|
Huricanes a result of global warming? Part II
Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity
By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense. Other computer modeling efforts have also predicted that hurricanes will grow stronger and wetter as a result of global warming. But this study is particularly significant, independent experts said, because it used half a dozen computer simulations of global climate, devised by separate groups at institutions around the world. The long-term trends it identifies are independent of the normal lulls and surges in hurricane activity that have been on display in recent decades. The study was published online on Tuesday by The Journal of Climate and can be found at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...004/tk0401.pdf. The new study of hurricanes and warming "is by far and away the most comprehensive effort" to assess the question using powerful computer simulations, said Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has seen the paper but did not work on it. About the link between the warming of tropical oceans and storm intensity, he said, "This clinches the issue." Dr. Emanuel and the study's authors cautioned that it was too soon to know whether hurricanes would form more or less frequently in a warmer world. Even as seas warm, for example, accelerating high-level winds can shred the towering cloud formations of a tropical storm. But the authors said that even if the number of storms simply stayed the same, the increased intensity would substantially increase their potential for destruction. Experts also said that rising sea levels caused by global warming would lead to more flooding from hurricanes - a point underlined at the United Nations this week by leaders of several small island nations, who pleaded for more attention to the potential for devastation from tidal surges. The new study used four climate centers' mathematical approximations of the physics by which ocean heat fuels tropical storms. With almost every combination of greenhouse-warmed oceans and atmosphere and formulas for storm dynamics, the results were the same: more powerful storms and more rainfall, said Robert Tuleya, one of the paper's two authors. He is a hurricane expert who recently retired after 31 years at the fluid dynamics laboratory and teaches at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. The other author was Dr. Thomas R. Knutson of the Princeton laboratory. Altogether, the researchers spawned around 1,300 virtual hurricanes using a more powerful version of the same supercomputer simulations that generates Commerce Department forecasts of the tracks and behavior of real hurricanes. Dr. James B. Elsner, a hurricane expert at Florida State University who was among the first to predict the recent surge in Atlantic storm activity, said the new study was a significant step in examining the impacts of a warmer future. But like Dr. Emanuel, he also emphasized that the extraordinary complexity of the oceans and atmosphere made any scientific progress "baby steps toward a final answer." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/sc...tml?oref=login -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:21:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity While that may or may not be true, it hasn't been happening yet. Even this year, which seems so bad, is hardly out of the ordinary wrt the total number and strength of hurricanes. All that's happened is that Florida has been unlucky enough to get 4 of them. As you can see from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm the total number hurricanes as well as of major hurricanes to hit the US has trended down since the first half of the century and will probably be trending up again because of the hurricane cycle that's been observed since the 1800's. See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...icanes-amm.htm So when the hurricane cycle does start trending up, of course everyone's going to conclude it's due to global warming. But it will be at least another half century before we know whether that's true or not. Steve |
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:21:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity While that may or may not be true, it hasn't been happening yet. Even this year, which seems so bad, is hardly out of the ordinary wrt the total number and strength of hurricanes. All that's happened is that Florida has been unlucky enough to get 4 of them. As you can see from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm the total number hurricanes as well as of major hurricanes to hit the US has trended down since the first half of the century and will probably be trending up again because of the hurricane cycle that's been observed since the 1800's. See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...icanes-amm.htm So when the hurricane cycle does start trending up, of course everyone's going to conclude it's due to global warming. But it will be at least another half century before we know whether that's true or not. Steve Hey, Steve...you know those anti-sub airplanes we used to discuss when I live in Jax? They followed me here. For the last month, there have been dozens of flights of those planes near our farmette. I haven't investigated, but my guess is they are training flights coming out of the PAX NAS, heading about 30 miles up the coast, and then circling back. They sure as hell can't be looking for subs in Chesapeake Bay. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce an increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power The lulls and surges in Hurricane activity over the years have been solar cycle driven. Global warming over the next 20 years might see the same effect of one of the cycles of the sun, in other words slightly less than one degree. The next solar cycle could see the above predicted results because greenhouse warming would then be added to solar warming. Long term, when the world turns to coal for it's energy needs (30 years) the atmosphere will have lots of particles that will cause global cooling. We in the US will probably have laws and technology restricting the emissions of coal fired power plants but Dictatorships and "Peoples Governments" won't care and will take the profits in not curbing their emissions. The Higher death rates in their countrys will be just an effective form of population control. Expect permafrost as far south as the Carolinas. Large scale genetic manipulation of crops to allow them to grow in the colder climate. New Glaciers forming in higher mountains and north of the US border. Water level dropping in the oceans. On the good side, less greenhouse emissions from termites, less disease, fewer incects, the Sahara should green up again. The oceans rising are a myth. We might see 1 foot total in the next 80 years as marginal glaciers that are already melting increase their melt rate. Most of the water trapped as Ice is at -50 degrees and global warming of 1 degree is going to have No effect |
