Subscription Center
Mar 25, 2009 12:10 PM | 39
President Obama says potentially historic flood levels in North Dakota are a clear example of why steps need to be taken to stop global warming. Heavy rain and blizzards have caused eight rivers in the state to swell to flood levels and emergency management officials are warily watching the Red River, which could surpass record levels late this week.
"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
Waters in the Red River were 33 feet this morning, according to CNN. That’s 15 feet above flood stage, and close to the record 41.1 feet set in April 1897, according to the network. The river could exceed those levels by Friday or Saturday, officials say.
"We're concerned about the rise of the river and how fast it's coming up, so our concern is that we're going to hit 41 feet,” Fargo Deputy Mayor Tim Mahoney told CNN.
The river runs through eastern North and South Dakota, as well as western Minnesota. Officials are worried it could crest in Fargo, which has more than 99,000 residents. Some 1,000 residents near Bismarck were evacuated last night because of flooding of the Missouri River, according to CNN.
Read more about Midwest floods, the relationship between global warming and winter storms and why climate change may lead to more natural disasters.
Image of sandbagging in North Dakota, uploaded March 24, 2009, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via Flickr
Tags:
climate change,
rain,
global warming,
flood,
blizzard
More News Blog:
Next: Circumcision cuts risk of herpes, HPV
Previous: Stephen Colbert may be honored with a namesake space toilet
See what we're tweeting about
scicurious @scicurious @deborahblum @edyong209 @brossardd I love how author automatically assumes you can't entertain AND critique at the same time.
sciencegoddess Well, hello, Space Center Houston! #NASASocial @ISS_Research scicurious +1 RT @deborahblum @edyong209 @brossardd @scicurious What Ed says. Totally.
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
39 Comments
Add CommentPresident Obama's pronouncements indicate that he has no clue as to what science is or is not. Even AGW supporters state that you cannot link a weather event to AGW. The President looks at the way the wind blows (literally and figuratively), sees how the crowd is moving and jumps in front of them, calling it leadership. Disheartening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, your correct that this has nothing to do with global warming. It is just a way to control the masses of the uneducated with some fear toward a goal. However can't you see that this is good directed goal. At least Obama is not lying about where stem cells come from to people that have no clue and concerning himself with the affairs of gay people. At least he is trying to create a fear in the American public that is worth fearing. Stop hating on the man because you hate black folks. Disheartening! Are you serious! What is disheartening is distracting the American public on important issues with ones that have no real purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had a fairly high opinion of the president up to this time however, these comments he has made seem to indicate that he is speaking on information given to him by persons who do not know very much about our local conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe flooding issues we often have in the Red River valley do not seem ( in my pedestrian opinion ) to have anything to do with global warming and in fact have much to do with wet falls, winters, and springs as well as very cold winters which cause the ground to freeze farther down - exacerbating runoff problems during spring thaw.
In fact the cold winter and resulting thicker ice on the Red River which will produce worse than average ice jams will probably be our worst enemy during this flood.
A little global warming would probably do us a little good before the next ice age - at least we claim that man is responsible for global warming - we may need as much as we can get sometime in the near future, who knows.
Thank You, JPW.
This does remind me of the story of the emperor's new clothes. Only the virtuous could see the material. Only the intelligent can see the global warming. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for global warming and can hardly wait for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas no one thought about the fact that in 1897 they may not have been able to divert the water as we do today? We could be adding depth to the water that wouldn't have been there before. If the water spreads out over a flood plain, it is much more shallow than it would be if still contained in the river. Also, I think our current depth gauges are just a bit more accurate than they would have been in 1897. Perhaps the depth reports from 1897 versus now are just a little skewed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere were floods before too. Politicians should cut out the hyperbole. I remember when Al Gore talked about hurricanes in 2005. The next two years were unusually calm and he kept quiet. It is just dishonest and makes people doubt science when it is so misused for temporary political gain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if global climate changes were known by the Government for over 20 years, the public was never warned and no Presidential Administration ever took any action? Would that make the public sit up and pay attention?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisegghead 1619:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have hit on a recurring theme. People re-engineer their local surroundings to such a degree that unintended local consequences occur.
Red River flooding, Bangledesh delta sinking, New Orleans sinking, Kilimanjaro losing ice cover; all of these are due to local inhabitants changing local conditions to dramatic (and very profitable from the perspective of news organizations) results.
