Turns Out That Global Warming Isn't Just A Liberal Conspiracy After All

[Nbadan]

The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/t1.time.cover.sun26.jpg
Think of the polar Bears!!


(Time.com) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html)

So now it turns out that there has been a consorted effort by the oil and coal industry to confuse people (like Vashner and GTown) on the real facts of the existance of global warming, and why green-house gases are at their highest-level ever.

:rolleyes

[Sec24Row7]

Hey, if all the ice melts like these guys are saying it will, we can fully explore for Oil in Antarctica and Exploit the Oil fields we KNOW are there and that are bigger than the Arabian Peninsula reserves in Siberia.

Win/Win

[Oh, Gee!!]

except we'll all be dead

[MannyIsGod]

except we'll all be deadActually, there are lots of positives that could come from a warmer planet. However, all you ever hear about are the doomsday predictions and the negative aspects of climate change.

After reading a lot more about climate change over the past few years, I'm no where near convinced it is a man made phenomenon. I know the rise in CO2 is man made, but I'm not sure (and no one expect uninformed people or people with agendas is) it is the primary factor or even a large factor in climate change.

[spurster]

Not just a liberal conspiracy? Do you mean its a gay conspiracy, too?

[DarkReign]

Time magazine will be ripped as liberal bullshit not to be believed by any self-respecting Conservative.

wait for it.

Wait for iiiiiiit....

[Oh, Gee!!]

I blame illegal immigrants

[Sec24Row7]

I'm not saying that we CAN'T have an affect on the climate.

I'm just saying that no one knows wheather CO2 levels are a cause or effect of a warmer climate.

Obviously we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the form of emissions, but there have been times on earth that C02 levels were much higher.

A warmer planet = more vegetation = more CO2 output.

Meh... who knows?

Are we the cause of more than 5-10% of the warming?

I've got to say that most of the evidence points to no.

Do I think reducing emissions is a bad Idea? Hell no. I hate places like Mexico City and Santiago, Chile for that exact reason. Smog Suuucks.

You just arent saving your kid's snow days by buying a hybrid.


As for this being a liberal conspiracy... no... It's just all out stupidity by everyone involved.

[DarkReign]

All those cities and you forgot LA. Intentional?

[Sec24Row7]

I don't go to LA.

Laker fans, Talking Mice, and Movie stars.

Nothing to see there...

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not saying that we CAN'T have an affect on the climate.

I'm just saying that no one knows wheather CO2 levels are a cause or effect of a warmer climate.

Obviously we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the form of emissions, but there have been times on earth that C02 levels were much higher.

A warmer planet = more vegetation = more CO2 output.

Meh... who knows?

Are we the cause of more than 5-10% of the warming?

I've got to say that most of the evidence points to no.

Do I think reducing emissions is a bad Idea? Hell no. I hate places like Mexico City and Santiago, Chile for that exact reason. Smog Suuucks.

You just arent saving your kid's snow days by buying a hybrid.


As for this being a liberal conspiracy... no... It's just all out stupidity by everyone involved.If you want to make a point, you might want to try to phrase it a little better because I honestly have no earthly idea what the hell you're trying to say.

I do know this, the current rise in CO2 levels in the atmostphere can only be attributed to one thing. Man.

[Sec24Row7]

Emissions are causing the majority of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

At times on earth CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now.

Man wasn't around then.

We don't know if geologically historic highs in CO2 are a cause or effect of the earth getting warmer.

It would make sense that an atmosphere with more CO2 in it would support more plant life.

[Nbadan]

Well, if you like much deadlier, more destructive hurricanes, maybe a few earthquakes to go along with it, likely this year, and drought, or even worse, severe flash-flooding and tornados, the likes of which have been rarely seen, the sea dying and all the creatures along with it, frogs and other amphibians along with arctic inhabitants like the polar bear, vanishing, then I suppose global warming could be a good thing!

