Realistically, we are not starting from a dead stop in attacking these existing examples of neglect and also making radical changes in energy generation, transportation and all things carbon-emitting. We have to deal with a complete makeover of our system of governance, which, like the bridges, has also become structurally deficient. Fix that, and we’re only back to “dead stop” status.

If we follow your advice and fail to take action on climate, we may well see widespread drought, brutal super hurricanes and wildfires, oceans acidifying beyond repair, and sea levels rising six inches to twelve inches A DECADE by century’s end — future generations — when they are not cursing our name — will be “adapting,” yes, just the same way that the citizens of the New Orleans “adapted” to hurricane Katrina. Not one of those survivors doesn’t wish every day that the government had taken the necessary action to prevent a catastrophe before hand.

If you Have decided to dedicate your life to blocking action on climate change, do have a sit down with your children and tell them. They will be wondering who to blame when they are adults.

I don’t really like the name-calling — I haven’t been blocking most comments, but I think the name-calling should be avoided. I will block comments from people who misrepresent what I or others on this blog say, since that undermines the goal of having a real discussion.

What has had a more significant impact is the diversion of budget from such things as inspections and repairs to light rail. The $750 million spent years ago, and the millions spent annually to subsidize the Hiawatha rail line boondoggle would have been better invested in the inspection and repair of the deteriorating bridges here in Minnesota.

Yes the climate is changing, as it is on a 1500 year cycle. The sky is growing heavy not falling as so many would believe. With the economic ruin that is being prescribed by the AWG believers the sky will fall.

NB

What you have in the bridge collapse is the normal outfall of 1960s bridge construction technologies and engineering, combined with 40 years of winters and summers, and a general lack of spending discipline on the part of government. When cities learn that bridge and road maintenance is far more productive than pouring money into sexy new projects or entitlement programs, you avoid this kind of crap. The Golden Gate Bridge in California is a prime example of government realizing that bridge maintenance is not something you can defer. It is ongoing, and the price of NOT doing it is much higher than the cost of just doing it. The Golden Gate Bridge was completed in 1937, making it 70 years old this year. It is bigger, longer, heavier, and subjected to many more stresses, and much more powerful stresses, on a daily basis than was the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, and it is still standing. It is operated and maintained by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, and it may be the only thing that the Government of California does right.

Feckless governance begets feckless results. Minneapolis voters need to look to themselves to make the kinds of political decisions that will prevent feckless government if they want to prevent this kind of thing in the future, rather than blaming the problem on junk science for which there exists NO consensus among even close to all scientists. Theories are like assholes. Everybody has one. Stick to what you KNOW to be factually true, and deal with your physical world on that basis, and that basis alone.

An inconvenient truth: Greenland was named “Greenland” by the Vikings for a very good reason. I suppose it was Viking viticulture and animal husbandry that cause Greenland to freeze over for a thousand years?

To believe that puny man can alter the global climate is hubris of the first water. Try to remember that the total mass of termites on earth far exceeds the total mass of humanity.

To believe that 6 billion people have no impact on the global climate — when all the scientific evidence says otherwise — is myopia of the highest order.

Frankly, I think your argument is more strained and twisted than the bridge. What a sad attempt to politically exploit this tragedy.

Gah!

I need some Gold Bond… That’ll fix it!

This is truly the funniest thing I’ve read in a month. To quote Bugs Bunny, (second only to Joe Romm in comedic brilliance); “What a maroon!”

Japan, 1181: famine (100,000 dead)

Holland, 1228: sea flood (100,000 dead)

Europe and Asia, 1346-52: Bubonic plague or “black
death” (one third of the European population dead plus millions in Asia
and North Africa for a total of 25 million)

Bengal, India, 1769: famine (10 million dead)

India, 1775: Tsunami (60,000 dead)

Northamerica, 1775-82: Smallpox (130,000 dead)

Caribbeans, 1780: Hurricane (22,000 dead)

Japan, 1826: Tsunami (27,000 dead)

Ireland, 1845: famine (one million dead)

India, 1864: Cyclone (70,000 dead)

India, 1875-78: Famine (10 million dead)

Bangladesh, 1876: Cyclone (200,000 dead)

China, 1876-78: Drought (9 million dead)

China, 1881: Typhoon (300,000 dead)

Indonesia, 1883: Tsunami (36,000 dead)

Huayan Kou, China, 1887: Yang-tse Kiang flooding (one
million dead)

Sanriku, Japan, 1896: Tsunami (27,000 dead)

Galveston, 1900: Hurricane (8,000 dead)

