha!

[larry kurtz]

Right on, Ms. Flint! It's unconscionable that we allow the Republicans to gut the Peoples' environmental early warning systems like the EPA, USGS, NOAA etal. in their haste to propagandize the effects of selling jobs versus Earth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/tsunami-relief-gop-budget-cuts_n_834479.html

[Stan Gibilisco]

"Few seem to be suggesting that Japan’s earthquake was due to global warming, but many are suggesting that others could be."

Perfectly predictable poppycock ...

... and if we implement a new carbon tax tomorrow, Julius Caesar would never have been assissinated.

Allow me to suggest the following hypothesis: An increase in volcanic activity has been linked to temporary global cooling (note Mount Tambora in 1815 with the subsequent cold summer); a prolonged period of increased volcanic activity might therefore result in more protracted global cooling; volcanoes are often associated with earthquakes in their vicinity; earthquakes are associated with tsunamis.

We might reasonably suppose that an increase in tsunami activity would associate with global cooling.

But the cooling would not cause the tsunamis ...

... and it could all happen independently of the activities of humankind.

Of course we could prevent all of it with a carbon tax.

The optimum solution would be the elimination of humanity from the planet. That way, we could do the earth no harm, and we would never suffer, no matter what.

[Miranda]

Stan: Thanks! Having returned to South Dakota, it's unlikely that I will ever end up in a similar situation. However, if I ever am, I'll keep your words in mind!

Mr. Kurtz: Thanks for your positive comments. Unfortunately, nothing I've seen seems to indicate that we can predict earthquakes or tsunamis more than 15 seconds before they happen. The general consensus seems to be that such predictions are impossible. See: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/predict+earthquakes+tectonic+otherwise/4427788/story.html

Because of this, I am not sure that Mr. Sobien's attempt to link Republicans' proposed budget cuts to the tsunami is anything more than a political move.

[Miranda]

Stan: I like the idea of taxes saving the world from devastation! However, even if we eliminated man, I suspect that cows would continue to destroy the earth!

[Astaroth]

I have to wonder why you are skeptical of man made climate change?

What part don't you accept? The fact that CO2 is a heat trapping gas? Or the fact that we have increased it's concentration in the atmosphere to off-the-chart levels? And what is your reason for not accepting either of these findings?

[Miranda]

Astaroth: Thank you for your question. One of things that makes me skeptical is the behavior of some of the main proponents of the man-made climate change argument. Some do not seem to take their own arguments seriously. (See Al Gore’s behavior here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324859/Al-Gore-left-car-engine-running-hour-long-environmental-lecture.html) Others have resorted to intentional dishonesty to further their agendas (Climategate). When scientists intentionally suppress data and ideas that contradict their findings, it is hard not to think that there is more to the story than what they claim.

But suppose Al Gore actually DID take the threat of climate change seriously. Suppose he and his counterparts actually followed the guidelines they try to set for others. Suppose climate change scientists did not feel the need to cover up the findings of those who disagreed with them. Would there be any reason to doubt?

Yes. Although many would claim that man-made climate change is a proven hypothesis, they ignore the work of respected climatologists such as John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Christy concludes that while the earth’s temperature will rise slightly, it will not be catastrophic. Lindzen, meanwhile, predicts that in 20 years, average global temperatures will be lower than they are now. See this article: http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/10/two-sides-to-global-warming/1

I think the main reason for my continued skepticism, though, is the attitude of man-made warming proponents. Instead of debating the issue properly, a good deal of the time, they have tried to submit their theories as absolute and unquestionable truths. That fact alone should make observers incredibly suspicious.

[BillW]

I'll keep asking you greenies the same question until one of can think up an answer.

Environmental nut cases pass extreme regulations putting a huge burden on US manufacturers. Manufacturing leaves US and goes to China where virtually no environmental regulations exist. China is the biggest polluter on the planet. Yet you all get together in Kyoto and Copenhagen and urge resolutions to further limit the US, but give China a free pass.

You clearly don't care about global emmissions - you just want to gut the US manufacturing economy.

As long as the greenies keep giving China - and India - a free ride (the world's #1 and #2 polluters) it is clear you don't believe your own blather about climate change or air and water quality. Those things are simply a front for a socialist agenda, the intent of which is to destroy the free market economies of the world.

Please show me where I am wrong.

[larry kurtz]

That wasn't a question, Bill; it was a soliloquy. Name a free market economy on the planet Earth then get back to us.

[BillW]

I will make it simple Larry:

Why don't the environmentalists push for regulating the two biggest polluters on the planet, China and India, while they strenuously urge restrictions on the USA?

Simple question - can you give a straight answer?

[Miranda]

I think the question Bill was trying to ask was "Why are environmental advocates sometimes willing to give China and India a pass, when they do not do the same for the United States?"