:vomit

[Crookshanks]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh my, whatever will we do? Global warming is just the latest doomsday scenario.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if you like much deadlier, more destructive hurricanes, maybe a few earthquakes to go along with it, likely this year, and drought, or even worse, severe flash-flooding and tornados, the likes of which have been rarely seen, the sea dying and all the creatures along with it, frogs and other amphibians along with arctic inhabitants like the polar bear, vanishing, then I suppose global warming could be a good thing!

:vomitEarthquakes due to global warming as well now?

Secondly, the recent hurrican seasons are not directly related to climate change and the vast majorirty of meterologists/climatologists will tell you the same thing, so that argument flies out the door.

Third, flash flooding and drougth have always been an issue in some part of the world and I've seen no studies linking increases in either catagory to climate change. Feel free to provide me some. The same goes for tornados.

Third, I've seen no studies linking current species extinction to climate change. Once again, feel free to provide some. In fact, actions such as deforestation are by FAR in the lead as a cause of species extinction, so you might as well save your breath.

Dan, if you want to have a debate on this, I'm game, but you better bring something more than political bullshit from either side of the aisle and come with studies and facts because I'm not going to buy into anything less. You're quick hit posts with lots of flair but little substance are full of shit. You just linked earthquakes and climate change!!!!! Why can't people stick to the facts instead of throwing unproven bullshit out there? There is plenty of information on climate change and it is undenable, but how in the hell do people get away with linking plate techtonics with atmospheric sciences?

[Sec24Row7]

Well, if you like much deadlier, more destructive hurricanes, maybe a few earthquakes to go along with it, likely this year, and drought, or even worse, severe flash-flooding and tornados, the likes of which have been rarely seen, the sea dying and all the creatures along with it, frogs and other amphibians along with arctic inhabitants like the polar bear, vanishing, then I suppose global warming could be a good thing!

:vomit



Get your head out of your ass.

The most biodiverse times on the planet have been when there were very little or no Ice caps. The earth and it's climate are in a constant state of change. Species die out every day of natural occurences. No amount of human effort is going to stop the tide of evolution, plate tectonics, climate change, rotational slowing or solar aging.

Just isn't going to happen.

"Oh my god the earth is warming save the polar bear"

Well shit man... when we werent around and the earth got warmer after an ice age what saved the thing that lived there before the polar bear?

Nothing. It either died out, or turned into something else.

That's life.

Litteraly, that ecompasses everything I just said. "That's Life". If that wasn't life, then we wouldnt have multiple cell organisms. If there was no ability to adapt or evolve, we just wouldn't fucking be here.

So...

Deal with it.

[Sec24Row7]

Earthquakes due to global warming as well now?

Secondly, the recent hurrican seasons are not directly related to climate change and the vast majorirty of meterologists/climatologists will tell you the same thing, so that argument flies out the door.

Third, flash flooding and drougth have always been an issue in some part of the world and I've seen no studies linking increases in either catagory to climate change. Feel free to provide me some. The same goes for tornados.

Third, I've seen no studies linking current species extinction to climate change. Once again, feel free to provide some. In fact, actions such as deforestation are by FAR in the lead as a cause of species extinction, so you might as well save your breath.

Dan, if you want to have a debate on this, I'm game, but you better bring something more than political bullshit from either side of the aisle and come with studies and facts because I'm not going to buy into anything less. You're quick hit posts with lots of flair but little substance are full of shit. You just linked earthquakes and climate change!!!!! Why can't people stick to the facts instead of throwing unproven bullshit out there? There is plenty of information on climate change and it is undenable, but how in the hell do people get away with linking plate techtonics with atmospheric sciences?


Actually Manny earthquakes happen because of glacial retreat all the time. The ice compresses the ground beneath it, and when the glacier retreats there are tens of thousands of years of "rebound". Little tremors are vastly different from earthquakes on tectonic boundaries though. The canadian Shield up north is still rebounding at some rate a year from the miles of Ice that were on top of it.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually Manny earthquakes happen because of glacial retreat all the time. The ice compresses the ground beneath it, and when the glacier retreats there are tens of thousands of years of "rebound". Little tremors are vastly different from earthquakes on tectonic boundaries though. The canadian Shield up north is still rebounding at some rate a year from the miles of Ice that were on top of it.I'm guessing these are very small on the richter scale and not very significant?

