No, see, you're leaving out an important step

Once you've got the materials, making a simple nuclear bomb is not that difficult. In fact, the premise is quite simple to grasp, if even I can manage it. Obviously the specific technical details are more complicated, but not prohibitively so.

Of course, just because those details are easily within the grasp of many states, they are not so when it comes to terrorist groups. Finding engineers and physicists of such caliber in the general population might not be remarkably more difficult than finding, say, a talented team of coronary and brain surgeons. Mali won't pull it off soon, but Argentina almost certainly could. Finding individuals of that type who are willing to

a) Support the cause of terrorists with their work, and
b) Endure the various hardships such support would require

would be drastically more difficult.

---

What you've completely failed to take into account is getting the materials. U-235 and plutonium aren't just lying around on the ground like glowing green rocks. The processes required to make them are what cost so much money during the Manhattan Project -- the diffusion centers alone were some of the largest buildings on the planet, if I remember correctly.

If a terrorist group were going to make a nuclear bomb of even a simple Hiroshima design, they would have to not only recruit competent personell but also acquire a fairly large quantity of ready made material. Either of these accomplishments would be extremely difficult by themselves -- executing them during the same timeframe is nigh on impossible.

Ultimately I don't think terrorist groups will pursue the development of their own nuclear weapons simply because it would not be cost-effective to do so. If a group was intent on a nuclear strike, they'd be better off attempting to steal, purchase, or find an existing weapon. Difficult as this may be, it would be far easier, more economical, and ultimately more likely to succeed than an independent weapons program.

Really and truly I think most terrorist groups don't even want to use nuclear weapons, period, because of the difficulty, the high price (and likelihood) of failure, and the arguably higher price of success.

Think about it: based on how many operations we successfully foil compared with how many actually succeed, do you think any terrorist in his right mind would put so many resources into any one attack? Odds are it would fail or be stopped. Then you've got the entire world against you for trying to use a nuke, and you've wasted countless hours, dollars, and minions in the process.

And if you do succeed, and the bomb goes off, virtually the entire world turns a blind eye to any response we have in mind and a perfectly good eye to uprooting and destroying you. Terrorists often want to drag us into a fight, yes, but only when that fight is like all our others -- measured, careful to avoid too much collateral damage, reigned in by international opinion. They don't want to drag us into an unrestrained campaign of annihilation.

8/22/2007 7:37:31 PM

^^ and ^ Don't argue with me, argue with PBS!

Quote :

"How easy is it to smuggle nuclear materials? Contrary to common belief, it is not necessarily very dangerous to handle fissile materials when certain precautions are taken. In fact, the radiation hazard posed by weapons grade uranium is relatively low. Plutonium has been produced in a nuclear reactor and therefore is more radioactive and more dangerous to handle. But a smuggler may be less interested in plutonium anyway, because it is more difficult to build a crude plutonium bomb than a uranium bomb. The material most attractive to nuclear smugglers is highly enriched uranium (HEU) because it is easier to use and easier to handle. HEU can be shielded to reduce the radiation to a level which would be very difficult to detect by the standard tools available to most customs agents. As in drug smuggling, interdiction of illicit nuclear materials is unlikely unless authorities have prior knowledge of the materials' whereabouts. Plutonium and uranium may be even more difficult to detect than drugs because they have no odor, so the dogs used to find drugs are of no use. In Russia, most customs points are equipped with no more than a hand-held radiation meter which provides a very low probability of detection in high traffic areas. New technical systems sensitive to far lower fields of radiation are being developed; Russia plans to implement them over the next few years, but for now a smuggler would have a good chance of passing through undetected. Even without technological solutions to this problem, there are indications that standard customs control could be more effective. The smuggler in the Munich case testified that he got past controls in the Moscow airport by kicking his bag with his foot past the x-ray machine at customs. The smuggler in the Prague case hid his uranium canisters in his pants as he crossed international borders by train. [for more information about how Russian Customs is responding to this threat, read the FRONTLINE interview with Nikolai Kravchenko, head of the Nuclear Materials Division of the Russian State Customs Committee.] [for more information about the threat the U.S. faces from smuggling, read the FRONTLINE interview with David Kay, former U.N. Nuclear Inspector in Iraq.]"

Quote :

"What are the scariest incidents to date? For a listing of the major weapons-grade nuclear smuggling incidents which have occurred over the last five years, look at the timeline. All of these incidents served to illustrate that it was feasible for bomb-quality nuclear material to be procured in the former Soviet Union and transported across international borders. Each case was more frightening than the last because larger quantities of material were recovered. However, it is not the incidents of materials seizure in Europe that ought to worry us most. The low security and poor accounting in the Russian nuclear system means there is no way to know for sure what material may be missing. These shortcomings are now being rectified as part of the joint U.S.-Russian programs to improve nuclear materials protection, accounting, and control. However, until this work is completed, the possibility of undetected diversion of uranium and plutonium still exists. The fact that there have been no major interceptions in Europe since December, 1994 ought not be reassuring. Many observers have noted that the chaos of Russia's southern borders provides many open smuggling routes where it is possible to export almost without hindrance. After the highly publicized stings of 1994, the chances are low that a would-be nuclear smuggler would head toward Europe. What is scariest is that we don't know what we don't know. [for a graphic chronology of the major incidents of nuclear incidents, look at the timeline.] [for more information about the implications of these incidents, read "Before the Deluge" by William Potter".]"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nukes/stuff/faqs.html

8/23/2007 12:11:11 AM

Quote :

"Ultimately I don't think terrorist groups will pursue the development of their own nuclear weapons simply because it would not be cost-effective to do so. If a group was intent on a nuclear strike, they'd be better off attempting to steal, purchase, or find an existing weapon. Difficult as this may be, it would be far easier, more economical, and ultimately more likely to succeed than an independent weapons program."

