Katrina and global warming [Archive]

Aenlic

08-30-2005, 07:42

Saying that this thing or that thing is directly related to global warming is rather simplistic at best. So in that regard, you are correct. But the CNN report is just as simplistic. It uses faulty logic. The systems in the different areas are separate. Something which affects one doesn't necessarily have to affect all or even more than that one.

For example, one reason that Atlantic hurricanes are more volatile than Western Pacific cyclones is the water temperature. In the North Atlantic, the Atlantic North Equatorial Current, the Caribbean Current, the Antilles Current and the Gulf Stream are all warm water currents over which the majority of the Atlanic hurricanes flow. That warm water provides the energy necessary for the formation of tropical cyclone systems.

When was the last time you heard about a south Atlantic hurricane? You haven't. That's because there aren't any. The South Atlantic currents are too cold to support hurricane formation. In the Pacific the situation is different. Cyclones which form off the west coast of North America are usually short-lived, because the southbound California current is a cold water current. If the system can stay together long enough to track into the Pacific westward-flowing North Equatorial Current, then some energy can be acquired from it. This is where El Niño and La Niña have their greatest effect.

The western South Pacific has the cold water Humboldt Current. This retards formation of tropical cyclone there.

In the Eastern Pacific the situation is much more complex. The currents are more numerous, they are affected by the various island masses, and there is a very strong counter equatorial current which flows between the north and south equatorial currents as well. The same goes for the Indean Ocean currents, in regards to complexity. None of the other tropical storm basins are as simple as the North Atlantic.

Add to all of that the fact that global warming doesn't necessarily mean more warmth in every local system. In fact, global warming can even cause cooler temperatures in some areas as more Arctic and Antarctic ice melts and enters the cold water currents which flow from them. Conversely, any warming of the currents will definitely cause stronger cyclones, simply because that would mean more energy would be available to drive the cyclone strengths.

All things considered, to state that one would expect an increase in other storm basin cyclone frequencies if global warming were to cause an increase in North Atlantic cyclones is rather simplistic.

Bartix

08-30-2005, 08:16

I'm walking on sunshine

Aenlic right. :bow:

It is not needing to be global in this case, just local. :balloon2:
Water in Caribbean/Mexican Gulf area warms on average .1 C, result is time with water over 27C, which is necessary condition for hurricane, can increase many times just like that!!! ~:eek:

May be due to changes in currents, winds, more glaciers melting...
Other places local water temperature is not increasing above 27C.

This is not meaning that there is no global warming. :book:
I am thinking there is.

But may be real estate in New Orleans will not be very valuable later?

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 08:28

But the average wind speed for them has increased 50% which is over a doubling of the kinetic energy.I see. And those raskals in the IPCC and the major hurricane centers all ignored it? I wonder why. Could it be that the claim of a 50% increase in wind speed appears idiotic even to the naked eye?...

Hurricane centers measure these things, compare their measurements with a myriad of other meteorological data and try to make reasonable assessments. The U.S. National Hurricane Center (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/) is one of the best. This is their summary of recent research:

To summarize, our current assessment of how global warming may alter hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones is as follows (from Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998, Knutson et al. 1998, and Royer et al. 1998):

There is no evidence to suggest tropical cyclones will have any major changes in WHERE they form or occur.
Preliminary analyses hint that only small to no change in the NUMBER of tropical cyclones may occur, and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency.
The PEAK INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by 5-10% in wind speeds, but this may be an overestimate because of simplifications in the calculations.
Little is known as to how the AVERAGE INTENSITY or SIZE of tropical cyclones may change due to global warming.
Overall, these suggested changes are quite small compared to the observed large natural variability of hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. However, more study is needed to better understand the complex interaction between these storms and the tropical atmosphere/ocean.

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 08:36

I see. And those raskals in the IPCC and the major hurricane centers all ignored it? I wonder why. Could it be that the claim of a 50% increase in wind speed appears idiotic even to the naked eye?...

Are you calling me an idiot?

One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that.

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 08:45

The 1998 paper you quoted is a predictive model about typhoons in a global warming environment.

Based upon alterations to the large scale atmospheric and oceanic conditions (vertical shear, vorticity and thermodynamic stability), they suggest that only small changes to the tropical cyclone frequencies may result: up to 10% increase in numbers in the Northern Hemisphere (primarily in the Northwest Pacific) and up to a 5% decrease in numbers in the Southern Hemisphere. These values should be considered very preliminary.

The MIT study is from the 31st July 2005 online Nature journal.

To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones--commonly called hurricanes or typhoons--since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 08:53

Are you calling me an idiot?Are you calling the IPCC idiots?

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 08:58

The MIT study is from the 31st July 2005 online Nature journal.Oh, now the National Hurricane Center are idiots too? I am aware of the Emanuel research paper. He says the increase in intensity measured in his model is only partly due to a rise in surface temperature. Otherwise, surface temperature in the 'genesis areas' would have had to rise by 10% over the past fifty years. If you look at his text, Emanuel takes lots of other factors into account. The media, as usual, do not.

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 09:15

Oh, now the National Hurricane Center are idiots too? I am aware of the Emanuel research paper. He says the increase in intensity measured in his model is only partly due to a rise in surface temperature. Otherwise, surface temperature in the 'genesis areas' would have had to rise by 10% over the past fifty years. If you look at his text, Emanuel takes lots of other factors into account. The media, as usual, do not.

Hang on you are having your cake and eating to.

You say you know of his paper which states that storms have increased in intensity and speed by 50% over the last 50 years and then call me an idiot for quoting it.

====

I don't think it is the complete blackbody curve that needs to be looked at (300K to 330K to the power of 4 resulting in an increase of 50% energy), it is more important to compare the tails of the curve. It is afterall only the energetic hot ones that contribute to the hurricane. Comparing the kinetic contribrution of the tails would give a better insight into how much energy is required.

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 09:26

Are you calling the IPCC idiots?

No, where did I say that?

The number one rule is always question authority.

The second rule is that we don't fully understand a phenomena if a first year student cannot understand the explanation.

The third rule is that scientists are explorers of the unknown. Absolute answers are to them what staying in Portugal was to Christopher Columbus.

The fourth rule is when at a party and chatting to a girl never say you study physics. Say that you study nature instead... ~:cheers: ~:cool:

Lazul

08-30-2005, 09:49

_Martyr_

08-30-2005, 13:25

Little is known as to how the AVERAGE INTENSITY or SIZE of tropical cyclones may change due to global warming.

Right here Adrian is the golden nugget. Right here they directly say they dont know. So how can you claim to be so conclusive?

Lets not let this discussion degenerate into calling people idiots. Its been pretty good so far.

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 13:54

Right here Adrian is the golden nugget. Right here they directly say they dont know. So how can you claim to be so conclusive?I do not claim conclusiveness, Martyr. I say that claims about the effect of global warming on hurricanes are at best tentative, not conclusive at all. Emanuel may be onto something, but such research papers should (and will) be evaluated, their results reviewed and computed again, compared to other research and other models, etcetera. One study is not conclusive.

Papewaio, you claim conclusiveness on the basis of a single study that does not fit the bulk of hurricane research done so far. When such articles come from global warming 'skeptics', you are usually the first to discard them because they run counter to the 'scientific consensus' (IPCC) about man-made global warming. On this issue, however, you suddenly pose as a rebel and start to 'question authority'. That is not very convincing.

Oh, and I said some claims are idiotic. I never called people idiotic. Let alone .org members. Please do not accuse me of that.

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 13:56

No matter how you twist and turn it, no matter if the hurricanes are connected to GW or not, GW is still a problem. The polar ice is melting, and recently scientists have discovered that the the ice is melting way faster then it has before.That is correct. I think nobody denies that we are in a warming period. We will have to do a lot to mitigate the consequences whilst we further research the causes.

_Martyr_

08-30-2005, 14:01

Well Adrian, I dont mean to be an ass, but your statements dont match up...

I do not claim conclusiveness, Martyr. I say that claims about the effect of global warming on hurricanes are at best tentative, not conclusive at all.

No connection. Never has been. GW may have all sorts of effects, but not on hurricanes. All amateur theories we keep hearing are junk.