[nkdlunch]

Actually, there are lots of positives that could come from a warmer planet.

:lmao dude global warming doesn't mean it's gonna be a few degrees warmer in the summer. It means a lot more instability in the weather, or harsher( a lot harsher) climate events like drought, hurricanes, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

The IPCC isn't an objective body but they even admit positive aspects to climate change:



- increases in crop yields in some mid-latitude regions with temperature increases up to two to three degrees Celsius;
- potential increase in timber supplies from managed forests;
- increased water availability in regions such as southeast Asia; and
- reduced winter mortality in high latitude regions.


Don't you want to reduce world hunger dan? Don't you want to stop deforestation so we can save species Dan? Don't you want people to have water Dan? Don't you want people to live Dan?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao dude global warming doesn't mean it's gonna be a few degrees warmer in the summer. It means a lot more instability in the weather, or harsher( a lot harsher) climate events like drought, hurricanes, etc.Oh, is that what it means? Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't know shit about cilmate change, maybe you could teach me some more?

[mookie2001]

Actually, there are lots of positives that could come from a warmer planet

esshhhh
I guess I don't want people to live

[Sec24Row7]

Well, it depends. I think they have attributed some of the little earthquakes going on in Greenland to glacial melt. There hasn't been a big one recorded.

1's and 2's. Maybe a 3.

But who knows?

When you compress something like Rock and it's inherent compositional variations, first of all it isn't going to compress evenly so that will create fractures.

Secondly when you take the weight off of it that compressed it, it isn't going to DECOMPRESS evenly because of composition AND the fractures that were created.

Someone could build a scenario where a larger type quake happend because of decompression.

Would it happen in the real world?

Dunno.

I haven't ever heard of one.

[nkdlunch]

Oh, is that what it means? Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't know shit about cilmate change, maybe you could teach me some more?

wish I had the time man. Read up on it.

[MannyIsGod]

wish I had the time man. Read up on it.I should have included [/scarcasm] .

[Sec24Row7]

As for Hurricanes... Adapt... You know they are coming... don't live there...

If you do live there... leave before it gets there...

Don't be that idiot from Austin Powers standing in front of the steam roller.

Warmer water increases frequency and ferocity of Hurricanes.

Nothing we can do to stop the ocean from heating up if it does.

Adapt or die.

I choose adapt.

Make your own choice.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it depends. I think they have attributed some of the little earthquakes going on in Greenland to glacial melt. There hasn't been a big one recorded.

1's and 2's. Maybe a 3.

But who knows?

When you compress something like Rock and it's inherent compositional variations, first of all it isn't going to compress evenly so that will create fractures.

Secondly when you take the weight off of it that compressed it, it isn't going to DECOMPRESS evenly because of composition AND the fractures that were created.

Someone could build a scenario where a larger type quake happend because of decompression.

Would it happen in the real world?

Dunno.

I haven't ever heard of one.Ok, so if someone builds a city where a glacier currently is after the melt we could have a large earthquake as an issue even though there is no recorded history of such an event.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Sec24Row7]

Exactly...

I would be more worried about the pine tree groing so fast in the soil that was under 2 miles of ice before the melt that it impales you.

[MannyIsGod]

As for Hurricanes... Adapt... You know they are coming... don't live there...

If you do live there... leave before it gets there...

Don't be that idiot from Austin Powers standing in front of the steam roller.

Warmer water increases frequency and ferocity of Hurricanes.

Nothing we can do to stop the ocean from heating up.

Adapt or die.

I choose adapt.

Make your own choice.More myths. Warmer SSTs do not increase the frequency of hurricanes. SST have been linked to the intensity of hurricanes, but they are only one of the many factors that attribute to a hurricanes strength.

