Hurricanes stronger than Katrina can be expected

[Kenazo]

To be back on track...

I'm sure there will be larger Hurricanes than have ever been recorded before, I wonder if the SS scale will need to add a 6th level?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Amused
Please allow this to open your eyes to the fraud surrounding the DDT ban and the holocaust it has caused:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

You blast environmental groups for promoting a liberal agenda, then you reference a site run by Steve Milloy, a formerly registered Washington lobbyist with numerous ties to right wing political groups? You don't think HE has a political agenda?

You can either dispute the points made in the article, or poison the wells.

It appears you chose the later.

Here's another well for you to poison:

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/Edwards%20-%20DDT%20Fraud.pdf

Even the left leaning Straight Dope is dragged, into admitting the ban on DDT was a fraud and a holocaust:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021213.html

:roll:

Hmm, so when you stated that "FACT: The environmental movement has been hijacked by anti-capitalist leftists with a clear and obvious agenda... totally destroying any and all credibility," that wasn't "poisoning the well"?

I'm not actually disagreeing with the article per se; in fact, I find it quite enlightening. But it's hypocritical to universally dismiss environmental groups as political machines and then reference someone with obvious political leanings. The fact is that so much of science is tied up with government funding and lobby groups that it's hard to tell what objective science is anymore.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Amused
Please allow this to open your eyes to the fraud surrounding the DDT ban and the holocaust it has caused:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

You blast environmental groups for promoting a liberal agenda, then you reference a site run by Steve Milloy, a formerly registered Washington lobbyist with numerous ties to right wing political groups? You don't think HE has a political agenda?

You can either dispute the points made in the article, or poison the wells.

It appears you chose the later.

Here's another well for you to poison:

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/Edwards%20-%20DDT%20Fraud.pdf

Even the left leaning Straight Dope is dragged, into admitting the ban on DDT was a fraud and a holocaust:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021213.html

:roll:

Hmm, so when you stated that "FACT: The environmental movement has been hijacked by anti-capitalist leftists with a clear and obvious agenda... totally destroying any and all credibility," that wasn't "poisoning the well"?

I'm not actually disagreeing with the article per se; in fact, I find it quite enlightening. But it's hypocritical to universally dismiss environmental groups as political machines and then reference someone with obvious political leanings. The fact is that so much of science is tied up with government funding and lobby groups that it's hard to tell what objective science is anymore.

It simply suits his world view more.

That's all any of us do.

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: Amused
Even the left leaning Straight Dope is dragged, into admitting the ban on DDT was a fraud and a holocaust:

Why do you use the term "dragged"?

That said, this is a persuasive source. Still want to do my own research, no time now, but I am provisionally persuaded.

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: MrChad
You blast environmental groups for promoting a liberal agenda, then you reference a site run by Steve Milloy, a formerly registered Washington lobbyist with numerous ties to right wing political groups? You don't think HE has a political agenda?

Didn't know that, would have found it out. Have to agree, I prefer to do this kind of thing with sources that we can agree are likely to be (edit) the least "tainted."

The Cecil Adams piece is more persuasive, unless he is a good faker.

 

[forrestroche]

Like someone said, back on track.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that larger hurricanes may be on the way. It is clearly established that hurricanes derive their power from water surface temp (hence the season is always the months when ocean temp is highest). IF the global temp rises, then there WILL be much larger storms. Category 6? Why not?

If this comes to pass do we remediate (try to fix it) or adapt (move populations inland, sea walls, abandon Florida, etc.)?

Remediation or Adaptation?

Thoughts?

Amused? Just assuming it happened (hypothetically like), what would you vote for? Give up NYC, wall it in? Giant mirrors in space? CO2 reclamation? Genetically modified algae?

 

[forrestroche]

EDITED FOR LENGTH

Paul Brown
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian

One of the hottest topics in the climate change debate is whether the giant windstorms, variously called hurricanes, typhoons or cyclones depending which ocean they start in, are on the increase.
The computer models show that the warmer the ocean the larger the storm - half a degree Celsius adding 3% to wind speed. Until recently this was all theory, but a letter in Nature from Professor Kerry Emanuel, of the atmospheric, oceans and climate research department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has measured these storms for the past 30 years, changed all that. He says the destructive power of hurricanes has nearly doubled in that period.

The professor is a world expert on the thermodynamics of tropical cyclones, so his calculations have made a stir in the global warming debate.

Emanuel thinks manmade climate change is a factor and we can expect more of the same or worse as sea temperature rises. His detractors agree hurricanes are more numerous and stronger than in 30 years, but say this is part of the natural cycle and we happen to be at the top. As with most debates about climate change, time and a few more or less Katrinas will settle the argument.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: JohnCU
We only have records for what, 150 years? That's an awfully short period of time to go making such predictions...

Yep, and acting as if a cat 4 hurricane hitting the gulf coast is at all remarkable and caused by any kind of "climate change" is just plain silly.

Of course it is. But the issue is because of what we have been doing, the size and frequency of these storms is going to increase (most likely).