:duel: ~D

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 14:12

Well Adrian, I dont mean to be an ass, but your statements dont match up...No connection has been demonstrated, ever. And all the amateur climate theories you find in the media, on blogs and among 'climate sceptics' make me sick. And that is a conclusive statement. ~;)

EDIT
I was looking around for comments from other hurricane experts and I found this article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/01/hurricanes_more_powerful_study_says/) on Boston.com News. It seems that even Emanuel was 'surprised' by his own results. William 'Hurricane' Gray (the veteran researcher who is responsible for the yearly U.S. hurricane forecasts) thinks the Emanual paper stinks. On the other hand Christopher Landsea, a global warming skeptic who worked on the IPCC until recently, thinks Emanuel is to be recommended for his effort to tackle this virtually unresearched subject. Well, that's the world of science for you -- a hurricane onto itself.

Devastatin Dave

08-30-2005, 15:00

George Bush was also the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 15:05

George Bush was also the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.That was Elvis, you retard. ~;)

Aenlic

08-30-2005, 15:39

The IPCC report was issued in 1998. There have been other reports since then. Below are some excerpts from the the 2001 IPCC Workshop on Changes in Extreme Weather and Climate Events ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/extremes.pdf)

The IPCC working group goes to a great deal of effort to explain why we simply do not have enough information to make pronouncements one way or the other. So, saying that global warming is causing an increase in tropical cyclone strength or frequency is unsupportable; but so is saying the opposite (like the CNN story tried to claim, in essence).

Frequency of tropical cyclones (TC) has been used as an indicator of climate change in general circulation models. The group identified a number of key gaps in our existing knowledge.
• Method of counting TCs in global models
• Unrealistic present-day climatology
• Inconsistent sign of change in enhanced CO2 environment
• Mechanisms of TC genesis in large-scale models

There is a lack of consistency in the techniques used for counting TCs in climate models and results may be sensitive to the method used.

Observed records of tropical cyclone activity are short and there are many problems with homogeneity. Consistent satellite data are only available since the 1960s and regions where longer-term statistics are available show large interdecadal variability in cyclone activity. Palaeoreconstruction of tropical cyclone activity has a number of problems but has potential relevance to the climate change issue. Inhomogeneities in the historical records of environmental variables, such as atmospheric temperature, limit the extent to which we can assess historical activity via maximum potential intensity (MPI) analyses.

Clearly, the IPCC recognizes that we simply don't know enough about the very basics of cyclones to make pronouncements are how global warming affects them, for one side or the other. The whole report is an interesting read. It , at least, attempts to identify the questions which need to be asked before we can ever begin to start finding answers. ~D

Devastatin Dave

08-30-2005, 16:07

I think some of you guys have watched to much of "The Day After Tomorrow". Hopefully Dennis Quad won't be busy on the movie set (which I'm sure he won't be) to save us all from the evils that our government has set upon us. ~:handball:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-30-2005, 16:30

The "Sky is falling" crowd marches on. ~D

Yet when others say Jesus shall come again they scoff at them ~;)

Both have the same rhetoric. You will be sorry the day it happens and you didnt listen to us.

Lazul

08-30-2005, 17:52

nobody saying that the sky will fall down, and nobody believes in the Day of Tomorrow movie. Understand that please.

Yes polar ice is melting fast, there is fact for it, but im not argumenting that huge waves of water and storm will sweep over the world and crush our world, the real danger is the slow moving process as the waterlevel of the world will rise slowly and that is a danger for all the cities below waterlevel.

GW will never be showed in a hollywood movie in a fair way, couse its not exiting and the movie would have to stretch 100 years.

:bow:

yesdachi

08-30-2005, 18:13

If the sky isn’t falling then what’s the bright side? Is there one? Are we destined to die as a result of GW? ~:confused:

Crazed Rabbit

08-30-2005, 18:32

The polar ice is melting, and recently scientists have discovered that the the ice is melting way faster then it has before.

Altogether now;
BS!
Fomr the British Antarctic Survey (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html):

Most models, however, indicate relatively modest temperature rises around Antarctica over the next 50 years and, over this time period, increased snowfall over the continent should more than compensate for increased melting of Antarctic ice and will thus partially offset the rise in sea level resulting from thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of icecaps and glaciers elsewhere in the world. However, many processes occurring in the polar regions are not well represented in climate models at present and further research is needed to improve our confidence in these predictions. This is particularly true for predictions beyond 50 years, when Antarctica may start to warm enough to have a significant impact on the ice sheets.

Few Antarctic stations have climate records extending back longer than 50 years so it is difficult to say whether temperature changes in Antarctica reflect those in the global record, which shows an overall warming trend of about 0.5°C between the late nineteenth century and the present Antarctic temperature records are characterised by a very high level of interannual variability, which makes the determination of trends from short records problematical. At most Antarctic stations, temperature trends are small and statistically insignificant. The magnitudes (and even the signs) of the trends are highly dependent on the exact period studied. The observing station network is sparse and there are large areas of the interior of the continent that have no representative climate records. It is thus not possible to say definitively whether Antarctica as a whole is warming or cooling. The extent of winter sea ice around Antarctica is thought to be a very sensitive indicator of climatic change but it has only been possible to observe this since suitable instruments were deployed on satellites in the early 1970s. Like the temperature records, the sea ice record exhibits a great deal of interannual variability. In recent years, reducing sea ice extent in some regions has been balanced by increasing extent in others and there is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.

Kinda blows that histerical 'Oh no the ice is melting and we're all going to die because we can't move faster than water rising at 1 foot every ten years in the worst case scenario!' right out of the water, doesn't it?

As to hurricanes and global warming; pleaaaasssssseeeeeee. I'm sick of any tiny change in the weather being attributed to those evil fosil fuels. Do you really think wind speeds have increased 50%? That earth has never ever experienced such hurricanes as we are having? Or that 50 years ago the tools they had for measuring didn't go high enough?

Crazed Rabbit

Devastatin Dave

08-30-2005, 19:20

Al Gore invented Global Warning...

Adrian II

08-30-2005, 19:55

Al Gore invented Global Warning...Margaret Thatcher did that, as described by physicist, science writer, BBC commentator and New Scientist editor Nigel Calder in his book The manic sun: weather theories confounded (1997). Let me plagiarise it.

When she became Prime Minister in 1979, Thatcher had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary under Ted Heath. She was remembered for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren which earned her the nick of Margaret ‘Milk Snatcher'.

Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the United Nations, suggested a solution: he pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry.

Tickell pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. At the same time this gave her the perfect excuse to get rid of the British coal mining industry and its politicised union and replace it by much 'cleaner' nuclear energy. Her favourite 'warming' scientist John Houghton was appointed as the IPCC's first president.

Oh, the and IPCC is a serious body of scientists and far more impartial (or should I say, balanded) than you seem to think. In 1997 for instance, the then IPCC president, meteorologist Bert Bolin, said during a visit to the U.S. that he did 'not trust the Greens', that 'man-made increases in temperature are so small as to be barely detectable' and that he took issue with a statement by Gore's good friend Tim Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, that global warming science was 'settled': 'Tim Wirth may have said that, but I've talked with him and I know he really doesn't mean it.'

Crazed Rabbit

08-30-2005, 20:27

Huh. The issue that many on the left side of the political spectrum* love to shout about was used to crack down on unions.

Crazed Rabbit

*speaking in generalities.

Reverend Joe

08-30-2005, 21:00

Look, you fools, this is a moot point here! We're all gonna kill each other- and soon. Does it really matter how? Whether we heat the earth to a broiling temperature, or burn ourselves in a nuclear funeral pyre, or seed the clouds with VX and rain poison down upon ourselves? Humans are naturally suicidal. We know we've already outlived our usefulness, and aside from the desire to dominate, the desire to destroy is absolute. Arguing the how and why of our destruction is ridiculous when the event is inevitable, and not long in coming.

So relax- smoke a joint or two, eat some mescaline, drink a liter of scotch, whatever you need to do- and just wait for the fires to burn you too.

yesdachi

08-30-2005, 21:30

Azi Tohak

08-30-2005, 21:52

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 22:08

Global warming is occuring. The Global Warming debate is if man is a significant contributor. What this thread is about is how much of a contributor is global warming to hurricanes.

Hurricanes are heat powered engines that have a threshold of about 300K to generate. An increase above the threshold increases the amount of energy available. The physicists have still not created a model that accurately generates what the increase of power in a hurricane will be with increase in thermal load... they are pretty close but there are lots of holes to fill in the blanks.