This is really the crux of the issue. As far as terrorists and nuclear weapons go, they likely won't do it.

I would bet most of that smuggled material from Russia goes to Iran or NK where their nuclear programs use them for research purposes. Even with their own sets of centrifuges, they are barely able, if at all, to make enough material for just 1 bomb a year. And even if you have the material, actually making a successful bomb isn't easy (NK's supposed bomb was a dud, and terrorist don't have half the resources they do).

It's a lot easier to divert non-weapons grade nuclear material for a dirty bomb type of bomb, but it's still no where as efficient or practical as using conventional explosives (which are comparatively VERY easy to acquire).

8/23/2007 12:31:27 AM

Quote :

"What you've completely failed to take into account is getting the materials. U-235 and plutonium aren't just lying around on the ground like glowing green rocks."

well according to many people in TSB, the entire world hates the US so it doesnt seem that far-fetched to me...but seriously, Iran is actively pursuing it...and you have countries like India and Pakistan, who don't seem to hate the US enough to create nuclear warheads and send them at us, but they've certainly got some anti-US sentiments in that part of the world, as well as active nuclear programs...and even a dirty bomb would FUCK SHIT UP as we all know

maybe when Clinton was selling US military secrets to the Chinese they had some rogue agents, who knows

luckily for us, even though Al Queda and Iraq DID have competent enough engineers, chemists, physicists, etc to make a nuclear bomb, we got a lot of them (per that deck of cards...a number of those captured were pretty brilliant scientists, or at least were competent enough in their particular fields of doom

Quote :

"Ultimately I don't think terrorist groups will pursue the development of their own nuclear weapons simply because it would not be cost-effective to do so. If a group was intent on a nuclear strike, they'd be better off attempting to steal, purchase, or find an existing weapon. Difficult as this may be, it would be far easier, more economical, and ultimately more likely to succeed than an independent weapons program."

I agree 100%

Quote :

"Really and truly I think most terrorist groups don't even want to use nuclear weapons, period, because of the difficulty, the high price (and likelihood) of failure, and the arguably higher price of success."

I disagree 100%

please convince me that a terrorist group like al queda for example would not want to nuke the US? i'm basically asking the impossible here btw

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 12:34 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2007 12:31:35 AM

Quote :

"please convince me that a terrorist group like al queda for example would not want to nuke the US?"

You misunderstand me. I think al Qaeda and its ilk definitely wants to nuke the United States. Similarly, I want to shoot Osama bin Laden in the face with a 12 gauge. It's theoretically possible for both of us to get what we want, but it's so incredibly difficult and unlikely, neither of us is going to pursue it.

I'm not going to buy a shotgun and fly to Pakistan and hunt in the mountains for Osama, because the odds are overwhelming that I'll fail and in the process waste a lot of time, effort, and money, of which I have a finite amount. Also, whether I were to fail or succeed, I will probably be killed in the effort.

Al Qaeda isn't going to pursue the development or acquisition of a nuclear weapon for exactly the same reasons. It is far more effective for them to pursue relatively simple and inexpensive operations like suicide bombs, IEDs, USS Coles, and 9/11's, any of which they could attempt several of for the cost of attempting one nuclear attack.

So in short, like any rational adult, they'll weigh what they want against what they realistically can do.

Quote :

"but seriously, Iran is actively pursuing it...and you have countries like India and Pakistan"

There certainly is material out there that a terrorist group can get, but there is a limited amount of it and even the most anti-american or mercenary countries have a strong incentive to give very little, if any, of their material to terrorist groups likely to use it, as the consequences of such an action would almost certainly be major retaliatory action.

Quote :

"Don't argue with me, argue with PBS!"

I never said it was difficult to smuggle materials, I said it was difficult to acquire them in the first place. You can't smuggle what you don't have.

The acquisitions listed in that timeline would, had they been successful (and they weren't), have been relatively small, and even combined would have represented different levels of enrichment and were all told not likely to be useful in a nuclear device.

8/23/2007 11:17:12 AM

Quote :

"So in short, like any rational adult, they'll weigh what they want against what they realistically can do."

we've still got people that think al queda are rational thinking people

*sigh*

8/23/2007 11:31:40 AM

How they decided on their goals and values isn't the issue. But when it comes to pursuing those goals, they are quite calculating and rational, yes. They know how to get the most bang for their buck.