In article , Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. Hilarious. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense. Note the logical problem with this. There is no consensus over whether global warming IS EVEN HAPPENING, and further, there is a problem with distribution of the warming - which interestingly enough, according to the EVIDENCE we have, is not being distributed where such a study needs it to for this to happen. Indeed, the "evidence" is completely missing for such a postulate. The truth, Harry, as I'm sure you are aware of, is that there are cycles in both hurricane activity and global climate. They're NORMAL, and caused by environmental factors that are outside the scope of man's control. For instance, Mt. St. Helens appears ready to belch a bunch of material into the atmosphere. That will produce global COOLING if it happens, since that material will prevent sunlight from reaching the ground. Indeed, if you look at the normal cycles over time, you will find strong correlations between global temperatures and volcanic activity. Gee, that's curious - NOT! :) There is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity historically, and a few-hundred-year cycle in SSTs (again, historically). To make the case for global warming, you must not just show that warming is occurring - you have to show that it exceeds that which can be attributed to these NORMAL cycles in climate - which has simply not been done. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article , Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. Hilarious. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense. Note the logical problem with this. There is no consensus over whether global warming IS EVEN HAPPENING, and further, there is a problem with distribution of the warming - which interestingly enough, according to the EVIDENCE we have, is not being distributed where such a study needs it to for this to happen. Indeed, the "evidence" is completely missing for such a postulate. The truth, Harry, as I'm sure you are aware of, is that there are cycles in both hurricane activity and global climate. They're NORMAL, and caused by environmental factors that are outside the scope of man's control. Karl, I am NOT a physical scientist. But I am a good reader. I've read a lot about global warming, including "dissertations" on both sides of what has become a politicized issue. The verdict is not in, but there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." It behooves us to take some steps to lessen our negative impact on the environment, especially since we do not know with certainty which side is ride. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:37:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Steven Shelikoff wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:21:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity While that may or may not be true, it hasn't been happening yet. Even this year, which seems so bad, is hardly out of the ordinary wrt the total number and strength of hurricanes. All that's happened is that Florida has been unlucky enough to get 4 of them. As you can see from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm the total number hurricanes as well as of major hurricanes to hit the US has trended down since the first half of the century and will probably be trending up again because of the hurricane cycle that's been observed since the 1800's. See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...icanes-amm.htm So when the hurricane cycle does start trending up, of course everyone's going to conclude it's due to global warming. But it will be at least another half century before we know whether that's true or not. Steve Hey, Steve...you know those anti-sub airplanes we used to discuss when I live in Jax? They followed me here. For the last month, there have been dozens of flights of those planes near our farmette. I haven't investigated, but my guess is they are training flights coming out of the PAX NAS, heading about 30 miles up the coast, and then circling back. They sure as hell can't be looking for subs in Chesapeake Bay. Are they black? ~~ snicker ~~ All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:13:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. Hilarious. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense. Note the logical problem with this. There is no consensus over whether global warming IS EVEN HAPPENING, and further, there is a problem with distribution of the warming - which interestingly enough, according to the EVIDENCE we have, is not being distributed where such a study needs it to for this to happen. Indeed, the "evidence" is completely missing for such a postulate. The truth, Harry, as I'm sure you are aware of, is that there are cycles in both hurricane activity and global climate. They're NORMAL, and caused by environmental factors that are outside the scope of man's control. Karl, I am NOT a physical scientist. But I am a good reader. I've read a lot about global warming, including "dissertations" on both sides of what has become a politicized issue. The verdict is not in, but there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." It behooves us to take some steps to lessen our negative impact on the environment, especially since we do not know with certainty which side is ride. The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Later, Tom |
The guys on the Weather Channel say this is NOT caused by global warming.