Originally posted by: JohnCU

Originally posted by: meltdown75
forgive my naivety gentlemen. the oceans are *not* getting warmer and screwing things up? i mean, i was always under the impression that even the slightest average annual temperature differential could basically start a whole bunch of crap. ie. hurricanes, floods, etc etc, the next ice age. is this not the case? is global warming a reality or not? what about the ozone hole? i used to hear about it like 10 years ago. i guess i don't look for the info and it's not going to smack me in the face. i should visit National Geographic once in a while instead of ATOT.

The oceans are getting warmer, relative to what? The earth has been here ~4 billion years, and, as I said earlier, we have a snapshot of data from the past 150 years (roughly, someone correct me on the exact timeframe).

How do we know they weren't warmer way way way back in the day, and then went through a cooling cycle, and are now warming up again? You can't extrapolate this kind of data.

Actually you can. With core samples from ice burgs and ice sheets, we can get a very good idea of climate conditions for millions of years back. They can determine roughly the temperature, and the composition of the atmosphere at the time. Sure paper records may only go back 150 years, but the earth has been keeping a natural log for millions of years.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: forrestroche

Originally posted by: meltdown75
what about the ozone hole?

Another hoax. There's no such thing as ozone.

Fact: Man has never witnessed an intact ozone layer over the Antarctic in the winter

Fact: Ozone requires sun to produce, the fact that there is no sun over the Antarctic during the winter months means it makes SENSE that the ozone would deplete during those months.

Fact: The "ozone hole" (one that no one knows if it's natural, or not) grows and shrinks with the seasons, and varies season to season with no rhyme or reason.

Fact: The environmental movement has been hijacked by anti-capitalist leftists with a clear and obvious agenda... totally destroying any and all credibility.

I wonder why the incidents of skin cancer have increased exponentially, especially when the number one cause is radiaton from the sun.

Photocoppiers and electrosatic air cleaners create Ozone (O3). 🙂

The ozone layer is on its way to recovering now, though slowly. I read it will be back to safe levels in 50 years. Who knows if theres any truth to that..

Originally posted by: Eli
We already know that the Earth goes through massive cycles - in the scale of tens of thousands of years.

How do we know that the Earth isn't simply continuing to warm after comming out of the last Ice Age?

Although, I do believe it would be extremely naive of us to think we have no effect.....

A 150 year snapshot is *nothing*. It means almost literally nothing.

Which is too bad, because here we are trying to fix things that we know little about.

Adding some common sense, though.. it would be wise to avoid outright pollution whenever possible.

Most scientists don't see Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. Perhaps we're just swinging the balance more quickly than it would have naturally happened.

We just don't know...

Yup, sure the earth has cycles but the issue is how drasctically are we accelerating or modifying those cycles. Only time will tell of couse but at this point I'd say its better to be proactive rather then wait to be reactive. Or we could shift our efforts to space, so by the time the earth is so messed up, we can just move somewhere else.. 😛

Originally posted by: forrestroche

If this comes to pass do we remediate (try to fix it) or adapt (move populations inland, sea walls, abandon Florida, etc.)?

If current trends continue, its very possible hurricanes may be the least of Floridas worries. It wouldnt take much melting of polar ice to raise sea level enough to flood out most of the state.



Im not here for the politics of it, just the science. 🙂

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I appreciate your candor. Do you think that there have been any major changes in the Earth's climate since industrialization? ie. man-made changes? I am assuming that civilization has the power to destroy the planet, through pollution, etc. Is this all poppycock and unfounded fears?

I don't believe for a second that mankind has the power to destroy the planet. Far worse things have happened than mankind, and yet here we are. I believe it is well within our power to destroy civilization, but life will go on.

I read this article the other day and found it interesting. Even if we did trigger catastrophic global warming the planet would eventually rebound, minus mandkind. It makes you feel a bit insignificant, doesn't it?

 

[NiKeFiDO]

good, more sensationalism and fear-mongering.
i take these articles with a large grain of salt

/slightly P&Nish commentary

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
We only have records for what, 150 years? That's an awfully short period of time to go making such predictions...

I think ice layers are one way scientists analyze climate change, and they reveal quite a bit more than the last 150 years.

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: Kyteland
Even if we did trigger catastrophic global warming the planet would eventually rebound, minus mandkind. It makes you feel a bit insignificant, doesn't it?

But we're not Trilobites. We can burn oil to generate electricity to run A/C, so we won't go extinct like THOSE fools.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: forrestroche
EDITED FOR LENGTH

Paul Brown
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian

One of the hottest topics in the climate change debate is whether the giant windstorms, variously called hurricanes, typhoons or cyclones depending which ocean they start in, are on the increase.
The computer models show that the warmer the ocean the larger the storm - half a degree Celsius adding 3% to wind speed. Until recently this was all theory, but a letter in Nature from Professor Kerry Emanuel, of the atmospheric, oceans and climate research department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has measured these storms for the past 30 years, changed all that. He says the destructive power of hurricanes has nearly doubled in that period.

The professor is a world expert on the thermodynamics of tropical cyclones, so his calculations have made a stir in the global warming debate.