Rather seeing their own local actions as the cause, they invent some larger "non-themselves" item to blame, and then ask their leaders to save them from something that was not their fault.
AGW is the ultimate blame game and bureaucratic shell game. Everyone is to blame so no one is to blame. Measurable verifiable results are claimed to be decades or even centuries in the future. In the mean time, just keep spending money and building insular bureaucratic fiefdoms that are morally above reproach. Imagine a project with no beginning and no end, where the results are whatever you decide them to be.
NGO's and Governments were made for this type of issue; they eat it up.
If flooding in North Dakota is proof of global warming, then lack of floods in MI, OH, KS, IA, IN, KY, NY, CT, NJ etc etc is counter proof that there is no global warming. Naturally global warming extremists would reject such an argument since they have abandoned all reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavidC:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't post that here; it makes too much sense.
Scientific American used to be credible, substantial, and estimable scientific publication. It’s a shame what it has become.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would easily believe AGW if only the thermometer were not around. If the globe is really getting warmer then I need to know exactly WHAT the politically correct temp is. January temperatures in the midwest at -40 F do not seem warm to me. And if -40 is too warm in the winter there, then what temperature is cool enough? -50 F? -60 F? No scientist anywhere can tell you its too hot if they don't know what is too cold or even just right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis from the man with science credentials equivalent to those of any fence post anywhere. Wow!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama needs to go back to school. This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming - it's nothing more than annual spring flooding. Modern man has forgotten to learn from the past - flood plains are called that for a reason. Levies only make matters worse; amongst other problems, they provide a false sense of security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no such thing as a "global average temperature" ; it's meaningless. Thermostats do not operate on any "average"; they operate on actual temps. Global warming likewise means nothing. As Christopher Essex puts it in his article "There is no Global Temperature":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thermometers measure the temperature from where the thermometer is and from nowhere else. Temperatures from elsewhere have nothing to do with it. But to be "global," global averages depend on temperatures from far away. As the recipe goes, you have to literally collect the temperature in Miami to decide whether "warming" is "affecting" people in Paris.
Oh, just to make it really interesting, that recipe also calls for temperatures in Miami from, for example, 20 years ago. So the climate index story actually is: Long ago and far away, there was a single lonely temperature at a small unimportant airport that grew up to be so important that we all depend on it everywhere ever after. It is like saying that the ice cubes in your freezer are melting because Mike, down the block, lit his barbeque last summer. This "index" cannot possibly be a temperature with properties like that."
We should all find it very disturbing that our president is not aware of the natural processes that accompany the changes of seasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be surprised if the Prez even knows where North Dakota is. Perhaps he thinks that the flood of 1826 was caused by manmade global warming too. These AGW quacks will stoop to any level to advance their agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely shameless! For Pres. Obama to blame a local flood (and I lived in Moorhead from '66 - '81 and endured other floods) on AGW is nothing more than grandstanding to promote an agenda. rthemisphere @ 2:05 is correct; also, the Red River flows north where it's colder and still more frozen. And Swaer, your contention about Bush and stem cells is 180 degrees off! He actually increased Federal funding on existing lines while leaving new funding to private investors - as it should be. In the meantime, science advanced and found adult stem cells to show more promise without the need to destroy nascent human life. Abortion absolutists know no shame. And Bush doesn't hate gay people - he just doesn't use government force to endorse and promote their lifestyle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't disrespect Pres. Obama for his race or color - but for his policy positions, his lack of leadership, his lack of basic business acumen or economic common-sense. He hasn't even run a lemonade stand, much less influence the direction of a $14 trillion economy! That, sir, is what I disrespect. But hold that racism card close at hand because you'll flash it as your usual crutch and dodge from accountability.
It looks like President baik-baik is going down the path of Veep "PolarBear" Algore. How very sad that qualified scientists will sit on their thumbs while these travesties are allowed to circulate. I understand the politics of grantsmanship, but there must be some of you out there who will discredit these Lysenkoes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota is indisputably due to warming. After a bitter cold winter with heavy snows and extended periods of below-freezing temperatures (surely a sign of global warming), spring brings warming, the massive accumulation of snow melts, and the melt water enters the rivers and raises their levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnprecedented! Thawing in spring? Who could have imagined such an occurrence?