Last years hurricane season was just as attributable to a lack of winds in the tropics which allowed low pressure system formation as it was to higher SSTs. In addtion, there is a natural pattern of increased hurricane activity that we have entered which involves larger cycles that has absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm bored, someone step up to the plate.

[Sec24Row7]

Excuse me, I meant ferocity. The amount of systems kicked off of africa that have the potential to become hurricanes are unrelated.

I think you will find though, that % of storms that are kicked off that become hurricane stregth goes up because of higher water temperature.

[1369]

One thing I found interesting in the condensed CNN online story is that ocean temps are reaching what was recorded 130,000 years ago. While, like Manny, I've always been skeptical about human influence (I just think while we have contributed, it is not as large of an impact as others would have us believe), I wonder what that recorded history can tell us as to what can be expected in the near future.

[Sec24Row7]

We just don't know.

That's the entire point.

700 years ago the earth was warm... then cooled Waaaay down for 300 years then warmed back up.

I think we are in for more warming personally and I think you can determine how hot it is going to be by looking directly at the heat lamp that is 93 million miles away.

Increased solar activity?

Warmer.

Decreased?

Colder.

Not really hard to figure out.

Find out what the sun is going to do next and you'll know how warm it is going to be.

[MannyIsGod]

Excuse me, I meant ferocity. The amount of systems kicked off of africa that have the potential to become hurricanes are unrelated.

I think you will find though, that % of storms that are kicked off that become hurricane stregth goes up because of higher water temperature.No. SSTs play a much larger role once a hurricane has already formed. The most important factor early in a tropical cyclones life is wind shear or lack there of rather.

Take look at the storm that hit Portugal last year. It was in water that was colder than what hurricanes are supposed to be able to form in, yet it was sustained by atmostpheric conditions that overcame the water tempatures. The name of the storm escapes me, but it is a good example of how many factors there are that go far beyond surface heating of the ocean.

[MannyIsGod]

One thing I found interesting in the condensed CNN online story is that ocean temps are reaching what was recorded 130,000 years ago. While, like Manny, I've always been skeptical about human influence (I just think while we have contributed, it is not as large of an impact as others would have us believe), I wonder what that recorded history can tell us as to what can be expected in the near future.I know humans have influenced the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Thats pretty much undoutbable. But the way climate change is presented is pure bullshit most of the time.

[Sec24Row7]

Ok, I'll have to read up on that. Makes sense, because you have huge some of the biggest storms on earth up north where the water is pretty freaking cold. But water temperature is an integral part of the system for strengthening a hurricane in the gulf. I'll have to look back... I believe you agreed there.

I believe in superstorms. I mean... we really dont have that much of a control. Recorded history is very short in the grand scheme of things and there are storm deposits in the rock record that must have been created by things MUCH greater than what we have seen.

Who knows the symphony of events that have to be in tune to create one of these things?

[Nbadan]

Earthquakes due to global warming as well now?

It's all very complicated and will make your head spin, but increased CO2 levels have changed the earth's rotation around the sun..



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png/250px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year. ice age cycle.



Secondly, the recent hurrican seasons are not directly related to climate change and the vast majorirty of meterologists/climatologists will tell you the same thing, so that argument flies out the door.

:lol Your contention here is laughable. Especially since we ran out of named hurricanes last season. The truth is we don't know exactly how warmer climate affects things like wind sheer which feed and guide hurricanes, but what we do know is that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius and we had a record number of deadly hurricanes. Excuse me it I don't fall for your pseudo-intellectual, meterology mombo-jumbo bullshit like the 'Boobs' in the Club, but I'll believe my eyes over your opinion any day of the week.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/QUOTE]

[xrayzebra]

Well, if you like much deadlier, more destructive hurricanes, maybe a few earthquakes to go along with it, likely this year, and drought, or even worse, severe flash-flooding and tornados, the likes of which have been rarely seen, the sea dying and all the creatures along with it, frogs and other amphibians along with arctic inhabitants like the polar bear, vanishing, then I suppose global warming could be a good thing!

