The Dust Bowl and Sea Level
The Dust Bowl and Sea Level
One of my favorite blogs in my portfolio is Science, Belief and the Volcano. In that blog I referenced The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great America Dust Bowl by Timothy Egan. I will use this later in this blog.
Several people brought me the news that some in North Carolina want to fight the predictions of sea-level rise. Likewise several have mentioned Colbert’s piece on this initiative. According to the news article several North Carolina local governments have “passed resolutions against sea-level rise policies.” Here is an interesting blog in Scientific American on the proposed law.
Here is a link to the proposed bill. There is a provision that if sea-level rise projections are needed then
“These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.”
The bill also discusses, at length, a variety of programs related to building setbacks for coastal building. Obviously, perhaps, “accelerated rates of sea-level rise” are not good for new or old construction on the coast. Not good for the insurance companies either. (and here as well)
So back to the Dust Bowl. The Dust Bowl was comprised of the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles, and the neighboring parts of Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska. Three towns in the center of this region are Boise City and Guymon, Oklahoma and Dalhart, Texas. The following map from Spartacus Education sets the scene.
Figure 1: Map of the U.S. Dust Bowl Region in the 1930s, from Spartacus Education
It is hard to write in a paragraph the extremes of the degradation of the land; weather, hot and cold; dust drifts; mud falling from the sky; houses and villages buried in the dust; and a whole set of plagues and illnesses that killed and drove away people. The cause of the Dust Bowl was a convergence of many factors ranging from farm policy and farm practices; to overly ambitious civic and corporate growth; to extreme heat, drought, wind, and winter storms. From the perspective of the climate scientist, it becomes an interesting question of once the conditions of the Dust Bowl were realized, how much did the lack of vegetation and soil moisture contribute to the perpetuation of the extreme weather? (See, for instance, Schubert et al., Science, 2004)
There was also a certain element of fate. When there was a burst of development and expansion in the Dust Bowl region, there was also a period of above average rain. At some level this seemed to be known at the time, and there were those, including companies, who argued that the development of the land, the plowing, steam from the train, the disruption, was actually the cause of rain. This acceptance of the idea that people were having a positive impact on the weather, and essentially the climate, would ultimately stand in stark contrast to their denial and rejection of the notion that their behavior could be having a negative effect.
There are two points that I want to draw from the The Worst Hard Time. The first was the attempt to reframe the dust storms in support of building, development, and community. In Dalhart, Texas, the town paper, the Texan, started a campaign with a tribute to the sand storms as majestic events that should draw people in to see the wonder. There was outrage that the East Coast and national press was trying to slander the town and the region – trying to discredit the people of the region by blaming them for the degradation of the land and dust in air. There were those in the East saying that those in the Dust Bowl were exaggerating their situation trying to extort money from Washington.
There was in this campaign a quest to make the dust storms majestic and divinely positive events, a rejection of both the obvious collapse of people and towns and of the increasing scientific evidence that at the very core of the collapse was the behavior of people. From the Texan, John McCarty, wrote that people should
“view the majestic splendor and beauty of one of the great spectacles of nature, a panhandle dust storm, and smile even though we may be choking and our throats and nostrils so laden with dust that we cannot give voice to our feelings.” ( The Worst Hard Time, page 185)
There was something of boasting of bigger storms in other states. Then there was blame that dust of other states was the cause of their grief.
There was rejection of the growing scientific evidence that the breaking of the soil stabilizing root structure of the native grasses was at the foundation of the collapse. And while this science that challenged the will of the people was rejected, anecdotal evidence that was attributed with the strength of science was used when it matched their will or need. Of especial note was the observation that when there had been a rush of people to the Dust Bowl region, there had been both rain and a World War. For a hundred years people had associated rain with war. Therefore, towns would bring in experts with cannons and explosions. A literature developed on using dust as mulch for crops.