What exactly has al Qaeda done that's irrational in the context of their aims? With their low manpower and resources they have accomplished a great deal. That doesn't happen by chance or as the result of lunacy. That happens because of excedingly rational thought put into planning and execution.

8/23/2007 12:10:05 PM

if they are so rational why do they blow themselves up for a make believe heaven of virgins

i seriously dont know how you can credit someone with the attribute of rationality when devout religion controls all their thoughts, motives and actions

i think maybe "motivated" or "persistent" could describe them...but you're basically saying crazy people have the attribute of "not being crazy"

i think we're talking about two different things though...i mean, they plan their attacks well but considering the reasons behind the attacks i have a hard time saying theyre rational

in Silence of the Lambs, would you say Buffalo Bill is rational? he sure is calculating, but he's also crazy as fuck

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2007 12:11:55 PM

The nature of their beliefs and preferences doesn't enter into it. For whatever reason, they have specific goals. Since ultimately these are preferential, you can't really describe these in terms of being "rational" or "irrational." If you want to be a rock star or a brain surgeon or a janitor, none of these goals is more or less rational than the other. You want what you want. The question of rationality comes into play when we look at how one pursues his goals with the resources at his disposal.

8/23/2007 12:22:06 PM

Small Nukes, Big Threat
FBI Director Tells CBS News: Small Devices Sought By Terrorists Could Unleash Destruction Worse Than 9/11

Quote :

"It's not hype. It's something we deal with day in and day out,' Mueller said. 'When you are talking about an improvised nuclear device, it is something that would be horrifying if it fell into the hands of terrorists or terrorists were able to manufacture such a device — and we can not let that happen. We just can not let that happen.' An unthinkable threat — not an impossible one."

Quote :

"'Terrorists — al Qaeda, bin Laden — have sought nuclear materials for a number of years now,' FBI Director Robert Mueller told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr in an exclusive interview. Mueller says terrorists would like nothing better than to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/eveningnews/main2925463.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2925463

8/23/2007 1:12:05 PM

I want to clarify something briefly. I have said that I don't think terrorists will actively pursue nuclear weapons, and I stand by that. "Actively pursue" is an important phrase there. I think that if through some calamitous bit of chance they more or less happened upon such a weapon -- that is, someone was actively trying to give it to them for whatever reason -- they would be much more likely to use it because the investment in acquiring it would be correspondingly much lower.

Quote :

"Terrorists — al Qaeda, bin Laden — have sought nuclear materials for a number of years now,' FBI Director Robert Mueller told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr in an exclusive interview."

I suspect this is the case, but I also suspect that either:

1) They are pursuing it to make radiological, rather than nuclear, weapons.
2) They are misinformed about how difficult it will be to make a nuclear weapon

Number 1 doesn't concern me substantially more than outright conventional explosives. "Dirty bombs" are simply not that threatening, especially in the capacity that a terrorist would likely be capable of delivering. While their effects, particularly the psychological ones, would be worse, the force of our retaliation would be disproportionately larger. That is, while a dirty bomb might kill 100% more people than a like-sized conventional one, our military response would likely be on the order of 500% times more severe, simply as a knee-jerk reaction to the radiation aspect of things.

8/23/2007 1:34:41 PM

Quote :

"if they are so rational why do they blow themselves up for a make believe heaven of virgins i seriously dont know how you can credit someone with the attribute of rationality when devout religion controls all their thoughts, motives and actions i think maybe "motivated" or "persistent" could describe them...but you're basically saying crazy people have the attribute of "not being crazy""

You make a good point, and maybe "rational" isn't the right word to describe it. Regardless, whatever word would best describe it, they seem to have been successful at achieving certain goals of theirs in the past with fairly limited means in order to accomplish something within the framework of their horribly fucked up world view.

8/23/2007 2:11:23 PM

Take any class in international politics or national security. "Rational" is the term they will use. The goal in either area is ultimately not to figure out why others are the way they are. It's to figure out what they are, and based on that, what they're likely to do and what we ought to do about it.

8/23/2007 6:21:54 PM

Quote :

"Question 2. CWS writes: The manner in which you have positioned this story and the 'Loose Nukes' series sounds like this is inevitable, as if it will happen within the next few weeks. Are you trying to scare the public? Do you have information that needs to be shared? Why is this story coming out now? This is truly a terrifying scenario. What would be the U.S. response to such an attack? Answer: The threat of loose nuclear materials from Russia, and al Qaeda's expressed interest in obtaining nuclear weapons has been a deep concern for national security experts for 15 years. The U.S. response would depend on several factors: How many Americans were killed, whether the U.S. could identify the culprits behind the attack, and whether nuclear scientists could identify the source of the fissile material used to make the bomb to a foreign government. But after such a catastrophe, our government would have no good options -- only bad and worse. Thus, the premium is on prevention now."