China, 1907: famine (20 million dead)

Hebei, China, 1920-21: famine (500,000 dead)

Ukraine, 1921: Famine (5 million dead)

China, 1928: Famine (3 million dead)

Florida, USA, 1928: Hurricane (1800 dead)

China, 1931: Flooding (3.7 million dead)

Ukraine and Russia, 1932: Famine (5 million dead)

China, 1936: Famine (5 million dead)

New York, USA, 1938: Rains (600 dead)

China, 1941: Famine (3 million dead)

Bengal, India, 1943: famine (3.5 million dead)

Holland, 1953: Sea flood (1,794 dead)

Iran, 1953: Rain flood (10,000 dead)

Louisiana, USA, 1957: Hurricane (400 dead)

Japan, 1958: Typhoon (5,000 dead)

China, 1958-61: Famine (38 million dead)

India, 1965: Famine (1.5 million dead)

China, 1969: Famine (20 million dead)

Bangladesh, 1970: Sea flood (200-500,000 dead)

Vietnam, 1971: Red River flood (100,000 dead)

Bangladesh, 1974: floods (28,000 dead)

Ethiopia, 1974: famine (200,000 dead)

Andhra Pradesh, India, 1977: cyclone (10,000 dead)

Caribbeans, 1979: Hurricane (2,000 dead)

Bangladesh, 1991: tsunami (138,000 dead)

All I can say is, think how much worse it would have been
with

GLOBAL Warming!!

You prefer to think global warming is the reason it gets cold, gets hot, causes floods, and causes droughts. It is amazing to me to think that this this planet that is millions and millions (billions if you prefer) years old, can be destroyed in only a couple hundred.

Global Warming will be answer to a couple things. First, higher taxes and second, turing this democracy into a socialistic state.

The latter might be what you prefer. If it is, then come out and say it, instead of hiding behind the greatest farce since Darwin.

You both have the Denier talking points down pat. I would ask you to tell your children you are one of those working to block action, so they’ll know who to blame.

Don’t know where you got the volcano claim. It is quite wrong.

Bridges aren’t supposed to wear out in 40 years. I do think this was an improperly maintained bridge that was subject to a lot of stress. The NTSB is not excluding the impact of weather, nor am I.

I don’t think global warming will destroy the planet. But it will make life unpleasant for us (and most living things). I’d rather not subject the next 50 generations to 6 - 12 inches per decade of sea level rise, brutual heatwaves, whip-sawing of extreme drought and extreme flooding that will dislocate hundreds of millions.

“I will block comments from people who misrepresent what I or others on this blog say, since that undermines the goal of having a real discussion.”

Wow, for someone who wants ‘discussion’ you sure are quick to call people ‘Denier’. I don’t know what part of LJ’s post you missed, or what others have posted about the Little Ice Age & Medieval Warming Period. Global warming is snake oil. Sounds to me like you are the ‘Denier’ for not listening to others viewpoints.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

See. It is windy today. The sky is falling!

Also… Emperor Gore is naked.

To believe that 6 billion people have no impact on the global climate — when all the scientific evidence says otherwise — is myopia of the highest order.”

You can quote historical revisionists all you want to poo-poo Erik the Red (”Was he red?” puhleeze). The FACT is that Viking settlers in Greenland grew grapes there. That is borne out by the archeological record. Either A) those were some really hardy neanderthal grapes, impervious to blizzards and ice caps; or B) Coby Beck is a feckin liar. And you have the chutzpah to call folks like me “deniers.”

How do you know it’s wrong then?

Volcanism is the largest contributor to climate change - bar none.

1991 Pinatubo -0.5° C

1980 Mt. St. Helens -0.5° C

1815 Tambora -1° C

~75 K years ago Toba -4° C (conservative estimate based on geologic evidence)

These are significant changes in the average global temperature that happen in a matter of weeks - not decades or centuries. For example, a 1° C (worldwide) average can translate to as much as 10° C or more change in certain areas.

This claim you are making about climate change impacting structures that should be more resilient than a few degrees in temperature is preposterous at best.

I don’t disagree that 1) this planet is filthy because of mankind and 2) we need to continue a sensible discussion on what our footprint really is based on mankind’s existence, and if necessary, do something about it.

However, the discussion at this time in my opinion has really been reduced to finger pointing and ridiculous political agenda driven nonsense - and that’s a shame because it’s a discussion that’s needed.