The second point I want to make is the depth of the denial or suspicion of the mounting scientific evidence that the behavior of humans was responsible for the degradation of the soil and the sky full of dirt. This was not only a position held by those with a belief that man could not, while working God’s will, cause such damage (see here, perhaps), or those with a vested interest in real estate and business, but also, President Roosevelt and many in Washington who did not want to believe that America’s destiny to make the whole country productive was challenged by pursuit of that destiny. Ultimately, however, Roosevelt accepted the scientific foundation and massive programs to stabilize and reclaim the land were initiated. Many would argue, I included, that even today we struggle to sustain this reclamation and recovery.
So I am asked about how I respond to those in North Carolina who want to reject the predictions of sea level rise – to prescribe, by law, how such predictions might be made. I start with saying I have more experience on the coast of North Carolina than most. I spent many years in Craven and Carteret County on the mouth of the Neuse River. My father had small pieces of land from Long Beach to Kitty Hawk. My job was to keep grass cut, deal with diamondbacks, and try to stop waves and water taking away land. We built cabins out of abandoned bridge trestles and telephone poles. I have built seawalls and seen these cabins moved by waves from hurricanes (They’re tough.) I can see in my mind exactly where 1 meter, 39 inches, of sea level rise will sit.
Figure 2: Cypress Knees on the shore of the Neuse River after Hurricane Floyd, 1999.
If I were standing next to the Neuse River talking to a neighbor, I would say that with the evidence and knowledge I have, that a 1 meter rise in sea level was a considered best estimate of a lot of information. If I were to conjecture, I would offer that I think that 1 meter is more likely an underestimate than an exaggeration. And as for the proposed law, I would think of previous efforts to legislate the numerical value of pi, and the people in the Dust Bowl trying to sell the idea that all of the scientific information was part of a fraud trying to advance some cultural agenda. I would dismiss the proposed law as an attempt to legislate away that which stands in the way of our desires to consume and build for our personal imperatives. I would dismiss it as politics and note the names of the un-serious politicians for the next election.
r
P.S. My last blog was reproduced at this site with the question posed to the reader:
“Is Rood being intentionally deceptive, or is he just not very bright?”
Now in my defense, I have stated a number of times over the years that I am not so smart (here for instance); hence, that question should be easy to answer. I always felt growing up that the only time I was the smartest in the room was when I was alone. So if you decide to answer that question, then the extended answer might use Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric as a hint.
Just having fun,
r
Figure 3: Dinosaur sculpture in Boise City, OK – taken June 2005 on the road.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index
On the other hand, for example, I read a few months ago about how gunmen in Honduras stopped a morning commuter bus, sprayed gas through the windows while shooting anyone who tried to leave, and then setting everyone on fire. The point? The bus company wasn't paying protection fees. It wasn't enough to burn an empty bus, they had to burn innocent people as well.
I really don't see much difference between that sort of action and the actions of the deniers. Maybe the causal link is more tenuous but the effect is the same.
Honestly, I'm not that fussed sometimes if we do off ourselves. I'll fight against it but assuming life goes on without us, some days I'm not so convinced we are worth saving. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.
For the record, I don't regard myself as holier than thou. I don't do anything to help Syria or Africa, I still drive a car occasionally (e.g. this morning when I was late and it was raining). In other words, I try but my tries are pretty lame compared to what I could be doing. And I am a believer.
Unfortunately, it's spreading; Virginia is being afflicted by a similar sickness: State lawmakers ran into a problem this year when recommending a study on rising sea levels and their potential impacts on coastal Virginia.
It was not a scientific problem or a financial one. It was linguistic.
They discovered that they could not use the phrases "sea level rise" or "climate change" in requesting the study, in part because of objections from Republican colleagues and also for fear of stirring up conservative activists, some of whom believe such terms are liberal code words.
...
Now it appears that "climate change" and "sea level rise" are being phased out, in Virginia at least, amid political pressure from the far right. Emerging labels include "increased flooding risk," "coastal resiliency" and, of course, "recurrent flooding."