Emanuel thinks manmade climate change is a factor and we can expect more of the same or worse as sea temperature rises. His detractors agree hurricanes are more numerous and stronger than in 30 years, but say this is part of the natural cycle and we happen to be at the top. As with most debates about climate change, time and a few more or less Katrinas will settle the argument.

This guy was refuted by the FSU folks that work directly with NHC in Miami.

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
good, more sensationalism and fear-mongering.
i take these articles with a large grain of salt

Hey, it was good enough for America when SOMEBODY wanted to go to war...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Meanwhile this past winter was one of the coldest in the Northeast, and one of the snowiest in Michigan history.

It was colder and wetter than average in SoCal too due to El Nino.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: forrestroche
Like someone said, back on track.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that larger hurricanes may be on the way. It is clearly established that hurricanes derive their power from water surface temp (hence the season is always the months when ocean temp is highest). IF the global temp rises, then there WILL be much larger storms. Category 6? Why not?

If this comes to pass do we remediate (try to fix it) or adapt (move populations inland, sea walls, abandon Florida, etc.)?

Remediation or Adaptation?

Thoughts?

Amused? Just assuming it happened (hypothetically like), what would you vote for? Give up NYC, wall it in? Giant mirrors in space? CO2 reclamation? Genetically modified algae?

The NHC predicted in the last couple of years that last year, this year, and the next few years would have more numerous and stronger hurricanes based on historical records. Also, this cycle is based on a strong solar cycle. More energy from the sun, more fuel for hurricanes.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: shud
"The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "

That's like the scientific equivalent of "I heard it from my ex-girlfriend's cat babysitter's grandmother".

Wow, the stupid is strong with this one.

 

[SagaLore]

Maybe someone can educate me.

But I'm a little confused about the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Well, where are most of the greenhouse gases coming from? Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, right?

So we're burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. It releases more carbon back into the environment. But, at some point that carbon came from animals and plants, so it was already in the environment.

We're not introducing anything new. We're just recycling carbon that has been dormant for awhile, but most definitely was part of the cycle at some point. Now my question is, is global warming bad? Or just different, i.e. not what we're accustomed to?

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: gsellis
This guy was refuted by the FSU folks that work directly with NHC in Miami.

Can you give me a link?
Your claim seems odd, when Kerry Emanuel coauthored a paper earlier this year with Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center entitled "Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society"

Edit: here's a link for that paper:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin...cation_files/resourse-1766-2005.36.pdf

 

[FoBoT]

liar liar pants on fire

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Maybe someone can educate me.

But I'm a little confused about the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Well, where are most of the greenhouse gases coming from? Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, right?

So we're burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. It releases more carbon back into the environment. But, at some point that carbon came from animals and plants, so it was already in the environment.

We're not introducing anything new. We're just recycling carbon that has been dormant for awhile, but most definitely was part of the cycle at some point. Now my question is, is global warming bad? Or just different, i.e. not what we're accustomed to?

Everything comes from the environment. Nuclear weapons are made from elements in our environment and we could wipe out almost every living thing on the planet with those and make it uninhabitable for centuries. Just because it is made from something natural doesn't mean it can't impact the planet in a negative way. Your point is moot.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
That's why I'm glad I live in the Midwest. No hurricanes, no earthquakes, a tornado every once in a while but those are far less likely to affect any given person...

http://quake.ualr.edu/public/nmfz.htm

Historically, this area has been the site of some of the largest earthquakes in North America. Between 1811 and 1812, 4 catastrophic earthquakes, with magnitude estimates greater than 7.0, occurred during a 3-month period. Hundreds of aftershocks followed over a period of several years. The largest earthquakes to have occurred since then were on January 4, 1843 and October 31, 1895 with magnitude estimates of 6.0 and 6.2 respectively. In addition to these events, seven events of magnitude >= 5.0 have occurred in the area.

we're all going to die

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Now my question is, is global warming bad? Or just different, i.e. not what we're accustomed to?

Some people make this argument, and say that, additionally, it will be more expensive to Remediate (fix it) than adapt. I think something in between will be what happens. Adaptation accompanied by some sort of radical shift in energy policy. But things will have to get worse first.

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shud
"The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "

That's like the scientific equivalent of "I heard it from my ex-girlfriend's cat babysitter's grandmother".

Wow, the stupid is strong with this one.

Very strong indeed.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Maybe someone can educate me.

But I'm a little confused about the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Well, where are most of the greenhouse gases coming from? Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, right?

So we're burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. It releases more carbon back into the environment. But, at some point that carbon came from animals and plants, so it was already in the environment.

We're not introducing anything new. We're just recycling carbon that has been dormant for awhile, but most definitely was part of the cycle at some point. Now my question is, is global warming bad? Or just different, i.e. not what we're accustomed to?

Everything comes from the environment. Nuclear weapons are made from elements in our environment and we could wipe out almost every living thing on the planet with those and make it uninhabitable for centuries. Just because it is made from something natural doesn't mean it can't impact the planet in a negative way. Your point is moot.

You're missing my point. Oil comes from dead animals and plant life. Uranium ore does not come from fossilized tactile weapons. 😕

Oil and coal take what - millions of years? What was this planet like millions of years ago, before so much organic molecules were taken out of the environment?