Warming would cause another El Nino and that tends to suppress hurricanes. The reality is there are two issues with global warming anyway. 1. Is it really getting warmer? 2. Is that a natural process or something man made? Since the history of the planet is marked with warming and cooling cycles, we should really look long and hard at #2. Throwing another virgin in the volcano never kept it from erupting but it seemed to make the witch doctor and his followers feel like they were doing something. |
|
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the
climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. Greg wrote: The guys on the Weather Channel say this is NOT caused by global warming. Warming would cause another El Nino and that tends to suppress hurricanes. Yeah, but what do they know? We have had a higher incidence of El Nino years of late, and that doesn't seem to supress typhoons. The reality is there are two issues with global warming anyway. 1. Is it really getting warmer? 2. Is that a natural process or something man made? Since the history of the planet is marked with warming and cooling cycles, we should really look long and hard at #2. Agreed. The answer to #1 is unequivocally YES! A quick look at ocean temps, glaciers, icecap thickness, and a number of other measures all point at a warming trend. So far I don't know of a single one that points to a cooling trend. Coincidence? I think not. Now about #2... a firm "don't know for sure." But would it be smarter to play it safe? Throwing another virgin in the volcano never kept it from erupting but it seemed to make the witch doctor and his followers feel like they were doing something. Hmm, that reminds me, somebody do something about all these volcanos, too! Regards Doug King |
In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: September 30, 2004 Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most comprehensive computer analysis done so far. Hilarious. By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense. Note the logical problem with this. There is no consensus over whether global warming IS EVEN HAPPENING, and further, there is a problem with distribution of the warming - which distributed where such a study needs it to for this to happen. Indeed, the "evidence" is completely missing for such a postulate. The truth, Harry, as I'm sure you are aware of, is that there are cycles in both hurricane activity and global climate. They're NORMAL, and caused by environmental factors that are outside the scope of man's control. Karl, I am NOT a physical scientist. But I am a good reader. I've read a lot about global warming, including "dissertations" on both sides of what has become a politicized issue. Yep. There is plenty of dissertation work being done. The verdict is not in, but there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, The climate is [always] changing. The question is not whether the climate in one place is changing or not, of course. and that the warming that is taking place The evidence is lacking that such warming is taking place. is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." There is little evidence that "we" are having impact on these factors. It behooves us to take some steps to lessen our negative impact on the environment, especially since we do not know with certainty which side is ride. It does? Why? We need to answer some questions before we start waving our arms around on this: 1. The United States Government, under pressure by the "greenies", has EXPLICITLY acted AGAINST the interest of reducing greenhouse gasses. Carbon Dioxide production, specifically, is the "bugaboo" here, simply because it dwarfs by several orders of magnitude the other "greenhouse gasses." As an example while we measure other greenhouse gasses emitted by a vehicle in pounds per year, we measure CO2 production in TONS per year. Indeed, if you look at the EPA "greenness" ratings of vehicles, they INTENTIONALLY omit the production of CO2 from their formula! This is grossly dishonest, since CO2 dwarfs every other pollutant emitted. There is one simple way to reduce greenhouse emissions by 40% immediately - make an immediate change to compression ignition (diesel) engines and away from gasoline ones. Why? Because diesels are approximately 40% more efficient gallon-per-gallon on fuel, and CO2 production is directly ratable to fuel consumed. However, the environmentalist whackos have imposed such stringent requirements on OTHER emissions by diesels that there is only one company selling them in the US today (Volkswagen) All the others have given up due to the impossibility of meeting the total fleet emission requirements. 