State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the "sea level rise" study in the General Assembly to one on "recurrent flooding," said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.
He said "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?"
"Sea level rise" is a liberal code word? You mean like "Record heat"? Or "lung cancer"? Or "obesity"? Incredible. And sad. Incredibly sad...Speaking as someone who has himself been singled out for childish, cherry-picked denialist mockery by Goddard, I'll just say that I'm honored to be in such company. ;-)
As a knowledgeable historian, gifted writer, accomplished scientist and academician you've done quite well for someone who is " just not very bright".
June 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm
It isn’t a coin flip. If you are looking on the second floor of a building, the chances of finding something on the first floor are zero."
Not quite: What if the floors are transparent? Now if the floors are dirty like our atmosphere is it would be harder to find.
Him and King Nimrod = Two peas from the some pod.....
When one considers that the worst case scenarios as a result on inaction could lead to a global mass extinction event, the political leaders (Inhofe et.al.) could be considered co-conspirators in the Greatest Crimes Ever Committed Against Humanity for ridiculing science and preventing mitigation activities on any scale.
I don't think that we have reached a tipping point that will result in mass extinction, however, we may well have already condemned the earth to 300 or 400 hundred years of increasing misery climatewise.
Then again, maybe Nature itself convinced the law makers.
Dust Goes to Washington
The blowing dust that blasted the High Plains in the 1930s was attributed not only to dry weather, but to poor soil conservation techniques that were in use at the time. In March 1935 (several weeks before Black Sunday), one of President Roosevelt’s advisors, Hugh Hammond Bennett, testified before congress about the need for better soil conservation techniques. Ironically, dust from the Great Plains was transported all the way to the East Coast, blotting out the sun even in the Nation’s capital. Mr. Bennett only needed to point out the window to the evidence supporting his position, and say, “This, gentlemen, is what I’ve been talking about.” Congress passed the Soil Conservation Act before the end of the year.
Published on Jun 5, 2012 by ucberkeleycampuslife
A group of scientists from around the world who are part of The Berkeley Initiative in Global Change Biology (BiGCB) is warning that an ever-growing population and widespread destruction of natural ecosystems may be driving Earth toward a planet-wide tipping point, an irreversible change in the biosphere with unpredictable consequences. Anthony Barnosky, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, is the lead author of a review paper about this issue in the journal Nature.
For full story: NewsCenter.berkeley.edu
Video by Roxanne Makasdjian, UC Berkeley Media Relations
Oh, wait...
Greentortuloni states that optimism still helps to carry his day. I want to be an optimist and in many ways I am. First and foremost I am a realist. Sometimes the reality of a situation allows me to have an optimistic outlook for the long term. Sometimes the realty of the situation forces me to have a pessimistic outlook for the long term. Just as with the dust bowl, acceptance of the situation came too late for a difference to be made. We find ourselves in the same situation with climate change. Political, ideological and religious beliefs once again stand in the way of correcting a serious and threatening problem. Science illiteracy will once again have its reign, as it almost always has in the past. The rare, joyous embraces of science have come from a few isolated events. Such an event would be our landing on the Moon and taking our first steps on ground that is not on Earth. Now, there are those that seriously question as to if this actually happened.
We now have politically and ideologically driven members of power subverting the reality of the situation that science shows us to be. We see it on this blog, other blogs, on the street and among our legislators. Unfortunately, our legislators are key players in the hopes of having any meaningful attempts to curb the impacts of climate change. Individuals will make their efforts, but will do so with a sense of despair and a sense of futility of any individual effort. Individuals could also force the hands of legislators and cause them to move into action, but not enough individuals see this as a long term cost advantage to them. What will happen in North Carolina when infringing seas make private and commercial properties non insurable, lost and stranded entities? These properties will become a total loss to the owners of these properties and with no financial recourse available to them. Unless, of course, the government bails them out. We see the current trend on this happening in the future. Realistically, how many such properties can this nation afford to pay for before even this becomes too financially burdensome to maintain? This may start off in isolated pockets, but the problem will continue to grow and over much wider areas. Still, that problem is not happening today. Right?