Better understanding of hurricanes will lead to ways to mitigate the damage... I don't think seeding of the eye wall like in the 70's will happen again.

In fact the first thing that will happen will be insurance premiums in hurricane zones will change... then zoning laws will change as local governments will want to avoid the liabilities... more nomadic families with a storm season home away from hurricane zones and a non-storm season home... more redundancy in emergency facilities, pumps, evacuation routes...

Red Harvest

08-30-2005, 22:28

Altogether now;
BS!
Fomr the British Antarctic Survey (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html):

Kinda blows that histerical 'Oh no the ice is melting and we're all going to die because we can't move faster than water rising at 1 foot every ten years in the worst case scenario!' right out of the water, doesn't it?

As to hurricanes and global warming; pleaaaasssssseeeeeee. I'm sick of any tiny change in the weather being attributed to those evil fosil fuels. Do you really think wind speeds have increased 50%? That earth has never ever experienced such hurricanes as we are having? Or that 50 years ago the tools they had for measuring didn't go high enough?

Crazed Rabbit

Tiny??? Alaskan temperatures up by 5 F annually is tiny? Smithsonian ran an article by a fellow measuring glacial melt over the past 100 years by looking at old survey photos, postcards, etc. The loss of the glaciers is pretty large.

McCain and others on Alaskan Warming (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/18/environment.warming.reut/)

There have also been concerns about some apparent reduction in the gulf stream flows. This study is still in its infancy.

We already know average temperatures are higher.

We also know that water temperature is a major driver for hurricanes. I don't care what jack ass says otherwise, it is a major player once a hurricane is underway. Hurricanes are complex engines, and water temperature is one of the factors among many.

My favorite link...a big boo-boo by the Global Warmning deniers who can't seem to get their signs right...

Spencer and Christy Results were Erroneous (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050812/news_1n12warming.html)

Ooopssss (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050812/news_1n12warming.html)

Of course, they still say that the warming trend is irrelevant...despite their own calcs having a systematic underprediction of 40%. ~:rolleyes: These guys should take up cold fusion. It gets better, recent corrections to the data indicate the actual value is 120% more than Spencer and Christy's results, while actual surface temperature measurements show Spencer and Christy to have been off by 71%.

Red Harvest

08-30-2005, 22:42

But where does global warming and therefore hurricanes come from? Just ask a Kennedy (no, it really doesn't matter which one):

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050829/cm_huffpost/006396_200508291805

Bad Republicans! Bad!

Azi

"In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast."

Pat needs to read the book of Job a few dozen times...

Xiahou

08-30-2005, 23:47

In case you’ve missed the hype, MIT's Kerry Emanuel has a paper in the online version of Nature magazine saying that hurricanes are becoming dramatically more powerful as a result of global warming.

Merely venturing into the discussion of hurricanes and global warming is more dangerous than most tropical cyclones. About Emanuel's article, William Gray of Colorado State University -- the guy who issues the annual hurricane forecast that grabs headlines every summer -- told the Boston Globe, "It's a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at." linky (http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4249)
Feel free to read the whole article. :bow:

I'm with AdrianII on this one. There is no credible reason to think that global warming would create more frequent, stronger hurricanes. In fact, there is just as many, probably more reasons to think that global warming would actually decrease hurricane severity. For example, every El Nino year the environmental activists march out and claim how global warming makes for more often and stronger El Ninos. However, a strong El Nino creates conditions that are extremely adverse to hurricane development. So which is it? It seems that any natural event that occurs is held up by certain environmentalists as a catastrophic consequence of global warming, no matter how contradictory the events are.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 00:04

El Nino effects the South Pacific not the Altantic.

Australia is going through a severe drought in some regions while others flood.

Damages caused by doubling the strength of hurricanes would be massive and increasing dramatically. Figures on this are pretty easy to come by, at least in the United States. The insured value of property from Brownsville, Texas to Eastport, Maine -- our hurricane prone Atlantic Coast -- is greater than a year of our Gross Domestic Product. If hurricanes had actually doubled in power, the losses in the insurance industry would be catastrophic.

The insured value is for all the coast... all the coast would have to be destroyed for a claim greater then a year of GDP.

Then:

The property and casualty insurance industry, hit hard last year when four separate hurricanes slammed into Florida, now faces as much as $26 billion in claims from Hurricane Katrina's foray into Louisiana and neighboring Gulf Coast states, according to preliminary risk assessments.

AIR Worldwide Corp., a risk modeling firm based in Boston, said late Monday that insured losses could range from $12 billion to $26 billion.

At the high end, that would make Katrina more expensive than the previous record-setting storm, Hurricane Andrew, which caused some $21 billion in insured losses in 1992 to property in Florida and along the Gulf Coast.

Katrina Damage May Bring $26b In Claims (http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_news&lnid=306522997)

The insurance companies are not happy and are having record payouts.

Xiahou

08-31-2005, 00:11

El Nino effects the South Pacific not the Altantic.Allow me to spell it out.

The primary explanation for the decline in hurricane frequency during El Niño years is due to the increased wind shear in the environment.

In El Niño years, the wind patterns are aligned in such a way that the vertical wind shear is increased over the Caribbean and Atlantic. The increased wind shear helps to prevent tropical disturbances from developing into hurricanes. In the eastern Pacific, the wind patterns are altered in such a way to reduce the wind shear in the atmosphere, contributing to more storms. link (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hurr/enso.rxml)
(See link for pretty grahpics/charts)

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 00:41

Good point, I knew the conveyor belt effected Indonesia to Australia to Chile (the cold upwellings which feed the fish) and had an effect on South Africa.

I didn't know that the winds hit the Atlantic... learn something everyday. Should have thought that one out, basic butterfly in all.

In general, warm El Niño events are characterized by more tropical storms and hurricanes in the eastern Pacific and a decrease in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.

So in non-El Niño years you will see an increase in hurricanes in the Atlantic... and we are below the El Niño threshold ie not an El Niño year.

El Niño are a natural weather event. Are they changing due to global warming? Maybe, maybe not. The El Niño is large enough that it can obscure other trends and it may be a natural buffer in stopping spikes by circulating the waters... like an air conditioner for the entire Pacific.

There is no credible reason to think that global warming would create more frequent, stronger hurricanes

Hurricanes feed on heat, so wouldn't it make sense that the more heat the stronger/longer the hurricane?

_Martyr_

08-31-2005, 01:26

I have to say, Im with Pape on this. Increasing the heat (energy) of a system like that can only have one effect. How exactly this manifests itself is without a doubt extremely complicated, but the simple physics that govern it still determine the overall direction of the outcome. Increase enegry input means incresed energy output. What is there not to understand? Sure we can debate on how exactly this will effect them, but surely we can all agree on the above?

Red Harvest

08-31-2005, 04:05

I'm with AdrianII on this one. There is no credible reason to think that global warming would create more frequent, stronger hurricanes.

Untrue. Hurricanes are driven by many things, including water temperature. It is the evaporation and condensation of this water that is powering the dynamo. Higher temp provides more potential power (higher water content per temperature difference per unit volume of air.) The difference in vapor pressure is 6% for a 1 C change at 86 F.

Of course the temperature itself doesn't create the conditions, it also depends on the atmospheric events driving it, particularly the driving force difference with the atmospheric winds and their level of saturation as well as pressures. With a small sample size each season, and with the el nino cycle, etc. it is going to be challenging to get good correlations without very long term data. The atmospheric cycle isn't nearly as well understood as we would like. This is why the end result could be different.

If you want to see how global water temp changes with season:

Animated Gif of water temp (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/realtime/clim/annual/loop/sstloop.gif)

While the article in Nature doesn't look credible to me, there is reason to be looking for these types of correlations. Global temp. is changing rapidly on us and it is a very complex feedback system. To think hurricanes would not be effected in some way by global warming defies logic. As to how they might be effected longterm, there are many possibilities.

Crazed Rabbit

08-31-2005, 05:35

Tiny??? Alaskan temperatures up by 5 F annually is tiny? Smithsonian ran an article by a fellow measuring glacial melt over the past 100 years by looking at old survey photos, postcards, etc. The loss of the glaciers is pretty large.