:vomit

Mother Nature is not going to like what you are saying about her. Dumb butt
it isn't humans what is causing what is going on but just nature. Funny,
you will accept evolution, except when it comes to evolution, then it is all
us humans that cause the problems. Ever heard of the Ice Age?

[xrayzebra]

It's all very complicated and will make your head spin, but increased CO2 levels have changed the earth's rotation around the sun..



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png/250px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year. ice age cycle.



:lol Your contention here is laughable. Especially since we ran out of named hurricanes last season. The truth is we don't know exactly how warmer climate affects things like wind sheer which feed and guide hurricanes, but what we do know is that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius and we had a record number of deadly hurricanes. Excuse me it I don't fall for your pseudo-intellectual, meterology mombo-jumbo bullshit like the 'Boobs' in the Club, but I'll believe my eyes over your opinion any day of the week.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/QUOTE]


I cant believe you posted this crap. You cant possibly believe this.

[Nbadan]

I cant believe you posted this crap. You cant possibly believe this.

:rolleyes

All the links and cooresponding supporting data can be found on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

[smeagol]

Global warming is a myth.

At least if I believe the phrase above, I don't feel guitly driving around in my Tahoe.

[MannyIsGod]

How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes - in other words - is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?

During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry.


http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_6



How do hurricanes vary during warm and cool AMO cycles?
The AMO is thought to strongly influence the incidence of intense hurricanes, which more than double during the years when the warm phase of the AMO. For example, an average of 1.5 intense (category 3, 4, and 5) hurricanes per year formed in the Atlantic during the last cool phase of the AMO, 1970-1994, while 4.1 intense hurricanes/year formed during the current warm phase (1995 - 2005). The number of tropical storms and weak hurricanes do not change much between cool and warm AMO periods.

What causes the AMO, and can we predict it?
The causes of the AMO are not well-understood, but some "coupled" computer models that simulate the behavior of both the atmosphere and the ocean are beginning to shed light on this. One of the leading theories is that changes in the ocean's salt content causes a speed up or slow down of the Gulf Stream, due to the fact that density differences between lighter fresh water and heavier salty water drive weaker and stronger ocean currents, respectively. This circulation (called the "thermohaline circulation") is thought to cause the warm phase of the AMO and warmer Atlantic SSTs when it speeds up, and cooler SSTs and a cool AMO phase when it slows down. It is also possible, but less likely, that changes in atmospheric circulation cause the AMO. We are a long way from being able to predict when a particular phase of the AMO will begin or end. The last warm phase lasted for 44 years. The current cycle began in 1995, so it may not be until 2040 that the current active period of hurricane activity dies down.

What influence does global warming have on the AMO?
Since the instrument record extends back for only two cycles of the AMO, it is difficult to say if the record warmth in the current AMO cycle is unusual. It has been observed that the tropical North Atlantic SSTs have warmed approximately 0.3°C over the past 100 years due to global warming. However, the current thinking of climate experts is that global warming should act to dump increased fresh water into the North Atlantic and reduce the speed of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. This would lead to a decrease in Atlantic SSTs, and a reduction of intense hurricanes. Either global warming hasn't acted to dump enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to affect the thermohaline circulation, or else the theory is wrong!


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=265&tstamp=200512



Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University, who is famous for his successful long-range hurricane predictions and nearly 50 years of hurricane research and forecasting, submitted his critique to Science for publication, but the journal rejected it, since the document had already been published (on Dr. Gray's web site). Journals typically do not publish material that has been published elsewhere. In his abstract, Dr. Gray says: "I do not agree that global Category 4-5 tropical cyclone activity has been rising, except in the Atlantic over the last 11 years. The recent Atlantic upsurge has explanations other than global temperature rise".