Quote :

"Question 6. Ed asks: It has been reported that there are suitcase nukes from the Russian Cold War days missing from their inventory and that they may be already in the United States to be used by terrorists. Can they still be used? If this were true, what would the average Joe do to prepare for such an event? What do I tell my daughter who is going to school in the city of Tampa, Fla., where such an event would be very likely to occur with McDill (Southern Command) being in the blast zone. Answer: In 1997, General Alexander Lebed, Boris Yeltsin's national security advisor, acknowledged to CBS News' '60 Minutes' that 84 of 132 KGB 'suitcase' nuclear weapons were not accounted for in Russia. Lebed later recanted his statement. The Russian line has remained that no such weapons were made and that all their nuclear materials are secure. The bottom line is that it is likely Russia made small-yield nuclear weapons that could be carried by one person, and that we cannot say with any certainty that such weapons did not go missing. If a suitcase nuclear weapon were stolen it might have locks and environmental sensing devices, which nuclear thieves could likely overcome in a few days. It is possible that the weapon would fail to detonate because it would not have been serviced recently. Terrorists could still cannibalize the weapon for the fissile material with which they could make a crude nuclear bomb."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LooseNukes/Story?id=1206659&page=1

8/24/2007 12:57:15 AM

bumps

4/13/2010 9:36:05 AM

Quote :

"I have said that I don't think terrorists will actively pursue nuclear weapons, and I stand by that. "

I realize this quote is like three years old, but damn, it couldn't be more wrong.

4/13/2010 10:31:44 AM

Who cares? You people are such pussies.

4/13/2010 10:51:54 AM

I'm a pussy because I am more scared of a nuclear attack than global warming

4/13/2010 12:29:49 PM

That's hilarious, because the latter is much more likely to affect you.

"Man, fuck these outrageous fuel prices, hurricanes, and drouts, but I'm glad I'm safe from a terrorist attack!"

4/13/2010 12:31:03 PM

Quote :

"the latter is much more likely to affect you"

lol the latter might not even be real

nuclear weapons and the technology are undoubtedly real

4/13/2010 12:33:21 PM

You are so ignorant it might be contagious.

4/13/2010 12:34:31 PM

Why should i be legitimately scared of a technology that has killed 100,000+ people (strictly talking about Little Boy and Fat Man) when i can be scared of some predictions about the weather getting warmer?

"Fuck man I'd rather get hit by a 30 megaton bomb than have the sea level rise a couple inches"

Its always funny when atheists have their own imaginary boogeymen to be scared of, like global warming

4/13/2010 12:35:48 PM

Rate the following from most likely to least likely to happen to you over the course of your lifetime:

A. Your liklihood of having to pay higher fuel prices due to increased demand and decreased supply of a natural resource.

B. Your liklihood of being affected by a hurricane while living in North Carolina, a state which borders the ocean and is regularly hit by hurricanes, when the amount of hurricanes is at a record high due to climate change.

C. Your liklihood of being affected by the extreme drought that affects North Carolina during the summer which, as we remember last year, caused multiple crops to die and water shortages and, due to climate change, has been increasing in intensity and length.

D. Your liklihood of having to pay higher energy prices due to the decreased supply of natural resources, the increased amount of consumption on the grid, and the fact that the southeast is the worst in terms of energy efficiency.

E. Your liklihood of dying in a car accident.

G. Your liklihood of being murdered by someone from Al-Qaeda.

4/13/2010 12:46:10 PM

i was with you until you foolishly tried to attribute a record high number of hurricanes and longer droughts to climate change...the worst hurricane ever hit Galveston in 1900...the record for hurricanes in a year is 13 in 2005...only one higher than the 1955 total...how come there were only 8 hurricanes in 2006?

look i dont disagree that the odds are higher that i get hit by a hurricane as opposed to a terrorist attack...i've been through plenty of hurricanes and no terrorist attacks

that doesnt change the fact that nuclear weapons technology is UNDISPUTELY REAL and anthropogenic global warming is A THEORY BASED ON PREDICTIONS

4/13/2010 12:50:47 PM

NUKES ARE REAL AH KIN FEEL EM WIT MUH HANDS

YA CANT FEEL NO MELTIN OF DA ICE CAPS

4/13/2010 12:53:51 PM

dbl post

[Edited on April 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2010 12:57:25 PM

Quote :

"the amount of hurricanes is at a record high due to climate change."

God, there were 5 hurricanes in 2006 (i was looking at a different year when i said 8)

Can you please backup your claim about global warming causing record numbers of hurricanes when there were only 5 in 2006? You made the claim, hopefully you can back it up with something better than all caps.

Also while you're at it, did global warming cause the Dust Bowl drought too?

Quote :

"YA CANT FEEL NO MELTIN OF DA ICE CAPS"

satellite data shows that the Antarctic ice cap is growing

but hey, don't let facts get in the way of towing the global warming line

Global warming caused Pangaea to split into Laurasia and Gondwanaland!

4/13/2010 12:58:02 PM

Quote :

""Man, fuck these outrageous fuel prices, hurricanes, and drouts, but I'm glad I'm safe from a terrorist attack!" "

FWIW, you can find alternatives for fuel, you can outrun hurricanes and water can be conserved. Outrunning a nuke that you don't even know is coming is much more difficult. I mean, it always makes for a good laugh to go on about how people are often more afraid of disasters that are less likely to affect them, but honestly when you look at it, I don't think the fear comes from the chance of it happening, so much as it comes from not being able to do a damn thing about it.