And in some places in the world glaciers are increasing. Thus we have what we have always had; varying weather. Saying that there's global warming if every single glacier doesn't increase is deceitful. The earth is a huge environment, so local variations are very possible. And while the loss of glaciers in Alaska may be large, it is likely that overall, glacier mass has remained steady.

Admiting that, overall, the temp has incresed a couple degrees in the past hundred years- it is not the fault of humans. Temp changes have occured before and will occur again (See: Ice Ages, and Little Ice Age with a frozen Thames in England). Also, the temp, worldwide, remained steady 1940-70 while greehouse gases were still increasing. Kinda shoots down the 'greenhouse gas' theory, huh?

Increasing the heat (energy) of a system like that can only have one effect.

So a increase of a couple degrees increases wind power by 50%? :dizzy2:

Higher temp provides more potential power (higher water content per temperature difference per unit volume of air.) The difference in vapor pressure is 6% for a 1 C change at 86 F.

If the temp of the water was increasing, wouldn't it become closer to the air temp, thus lowering the difference and potential power of the storm?

Crazed Rabbit

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 05:56

Heat.

Water retains a lot more heat then anything else.

With the same energy input copper will rise in temperature ten degrees while water will rise 1 degree.

Sea water can hold about four times as much heat as air.

----

Blackbody radiation.

All the molecules do not have the same amount of energy. An increase in temperature is not a linear increase in the amount of molecules at each energy amount.

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 06:04

Name all the places in the world where glaciers are increasing in size. To aid you in your search, I'll help out by providing a link to the World Glacier Inventory (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/), a product of the World Glacier Monitoring Service which is funded by the NOAA, the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the Univ. of Colo. and the UN Environment Program. Happy hunting. ~D

Next find an old 1950's photo of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Now find a current photo of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Notice the difference in the size of the glacier. It's really hard to miss.

Now search the net for articles on the increasing speed of the Greenland glaciers or the increasing speed of the Columbia glacier in Prince William Sound in Alaska. Increased glacier speed is a result of increased melt under the glacier.

Examine articles on glacier retreat in someplace known for glaciers, say... oh, Glacier National Park in Montana.

Examine articles on the glacial melt occuring in the Himalayas, such as at Imja glacier or the Khumbu glacier on Mt. Everest.

Examine articles on Andean glaciers which have lost size and increased in flow speed

The list grows. How about shrinking Pyrenees glaciers, Alps glaciers, and more.

All over the world glaciers are shrinking. In case your search of the above database was in vain, I'll give you a hint on the only location in the world with a couple of glaciers which increased in size over the last 20 years - think Scandinavia.

Now, add up your couple of growing glaciers and subtract the total number of shrinking glaciers worldwide (I'll give you another hint - it's all of them except the few in Scandinavia). The result is Rush Limbaugh's IQ.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 06:13

The six continent codes used in the database are as follows:

1 - South America
2 - North America
4 - Europe
5 - Asia
6 - New Zealand

First only 5 codes are listed...oops... easy assumption that Africa is 3 and is unused.

But the really cool thing is NZ is now a continent!

Fair enough as it is the coolest country on earth. ~:cheers:

Seriously this bit:

Scientists are interested in the mass balance of glaciers, that is, whether a particular glacier is losing mass through increased melting or gaining mass through increased snowfall. Overall, the net mass balance for a sampling of glaciers from around the world is negative (WMO, 1998),

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 06:37

I wonder why Africa was left out? There are retreating glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya, and probably more. The sad thing is, Mt. Kilimanjaro has visibly lost more than 80% of it's glacier coverage in the last 100 years. Soon, "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" will just be an old movie title and nothing but a memory in photographs.

And I agree about New Zealand. It's on my list of the top 5 places I want to visit before I die.

Adrian II

08-31-2005, 07:05

Soon, "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" will just be an old movie title and nothing but a memory in photographs.Probably, yes, although it was a (Hemingway) book title first.. ~:cool:

I looked into the Kilimanjaro tragedy earlier this year because a picture of the retreating glacier, shot by Magnum's Alex Majoli, made it onto the front pages around the world. The best research to date has been done by Austrian glacier specialist Georg Kaser who led several recent expeditions on Kilimanjaro. I spke to him for a long time and read his research papers. Kaser is a supporter of man-made global warming theories, but in the case of Mount Kilimanjaro, he says, the glacier retreat is probably caused by increased solar activity more than anything else. After this paper (http://geowww.uibk.ac.at/glacio/LITERATUR/kaser_et_al_IJC24(2004).pdf) was published, Kaser instigated (and helped finance) new research into the relationship between glacier retreat and deforestation in the wider region. It appears peasants are cutting down what forests are left, particularly in Tanzania. This causes erosion => less precipitation => less natural 'feeding' of the glacier from above. The results of that research are due next year.

I called Majoli and asked him why his picture of Kilimanjaro's glacier didn't focus on the equally dramatic deforestation that is going on, and starting right at the foot of the mountain. A slight change of angle would have resulted in a totally different 'picture'. He said it would only detract from the 'truth' that global warming is killing the mountain. I said': 'You mean man-made global warming?' He said: 'Sure, what else?'

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 07:18

Doesn't this point to localised warming then?

And if you do it at enough points you end up with global warming?

I know from working in Indonesia that under the canopy it is humid and hot... then hike throught the blackened burned off zones for farms and the heat shoots up and the humdity drops ever so slightly that you could feel it on your skin.

Adrian II

08-31-2005, 07:23

Doesn't this point to localised warming then?

And if you do it at enough points you end up with global warming?I strongly believe that is what the sun does, Sir. Day after day.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 07:31

Yes I understand that... I was refering to the deforestation as being a possible large player when compared with CO2 emissions.

Obviously if we change the landscape we effect how much gets absorbed.

Change the landscape into a greenhouse and we get a warm location. Do it around the world and you get a global contribution.

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 07:45

Its amazing how the same people who admonish those dumb Christians hold on to the theory of man-made global warming almost as a religion. They are simply unable to accept other explanations or opinions.

The world is in a constant state of change. These advocates seem to believe the world was frozen in time before the industrial revolution. Apparently they missed the 1st Grade trip to the museum where we were taught about all the different climate changes of the earth.

Man-made global warming may have some elements that are true, and it may not, but it long since became a political cause akin to all the others. Certain groups saw the tremendous level of self guilt that could be tapped in the western world and now global warming has become a huge source of income for many "environmental groups". ~:rolleyes:

Xiahou

08-31-2005, 07:57

I called Majoli and asked him why his picture of Kilimanjaro's glacier didn't focus on the equally dramatic deforestation that is going on, and starting right at the foot of the mountain. A slight change of angle would have resulted in a totally different 'picture'. He said it would only detract from the 'truth' that global warming is killing the mountain. I said': 'You mean man-made global warming?' He said: 'Sure, what else?'
That's funny- not willing to let facts and common sense get in the way of their point are they? ~D

Bartix

08-31-2005, 08:47

Climate, weather, things is very complex and chaotic. ~:confused:
We know variation has been between ice ages and warmer times, before we humans made differences. :book:

Now, maybe 40 years ago, someone thought a new ice age was coming.
Now we mostly think the opposite. :dizzy2:

Does some one think human produced CO2, methane etc. is not contribution to green house effect? Science base for this seems solid. How big contribution is discussable. Many discuss this, and make valid points either way.

What if we made less green hose gases? Would we have any extreme weather? Would glaciers melt? It is hard to tell exact. Climate, weather, things is very complex and chaotic. ~:confused:

To me, case for human participation being significant contributor to changes look good. Will we want to bet it is not, or that changes will not be dramatic? What think the peoples of New Orleans, Maldives, perhaps Netherlands?

Theory of PJ that global warming is fund raising invention of environmental group is faery foil hat, I think. :dizzy2: (sorry) :embarassed:

Adrian II

08-31-2005, 11:20

To me, case for human participation being significant contributor to changes look good. Will we want to bet it is not, or that changes will not be dramatic? What think the peoples of New Orleans, Maldives, perhaps Netherlands?People of Netherlands have faith in improved coastal and river defenses. Money has already been set apart for next twenty years. For people of Netherlands, anticlimatix not an issue.