I can think of some possible answers and Bill has provided us with some possibilities, but what would you say, Mr. Kurtz?

[Miranda]

Sorry, Bill! I should have let you speak for yourself!

[BillW]

Appreciate all the help I can get Miranda :)

[larry kurtz]

The simple answer is that China and India are not considered the first world:

"Now, almost 20 years later, although China has surpassed the U.S. as the largest annual GHG emitter, the average emissions of each individual American is five times more than a person in China, and 20 times more than a person in India. Despite this disparity, China has pledged to drastically slow the growth in its emissions over coming years."

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2010-december/cancun-compromise-key-climate-change-progress

[larry kurtz]

You both should know that ip has been screaming for a boycott of Chinese-made products for 15 years.

[Miranda]

Larry: You keep using this "ip" term and I will confess to not knowing what it means. Is "ip" a title? A person? An organization?

[BillW]

China is not a first world country ... so what? Is there an economic test for environmentalists? Only rich countries have to comply? How come?

Pollution per person is irrelevant. Total pollution is causing the harm.

China has promised ..... what is there in China's history that leads anyone to believe any promise they make? US and EU promises to work on it aren't good enough for environmentalists - they demand laws and regulations. But China's word is good enough for the environmentalists?

"You both should know that ip has been screaming for a boycott of Chinese-made products for 15 years" How should I know that? Perhaps you have been whispering, rather than screaming. I have read frequent, pasionate rants from you trashing American industry, yet this is the first I have read of you having a problem with China. In fact, the vehement criticisms of US industry and silence regarding China where pollution and disregard for human rights are off the charts are why folks of your ilk are labeled as 'blame America first' types, and why your commitment to environmental and human rights causes is questioned.

Your personal feelings notwithstanding, the day I see Greenpeace blockading the port at Long Beach to prevent products from polluting countries like China from entering the US is the day I will believe they really care about the environment. Until that day I will remain convinced that the real agenda is the destruction of the American economy.

[Miranda]

I would also add that if we give countries passes because of their lack of freedom and openness, it will only encourage more of the same.

[Ken Blanchard]

One reason I am skeptical of climate change is that it seems to be a cause advanced by Sumerian demons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astaroth As in the case of ACORN, I disagree with Sumerian Demons on seven out of eight issues.

[BillW]

Good point, KB. You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. I know that when I find myself in common cause with some extermist group or another, it usually means I need to rethink my psoition.

[Miranda]

On the plus side, it's rather pleasant to think that Sumerian demons spend their time discussing climate change on political blogs.

[Stan Gibilisco]

And now for a little bit of Gibiliscophrenia.

I'm surprised no one has yet called me out on the contents of my Web link (click on my name here), in which I put forward the notion that, if humankind keeps abusing the planet, the planet will eventually strike back. One might call it the "angry-Gaia" hypothesis (if one gets off on enraged dieties) or the "geo-immunology" hypothesis (earth rejects humanity as a disease pathogen in a attempt to save itself, in much the same way as the human body battles influenza).

I do not necessarily believe in such stuff; it's only my right brain gone wild. I originally dreamed this up when I lived in ultra-radical South Beach Miami and wrote for a cute little magazine called "SouthBeach." Their editors let me get away with anything ...

But suppose for a moment, just for a few seconds, that the foregoing hypothesis turns out true? Does it not make the stubble on your neck stand up a little straighter?

As for the idea that leftists want to destroy the American economy, I'm not quite that paranoid. I do believe that the leftists are deliberately trying to drive up the deficit (yes, a conspiracy, dammit!) to the point that they can panic the public into accepting a more European-style economic model (including a carbon tax, and value-added tax, and whatever else). This deficit explosion, along with an aging demographic, an unwillingness of older folks to keep on working past age 65 or 70, and a tendency for each and every special interest to scream "Bloody murder!" whenever their particular entitlement is threatened, virtually guarantees the Europeanization of the American economy in the long term. Either that, or we will indeed undergo economic collapse.

I believe that America's best days are past, if one defines "best" in terms of sheer collective economic and military power. However, one can make some pretty good arguments to the effect that "less is more"; people have it okay (if not good) in Sweden and Denmark, I guess, as long as they're willing to give up ambitions of personal empire-building.

Heck, we can't take it with us, can we? Still, something in my psyche balks at the diea of "giving it away" to The Man (or The Woman, or The Borg or whatever) merely because we all end up departing this earth with empty hands.

If I hear the phrase "global warming" on NPR one more time, my neighbors will marvel at how a small radio could actually pass through a reinforced concrete wall.

End of rant. See what happens when I lose an hour of sleep!

