Re: Katrina and global warming
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
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:
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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:
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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/dat...7929-2_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)
Re: Katrina and global warming
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:
Quote:
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartix
~: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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
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
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
From an article entitled "Katrina and Disgusting Exploitation"
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
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:
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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:
Re: Katrina and global warming
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
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.
Re: Katrina and global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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
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.