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 17:23

Probably, yes, although it was a (Hemingway) book title first.. ~:cool:

Yes, it was a Hemingway book first. But Hemingway's wonderful novel wasn't a graphical novel with pictures. Doesn't quite make the same point, does it? ~D

As for the assertion that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier is the result of increased solar activity, would that person be claiming that solar activity has increased steadily for the last 100 years? The glacier has been retreating at an increasing rate for that period. Surely the claim isn't that solar activity has been steadily increasing for the last 100 years. That would be entirely false. ~D

And while you're explaining away the Kilimanjaro glacier, then please feel free to explain away the other 90%+ of the world's glacier retreats as solar flares or aliens or something, anything.

Red Harvest

08-31-2005, 18:22

And in some places in the world glaciers are increasing. Thus we have what we have always had; varying weather. Saying that there's global warming if every single glacier doesn't increase is deceitful. The earth is a huge environment, so local variations are very possible. And while the loss of glaciers in Alaska may be large, it is likely that overall, glacier mass has remained steady.

No, it isn't. Everything I've heard so far is that glacial mass is declining throughout the Northern hemisphere (and other places as well.) Polar bears have less range because of a shrinking range. The caveman in the alps was uncovered by the melt. There have been a lot of thaws in Siberia revealing long frozen beasts. The Southern hemisphere isn't getting noticeable glacial growth from what I understand. And in Africa, Kilimanjaro's glacier is disappearing.

And sea levels are rising--both due to glacial melt, and to increased water temperature.

Admiting that, overall, the temp has incresed a couple degrees in the past hundred years- it is not the fault of humans. Temp changes have occured before and will occur again (See: Ice Ages, and Little Ice Age with a frozen Thames in England). Also, the temp, worldwide, remained steady 1940-70 while greehouse gases were still increasing. Kinda shoots down the 'greenhouse gas' theory, huh?

No, it shows that many believe what is convenient for them. We don't know how much of the change is due to humans, yet. We do know that we are shifting the carbon balance pretty noticeably, and the carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and by itself will increase temperature.

Time to blow this intellectually dishonest (or convenient simplistic) approach out of the water: The convenient notion is to blame any warming on natural processes that are not yet understood. However, since these are not yet understood, it is as probable, and in fact MORE probable that the natural cycle would have little noticeable impact during the same time frame, or that it would cause a temperature reduction. In other words, if you were to assign probabilities the LEAST likely explanation is that the current change is all natural.

More importantly, if the natural process should actually be driving temps down about now, and human changes have had the opposite effect, what happens if the natural trend gets "in-phase" with us? You see, since we can't understand the whole thing at this time, this latter option is just as likely as the "it's all natural warming." In engineering I must attempt to consider *all* of the possibilities and weigh them, not just the ones I want to occur, otherwise equipment and processes can fail (and as a direct result people can get killed.) It's part of risk analysis and taking reasonable precautions to reduce risks.

So a increase of a couple degrees increases wind power by 50%? :dizzy2:

I've already said the study doesn't look credible, but not for the reason you state. A couple of degrees *could* do that, it all depends on the interactions of different things.

If the temp of the water was increasing, wouldn't it become closer to the air temp, thus lowering the difference and potential power of the storm?

Crazed Rabbit

First, the air temperature is rising too, that's where the term "global warming" came from! When both rise together, there is an increase in available potential energy. Second, the circulation patterns/speeds/flows at various levels in both the atmosphere and ocean are shifting too. Predicting where this will all come out? It depends on the interactions and lots of hurricane thermo/hydrodynamic theory that I have not studied. Still, a reasonable supposition is that higher temps will be able to carry more energy (water vapor) and therefore increase the strength of a storm. Water condensing/evaporating represents a volume change of several orders of magnitude.

Adrian II

08-31-2005, 19:30

As for the assertion that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier is the result of increased solar activity, would that person be claiming that solar activity has increased steadily for the last 100 years?
'That person' is a top-notch glacier expert who has led various expeditions to Kilimanjaro and published about them in respected, peer-reviewed scientific magazines. You are not.

Would you awfully mind if we stick with Kaser until the day you, Aenlic, can actually match his expertise? Good. I gave the link to that article by Kaser e.a. so nothing stands in the way of answering your own questions.

Since the scientific exploration of Kilimanjaro began in 1887, when Hans Meyer first ascended the mountain (not to the top this time, but to the crater rim), a central theme of published research has been the drastic recession of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers (e.g. Meyer, 1891, 1900; Klute, 1920; Gillman, 1923; J¨ager, 1931; Geilinger, 1936; Hunt, 1947; Spink, 1949; Humphries, 1959; Downie and Wilkinson, 1972; Hastenrath, 1984; Osmaston, 1989; Hastenrath and Greischar, 1997). Early reports describe the formation of notches, splitting up and disconnection of ice bodies, and measurements of glacier snout retreat on single glaciers, whereas later books and papers advance to reconstructing glacier surface areas.
See? Towards the end, the article summarises the theory about increased ablation of vertical glacier walls due to 'intensified dry deasons':

A synopsis of (i) proxy data indicating changes in East African climate since ca 1850, (ii) 20th century instrumental data (air temperature and precipitation), and (iii) the observations and interpretations made during two periods of fieldwork (June 2001 and July 2002) strongly support the following scenario. Retreat from a maximum extent of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers started shortly before Hans Meyer and Ludwig Purtscheller visited the summit for the first time in 1889, caused by an abrupt climate change to markedly drier conditions around 1880. Intensified dry seasons accelerated ablation on the illuminated vertical walls left in the hole within Reusch Crater, probably a result of volcanic activity. The development of vertical features may also have started on the outer margins of the plateau glaciers before 1900, primarily as the formation of notches, as explicitly reported following field research in 1898 and 1912 (Meyer, 1900; Klute, 1920). A current example of such a notch development is the hole in the Northern Icefield (see Figure 2). Once started, the lateral retreat was unstoppable, maintained by solar radiation despite less negative mass balance conditions on horizontal glacier surfaces, and will come to an end only when the glaciers on the summit plateau have disappeared.

So, increased solar radiation on the slopes due to fewer clouds and drier air. I wrote 'solar activity', that was a mistake. But you could have read the paper and made up your own mind.

Meanwhile, the debate over Katrina rages on:

King: Global warming may be to blame

By Andrew Buncombe

31 August 2005

Sir David King, the British Government's chief scientific adviser, has warned that global warming may be responsible for the devastation reaped by Hurricane Katrina.

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade.

"So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also claimed, less than a month ago, that ocean surfaces had become warmer, which doubled the destructive potential of tropical storms in the past 30 years.

But he said that Monday's storm "is part of a natural" cycle of powerful Atlantic storms that have struck since 1995. He told The Independent: "I don't think you can put this down to global warming."

Other scientists point out that the 150-year record of Atlantic storms show there is ample precedent for hurricanes of Katrina's power. They say it is part of a natural upswing that has taken place since the mid-90s.

Officials at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said records showed hurricane activity in the Atlantic had been higher than normal in nine of the past 11 years. This month the federal agency raised its hurricane forecast for this year from 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes.

If that prediction holds true, it would make this year one of the most violent hurricane seasons recorded. A typical year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes. The agency said the increase was likely to be the result of cyclical ocean and atmospheric conditions that produced heightened storms every 20 to 30 years.

William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist who is considered one of the fathers of modern tropical cyclone science, said worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of trends.

He told The Los Angeles Times: "The people who have a bias in favour of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles."

Sir David King, the British Government's chief scientific adviser, has warned that global warming may be responsible for the devastation reaped by Hurricane Katrina.

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade.

"So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also claimed, less than a month ago, that ocean surfaces had become warmer, which doubled the destructive potential of tropical storms in the past 30 years.

But he said that Monday's storm "is part of a natural" cycle of powerful Atlantic storms that have struck since 1995. He told The Independent: "I don't think you can put this down to global warming."

Other scientists point out that the 150-year record of Atlantic storms show there is ample precedent for hurricanes of Katrina's power. They say it is part of a natural upswing that has taken place since the mid-90s.
Officials at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said records showed hurricane activity in the Atlantic had been higher than normal in nine of the past 11 years. This month the federal agency raised its hurricane forecast for this year from 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes.

If that prediction holds true, it would make this year one of the most violent hurricane seasons recorded. A typical year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes. The agency said the increase was likely to be the result of cyclical ocean and atmospheric conditions that produced heightened storms every 20 to 30 years.