Are we all doomed? Not yet, but as in the child's game, "Hangman", all the parts of the image are nearly complete. We can still escape the noose, but we are already hanging by a thread.
But it doesn't really work. Eyeballing the sea ice extent now - say 12m km2 - and subtracting the rough amounts left: Hudson bay 4m, Baffin bay .4, other Canadian fast ice .6, Russian ice 2.4 - 3.0, and it still leaves 4.6 to 4.0 (with a huge margin of error, not what i voted on Nevin's blog). But that all assumes normal ice and normal temperatures. Both of those assumptions are crap: the ice is thin and there is already open water where there should be reflective ice.
No matter how I try, today isn't my optimistic day.
I understand what you are saying, BF. You seem to overlook one key element. Even with the dust from the dust bowl landing on the steps of The Capital building and The Whitehouse itself, this could have been easily labelled as, "an ct of God and mankind can do nothing about it.". Instead the message of the science was heard and the science was acted upon. Therein lies the difference between what you suggest had happened and what actually happened. The appearance of dust from the dust bowl arriving in Washington D.C. could have easily been viewed as an event that man has no control over, but was acted upon by acknowledgement of the available scientific knowledge they had at the time. In the this case, it was the science that prevailed and was proven to be correct.
Hmm, no justification for doing this researchmyself except seemed like maybe a good idea and I don't have time today.
Modification: Yeah, well, a couple of wiki articles and appears not much chance unless a new type of tree is developed. Between cold, wind and lack of precipitation, trees won't grow. Only chance is is weather changes enough or some sort of GM tree with eskimo genes. (I knew it was too easy - or should that be I-nu-it?)
You and Ricky Rood seem very certain of what went on in the minds of U.S. lawmakers in 1935. My guess is it was a blend of more than one point of view aimed at helping the area recover from weather events and at helping prevent a future similar occurrence. All the best intentions of soil science aside, had it not rained the way it did this 2012 Spring, the "middle" might right now be close to or experiencing one of those "future occurrences."
I agree overwash12. The rate of approach is so gradual that it goes fairly unnoticed. Much as a predator inching its way towards its potential meal. The approach is so slow that it remains unnoticed until the time to flee the danger is usually what is allowed to escape.
Then again, maybe Nature itself convinced the law makers." - This comment of yours is what I extrapolated from. Your comment was in regards to this: "Quoting Ricky Rood: "Ultimately, however, Roosevelt accepted the scientific foundation and massive programs to stabilize and reclaim the land were initiated." - Are you not suggesting that it was not the science, but, rather Nature itself that influenced the actions of the lawmakers? Certainly, having the problem presented to them at their doorstep is what brought awareness to them, but it is the science that they acted upon and was not merely dismissed as some random act of Nature. I am a bit dense and saw no other viable way to extrapolate from your comment. Perhaps you will reveal your true meaning of your words for me? ... You are correct that I do not know what was going on in the minds of lawmakers of the time, but I do know that they acted upon the science available to them.
The Dust Bowl was far from a weather event. The Dust Bowl was a change in the local climate. Winds may have carried notice of this local climate change all the way to Washington, D.C., but it was the local climate that had changed. Without the local climate change, there would have been no weather event that carried dust from that local region all the way to Washington. Where there is no problem, there is no call to action.
There is an excellent documentary available online from PBS's American Experience that highlights the stark reality of the Dust Bowl from the perspective of survivors and it's impact on the United States:
American Experience: Surviving the Dust Bowl
I did not suggest what you state. "Maybe" is not a statement of certainty. In my further remarks, "a blend," Rookie. A blend. Like cake batter. Without both Nature and science, there may have been no legislated cake batter addressing soil conservation. Perhaps if the dust had not gone to Washington, the recipe would have been missing a main ingredient - a Congress-perceived problem. To quote another piece of your comment: "Where there is no problem, there is no call to action."