I let my subscription lapse because SciAm put politics in front of Science. I encourage others to examine their own convictions and SciAm's lack of same. Please take appropiriate acton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeophys55
"New Orleans sinking,"..."all of these are due to local inhabitants changing local conditions"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever better said! New Orleans was home to my Grandfather and of great historical significance. But, alas, it was built on a river delta and those are temporary scraps of land subject to floods and erosion. By walling off the floods and pumping out the water, we make it subside all the more. Now much of the city is well below sea level.
To insist on a city there is a battle against nature. But, it's there and it ain't goin' away.
The solution is the historical example of Galveston (Texas) where the whole city was raised about 15 feet (4.5 meters) and a seawall of similar height was built, after the 1900 Storm by a very determined bunch of survivors (among them, my ancestors, I am proud to say) of a hurricane that killed 6 to 8 thousand – the most deadly natural disaster in the history of the United States.
What Obama failed to point out is how severe man made global warming must have been back in April 1892, when the first flooding record was set...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be a bunch of 'sheeple' and be led around by the media/gov. complex... think with your own God given mind and pursue truth; seek the One true Shephard who IS truth!
I read my first Scientific American article my first week at university. I subscribed & kept my old issues. Not any more. Why arn't you publishing the excellent articles I find on the internet? "Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies" (Tom Kondis)The second law of thermodynamics prohibits carbon dioxide from arresting or reversing the spontaneous downhill flow of energy, & advocates & insisting that a trace atmospheric component's innocent participation in a natural heat dissipation process is responsible for warming a planet. The fictitious "trapped heat" property, & "greenhouse gas" metaphor, is & misrepresentation of natural .. energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics. &."greenhouse effect," a term originally relating the loose confinement of warm nighttime air near ground level by cloud cover, to hot air trapped inside a greenhouse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the kind of stuff Scientific American used to publish.
I am encouraged by the responses that most readers have to this silly story. I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American a few years ago and I encourage other thinking Americans to do the same. Its the most effective way to make the point that readers want science not propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Geophys55 at 10:02 PM and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter 22 years subscribing, I let my sub lapse as well for the same reason. Politics over science.
Blaming every natural disaster on AGW does not make it a truth. Obama is a lawyer, not a scientist. He needs to make a crisis of the situation to push his own political agenda-controlling our life styles by making energy too expensive. The so-called consensus on AGW never really existed and it is becoming more apparent that the computer models used to justify all the hoopla are incorrect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBarry never lets facts get in the way of a good story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"President Obama's pronouncements indicate that he has no clue as to what science is or is not. Even AGW supporters state that you cannot link a weather event to AGW. The President looks at the way the wind blows (literally and figuratively), sees how the crowd is moving and jumps in front of them, calling it leadership. Disheartening."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? He seems to be working from the IPCC. Think what you will about the IPCC, but it's not "fake science."
"Future Climatic Changes
Over the last century, the average temperature in Pierre, South
Dakota, has increased 1.6°F, and precipitation has increased by
up to 20% in many parts of the state. These past trends may or
may not continue into the future.
Over the next century, climate in South Dakota may change even
more. For example, based on projections made by the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the United
Kingdom Hadley Centre’s climate model (HadCM2), a model that
accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100
temperatures in South Dakota could increase by 3°F in spring and
summer (with a range of 1-6°F) and 4°F in fall and winter (with a
range of 2-7°F). Precipitation is estimated to increase by 10%
(with a range of 5-20%) in spring, summer, and fall, and 20% in
winter (with a range of 10-40%)."
Jonah Gruber:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right. IPCC pronouncements are not "fake science", they are Political Science. It IPCC edicts were written by politicians, NOT scientists.