Dr. Chris Landsea, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, chaired a standing-room only session exploring the hurricanes/global warming connection at the 2006 meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He presented a talk with additional evidence supporting Dr. Gray's position.

Dr. John Knaff, a hurricane researcher at the NOAA/Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Colorado State University, has performed an extensive re-analysis of Northwest Pacific typhoons, and questions the intensity estimates used by Webster et al. for typhoons during the period 1966-1987. His paper, "Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind-Pressure Relationships" has been accepted for publication to Weather and Forecasting, and will probably be published in late 2006.


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

My opinion? No dumbass, their opinions.

[Sec24Row7]

Good reading Manny, thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Your contention here is laughable. Especially since we ran out of named hurricanes last season. The truth is we don't know exactly how warmer climate affects things like wind sheer which feed and guide hurricanes, but what we do know is that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius and we had a record number of deadly hurricanes.
A total non sequitor. But I tell you what Dan, provide me with the views of respected meterologists or climatologists who study hurricanes and see link. Your opinion and my opinion don't really matter but the opinions of people who are actually out there studying these things do.

So find some legitimate studies or scientists providing theories on the link that provide proof and we'll debate it here. No spin, no bullshit name calling, just science.

Ok?

[Nbadan]

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/images/slp_all_w_cat.png


The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

The results shown in Figure 1 are based on a simulation study carried out by Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). In this study hurricanes were simulated for a climate warming as projected to occur with a substantial build-up of atmospheric CO2. An increase of intensity of about one-half category on the Saffir-Simpson scale was simulated for an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded).

Respected Scientific Opinon over that of Shill Meterologists, Imagine that (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html)

[Sec24Row7]

NM he's back with more bogus science.







The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

The results shown in Figure 1 are based on a simulation study carried out by Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). In this study hurricanes were simulated for a climate warming as projected to occur with a substantial build-up of atmospheric CO2. An increase of intensity of about one-half category on the Saffir-Simpson scale was simulated for an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded).

Doc Brown has a Delorian that goes 88 mph that is just as useful as their simulator project.

[MannyIsGod]

La Niña continues to influence our weather, and has strengthened some in the past month, according the the latest discussion issued today by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. They predict that La Niña will continue at least until June, and probably into October. If this prediction holds true, we are likely to see another very active hurricane season in the Atlantic, as wind shear is typically quite low over the Atlantic during La Niña conditions. Dr. Bill Gray's forecast (issued December 6) is calling for 17 tropical storms (average is 11), 9 hurricanes (average is 6), and 5 intense hurricanes (average is 2-3). It will be interesting to see if the stronger than expected La Niña conditions will cause him to raise his numbers in his forthcoming April 4 forecast for the 2006 hurricane season. The NOAA hurricane forecast will be issued in mid-May.


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?tstamp=200603

[Nbadan]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/global_warming/graph_hurricaneintensity.gif


A 2005 study published in the journal Nature suggests that storm intensity and duration is linked to the recent ocean warming trends associated with global warming. Scientists tracked measurements of the destructive power of storms, termed the Power Dissipation Index (PDI), since 1950. The study, which combined each storm’s maximum wind speeds and storm duration, found that during the last 30 years, the destructive power of storms has doubled in the Atlantic and Pacific.¹

Most of this has occurred during the past 10 years when global average surface ocean temperatures were at record levels. Thus far, scientific evidence does not link worldwide storm frequency with global warming. Individual ocean basins have multiyear cycles of storm activity. While the total number of storms in the tropics remained similar through time, the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased over the past 30 years, according to a 2005 paper in the journal Science.

Union Of Concerned Scientist (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html)

[MannyIsGod]

Wait, did you just say the opinions of the people I posted are not respected? Chris Landsea was a memeber of the International Panel on Climate Change or the leading reasearch body in regards to global warming. Dr Gray is probably the best Hurricane forecaster in the world.

The studies that you linked to are viewed in a very critical light on the pages I linked to, but I'll provide you with the actual information as to why.




An 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes? Not!