Agreed. A blending of all of the ingredients. Very well said.
Actually, from a geologic perspective, we're already in the middle of a mass extinction. While the fossil record indicates the Earth has undergone at least five mass-extinction events in the past, evidence is strong that we've entered our sixth, called the "Holocene mass extinction" (Holocene being the current geologic epoch we're in). While this particular mass extinction event started naturally at the end of the last ice-age, recent human activities (e.g., global warming) have exacerbated the effect to such a degree, that some geologists feel we've entered a new geologic epoch, informally called the Anthropocene epoch.
Somehow humans, particulary certain politicians and pundits, have so much hubris that they think the human race can continue to ravage the planet and surrounding atmosphere without having an impact on the very existence of human life. Yes, humans are resourceful and can be ingenious as well as having mastered many beneficial technologies.
I fear that the last resort will be to attempt unproven geo-engineering technolgies on such a massive scale that the unintended consequences might prove more dangerous than what they are trying to mitigate.
As a founding member of the "Baby-Boomer Generation" (born in 1946), I'd like to apologize to future generations for leaving them a despoiled planet, broken economic systems and dysfunctional governments.
Ostriches come to mind.
China's Wuhan city covered in mysterious haze
AP 3 hours ago
Young and old residents of the Chinese metropolis of Wuhan were advised to stay indoors on Monday after a thick haze blanketed the city of nine million people, official media said.
Described by residents as opaque with yellowish and greenish tinges, the fug descended suddenly in the morning, prompting people to rush to put on face masks, witnesses told AFP.
The official Xinhua news agency quoted the environmental protection department of Hubei province saying in a statement: "Children, the elderly and people with heart or respiratory diseases are advised to stay indoors."
Xinhua said straw burning was the cause and denied there had been any industrial accidents in or near Wuhan, after Internet rumours suggested there had been an explosion at a chemical complex northeast of the city.
"I looked out of the window of my office and I could not believe my eyes," said resident Li Yunzhong.
"At first I thought it was going to rain. In 31 years in Wuhan I have never known anything like it. We are very worried because we do not know what it is."
[Related: China tells U.S. to stop tweeting about Beijing air]
France's consulate-general in the central city advised residents to stay at home, close their windows and limit the use of air-conditioning.
"The source of the thick cloud that has covered the city of Wuhan since this morning is at present unknown," it said on its website.
"Local authorities have promised us the information as soon as possible."
Xinhua described the haze as grey-yellow in colour and said it was seen in seven cities in Hubei province, including Wuhan.
Air pollution is increasingly acute in major Chinese cities and authorities are frequently accused of underestimating the severity of the problem in urban areas, especially in Beijing.
Air-quality monitoring showed Wuhan's PM10 particulate concentration stood at 0.574 mg per cubic metre at 2:00 pm, more than triple the daily average of 0.150 mg, Xinhua reported.
[Related: What's in the air you're breathing?]
But it quoted the environmental protection department saying industrial accidents were not responsible and analysis showed an increase in carbon particles from burning organic matter.
"Many farmers choose to burn crops that are left behind in their fields after harvesting," Xinhua said.
But Li was sceptical. "I doubt that," he said. "We don't practise large-scale shifting agriculture in our region."
Another resident told AFP she was leaving the city because of the cloud.
Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province and an industrial centre where many foreign firms have set up factories, including the French automotive group PSA Peugeot Citroën.
Alstom also manufactures boilers for coal-fired power plants there.
China's environment suffers from industrial pollution, increasing traffic and lax protection measures.
Official air-quality statistics are sometimes at odds with non-government measurements, and are often viewed with distrust.