[BillW]

Good point Miranda - keeps them occupied on relatively harmless endeavors instead of wreaking havoc on the world. It is only when we elect them to Congress that the trouble begins.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: yeah, but look at the good news. Scott Brown won Bacchus' old Senate seat in Massachusetts.

[Miranda]

Stan: If I had known you'd put a new story in place of the barking woman episode, I'd have clicked ages ago! (Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy the barking woman story. I did, butif I thought about it it would probably till give me nightmares!)

I like this piece as well and I will not argue that earth would not strike back. But I love humankind too much to like this view of us.

Do we not have Shakespeare and Socrates? Even if our modern offerings do not seem to compare to what we had in the past, we still have sparks of brilliance. We have, for instance, Russel T. Davies and Niall Ferguson and the incomparable Nigel Farage! And we have Larry! We make beautiful music. We ponder great things. And although we sometimes do kill one another, I still think life, in general, is still beautiful. I refuse to believe our best days are over and will always hope that the future only gets better.

Nevertheless, I encourage you to lose more hours of sleep! The read was well worth it!

[Miranda]

Bill: Exactly!

Dr. Blanchard: But that still lives a Franken in Minnesota, a Griffin in Arkansas, Heck in Nevada, and someone Grimm in New York.

[BillW]

Miranda,

Not to mention the most terrifying of all in ancient times, when satan;s Frozen Faced Goddess Pelosi appeared as a specter to the gullible and naive and lured them into giving the devil himself the contents of their grandchildren's piggybanks.

[Miranda]

As illustrated here:
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/assyrian_school/queen_ishtar_wife_king_hadad_hi.jpg

Modern interpretation: http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/pelosi-nancy.jpg

[BillW]

Great - and hilarious - note to end the night. Thanks Miranda

[Ken Blanchard]

One last note: this post is drawing in a tremendous number of viewers. I hope they aren't all Sumerian Demons.

[sjm30741]

I have no scientific evidence (or even any official speculation) but I have wondered what effect some of the things we do underground influence events such as earthquake. We test nuclear bombs, pump out oil and water, mine, frack. It seems unlikely to me that all this activity, while out of sight, has no affect on the crust of the earth and all the plates. If anyone has read something on this topic, I would appreciate the referral.

[Victor]

Climate change is the greatest weapon of mass destruction of our times. Unless we in rich countries recognize this fact and do something about it, we are guilty of crimes against humanity.

The remarkable ability of man made climate change deniers to block out the flaming reality before its eyes and replace it with the soothing falsehood it wants to see is astonishing!

[Miranda]

Dr. Blanchard: On the contrary, keep them coming! What will they do when they come upon Darwin?

SJM: I am interested in hearing about what you find! Thanks for stopping by.

Victor: Thank you for illustrating my point. Rather than considering the ideas of the other side, you present your theories as undeniable truth. I am always suspicious of people who, instead of engaging in an open debate, try to damage their opponents in one way or another.

Victor wants us charged with crimes against humanity. Another aquaintance of mine once suggested that man-made climate change believers should find a way to "punish" non-believers, because it wasn't fair for everyone else to do all the work and for deniers to benefit from it.

What if someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum tried this? What would you, Victor, think of someone who suggested that everyone who is pro-abortion should be charged with crimes against humanity?

[larry kurtz]

Litigants are actively involved in eco-patriotism, Ms. Flint; here are a couple from ip:

http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/10/eco-patriot-takes-on-grazing.html

http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2011/03/bidder-70-moving-beyond-one-click.html

[Miranda]

Mr. Kurtz: Oh THAT'S what this mysterious "ip" is! Are you the author?

I do not contest your claim - but if it was meant as a counterpoint, I'm not quite sure I follow the argument.

[larry kurtz]

Bill's point about blockading the Port at Long Beach is a good one; being able to afford to buy up leases or strand them in court is how rich guys fight the battles otherwise. Last cougar season the Black Hills saw people buying up licenses with no intention of assassinating an apex predator involved in restoring the hydrologic system to its historic integrity. That's going beyond one-click activism.

South Dakota is a chemical toilet, Miranda. Help ip fix it by running the Republicans off before T. Denny Sanford gets all your money treating your cancer; because that's how it's going now.

[Miranda]

I don't know, Larry. There's a lot of cancer in Democrat strongholds as well.

[Jimi]

Victor,

"Climate change is the greatest weapon of mass destruction of our times"

Well it all sounds so profound. To bad that there is nobody on the planet that can actual prove Climate Change is a reality....Let alone caused by humans?

"climate change deniers to block out the flaming reality before its eyes"

You cannot be a "denier" if the original claim is not fact/reality.

"replace it with the soothing falsehood it wants to see is astonishing"

Well you go first....and in 1,000 years if I am proven foolish....I will apologize......I promise!

[Steven Hittelman]

I think this has very little if nothing to do with global warming. Steven Hittelman