I mean, yes the chance of you getting hit by a car is many many times more likely than being involved in a plane crash, but it's the fact that you have no control over the plane that really scares people. So it is here, assuming AGW is a real problem, it is within our grasp to control. Some moron with a holy book shoved up his ass and a nuke he bought from Iran is much less within our control.

4/13/2010 7:17:13 PM

I decided to research your claim...

Quote :

"C. Your liklihood of being affected by the extreme drought that affects North Carolina during the summer which, as we remember last year, caused multiple crops to die and water shortages and, due to climate change, has been increasing in intensity and length. "

http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim85/CLIM85_PRCP02.pdf

Quote :

" Abbreviations: Division Identifier: AVERAGE = Mean of Element for all Months (or Annual Values) for the Given Period of Record. STD DEV = Standard Deviation for all Months (or Annual Values) for the Given Period of Record. 31-00 = 1931 through 2000 Long-Term Period of Record. 31-60 = 1931 through 1960 Normal Period of Record. DB = Drainage Basin 41-70 = 1941 through 1970 Normal Period of Record. Fthls = Foothills 51-80 = 1951 through 1980 Normal Period of Record. Hydro = Hyrdrological Division 61-90 = 1961 through 1990 Normal Period of Record. 71-00 = 1971 through 2000 Normal Period of Record. Climate Division Element JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL Southern Mountains - NC 31-00 AVERAGE 4.81 4.64 5.56 4.38 4.37 4.61 5.21 5.13 3.99 3.68 3.92 4.46 54.76 3101 STD DEV 2.20 1.99 2.07 1.65 1.74 1.78 1.86 2.43 2.02 2.34 1.86 2.14 7.60 3101 31-60 AVERAGE 4.83 4.71 5.49 4.45 4.00 4.47 5.94 5.45 3.84 3.60 3.54 4.71 55.03 3101 STD DEV 2.44 2.02 1.80 1.58 1.62 1.84 2.06 2.71 2.06 2.56 2.28 2.32 7.05 3101 41-70 AVERAGE 4.38 4.75 5.62 4.41 3.93 4.73 5.65 5.08 4.06 3.65 3.63 4.45 54.34 3101 STD DEV 1.97 2.02 1.89 1.60 1.55 1.85 2.04 2.27 1.91 2.24 2.05 1.99 7.18 3101 51-80 AVERAGE 4.54 4.50 5.99 4.55 4.57 4.61 4.81 4.88 4.31 3.66 3.80 4.38 54.60 3101 STD DEV 1.78 2.08 2.25 1.77 2.03 1.72 1.57 2.16 2.10 2.19 1.53 2.05 7.07 3101 61-90 AVERAGE 4.27 4.58 5.52 4.16 4.90 4.48 4.83 4.87 4.18 3.95 4.15 4.36 54.25 3101 STD DEV 1.64 2.17 2.38 1.69 1.96 1.75 1.56 2.09 2.15 2.17 1.41 2.19 8.47 3101 71-00 AVERAGE 5.09 4.59 5.68 4.25 5.00 4.68 4.48 4.55 4.21 3.60 4.39 4.30 54.82 3101 STD DEV 2.15 1.96 2.34 1.84 1.84 1.80 1.57 2.00 2.21 2.08 1.54 1.87 8.25 Northern Mountains - NC 3102 31-00 AVERAGE 4.05 3.98 4.90 4.29 4.50 4.62 5.21 5.10 4.25 3.79 3.71 3.72 52.12 3102 STD DEV 1.82 1.64 1.90 1.76 1.63 1.94 1.78 2.87 2.56 2.63 2.01 1.67 7.17 3102 31-60 AVERAGE 3.89 3.99 4.79 4.24 4.26 4.40 5.85 5.60 4.11 3.52 3.37 3.82 51.84 3102 STD DEV 1.80 1.52 1.56 1.50 1.62 1.90 1.86 3.31 2.80 2.57 2.11 1.57 6.75 3102 41-70 AVERAGE 3.60 4.10 4.82 4.12 4.02 4.60 5.37 5.26 4.42 3.67 3.51 3.80 51.29 3102 STD DEV 1.41 1.69 1.50 1.51 1.45 2.06 1.73 2.66 2.75 2.23 1.86 1.67 7.06 3102 51-80 AVERAGE 3.88 4.05 5.33 4.40 4.41 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.65 3.96 3.63 3.77 52.21 3102 STD DEV 1.40 1.84 2.00 1.62 1.63 2.05 1.46 2.30 2.87 2.44 