My having a civil discussion with you is always a simple task for me to accomplish. We have had discussions and I have seen discussions you will engage in with others. The viewpoints of the individuals of the discussion may differ, but I have always seen you keep your side of the discussion civil. While I abhor discussions that are laced with insults and innuendos, I find discussion where all parties are in complete agreement that the discussion quickly become very bland and pointless. ... I like the way your mind works. ;-)
When two individuals agree on everything.......
One of them is not necessary!!
And in a world of over 7 billion people, we can't afford any redundancy.
Despite the onslaught of politicians attempting to project an air of question around man-made climate change, studies continue to emerge proving the connection between human actions and our changing environment. The most recent study, published in Nature Climate Change, finds an "anthropogenic fingerprint" (human influence) on our warming oceans.
The study, "Human-Induced Global Ocean Warming On Multidecadal Timescales," was conducted by researchers in the U.S., Australia, Japan and India. Based on observations of rising upper-ocean temperatures, the researchers used improved estimates of ocean temperatures to examine the causes of our warming ocean.
According to a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory press release, the study shows that over the past 50 years, observed ocean warming is explained only when greenhouse gas increases are included in the models.
Lead author and LLNL climate scientist Peter Gleckler said in the press release, "The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities."
Gleckler added, "Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role."
Report co-author Dr. John Church explained to Australia's ABC News AM that "Natural variability could only explain 10 percent, or thereabouts, of the observed change."
Oceanography expert Nathan Bindoff told the news organization, "This paper's important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we're virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily." He added, "We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That's it."
The recent ocean warming study has been released on the heels of other disturbing climate change reports.
Arctic monitoring stations are now measuring over 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a disturbing milestone that far surpasses the 350 ppm mark that many scientists consider the threshold separating safe from dangerous.
Researchers recently warned in Nature that the world is heading toward a tipping point of disastrous consequences driven by human-led increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperatures:
"The plausibility of a planetary-scale ‘tipping point’ highlights the need to improve biological forecasting by detecting early warning signs of critical transitions on global as well as local scales, and by detecting feedbacks that promote such transitions. It is also necessary to address root causes of how humans are forcing biological changes."
Despite the ominous findings, some politicians are still attempting to project an element of doubt on issues surrounding human-induced climate change. A Virginia lawmaker recently fought to omit mentions of "climate change" and "sea level rise" from a coastal flooding study, telling the BBC, "The jury's still out" on whether humans contribute to global warming. Despite his claim, studies such as the recent ocean warming one are turning in a pretty clear verdict.
It's time for those of us who are aware and concerned to start some form of an activist movement. Politicians react only when they are forced to. Activists need to make phone calls and send letters and e-mails to irresponsible legislators. A well-funded movement could even take out ads in the media markets of offending legislators. Every successful movement started small with a dedicated core of passionate individuals that cared about their cause.
There are some of us who still remember Rosa Parks. There are some of us who still remember the Women's Rights movement. Tragically, the same politicians that are denying the science of Global Warming are the same ones who are try to roll back what has been gained by women and people of color.
This is no longer a matter of "Hugging Trees", protecting "Pygmy Owls" or even "Saving Whales".
This is a matter of "Saving Civilization".
With the lunatics in charge of the asylum, do not expect anything better than BAU until we burn every last stick and end up worse off than Haiti.
That being said, it is still every conscious and conscientious citizens duty to fight back in the best way that they can.
This week I have vowed to minimize my consumption, ideally becoming a non-consumer outside of our ponzi economy.
No, but I'll say this is a downward trend:
Link
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ screenhunter_12-jun-11-07-04.jpg?w=512&h=310
Get back with me with NOAA data and images.......
RawStory Link
Henceforth "Coastal Resilience" is to be used in place of "Climate Change" and "Sea Level Rise". (I'm not making this up!)
You mean the data that are smoothed, massaged, standardized, doctored, and otherwise manipulated?
I agree. You would say that. That is just one of the things that you say that make you wrong about AGW.