So, I would say to you Joe, and others who agree with Al Gore and all of the (mankind-caused) Global Warming alarmists that you need to bring the conversation back to a sensible level and maybe the skeptics and naysayers might be willing to join the discussion. Why you? Because you guys started it. Let’s talk when you guys are ready to get off of your high horse and get serious about this.

I confess that while I listen to all other viewpoints, I don’t just them equally. If, for instance, hundreds of scientists and thousands of scientific papers say one thing, I credit that would more credibility than, say someone who calls global warming snake oil or accuses me of being a socialist.

sigh….

Heavy sigh….

Three times in your article you mention that hte bridge was “Structurally deficient”. what do you think that term means? that everything is fine?

Structurally deficient means that the bridge cannot support the weight it was designed to support. I’ve heard that they were working on the bridge. It’s entrirely possible something the workers did made it even more deficient. But to say that global warming did this when the weather’s not been that warm there (compared to averages) is a REAL stretch.

I personally believe that ignoring that a bridge was falling apart for 17 years is a MUCH more likely explaination.

But this article is not about a bridge falling, its about selling the myth of global warning. Global warming is a tool for liberal to tax and control our daily lives. Tell us what to drive, where to live, and how to do it.

If I recall, that sounds a little socialist to me.

A recent study suggests that aerosols contribute to WARMING; not cooling.

Please cite a reputable, peer-reviewed paper that “debunks” natural climate cycles.

No, you f’ing morons, it didn’t! Good God - is there anything you WON’T blame of the global warming scam.

Rosie said that airplanes on fire with 1000 degree temps can’t melt steel. She said the fire has never melted steel, and now you say that an increase in temp of 2 degrees caused a bridge to collapse. Are you people that stupid? Have you no ability to think logically about anything?

You global warming lemmings are a joke. Literally. You are a joke.

Could you cite to a couple of the “scientific papers” you rely on for your claim the the MWP has been “debunked” as being the result of a natural climate cycle? I’d really like to see cites to something besides the IPCC reports, or Michael Mann and the “hockey stick.”

Also, don’t you think that referring to those who question the certainty of AGW as ‘deniers’ immediately takes any AGW discussion from a scientific to a political track? ‘Denier’ is a loaded word, intended to take focus off the merits of the AGW arguments by equating AGW skeptics with Nazis. Too often these days both sides derail what should be scientific inquiry in this way. Science should not be conducted by ad hominen argument, or by ‘consensus’ for that matter. One pillar of the scientific method is falsification–scientists search to prove the validity of a claim by repeatedly trying to show it is wrong. You shouldn’t vilify those who question AGW theory, you should commend their efforts.

Translation: “This is what we think and we refuse to discuss it.”

Galileo was a denier. Einstein was a denier. Many sought to shut them up in the same manner the Blessed Church of the Immaculate Global Warming wishes to do today. I am still waiting to hear one of their Bishops or Priests explain how man is causing the global warming we are seeing on other planets in the system. Still waiting to hear one explain how the current temperature is an ideal temperature and we must somehow find a way to keep it there. Still waiting to hear how those poor polar bears somehow managed to survive into this century when they were around at a time when the world was much warmer than it is now. The one thing I am certain about is that there will be a time, and probably not that far off, when people will look back at this time and laugh.

“The thought didn’t cross my mind until my Minneapolis-based brother suggested it. I had asked him for his thoughts on the collapse, and that is the question he posed.

I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search — and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are “looking at everything” including “the weather” — I think it is a legitimate question to ask.”

Thought didn’t cross your mind-check
Brother (a native) brings up GW-check
You’re skeptical at first-check
You google search-check
NTSB looking at “everything”-check.

That’s darn funny stuff, and to keep in the spirit of the game you’re playing…

What is your CARBON FOOTPRINT? I hope it’s neutral. If not, you are a CARBONHAWK!

Bridge and other infrastructure are built to a specific site. They are built to withstand extreme ranges of temperate and water levels, but they are not built to withstand changes in climate. A structure that exists in different conditions than it was optimally designed for will be under greater stress than one that exists within its optimal tolerances.

An example would be a bridge that is washed out by flooding; it wasn’t designed for that. When less dramatic overall conditions change, the stresses are less dramtic but will add up over time and will increase the danger when other stress factors are present.

I live about three miles from the I-35W bridge, and have been over it many times. The weather has caused many problems, including an exploding transformer near my building. How much did climate change affect the I-35W bridge? I don’t know, but it’s worth looking into.

We’ve seen what a lack of preparedness can do in New Orleans. Farther up the Mississippi, the immediacy might not be so apparent, but we can’t ignore the warning signs. The US Army Corps of Engineers will face many challenges. The whining from the “tax cuts! tax cuts!” crowd is going to get people killed.