1.78 1.77 7.00 3102 61-90 AVERAGE 3.66 4.03 4.87 4.11 4.87 4.62 4.81 4.59 4.53 4.37 4.01 3.68 52.15 3102 STD DEV 1.44 1.88 2.18 1.86 1.63 2.00 1.68 2.31 2.65 2.75 1.92 1.88 7.64 3102 71-00 AVERAGE 4.40 3.96 5.16 4.46 5.06 4.86 4.65 4.43 4.56 3.91 4.07 3.66 53.18 3102 STD DEV 1.97 1.69 2.27 2.19 1.65 2.05 1.66 2.33 2.59 2.80 2.12 1.72 7.81 Northern Piedmont - NC 3103 31-00 AVERAGE 3.72 3.45 4.05 3.47 3.78 3.88 4.79 4.49 3.89 3.17 3.07 3.26 45.02 3103 STD DEV 1.71 1.41 1.62 1.40 1.43 1.80 1.92 1.96 2.78 2.05 1.85 1.48 6.09 3103 31-60 AVERAGE 3.51 3.44 3.83 3.67 3.58 3.81 5.27 4.73 3.82 2.85 2.96 3.25 44.72 3103 STD DEV 1.76 1.48 1.40 1.22 1.38 1.50 1.96 2.37 2.50 1.89 1.91 1.42 5.98 3103 41-70 AVERAGE 3.22 3.51 3.78 3.30 3.45 3.91 4.94 4.40 3.79 2.88 2.91 3.25 43.34 3103 STD DEV 1.41 1.33 1.36 1.12 1.30 1.65 1.86 1.83 2.41 1.76 1.92 1.50 5.82 3103 51-80 AVERAGE 3.59 3.53 4.05 3.34 3.79 3.96 4.35 4.43 3.83 3.25 2.94 3.37 44.43 3103 STD DEV 1.69 1.40 1.48 1.26 1.47 1.74 2.05 1.72 2.34 2.19 1.63 1.55 5.78 3103 61-90 AVERAGE 3.55 3.60 3.99 3.11 4.18 3.92 4.41 4.34 3.51 3.54 3.24 3.41 44.80 3103 STD DEV 1.68 1.43 1.72 1.48 1.53 1.95 2.07 1.72 2.39 2.21 1.98 1.60 6.51 3103 71-00 AVERAGE 4.09 3.42 4.38 3.44 4.18 3.87 4.46 4.26 4.33 3.65 3.23 3.25 46.56 3103 STD DEV 1.68 1.45 1.88 1.69 1.44 2.05 2.00 1.64 3.26 2.23 1.79 1.52 6.08 Central Piedmont - NC 3104 31-00 AVERAGE 3.88 3.68 4.25 3.45 3.84 4.01 4.88 4.55 3.93 3.27 3.10 3.42 46.26 3104 STD DEV 1.76 1.59 1.59 1.35 1.53 1.77 1.97 2.01 2.53 2.17 1.78 1.62 6.01 3104 31-60 AVERAGE 3.73 3.66 4.17 3.71 3.71 3.79 5.60 5.07 4.00 3.01 2.99 3.52 46.96 3104 STD DEV 1.90 1.67 1.55 1.25 1.49 1.65 1.97 2.23 2.65 1.89 2.03 1.67 6.71 3104 41-70 AVERAGE 3.48 3.78 4.15 3.56 3.65 4.06 5.35 4.81 4.05 3.07 2.95 3.43 46.34 3104 STD DEV 1.55 1.45 1.48 1.16 1.32 1.62 1.85 2.11 2.61 1.86 1.99 1.59 5.50 3104 51-80 AVERAGE 3.82 3.80 4.41 3.39 4.02 4.19 4.65 4.52 3.91 3.21 3.02 3.54 46.48 3104 STD DEV 1.73 1.47 1.54 1.29 1.42 1.58 1.88 1.91 2.09 2.18 1.65 1.63 5.17 3104 61-90 AVERAGE 3.69 3.89 4.21 3.07 4.27 4.19 4.33 4.27 3.52 3.56 3.24 3.57 45.81 3104 STD DEV 1.67 1.60 1.63 1.35 1.62 1.69 1.98 1.92 2.12 2.41 1.68 1.72 5.71 3104 71-00 AVERAGE 4.22 3.64 4.45 3.26 4.11 4.09 4.19 3.94 4.16 3.60 3.25 3.29 46.20 3104 STD DEV 1.70 1.61 1.75 1.56 1.71 1.92 1.86 1.63 2.65 2.42 1.54 1.57 5.78 Southern Piedmont - NC 3105 31-00 AVERAGE 3.96 3.73 4.43 3.46 3.60 4.08 5.17 4.64 3.98 3.37 3.05 3.48 46.95 3105 STD DEV 1.76 1.67 1.74 1.45 1.55 1.58 2.09 2.07 2.32 2.42 1.85 1.74 6.18 3105 31-60 AVERAGE 3.60 3.66 4.28 3.79 3.42 3.86 5.71 5.00 4.03 2.97 2.79 3.53 46.64 3105 STD DEV 1.80 1.83 1.58 1.47 1.42 1.35 1.87 2.05 2.52 1.98 2.18 1.88 6.76 3105 41-70 AVERAGE 3.48 3.86 4.38 3.57 3.37 4.06 5.62 4.95 3.93 3.03 2.82 3.38 46.45 3105 STD DEV 1.46 1.64 1.49 1.38 1.28 1.33 1.98 2.12 2.42 2.01 2.14 1.53 5.72 3105 51-80 AVERAGE 3.93 3.88 4.80 3.41 3.99 4.28 4.85 4.51 3.99 3.18 2.86 3.52 47.20 3105 STD DEV 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.44 1.59 1.37 2.05 2.23 2.11 2.33 1.75 1.66 5.60 3105 61-90 AVERAGE 3.94 3.92 4.49 2.98 4.09 4.15 4.77 4.38 3.68 3.65 3.19 3.65 46.89 3105 STD DEV 1.70 1.65 1.88 1.31 1.69 1.64 2.24 2.15 2.21 2.79 