Here's where the critics of Webster et al. differ. Let's look at the criticisms one ocean basin at a time. First: the Southern Hemisphere oceans, and the part of the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere. These regions are responsible for 25% of the world's Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Dr. Gray criticizes the quality of the data in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere ocean basins during the period 1975-1989, remarking: "In the late 1970s I visited all the global tropical cyclone centers and observed their satellite capabilities and the training of their forecasters as part of a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) tropical cyclone trip that I was commissioned to make. The satellite tools and forecaster training in the tropical cyclone regions of the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere during the 1975-1989 period was not adequate for the task of objectively distinguishing Category 4-5 hurricanes from Category 3 hurricanes or to always be able to confidently distinguish Category 4-5 hurricanes from Category 1-2 hurricanes." Dr. Gray does not provide any details about how how this lack of training could have led to a systematic error in classifying too few storms at Category 4 and 5 intensity. However, Dr. Landsea did cite an example of this in his talk at the 2006 American Meteorological Society meeting--for a number of years after 1974's Tropical Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, the Australians never assigned an intensity higher than Tracy to any storm because they believed Tracy was the strongest a storm could be in the Australian region. Tracy was a weak Category 4 cyclone with 135 mph winds and a 954 mb pressure. This was a false assumption, as many cyclones stronger than Tracy have formed in Australian waters.

This brings up the most serious weakness in the Webster et al. paper--they do very little discussion of the uncertainty in hurricane intensity measurements. Hurricane intensity is characterized by a 1-minute measurement of maximum sustained winds at ten meters above the surface. In practice, this quantity is virtually never measured, but must be inferred indirectly from other measurements. All of these inferred measurements of wind speeds have errors. Satellite estimates of hurricane intensity are often wrong by a full category on the Saffir-Simpson scale--or even two categories. This is particularly true when there are only two geostationary satellites covering the Earth, as was the case for much of the 1970s, and part of the 1980s. I learned this the hard way during my stint with the Hurricane Hunters when I flew into Hurricane Hugo in 1989 expecting a Category 3 hurricane based on satellite estimates. The problem was that one of the GOES satellites had failed earlier that year, leaving just one satellite to cover all of the U.S. and Atlantic Ocean. This one satellite was positioned much farther west in order to see all the way to California, and thus had a poor, oblique view of hurricanes out over the Atlantic. If a satellite can't see all the way to the bottom of the eye of a hurricane because of an oblique viewing angle, it will come up with an eye temperature that is too cool, and thus an intensity estimate that is too low. Hugo turned out to be a Category 5, and made us pay dearly for our mistake. Similarly, a systematic underestimation of hurricane intensities in the 1970s is quite possible, due to the oblique viewing angle that the relatively few geostationary satellites afforded during that period.

Furthermore, Dr. Landsea argued, the technique used to perform satellite estimation in all ocean basins of hurricane intensity (the Dvorak technique) did not even get invented until 1972--two years after the start of the data used by Webster et al. It wasn't until 1984 that the Dvorak technique was extended to infrared satellite imagery. So, between 1972 and 1984, all satellite hurricane intensity estimates were done on visible satellite imagery, and were unavailable at night. In addition, measurement errors from the first generation of infrared satellite instruments was much higher, since their resolution was a relatively poor 9 km--compared to the 4 km resolution of today's instruments. Dr. Landsea called for a major re-analysis effort of the old satellite photos from the 1970s and 1980s to try to quantify some of these errors. He argued that his preliminary look at old satellite images from the Northern Indian Ocean from 1970 to 1989 had already revealed five additional storms that may have been Category 4 or 5. Webster et al. found only one Category 4 or 5 hurricane for this time period there. Dr. Landsea suggested that until a full re-analysis took place in all ocean basins, the quality of the historical global hurricane intensity data was not high enough to be able to see a possible increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.