2. CO2 is not a problem UNLESS it comes from the combustion of long-cycle hydrocarbons (e.g. petroleum from the ground.) CO2 produced by burning a plant which was contemporarily grown is a zero-sum game - the carbon is bound when the CO2 is removed from the air by the plant, and returned to the atmosphere when the plant is burned. As such diesel engines can be made COMPLETELY CARBON CYCLE NEUTRAL, since they can burn damn near ANY oil for fuel, including vegetable based oils. You can, in fact, make said fuel in your GARAGE! I've done it as a test - works fine, and the exhaust smells like french fries. Why is this not done? Its not economically feasible. Why? Farm subsidies, mostly. If we farmed blue-green algae (which produces, acre-for-acre, more fuel oil than any other plant, and can be grown on what is not now thought of "arable" land) between that and recycling waste vegetable oil (e.g. McDonalds' frying oil) we could produce something on the order of 40% of our diesel fuel needs without touching a drop of petroleum. Between (1) and (2) we could cut vehicle-related CO2 emissions by some SIXTY PERCENT, and virtually eliminate our requirement for Middle-East oil! Why haven't we done it? The Sierra Club and their ilk, who scream bloody murder about ANYTHING that increases ANY pollutant's emission, even when a much more important one is cut by TONS for a few POUNDS of increased emission of the other! Indeed, they not only scream, they SUE to prevent such plans from going forward. Want to really make a difference? Get rid of the Sierra Club's influence on these matters and mandate that within 5 years all new motor vehicles with more than three wheels and sold in the US must have compression ignition engines. Its simple, really - if we want to do it. BTW, I already do this. My Jetta TDI gets close to 50mpg in combined service - roughly 20mpg more than the SAME VEHICLE with a gasoline engine in it. If there were no price controls on farm products I could buy biodiesel for within 5% to what I pay now for petro fuel - and would, since it runs cleaner and smoother than the petro fuel does. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
JohnH wrote:
Rush Limbaugh would think you're a flake, Doug. Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict. Should I worry about his opinion? DSK |
JohnH wrote:
Rush Limbaugh would think you're a flake, Doug. John H Ahhhh...an ass like John Whoring knows what the ass Rush Limbaugh would htink. What a surprise. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? No, that's not my answer and if you had taken the time to actually read what I wrote, previously and currently, you wouldn't be jerking you knee off. Later, Tom ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Yes I do - and one of them is an actual, honest-to-god geo-physical scientist - not some hammer head dweeb who can't read and just wants to tickle his twinkie by picking fights over who's got the biggest bleeding heart. I'm on your side jackass - if you can't parse that, then go bother somebody else. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I'm interested in the facts and the facts are this: Global warming is not proven. Pollution can have more devastating effects on civilization than something that nobody knows how to even describe, never mind deal with. That facts are that over the period of observations going back at least 600 years to the 15th century, sunspots and the solar cycle have been observed to directly affect climate. Recently, in the last 300 or so years, observers of a scientific bent also observed things like Gulf Stream movement, the mid-latitude currents like El Do yourself a favour and actually read a scientific treatise on the subject rather than some jerk off tabloid written by a bearded nutcase. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? Did I say that? Here, let me answer for you. No, I did not. Just because I'm a nice guy at heart, I'll help you parse what I said. What I said was that evidence of Global Warming, as a long term environmental event, may or may not exist - the science is not proven, the data sets are not established - in short, what constitutes Global Warming is not established. If you can't establish the basic parameters of what constitutes Global Warming, or even reach a consensus on what constitutes Global Warming, then you can't really say it exists. The simple fact is this - historical observations made over the past 500 years or so have produced an interesting, and odd, result. If the normal sun cycle, which occurs over an eleven/onehundred ten year cycle, happens to coincide with the mid-latitude current movement cycle and in particular the South Equatorial Indian Current, the Mid-Atlantic storm cycle accelerates. A lot of historical research into this facet of atmorpheric research has pretty much proven that when this sequence of events occurs, you get big storms. Usually, that cycle is balanced by El Niño and La Niña. Secondly, the ozone layer hole over Antartica, based on geophysical evidence (snow cores) may also have a natural cycle. Note the may. There isn't enough evidence to make a sure bet one way or the other although hard evidence would seem to point to the natural cycle. It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." I'm sure it is, but that doesn't make it true. It's a theory, not a set of facts. No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? As a matter of fact, I do. One of which is a geoscientist - a physicist actually. He knows a lot about this subject. Studies ocean currents and their effects on the atmosphere. Also knows a lot about the solar cycle - did his dissertation on them in fact. Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Well, you see, here is where we part company. Yeah, I pretty much am on the side of science on this one and the science says says it's bull****. I'm willing to take the chance that Global Warming is just junk science. Even if, by the remotest chance, it's true, then it's already started and reversing the effect will be totally out of our hands. I don't think you have any idea of just how large a mass we're talking about here - it's pretty startling. The fact is that pollution cannot be equated with Global Warming. I am pro environment. I do believe in limiting the damage to the Earth by random acts of pollution. I want clean water, clean air, clean sheets to sleep on and not have to clean my windows three times per year. I want unwarranted destruction of the rain forests stopped. I want timber stands to stay timber stands with good management, not clear cutting. I don't have a problem with Artic piplines or drilling, but I want it done responsibly. I want wind power and solar power and reactors that aren't dirty. I want diesel/electric engines instead of gas engines. I want to walk the streets of Calcutta and not have to wear a gas mask to cut the pollution, human and industrial, and be able to breathe. I want idiot developers to stop coming up my driveway and trying to buy my property for ridiculous amounts of money. I don't want to have to continue to pick up trash out of the oceans and bays and fresh water lakes that I travel over. So we want the same thing - I just don't believe in Global Warming. It's fuzzy logic at it's finest. Touchy, feely worthless nonsense. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. You may think it's stupid, but the fact is that it's still voodoo science and will stay that way until somebody comes up with evidence that ALL scientists can agree on - real evidence - hard science. The kind of evidence that you can lay the mathematical lumber to if you will and come up with an answer. Take care. Tom "The beatings will stop when morale improves." E. Teach, 1717 |
DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. Greg wrote: The guys on the Weather Channel say this is NOT caused by global warming. Warming would cause another El Nino and that tends to suppress hurricanes. Yeah, but what do they know? We have had a higher incidence of El Nino years of late, and that doesn't seem to supress typhoons. The reality is there are two issues with global warming anyway. 1. Is it really getting warmer? 2. Is that a natural process or something man made? Since the history of the planet is marked with warming and cooling cycles, we should really look long and hard at #2. Agreed. The answer to #1 is unequivocally YES! A quick look at ocean temps, glaciers, icecap thickness, and a number of other measures all point at a warming trend. So far I don't know of a single one that points to a cooling trend. Coincidence? I think not. Now about #2... a firm "don't know for sure." But would it be smarter to play it safe? Throwing another virgin in the volcano never kept it from erupting but it seemed to make the witch doctor and his followers feel like they were doing something. Hmm, that reminds me, somebody do something about all these volcanos, too! Regards Doug King Poor dumb as dog dirt Doug, the only part he got right was; I think not. Sad really sad. K |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Yes I do - and one of them is an actual, honest-to-god geo-physical scientist - not some hammer head dweeb who can't read and just wants to tickle his twinkie by picking fights over who's got the biggest bleeding heart. Wake up a little grumpy this morning? I'm on your side jackass - if you can't parse that, then go bother somebody else. Considering that I don't really have a "side" that's an interesting proposition. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I'm interested in the facts and the facts are this: Global warming is not proven. No, it's not "proven" but the list of observed effects pointing to a warming trend is very long. The list of observed effects pointing to a cooling trend is almost nil. So, which way would you place your bet? ... Pollution can have more devastating effects on civilization than something that nobody knows how to even describe, never mind deal with. It is true that pollution can be devastating. But "global warming" can be pretty well described, depending on who you listen to. As for "dealing with" it, how can we do that when 1- we don't know what causing it and 2- even if we did, action would have to be more nearly universal than any human action ever in history. And we can't even agree on what color socks to wear! Do yourself a favour and actually read a scientific treatise on the subject rather than some jerk off tabloid written by a bearded nutcase. Do yourself a favor and don't be such a judgemental asshole. You have no idea what sources of info I refer to. DSK |