Criticizing 0bama is not racist, Swaer . That is a really shallow liberal argument. He is inexperienced, and knows nothing of the science of climate change. He is just pushing his agenda to redistribute wealth using the scam of climate change (aka Global Warming).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read and listened to the Global Warming issue for many years and it appears to me rather than jump to conclusions there should be a hearing open to the public where both sides are presented by well known scientist with the facts, not political correct statements. Obama has sponsored cap and trade and if this rediculous program is passed the cost to each American citizen will be very high and it is all based upon pseudo science and fear mongering. Call your representatives in Congress and demand an open hearing on this issue before they do something very stupid. I understand many scientist who do not support man-made Global Warming fear for their jobs and even lives because of the liberals are afraid of the truth. Congress will need to ensure any scientist who provided evidence job and life is protected. It is ashame we live in a country where freedom of speech is only for those who do not want to hear the truth and have to intimidate those honest people who know the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisglobal warming equals the floods. Look to basic science cold winter frozen ground plus snow spring arrives and rain and warmer weather causes the water to run off into the rivers causing the floods. global warming, I don't think so. just mother nature doing her thing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen something that is written in opposition to the proponents who push this Global Warming hoax, to include President Obama's own lack of scientific knowledge and expertise on weather and climate change, why must it always be transformed into a "race issue." The guy is just flat out wrong as is the theory. Check with leading weather scientists throughout the world--and not just in the United States alone. Yes, countries pollute the atmosphere--such as China, India, and Russia--the worst offenders--but we have no control over them and why should the American people pay for their pollution--if it seriously amounts to anything? Can't you see that Global Warming is a hoax to enrich certain Fat Cats who push it--like Al Gore? Also, it is a way for a "socialist oriented" government to tax and control its people. That's what it is all about, folks. What country in the world would deprive its own people from using its own vast natural energy resources of coal, oil, shale oil rock, and natural gas? -- only the United States. Wake up and get real! Our energy producing companies in the USA have a good handle on how to cut down and scrub pollution from entering the atmosphere without putting people out of work or doubling every home owner's monthly electric and natural gas bills. Wait until Obama and his crowd start bankrupting you to pay your utility bills, then you will become a true believer in this Socialist hogwash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question isn't what if the public were never warned and the administration didn't take action; the question is would there have been enough evidence for anyone to notice any "global warming" if no one had dreamed it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen they put weather stations where they get jet exhaust, the readings would tend to read a little higher, wouldn't they? This is also interesting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/
Obama has bad advice on global warming. To grasp at local flooding as a sign of global warming is simply asinine and he needs to get rid of that whole gang of "science advisers" who have led him to this absurd stance. The basic fact about global warming is that according to satellite data there was none of it in the eighties and nineties. Yet IPCC computers use phony warming from that period as input to their climate models. As a result the output of these climate models is nothing more than GIGO but is still used to set climate policy by governments. There has been warming indeed but it did not begin until the 1998 "El Nino that should not be there" and continued with the "twenty-first century high" three years later. All this warming in turn came to an end with a La Nina cooling in 2007 that bottomed out in 2008. This warming is itself not understood but it is certainly not caused by carbon dioxide. To get the science behind all this download my PDF from ICECAP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama has bad advice on global warming. To grasp at local flooding as a sign of global warming is simply asinine. He ought to get rid of that whole gang of "science advisers" who led him to this absurd stance. Speaking of global warming, one essential fact has become clear: according to satellite data there was none of it in the eighties and nineties. Yet IPCC is using phony warming records from this period as input to computers that predict disasters to come. The output of these computers is nothing more than GIGO and yet is believed in and acted upon by governments to set policy. There has been warming indeed but it did not start until the 1998 "El Nino that should not be there" showed up. It was followed three years later by the "twenty-first century high," a cluster of warm years. All this came to an end with a La Nina cooling in 2007 that bottomed out in 2008. The warming itself is not understood but it is certain that carbon dioxide did not cause it. To get the science behind this, download my PDF from ICECAP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama has bad advice on global warming. To grasp at local flooding as a sign of global warming is simply asinine and he needs to get rid of that whole gang of "science advisers" who have led him to this absurd stance. The basic fact about global warming is that according to satellite data there was none of it in the eighties and nineties. Yet IPCC computers use phony warming from that period as input to their climate models. As a result the output of these climate models is nothing more than GIGO but is still used to set climate policy by governments. There has been warming indeed but it did not begin until the 1998 "El Nino that should not be there" and continued with the "twenty-first century high" three years later. All this warming in turn came to an end with a La Nina cooling in 2007 that bottomed out in 2008. This warming is itself not understood but it is certainly not caused by carbon dioxide. To get the science behind all this download my PDF from ICECAP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this