William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist who is considered one of the fathers of modern tropical cyclone science, said worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of trends.

He told The Los Angeles Times: "The people who have a bias in favour of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles."

Tribesman

09-01-2005, 03:19

It isn't global warming , it is Gods righteous vengance on the sodomites in the cess pool of sin that is New Orleans .
The "Rev" Phelps gives praise for Gods answer to his prayers on his hate sitehttp://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html :help:

_Martyr_

09-01-2005, 03:32

Damn, that website provides for some interesting reading... :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

09-01-2005, 03:34

No, it shows that many believe what is convenient for them. We don't know how much of the change is due to humans, yet. We do know that we are shifting the carbon balance pretty noticeably, and the carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and by itself will increase temperature.

Convenient? As in believing that carbon emissions cause most of the global warming, even though the global temp stayed the same for 30 years while carbon emissions steadily increased? More carbon is appearing in the atmosphere, and we are much more equipped to measure tiny changes. What we are completely ignorant of is how much carbon it takes to actually influence the temperature, or if it even does (see my example).

No, it isn't. Everything I've heard so far is that glacial mass is declining throughout the Northern hemisphere (and other places as well.) Polar bears have less range because of a shrinking range. The caveman in the alps was uncovered by the melt. There have been a lot of thaws in Siberia revealing long frozen beasts. The Southern hemisphere isn't getting noticeable glacial growth from what I understand. And in Africa, Kilimanjaro's glacier is disappearing.

And sea levels are rising--both due to glacial melt, and to increased water temperature.

Well I say glacial mass isn't declining. Can you, as the party that wants to change policy based on the results of the change in glacier mass (amoung other things), provide proof that glaciers are melting overall?

See AdrianII's post for Kilimanjaro.

The convenient notion is to blame any warming on natural processes that are not yet understood. However, since these are not yet understood, it is as probable, and in fact MORE probable that the natural cycle would have little noticeable impact during the same time frame, or that it would cause a temperature reduction. In other words, if you were to assign probabilities the LEAST likely explanation is that the current change is all natural.

How is it more probable that the natural cycle, in which temps have changed worldwide in shorter times, not affect the temperature as much as a few extra gases put in the huge atmosphere by insignificantly tiny man (and gases whose total effect is unknown!). To believe that man is actually affecting the atmosphere, you have to 1)disregard all history of the climate changing, 2)assume that the natural cycle is not affecting the current temperature at all now (how do you get to that? Do you just think that sometimes the natural cycle takes a break, or that your devotion to man-made global warming means the natural cycle must not be happening, because of the collective wishing of enviro-wackos?) 3)assume that carbon has an affect on the atmosphere, 4)assume that man is putting enough carbon in the atmosphere (a amazingly huge place) to actually change the weather.

Compare that with, for the natural cycle of warming, assuming that, since the global temp has changed in the past, it might be doing so now.

How does not understanding the natural cycle make this more probable? Would our knowledge, ie. the neurons in our brains, of the natural cycle actually change the probability of weather? Answer: No, it wouldn't.

Oh, and if global warming caused more powerful hurricanes, then why did the decade 1941-1950 have more hurricanes, and more powerful hurricanes, than any other decade since recording of hurricanes (and the number of hurricanes declined with the rising temp)? Hmm? (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml) Remember, this is when global temp was not increasing.

Crazed Rabbit

kiwitt

09-01-2005, 04:18

If you think of the entire world atmosphere as a simply a large swimming pool, a hurricane would be a very small whirlpool, under 6 inches across.

Lets assume that weather events are like "bubbles" in a pool of water. Any student knowns that when you increase the temperature slightly you get more bubbles forming. Now we can accept the some parts of the world have shown increases in temperature and some not, (the data is at best variable), and this has caused problems with acceptance of the theory of global warming. If we look at the symptoms of warming water, i.e. more bubbles, and relate that to the atmosphere, where more bubbles = more weather events, we can say we do have some global warming.

We have had more significant weather events in recent years and these events include, drought, storms, floods, heat waves, etc. I would say that this is proof enough to me that we have global warming. As to the causes of this, that is another debate.

Papewaio

09-01-2005, 04:19

Well if Hurricanes are feed on heat... then they would use up heat in their rotation and wind speeds... so hurricanes should help reduce temperature.

Also you have to look at overall trend, it is not just one gas, or just the atmosphere, or just one thing that effects temeprature. Just like the stock market going up and down day to day it is the overall trend that is key under normal circumstances.

====

Also humans have had a massive impact on air composition.

The amount of lead in the Air between now and in Roman times is an increase of 600 times from human sources. And it spreads around the world. The peak was when leaded fuels where used the most.

Adrian II

09-01-2005, 07:45

If we look at the symptoms of warming water, i.e. more bubbles, and relate that to the atmosphere, where more bubbles = more weather events, we can say we do have some global warming.Thank you, professor Kiwitt, but I'll stick with the IPCC assessments if you don't mind. Their bathtub is bigger than yours.
:balloon2:

Red Harvest

09-01-2005, 07:51

Convenient? As in believing that carbon emissions cause most of the global warming, even though the global temp stayed the same for 30 years while carbon emissions steadily increased? More carbon is appearing in the atmosphere, and we are much more equipped to measure tiny changes. What we are completely ignorant of is how much carbon it takes to actually influence the temperature, or if it even does (see my example).

We KNOW CO2 effects temp so, that second part of that final statement is absolutely false. :thumbsdown: See Venus. What is left for debate is how much effect a few hundred ppm will make.

When you speak of these 30 years, are you using the erroneous data supplied by Spencer and Christy? Or are you picking 30 years (out of 200) that haven't risen? Nobody doubts short term variation caused by natural sources. We can identify the causes of some, like solar cycles, volcanoes, etc. but not others.

Nobody denies that there are other cycles. But the one we are presently seeing appears extraordinary. And it correlates with a known greenhouse gas over the past 200 years.

Well I say glacial mass isn't declining. Can you, as the party that wants to change policy based on the results of the change in glacier mass (amoung other things), provide proof that glaciers are melting overall?

I don't see how you are qualified to say it is going one way or the other. It seems to be just your supposition using some Antartic info which doesn't say much conclusively either way (and is disputed by a number of other sources.) The info is out there for you to read, go find it.

How is it more probable that the natural cycle, in which temps have changed worldwide in shorter times, not affect the temperature as much as a few extra gases put in the huge atmosphere by insignificantly tiny man (and gases whose total effect is unknown!). To believe that man is actually affecting the atmosphere, you have to 1)disregard all history of the climate changing, 2)assume that the natural cycle is not affecting the current temperature at all now (how do you get to that? Do you just think that sometimes the natural cycle takes a break, or that your devotion to man-made global warming means the natural cycle must not be happening, because of the collective wishing of enviro-wackos?) 3)assume that carbon has an affect on the atmosphere, 4)assume that man is putting enough carbon in the atmosphere (a amazingly huge place) to actually change the weather.

It is far more probable that we are having an impact, than not. I would put it at 100 to 1 odds. I've actually calculated by hand the CO2 input by man, yes, the changes we are seeing match it quite well, as do the ice cores.

1. There is no need to disregard the history of climate changing. Perhaps that is needed to support the anti-argument, but not the pro.
2. There is no need to disregard the natural cycle(s) either. In fact parts that can be identified are used to account for some of the effects.
3. Not hard to imagine--it is 100% certain it has an effect, the question is only how much.
4. The atmosphere is not that huge. You can do the calcs yourself if you like. I went through the excercise about 8 years ago to satisfy my own curiosity and was satisfied that the science was sound. Haven't felt the need to go back and repeat it. I encourage you to attempt the exercise of determining CO2 emissions.. I started with annual energy usage, converted it to carbon equivalent based on sources, then did the stoichiometry, then calculated the atmospheric volume and mass (the most difficult part.) The numbers were in the right range.

Compare that with, for the natural cycle of warming, assuming that, since the global temp has changed in the past, it might be doing so now.

I said that and I also said that it is just as likely we would be headed in the other direction. Since you can't really say where we are in any of the natural cycles (note there are many more than one.) The probability is just as high that the effect over the past 200 years would send us in the other direction or neutral.

How does not understanding the natural cycle make this more probable?