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:48:51 GMT, (Karl
Denninger) wrote: In article , Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:28:38 GMT, (Karl Denninger) wrote: ~~snippage~~ Want to really make a difference? Get rid of the Sierra Club's influence on these matters and mandate that within 5 years all new motor vehicles with more than three wheels and sold in the US must have compression ignition engines. Go you one better - diesel electric. The technology is currently available and can even do tows up to about 6K# on some test trucks. It's doable - it's been in submarine technology since forever. Yes, but diesel-electric is less efficient most of the time in light vehicles than straight drive diesel. Simple reason - those pesky laws of thermodynamics, due to the additional conversions involved. That's true enough - not everybody has need to tow 6,000/10,000 pounds every other day or so. However, with enough research, maybe the weight can come down, new types of batteries, etc. There is a fellow down the road from me who has built a neat little farm "cart" I guess is the best description - diesel/electric and it's get some ridiculous amount of MPG - like 25 miles on a liter or there abouts. He spent a couple of winters building it. Uses it to haul silage and hay around to his different pastures. He has a couple of huge batteries, twin cylinder diesel and a generator he got at an auction - neat. Doesn't have a top end worth beans, but it get around. I'll take some pictures and post 'em. Later, Tom ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:50:05 -0400, DSK wrote:
~~ snippage ~~ Do yourself a favor and don't be such a judgemental asshole. You have no idea what sources of info I refer to. What ever. Just another knee jerkoff with no knowledge of anything other than his own brand of fuzzy wuzzy logic. If you actually knew what I was talking about, then you might act in a civil and responsible fashion rather than name calling. There is no hard evidence - period. Then again, it's useless arguing with a zealot. Later, Tom |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
What ever. Just another knee jerkoff with no knowledge of anything other than his own brand of fuzzy wuzzy logic. Uh huh. As opposed to your well reasoned & polite post? If you actually knew what I was talking about, then you might act in a civil and responsible fashion rather than name calling. There is no hard evidence - period. Oh? What do you call the increased average sea current temps? The retreating glaciers? Just to name the first two that come to mind. Then again, it's useless arguing with a zealot. I've been promoted? DSK |
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:13:06 -0400, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: What ever. Just another knee jerkoff with no knowledge of anything other than his own brand of fuzzy wuzzy logic. Uh huh. As opposed to your well reasoned & polite post? I apologise for my intemperate remarks. If you actually knew what I was talking about, then you might act in a civil and responsible fashion rather than name calling. There is no hard evidence - period. Oh? What do you call the increased average sea current temps? The retreating glaciers? Just to name the first two that come to mind. As related to global warming, unproven. Period. Then again, it's useless arguing with a zealot. I've been promoted? You can look at it that way. Take care. Tom "The beatings will stop when morale improves." E. Teach, 1717 |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:37:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Steven Shelikoff wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:21:28 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity While that may or may not be true, it hasn't been happening yet. Even this year, which seems so bad, is hardly out of the ordinary wrt the total number and strength of hurricanes. All that's happened is that Florida has been unlucky enough to get 4 of them. As you can see from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm the total number hurricanes as well as of major hurricanes to hit the US has trended down since the first half of the century and will probably be trending up again because of the hurricane cycle that's been observed since the 1800's. See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...icanes-amm.htm So when the hurricane cycle does start trending up, of course everyone's going to conclude it's due to global warming. But it will be at least another half century before we know whether that's true or not. Steve Hey, Steve...you know those anti-sub airplanes we used to discuss when I live in Jax? They followed me here. For the last month, there have been dozens of flights of those planes near our farmette. I haven't investigated, but my guess is they are training flights coming out of the PAX NAS, heading about 30 miles up the coast, and then circling back. They sure as hell can't be looking for subs in Chesapeake Bay. These days, those planes do other things besides just looking for subs. Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com