Of course, if 1-2F is enough to knock a bridge down, then I agree with Joe, we are in very serious trouble!! We’d best therefore stop depending on our feeble government to help us, if they can’t even hold up a bridge on an August afternoon. Let’s privatize the bridge, and all the other big bridges, and while we’re at it, all the other major roadways. Privately run toll roads would manage traffic, maintenance, structural deficiencies, and costs far better than our government has been able to; and we wouldn’t have to worry about “dedicated” transportation tax dollars mysteriously diverted to other “priorities”.

Heck, let’s privatize everything we can think of. If the Warmers really aren’t socialists, surely they’ll go along with what most people intuitively understand is the only way we can adapt, right, Joe? Limits on free enterprise, property ownership, and investment will contract our economy, DIRECTLY hindering our ability to adapt to this terrifying nightmare of Gaia’s wrath. (That’s why carbon taxes and ethanol subsidies are stupid.) Expansion of all of these principles, including broadly into our transportation sector, can enhance our wealth and therefore our ingenuity, not to mention our safety. If climate doom is just around the corner, I want us to have as much money available to throw at the problem as we can have.

Sorry about the soap box.

For a complete list of phenomena allegedly caused by AGW, Google “warmlist.” There’s a site that keeps track of everything the alarmists claim is caused by AGW. good for a laugh.

Jack Thomas

This is an absolutely stupid suggestion, and you people who are trying to blame every last pejorative happening on climate change are doing very serious damage to the cause.

This bridge undergoes ~100 F in temperature swings every year. The thought that another 1-2 F is going to make any difference is really stupid, and just indicates your lack of scientific and engineering foundations.

Shut up before you do any more damage to the real problem of getting the world to take climate change seriously.

I am glad that so many people are so certain that they know what questions to rule out before the NTSB does. It will be very interesting when they report what the precipitating cause was and then what the underlying contributors were. Something obviously weakened that bridge. A number of people think that heat contributed. Yes July 2006 was hotter — one may ask whether that weakened the bridge also. Perhaps the work on the bridge is what put it over the edge.

The issue with warming is not so much an an additional 1 or 2°F, but more and longer and stronger heat waves — and the impact of such extended intense heat waves constantly repeated. I don’t think it’s the steel that the heat affects so much as the concrete — as two of the people I cite suggest.

As I said in my post, the people who have the biggest problem with this question don’t believe in global warming is a problem that warrants serious attention. The IPCC report pretty well kills the natural cycle myth. Anyone interested in finding out about myths like “other planets are warming” or “the Medieval Warm Period” should check out realclimate.org — but you have to first believe scientists. If you don’t, then you won’t be convinced.

I do think that the vast majority of people posting here will live long enough to realize that the vast majority of climate scientists — and people like Al Gore — were right. The great tragedy is that the Deniers are probably going to be successful at blocking action to avoid the worst — and by the time they realize how tragically mistaken they were, it will be too late.

Myth? You have to be the most ignorant person in the world to state that the natural climate cycles of the earth are a myth. Incredibly stupid thing to say. Have you ever heard of an ice age?

And Micheal Mann, of broken hockey stick fame, is the person behind realclimate. The site is biased and hardly the last word on climate.

When a friend forwarded this to me I thought it was a joke. I was very sad to discover it was not. That you can truly believe this is a legitimate question to ask, shows the dreadful condition of our education system, and the laughable joke our media has become. It is one of my dearest hopes and dreams that the day will come that we as a country begin to hold the media accountable for what it publishes. When you publish completely unfounded stories of this nature all you do is create hysteria and worse - FEAR, and you do not do it for noble reasons, you do it for aclaim.
So, wake-up, you will be held accountable for your actions!!!!
Stay with what you know - you are not an engineer, you are not a transportation inspector. When you write a story, report the facts, allow those in the know to form opinion and policy, it is not your job to tell others what to think. Since you have forgetten this, or perhaps never understood it, go back to school until you do, and quit wasting our time with your ignorant, and dangerous ramblings.

We are emitting GHGs into the atmosphere at a rate more than 100 times faster than have ever occurred naturally.

Today we know that the forcing we are creating by emitting billions of tons of GHGs into the atmosphere each year will soon equal the forcing comparable to that which sent us into an ice age or pulled us out. The notion that that won’t change the climate is absurd. In fact, the changes we are seeing today are already exactly what has been predicted by climate scientists for over two decades (see my recent extreme weather post).