None of that is a problem if it is done correctly and to make the information useful. As opposed to Goddard's mathturbation which has only his self-gratification as the goal.
Goddard is to science what I am to professional basketball.
Now what was that quote from Forrest Gump? lol
Cherries!
Ripe, luscious cherries!
Get ya tasty cherries right here!!!
"You are the greatest man that ever lived," one would say.
"O king, there can never be another as mighty as you," another would insist.
"Your highness, there is nothing you cannot do," someone would smile.
"Great Canute, you are the monarch of all," another would sing. "Nothing in this world dares to disobey you."
The king was a man of sense, and he grew tired of hearing such foolish speeches.
One day he was walking by the seashore, and his officers and courtiers were with him, praising him as usual. Canute decided to teach them a lesson.
"So you say I am the greatest man in the world?" he asked them.
"O king," they cried, "there never has been anyone as mighty as you, and there never be anyone so great, ever again!"
"And you say all things obey me?" Canute asked.
"Absolutely!" they said. "The world bows before you, and gives you honor."
"I see," the king answered. "In that case, bring me my chair, and we will go down to the water."
"At once, your majesty!" They scrambled to carry his royal chair over the sands.
"Bring it closer to the sea," Canute called. "Put it right here, right at the water's edge." He sat down and surveyed the ocean before him. "I notice the tide is coming in. Do you think it will stop if I give the command?"
His officers were puzzled, but they did not dare say no. "Give the order, O great king, and it will obey," one of then assured him.
"Very well. Sea," cried Canute, "I command you to come no further! Waves, stop your rolling!. Surf, stop your pounding! Do not dare touch my feet!"
He waited a moment, quietly, and a tiny wave rushed up the sand and lapped at his feet.
"How dare you!" Canute shouted. "Ocean, turn back now! I have ordered you to retreat before me, and now you must obey! Go back!"
And in answer another wave swept forward and curled around the king's feet. The tide came in, just as it always did. The water rose higher and higher. It came up around the king's chair, and wet not only his feet, but also his robe. His officers stood before him, alarmed, and wondering whether he was not mad.
"Well, my friends," Canute said, "it seems I do not have quite so much power as you would have me believe. Perhaps you have learned something today. Perhaps now you will remember there is only one King who is all-powerful, and it is he who rules the sea, and holds the ocean in the hollow of his hand. I suggest you reserve your praises for him."
The royal officers and courtiers hung their heads and looked foolish. And some say Canute took off his crown soon afterward, and never wore it again.
Link
Seems like them good ol' boys in a couple of legislatures could learn something from Canute.
Words are not going to stop the seas from washing their butts away....
Lol, Just gave me flashbacks to Fletch.
I agree.
We got more cherries on our side perhaps 1000:1
Click for larger image;
Silly denialists...
Snowy U.S. winter, 2010–11: The year before, however, the weaker gradient between the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation caused the jet stream to dip deeply across the eastern U.S. and stay there. It also so happened that an El Niño event occurred in the Pacific, which tends to push the jet stream north across the western U.S., such that it bends southward across the Northeast, pulling down cold arctic air with it.
The lesson in all this is that the more that arctic sea ice melts in summer, the more extreme the jet stream's bends will become and the longer they will stay in place, making our winters either colder or warmer than usual. "The arctic climate system is changing so dynamically that the rules of the game are changing," Greene says. "This is not the same Arctic Ocean we've known. The Arctic and North Atlantic oscillations are changing in ways we hadn't anticipated." The interplay, which has always been fairly consistent, he says, has now become "a wild card" affecting our weather.
As a result, Greene says, an "average" winter will become less likely. Brace yourselves for extremely cold or extremely warm winters
Link
It could be a good thing to give to people who question how we could have nastier than usual winters while the climate is warming.
That graph reminds me of tree rings except for the tree rings should be growing outward not inward. A healthy tree has outward growing rings a healthy North Arctic should have stable rings that are not diminishing into oblivion.........
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index