There are X number of possibilities, we'll say three to simplify: higher temp due to nat. cycles, lower temp due to nat. cycle, or unchanged. You have no idea which we are actually in. If you can't be certain which you have at the moment, then any one of the 3 is possible. So chances are that the one you *want* to justify your case is NOT the actual one. More importantly, ignoring the other two is a very non-conservative assumption, generally considered unsound. If an engineer uses the approach you propose on a project for me, then I will question his/her judgement and carefully check all his/her assumptions, adding appropriate cases to make sure their work falls within design criteria.

Here are the ice core temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years if you want to get an idea of the scale of temperature moves from ice age to ice age Vostok Ice Cores (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm)

The problem with the denier's logic is that it is inherently unsafe. It wants 100% proof that there is a problem and of large magnitude. This approach is the same NASA used to blow up two shuttles. It was counter to previous NASA culture which was inherently safe. This spaceship is a lot bigger and a lot more important to me than the one that blew up over my house a few years ago.

That's why it makes me so incredibly angry. The arguments used by those denying links are backwards. They should be seeking proof that there is no link and therefore there is no safety risk, instead they have reversed the logic. It is irresponsible.

Bartix

09-01-2005, 07:56

Well if Hurricanes are feed on heat... then they would use up heat in their rotation and wind speeds... so hurricanes should help reduce temperature.
~:confused:
Hurricane is reducing entropy? :dizzy2:
Yes, they feed on heat locally when building up, but in the end hurricane is gone and earth is none cooler for it having existed. ~:handball:

Adrian II

09-01-2005, 08:35

See AdrianII's post for Kilimanjaro.The point being that the Kilimanjaro glacier is melting, but it has been melting since 1880 due to a particular set of circumstances that probably has little or nothing to do with global warming, man-made or not man-made. The same might well apply to the Alpine glacier meltdown, a phenomenon that seems to have happened seven times before over the past 10.000 years and wasn't caused by human activity then. Of course this time round it might.

As for hurricanes, the debate is heating up faster than the earth.

And let us stop confusing global warming with man-made global warming. The jury is still out on the latter. The IPCC has done no more than state that it is 'likely' that 'most' of the 'recent' global warming they found is anthropogenic, and that besides global warming there are 'other changes' in the world's climate that may or may not influence global temperatures.

Adrian II

09-01-2005, 08:48

Well if Hurricanes are feed on heat... then they would use up heat in their rotation and wind speeds... so hurricanes should help reduce temperature.Have you read my previous post about Kilimanjaro and Katrina? Doesn't it strike you that Emanuel, the man whose research you quoted in support of the notion that global warming might explain Katrina's devastating energy, said the following:

Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also claimed, less than a month ago, that ocean surfaces had become warmer, which doubled the destructive potential of tropical storms in the past 30 years.

But he said that Monday's storm "is part of a natural" cycle of powerful Atlantic storms that have struck since 1995. He told The Independent: "I don't think you can put this down to global warming."

EDIT

Oh and there is more, there always is ~D

The New Scientist is running a real beaut today about 'hot towers' in hurricane Katrina.

Satellites spot ‘hot towers’ in Hurricane Katrina
31 August 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Kelly Young

Satellite images of Hurricane Katrina indicate the storm experienced several "hot tower" clouds during its development, say NASA

Thunderstorms surround the eye of hurricanes and hot towers are tall rain clouds that reach far above the rest of the hurricane near the wall of the eye. They stretch at least to the ceiling of the troposphere – the atmosphere's lowest layer. The heat in the "hot tower" is generated by water vapour condensing into liquid water.

The hot towers, also known as convective bursts, are significant because scientists think they could be a precursor to a hurricane intensifying, a process that is still not well understood.

"We think they may form right before storms intensify – and intensity change is one of the Holy Grail processes,” says Marshall Shepherd, deputy project scientist of the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPMM) and research meteorologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Green Belt, Maryland, US. “Over the years in hurricane forecasting, we've gotten fairly good in forecasting where the storm's going to track."

But predicting hurricane intensity is not as easy. If people in coastal cities could get a better warning of when hurricane winds speeds are about to increase, they might be able to prepare their communities for a stronger storm.

Supercharged pistons
The vigorous convection of the hot towers releases a lot of energy in a short amount of time into the centre of a hurricane, acting like supercharged pistons in the hurricane's engine. This can result in a lower surface pressure, which causes the wind speed to increase.

This is what appears to have happened with Katrina. As well as the GPMM images, the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite, run by NASA and the Japanese space agency, also saw at least two hot towers. The tower closest to the eye’s wall measured 16 kilometres high. Soon after the TRMM image was taken, Katrina intensified to a Category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

TRMM was launched in 1997 and was the first satellite to spot a hot tower. With its radar, TRMM measures rainfall intensity in a storm. Hurricane Bonnie in 1998 produced several hot towers as high as 18 kilometres.

Another NASA satellite, Aqua, measures the surface water temperature in the Atlantic Ocean. In 2005, its Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer instrument has observed that water in the Atlantic basin is an average of 2-4°C warmer than in previous years.

Warmer waters make it easier for hurricanes to form and could be one of the reasons there have been more hurricanes than usual this season.

View a NASA movie (mpg format) of sea surface temperatures and clouds from June 9 to August 29, showing the different tracks of Hurricanes Dennis, Emily, and at the end Katrina.

Some of the images are breathtaking.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn7929/dn7929-2_550.jpg
This image from the AMSR-E instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite shows the average sea surface
temperatures from August 25 to 27. Areas in yellow, orange or red represents 28°C (82°F) or above
– enough to enable a hurricane to strengthen (Image: NASA/SVS)

Aenlic

09-01-2005, 15:32

I came across an interesting and rather prophetic statement on the National Hurricane Center website (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml). An examination of the history of the deadliest and costliest tropical weather in the U.S., which was last updated on August 18th of this year:

CONCLUSIONS

In virtually every coastal city from Texas to Maine, the present Tropical Prediction Center Director (Max Mayfield) former National Hurricane Center Directors have stated that the United States is building toward its next hurricane disaster. The population growth and low hurricane experience levels indicated in Hebert et al. (1984), together with updated statistics presented by Jarrell et al. (1992) form the basis for their statements. The areas along the United States Gulf and Atlantic coasts where most of this country’s hurricane related fatalities have occurred are also now experiencing the country’s most significant growth in population. This situation, in combination with continued building along the coast, will lead to serious problems for many areas in hurricanes. Because it is likely that people will always be attracted to live along the shoreline, a solution to the problem lies in education and preparedness as well as long-term policy and planning.

The message to coastal residents is this: Become familiar with what hurricanes can do, and when a hurricane threatens your area, increase your chances of survival by moving away from the water until the hurricane has passed! Unless this message is clearly understood by coastal residents through a thorough and continuing preparedness effort, disastrous loss of life is inevitable in the future.

Very sad, that this message wasn't understood by those it was meant to help.

Papewaio

09-02-2005, 04:26

~:confused:
Hurricane is reducing entropy? :dizzy2:
Yes, they feed on heat locally when building up, but in the end hurricane is gone and earth is none cooler for it having existed. ~:handball:

Heat creates wind. Wind breaks things.

The heat is changed into gas movement and that kinetic energy is absorbed by objects.

There would be a net heat loss to the system as the hurricane's energy is spent.

Otherwise you would have a positive feedback loop in which the heat creates heat or a perpetual machine type situation.

Xiahou

09-02-2005, 05:45

Here are the ice core temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years if you want to get an idea of the scale of temperature moves from ice age to ice age Vostok Ice Cores (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm)
Glad you mentioned the Vostok cores- they make for an excellent refutation of man-made global warming. That is, unless you believe that we were driving cars around causing global warming 100,000 years ago. The charts show relatively short spikes followed by relatively precipitous cooling. It's also interesting to note that the last 10,000 years have been uncharacteristically stable in terms of temperature. Of course, even to suggest that is as a result of human activities is totally ludicrous, since we've only been burning fossil fuels for the last 100yrs (give or take).

Yes, there is some apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature. However, this cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years without any help from man. Indeed, as far as I've read, no one has a good explanation for the historic sudden shifts in atmospheric CO2 levels and the accompanying temp swings.

Papewaio

09-02-2005, 06:01

CO2 shifts... would be partially explained by Biomass and Volcanoes. And yes the atmosphere has been changing for a long time. After all if there was no greenhouse gases we would be Mars. Afterall the atmosphere composition was changed by the emergence of life, it will continue to change because of life.