It is interesting to me how upset people get with posing a question. Most of those who get upset turn around and then question the work of thousands of scientists and by doing so help to undermine any chance of serious action on climate. Assuming we don’t take serious action in the next decade, then sometime in the 2020s, I think, it will be obvious to everyone that we have really started to ruin this Garden of Eden — and we will begin a desperate race against time, which I fear we will lose.

I actually think most people will be held accountable for their actions in the sense that they will live long enough to realize just how wrong they were in doubting the danger of human-caused climate change — and that will be a painful realization, albeit not a sufficient accounting for the damage that we will be doing to the next 50 generations that walk this planet.

The point is, despite a meaningless “consensus” about AGW, maybe because of the consensus, serious scientists should continue to test and try to falsify the AGW theory. Let the politicians do what they will with whatever evidence they want to grab on to. Don’t try to stop scientists from testing the underpinnings of AGW theory by claiming “ther science is settled.” The science is never settled.

One place to start is in our schools.

Last year my son’s 6th grade science teacher ‘taught’ climate change to his classes by showing Al Gore’s slideshow and just leaving it at that. He made absolutely no effort to teach any science about the issue. In fact, he told his students that ‘humans are a virus to Mother Earth’. When I challenged him publicy to teach some real science and critical thinking, or at least back up the propaganda film with some evidence, he basically threw a tantrum - and now he is not teaching there any longer.

Sending journalists back to school to learn to think won’t help at this point. We need to teach the current generation of students how to think.

Do you know what your kids are being taught in school? Find out! The teachers should not be indoctrinating, they should be teaching our kids how to think for themselves. Hold the teachers’ feet to the fire until they begin teaching as they are supposed to.

That applies to every scare scenario put forward by the IPCC.

Its not even clear how much the climate has changed over the past 100 years, because it is impossible to measure a 0.005 F/year temperature trend from temperature records that swing over 100 F every year, especially from the weather stations that have been used to make these measurements.

Start praying that solar cycle 24 starts soon. Or, MN is in for some really cold winters by 2020.

I notice he didn’t mention his scientific credentials.

“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

If you want to know more, try the report itself. For something shorter, go to this realclimate post.

But if you think realclimate is untrustworthy, then you are not open to persuasion by real climate scientists, so this is all moot.

Are you serious? It’s interesting to you that people get upset by yet another tragedy that has been shamelessly politicized for, of all things, Global Warming??

What people will do for a few website hits is astonishing - tsk tsk tsk.

- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)

So lets see our coastal towns have to be worried about 4-8 inches of sea-level rise over 100 years. Oh the horror I wonder is we can adapt!

The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
http://z4.invisionfree.com/ Popular_Technology/ index.php?showtopic=2050

Sea level rise in the past decade is 3 mm/yr based on satellite data as you must know. This is in fact a doubling of the rate in prior decades. Hansen and many others predict that it will continue to accelerate in a nonlinear fashion to as much as 6+ inches a decade. I’m guessing you are young enough to live to see much of that acceleration.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/ project/ research/ structures/ strucfire/ materialInFire/ Steel/ default.htm

300C (572F) - Steel begins to Weaken
1500C (2732F) - Steel Melts

So what kind of heat waves are we talking about? Hot enough to burn people alive?

I suggest you read the IPCC report:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)

Again, the issue is not whether a well-designed, well maintained bridge can manage the heat — obviously it can. Only whether for a possibly misdesigned — and certainly structurally deficient and inadequately maintained bridge — it is reasonable to ask whether a heat wave contributed to this unusual, catastrophic failure. Some people I cited think so. The NTSB is apparently looking at the weather.

You are seriously citing the Third Assessment (2001) when that has obviously been superseded by the Fourth Assessment (2007), which makes note of the recent acceleration in sea level rise? Amazing.

And it is concrete, I think, that is the issue here, not steel.

By the way, heat can cause failures. I was once unable to take off from Phoenix because the runway buckeld due to extreme heat. And they know something about heat in Phoenix. A buckling roadbed on a bridge could wreck havoc — and maybe it did. Seems like something we ought to know.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ wg1/ Report/ AR4WG1_Pub_Ch05.pdf

“For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr–1.” IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007)”

Sorry Joe there is no scientific basis that heat or heat waves weakened the bridge since Steel does not begin to weaken until 525 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel is the Issue because it is the Steel that has to fail not the concrete road bed. Unless of course you were talking about the concrete support columns. Thermal Expansion is well known and accounted for even in 1967.