1.56 1.79 6.07 3105 71-00 AVERAGE 4.45 3.67 4.67 3.22 3.91 4.14 4.67 4.14 4.23 3.87 3.38 3.43 47.78 3105 STD DEV 1.74 1.60 2.01 1.51 1.77 1.75 2.22 1.95 2.23 2.74 1.57 1.72 5.80 Southern Coastal Plains - NC 3106 31-00 AVERAGE 3.82 3.58 4.11 3.16 3.79 4.85 6.69 5.99 5.24 2.99 3.03 3.33 50.58 3106 STD DEV 1.58 1.72 1.61 1.51 1.42 1.97 2.38 2.20 3.36 2.04 1.75 1.50 6.16 3106 31-60 AVERAGE 3.06 3.51 3.90 3.23 3.56 4.50 6.94 5.94 5.23 2.77 2.96 3.32 48.92 3106 STD DEV 1.24 1.68 1.64 1.52 1.42 1.70 3.02 2.07 2.90 2.02 2.02 1.54 6.63 3106 41-70 AVERAGE 3.24 3.54 4.06 3.08 3.68 5.25 7.27 5.86 4.88 2.99 2.96 3.19 50.00 3106 STD DEV 1.43 1.56 1.46 1.23 1.35 2.11 2.83 2.14 2.45 2.04 1.92 1.40 5.94 3106 51-80 AVERAGE 3.83 3.69 4.29 3.09 4.09 5.28 6.38 5.77 5.06 2.92 3.04 3.35 50.79 3106 STD DEV 1.44 1.55 1.46 1.40 1.29 1.99 2.05 2.20 2.66 2.12 1.60 1.42 5.88 3106 61-90 AVERAGE 4.05 3.80 4.22 3.08 4.21 5.08 6.56 5.93 4.52 2.92 3.05 3.46 50.88 3106 STD DEV 1.55 1.65 1.76 1.54 1.41 1.97 1.53 2.19 2.68 1.95 1.58 1.61 5.31 3106 71-00 AVERAGE 4.51 3.56 4.43 3.11 4.00 4.82 6.26 6.10 5.72 3.29 3.07 3.51 52.38 3106 STD DEV 1.57 1.87 1.60 1.59 1.44 1.91 1.93 2.52 4.11 2.04 1.51 1.56 5.51 Central Coastal Plain - NC 3107 31-00 AVERAGE 4.02 3.64 3.96 3.29 3.95 4.60 6.41 6.06 5.24 3.26 3.28 3.49 51.20 3107 STD DEV 1.52 1.57 1.36 1.46 1.52 1.98 2.47 2.48 3.25 2.25 1.72 1.55 6.04 3107 31-60 AVERAGE 3.39 3.64 3.79 3.35 3.69 4.46 7.04 6.16 5.33 3.12 3.38 3.55 50.90 3107 STD DEV 1.34 1.62 1.24 1.45 1.28 1.80 2.80 2.67 3.16 2.37 1.93 1.58 6.25 3107 41-70 AVERAGE 3.56 3.81 3.72 3.06 3.83 4.95 6.87 6.11 5.20 3.17 3.33 3.35 50.96 3107 STD DEV 1.50 1.54 1.30 1.11 1.50 2.31 2.54 2.67 2.88 2.35 1.94 1.37 5.96 3107 51-80 AVERAGE 4.07 3.86 3.88 3.23 4.24 4.69 6.10 5.88 5.20 3.31 3.29 3.51 51.26 3107 STD DEV 1.56 1.44 1.20 1.29 1.46 2.13 2.44 2.77 2.94 2.44 1.75 1.53 5.96 3107 61-90 AVERAGE 4.24 3.87 4.00 3.27 4.39 4.72 6.00 5.88 4.65 3.27 3.24 3.52 51.05 3107 STD DEV 1.57 1.48 1.55 1.51 1.78 2.06 2.18 2.32 2.35 2.23 1.66 1.67 6.16 3107 71-00 AVERAGE 4.58 3.47 4.33 3.23 4.19 4.36 5.61 6.01 5.44 3.59 3.20 3.59 51.60 3107 STD DEV 1.48 1.62 1.44 1.59 1.63 1.74 2.07 2.52 3.74 2.19 1.47 1.61 6.04 Northern Coastal Plain - NC 3108 31-00 AVERAGE 4.01 3.59 4.04 3.24 3.80 4.23 5.70 5.58 4.70 3.29 3.25 3.36 48.79 3108 STD DEV 1.52 1.48 1.45 1.31 1.60 1.58 2.26 2.51 2.76 2.18 1.73 1.40 5.54 3108 31-60 AVERAGE 3.50 3.57 3.78 3.30 3.55 4.00 6.28 6.02 4.69 3.00 3.29 3.32 48.30 3108 STD DEV 1.44 1.57 1.28 1.23 1.41 1.63 2.37 2.57 2.48 2.12 1.93 1.42 5.00 3108 41-70 AVERAGE 3.56 3.78 3.76 2.96 3.63 4.35 5.99 5.75 4.61 3.17 3.30 3.37 48.23 3108 STD DEV 1.38 1.51 1.31 1.09 1.58 1.77 2.46 2.36 2.15 2.13 1.97 1.32 4.93 3108 51-80 AVERAGE 4.09 3.84 4.07 3.12 4.11 4.19 5.42 5.46 4.55 3.55 3.25 3.43 49.08 3108 STD DEV 1.51 1.35 1.15 1.11 1.70 1.52 2.27 2.51 2.38 2.44 1.74 1.38 5.05 3108 61-90 AVERAGE 4.22 3.83 4.16 3.29 4.26 4.31 5.20 5.18 4.24 3.42 3.26 3.48 48.85 3108 STD DEV 1.58 1.35 1.58 1.46 1.81 1.53 2.15 2.54 2.26 2.30 1.72 1.52 6.19 3108 71-00 AVERAGE 4.51 3.44 4.47 3.24 4.07 4.23 5.05 5.22 4.87 3.70 3.26 3.39 49.45 3108 STD DEV 1.51 1.45 1.60 1.48 1.63 1.38 2.00 2.48 3.33 2.26 1.55 1.49 6.29 "