Red Harvest

09-02-2005, 06:41

Glad you mentioned the Vostok cores- they make for an excellent refutation of man-made global warming. That is, unless you believe that we were driving cars around causing global warming 100,000 years ago. The charts show relatively short spikes followed by relatively precipitous cooling. It's also interesting to note that the last 10,000 years have been uncharacteristically stable in terms of temperature. Of course, even to suggest that is as a result of human activities is totally ludicrous, since we've only been burning fossil fuels for the last 100yrs (give or take).

Yes, there is some apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature. However, this cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years without any help from man. Indeed, as far as I've read, no one has a good explanation for the historic sudden shifts in atmospheric CO2 levels and the accompanying temp swings.

We are running over 370 ppm of CO2 now...which is higher than any long term value over the past 400,000 years. And CO2 shows a strong correlation with temperature over the range of 180 to 295 ppm. Chicken or the egg? We don't know for sure. We do know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will raise temperature left to its own devices. So now we've driven if off scale and are doing our best to double the working range from 115 ppm delta over the next few decades. Hardly makes me fell safe.

Notice how stable the temp has been for 10,000 years until now? The other events all show some sort of reversal after a rapid rise, but now we are climbing instead. Our temperature rise in the last 100 years or so will outstrip the variation of 10,000 years. Hmm...and at the same time we've gone bonkers with CO2.

Hardly a refutation, it shows that we've driven our atmosphere seriously out of whack. Of course we did the same with lead and CFC's without ill effects...oops...that's right, we had to alter our behaviour on those.

Xiahou

09-02-2005, 08:46

From an article entitled "Katrina and Disgusting Exploitation"
The Kyoto advocates point to warmer ocean temperatures, but they ought to read their own favorite newspaper, The New York Times, which reported yesterday:

"Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught 'is very much natural,' said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.'"

An article on TCS quoted Gray last year as saying that, while some groups and individuals say that hurricane activity lately "may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,…there is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation…can be made."

Indeed, there is no evidence that hurricanes are intensifying anyway. For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization: "Reliable data…since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."

Yes, decreased.

Not only has the intensity of hurricanes fallen, but, as George H. Taylor, the state climatologist of Oregon has pointed out, so has the frequency of hailstorms in the U.S. (see Changnon and Changnon) and cyclones throughout the world (Gulev, et al.).

But environmental extremists do not want to be bothered with the facts. Nor do they wish to mourn the destruction and death wreaked on a glorious city. To their everlasting shame, they would rather distort and exploit. link (http://www.techcentralstation.com/083105JKG.html)

Hardly a refutation, it shows that we've driven our atmosphere seriously out of whack. Of course we did the same with lead and CFC's without ill effects...oops...that's right, we had to alter our behaviour on those. It shows no such thing. The bulk of temperature increases in the last hundred years occurred early in the first part of the century, while man-made CO2 emissions have by far occurred in recent years without corresponding increases in temps. The computer models the predict catostrophic warming in the future are consistently wrong when it comes to this.

Husar

09-02-2005, 12:06

So there is no scientific prove for nothing because all scientists say something different? ~:eek: And that of course means nothing should be done. :dizzy2:
I saw a report on TV some days ago saying that global warming may be stronger than expected, because there is another phenomenon reducing global warming. It´s called global dimming and is a result of air pollution. They said reducing pollution without reducing the greenhouse-effect may have devastating effects like turning Europe into a desert and making Africa uninhabitable. Of course we shouldn´t do anything against that, just like nobody cared about the New Orleans dams in the past 10 years, although it was known that they wouldn´t withstand a category 4 or 5 hurricane. :dizzy2:

This is of course just my opinion and nobody should be forced to drive a car that needs less fuel or sign some protocol from Kyoto because that might reduce the danger of hurricanes, especially not such a great nation like the US, that can´t be beaten by anything... :dizzy2: ...but somehow I have a hard time feeling for all those victims.
:help:

Bartix

09-02-2005, 14:06

Heat creates wind. Wind breaks things.

The heat is changed into gas movement and that kinetic energy is absorbed by objects.

There would be a net heat loss to the system as the hurricane's energy is spent.

Otherwise you would have a positive feedback loop in which the heat creates heat or a perpetual machine type situation.
Question is what "system" loses energy. :book:
Hurricane transports heat/energy from water across land. :charge:
Water has lost heat. ~:cool:
Kinetic energy absorbed by objects will cause warmer objects. ~:grouphug:
Hurricane has lost energy, but world is not cooler. ~:eek:
There is not getting rid of heat/entropy. :help:
It can go into space eventually, if we are not in very efficient green house. :bow:

_Martyr_

09-02-2005, 15:10

You are forgetting that the huricane's kinetic energy can be changed into potential energy as well, and sound energy and lots of other things not just back into heat energy. For instance, water washes a massize barge casino a few hundred meters inshore and in the process several meters up from water level. In other words, the total heat energy input is MUCH higher than the total heat output of the huicane. This doesnt break the Laws of Thermodynamics as you suggest because the difference in heat enery input and output is explained by all the other types of energy that the kinetic energy converts to. Total energy beforehand and afterwards is equal, as always, but HEAT energy is not. Thus as the heat energy is converted to other forms of energy due to a huricane it should as Pape suggested reduce temperature of the water that spawned it. Sure, if heat didnt change into other forms of energy, earth would be INCREDIBLY hot by now.

Aenlic

09-02-2005, 15:57

The Earth is not a closed system, contrary to some assumptions. It continually radiates heat into space. That heat loss is replaced - at the surface - by the heat under the crust in small part and mostly by the heat from the sun. The Earth is, however, still cooling down. It will eventually, without outside events affecting it, cool down completely. The process of cooling down will likely take longer than the sun has remaining in a stable condition. The sun, however, will reach the end of its current cycle and will nova before the Earth cools all the way. The Earth is also slowing in its rotation. This is because the Earth-moon orbital period is not the same period as the Earth's rotation. Eventually, the moon could slow the Earth's rotation down and increase the length of the day by as much as 50 times. But, again, the sun's cycle will end first. One effect of the slowing of the Earth's rotation, is that the heavier and denser core spins faster than the crust and mantle. This is because the slowing effect of the Earth-moon orbit affects the outer portion first. The difference in spin causes enormous friction - and heat. The heat has to go somewhere; so it comes to the surface, replacing heat lost to space.

It is terribly simplistic, and completely wrong, to try and describe the heat exchange between warm seas and hurricanes as a closed system.

Red Harvest

09-02-2005, 23:46

It shows no such thing. The bulk of temperature increases in the last hundred years occurred early in the first part of the century, while man-made CO2 emissions have by far occurred in recent years without corresponding increases in temps. The computer models the predict catostrophic warming in the future are consistently wrong when it comes to this.

Yes it does.

And of course there is the sea level change corresponding to it:
Sea level change (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm)

Man has had an impact on CO2 for over 100 years, it is just the last 100 years that have actually exceeded the previous 400,000 yr ice core maximimums. Man has been burning extensively for heating for a long time: wood, coal, peat. There was also burning for land clearing and crops--although the ag aspects are not ones I've studied. The rate of change was certainly less before and I'm not quite sure where man's activities would have been considered to have created a substantial departure from the planetary norm...until the last 100 years, which becomes quite clear. The change over the past 100 years matches pretty well with CO2 trend wise and amounts to 0.8 C in the charts I've looked at.

There should be lag in the system. How much? That isn't clear to me.

Not sure what you are talking about with respect to computer models? Are you talking about the ones of deniers using the miscalculated data from Spencer and Christy? Most of the info I look up anymore points to their "refutation" of the temperature trends. This is ironic since they have produced erroneous junk science that ignored several pieces of other major trends suggesting they were incorrect.

The main problem with any computer modeling now is that the RISING CO2 is out of any norms, and this forces extrapolation. Anyone that does simulation will tell you that extrapolation is dangerous. However, that doesn't made the TREND wrong in most cases. Instead, it makes the errors higher.

So the deniers continue to defend the *unsafe* "ignore it all" approach, while others of us are concerned about data that shows we are in unknown waters and headed farther out to sea ever more rapidly right for what past experience suggests will be a storm. Forgive us if we think the Captain has lost his friggin' mind.