4/14/2010 12:01:56 PM

^refer to above post due to exceeding character length...

I would like to focus on a few data sets there... 1931 - 2000 & 1971 - 2000
1) Southern Mountains - NC
1931-2000 54.76
1971-2000 54.82
2) Northern Mountains - NC
1931-2000 52.12
1971-2000 53.18
3) Northern Piedmont - NC
1931-2000 45.02
1971-2000 46.56
4) Central Piedmont - NC
1931-2000 46.26
1971-2000 46.20
5) Southern Piedmont - NC
1931-2000 46.95
1971-2000 47.78
6) Southern Coastal Plains - NC
1931-2000 50.58
1971-2000 52.38
7) Central Coastal Plain - NC
1931-2000 51.20
1971-2000 51.60
8) Northern Coastal Plain - NC
1931-2000 48.79
1971-2000 49.45

Please explain how the most recent 30yr data set shows an increased precipitation in 7 of the 8 NC regions over the 70yr data set, but some how "the extreme drought due to climate change, has been increasing in intensity and length"

But don't let the facts get in the way of your snarky comments

4/14/2010 12:03:11 PM

Quote :

"Who cares? "

Who cares if terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons?

4/14/2010 12:21:06 PM

^The United States has enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the world 7 times over. Why aren't you shivering each night in your bed over that?

And to respond to the drought stats:

http://www.ncdrought.org/documents/2009_annual_report.pdf

Specifically, page 4 titled "Worst Drought in North Carolina Since 1895."

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2010 12:42:59 PM

Why do I differentiate between the United States and Al Qaeda?

4/14/2010 12:50:25 PM

Yes.

After all, do you think you're more likely to be shot, beaten, or imprisoned by a police officer/government official or attacked by a terrorist from Al-Qaeda?

4/14/2010 12:52:56 PM

Quote :

"Worst Drought in North Carolina Since 1895"

So the climate change you're talking about is North Carolinian Warming, and not Global Warming

gotcha

4/14/2010 12:59:45 PM

I'm not at all scared of being beaten by a government official.

I'm not particularly scared of a terrorist attack, but my wife and I do live and work in Washington, DC, so it's not exactly without precedent.

But what does any of that have to do with nuclear proliferation? Do you seriously think it would be no big deal if Al Qaeda got a nuke? Do you really think we should be more concerned about our nukes than loose nukes that could reach the hands of people who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us (or anyone else, including, perhaps especially, their fellow Muslims)?

4/14/2010 1:08:42 PM

Quote :

"And to respond to the drought stats: http://www.ncdrought.org/documents/2009_annual_report.pdf Specifically, page 4 titled "Worst Drought in North Carolina Since 1895." "

SPECIFICALLY, maybe you should check out page 8... #9 on your same report

Quote :

"By the end of 2009, the state was free from all drought classifications The state finished off the year with above normal precipitation"

Taking a look at the newsletters from 2010
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/office/newsletters/2010jan

Quote :

"After a very wet autumn, no locations in NC are experiencing any lingering drought impacts. The NC Drought Management Advisory Council continues to review observations from across the state, but weekly assessments have been suspended until the threat of drought returns. With a wet winter and spring forecasted in association with El Nino, drought conditions are highly unlikely to return in the near future."

That was from January. The Feb, March, and April editions have all included this quote...

Quote :

"The drought conditions from recent year seem like a distant memory to many. Wet conditions continue to ensure reservoirs are full and groundwater is recharging. Drought conditions are not likely to be of any concern until late spring or early summer if NC again experiences dry weather."

I thought climate change was about showing negative trends over time, not singular data extremes

4/14/2010 1:45:08 PM