Figure 5. Number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Indian Ocean and Southwest Pacific Ocean (off the east coast of Australia) since 1970. A a rather dramatic rise in recent years is apparent. Data from 1970-2002 are taken from a reanalysis of available data from Australia, Fiji, and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, done by Charlie Neumann. All the data used in the Webster et al. study are available from Dr. Judith Curry's web page.

Dr. Holland spoke after Dr. Landsea, and agreed that a major re-analysis effort was needed in order to help quantify some of the errors in hurricane intensities. He rebutted Dr. Landsea's arguments by pointing out that given the very large rise in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Oceans, about 50% of all Category 1 and 2 hurricanes would have to be re-analyzed as Category 4 and 5 storms to invalidate their results in that region. While acknowledging the the data was bad in the 1970s, he maintained that nobody thought it was that bad.

Summary of the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean data

If we restrict ourselves to just looking at the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean data since 1989--the date when everyone agrees that the data quality is reasonable--there is not enough data to be sure of any kind of trend (Figure 5). So until better intensity estimates of hurricanes in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere ocean basins from 1970-1989 are available, one should view the results of Webster et al. with caution for these regions. Still, there is such a large increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes that it is unlikely that re-analysis will find that all of this increase in unreal.

[spurster]

I guess it is progress that the argument has changed from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming is good for you".

[Sec24Row7]

No self respecting scientist could ever tell you that the earth has never warmed up before.

They will tell you that HUMANITY DRIVEN global warming is a myth.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, You keep linking to pages that cite the Webster study, but that study has serious flaws!!!!


This paper’s conclusions are partially based on an analysis of poorly documented and
biased tropical cyclone (TC) maximum wind (Vmax) data from the Northwest (NW)
Pacific. This study presents a sum of each tropical cyclone’s maximum winds - a very
hard measurement to realistically obtain over a 3-5 decade period of changing
maximum wind measurement techniques. The author then cubes these maximum wind
speeds (Vmax
3) of questionable accuracy. Such a cubing process greatly exaggerates
any errors in the original Vmax estimate. For instance, a TC with a 40 ms-1 maximum
wind speed and a plus/minus 10% margin of error (44 m/s versus 36 m/s) in Vmax wind
leads to a 80 percent high vs. low difference in Vmax
3.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Responses/emanuel_comments.pdf

The initial errors in the data are exponintialy greater in the study because of the computation methods.

[smeagol]

I guess it is progress that the argument has changed from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming is good for you".
I say, who needs all that ice in Antartica anyways?

[Oh, Gee!!]

We should turn the Rain Forest into a parking lot for our Yukons and Hummers.

[MannyIsGod]

More on the errors and omission of the Webster study



This is a clearly written article by very well-respected scientists. There are, however, several substantive issues with the study. First, an informative figure illustrating the maximum potential for hurricanes as a function of SST was described by a 1988 paper by Robert Merrill entitled “Environmental Influences on Hurricane Intensification” (see Figure 2 in that paper). This research was completed for the Atlantic hurricane region, but the SST thresholds should be the same for the other basins. As presented in that paper, Category 4 and 5 hurricanes require sea surface temperatures (SST) of over 27°Celsius. Thus the criteria that should be examined are anomalies in SST that result in increases of temperatures above the 27°C criteria. Category 5 hurricanes require temperatures 28°C. Has the area of SST above these thresholds increased, for example?

The Webster et al. Science article actually present a range of SST values during the respective hurricane seasons for the different hurricane basins in Figure 1 of their paper. These range from around 29.5°C for the north Indian Ocean to around 27.5°C for the north Atlantic and eastern Pacific Ocean basins. Such an analysis suggests that regardless of SST temperature trends, the north Indian Ocean should have a greater porportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Clearly, there are other factors besides SST that determine the ability of the tropical cyclones to attain Category 4 and 5 intensities as we discussed in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society. John Wiley and Sons, England, 279 pp, and Pielke, R.A., 1990: The hurricane. Routledge Press, London, England, 228 pp. Indeed, it is rare for the hurricane to attain its maximum intensity due to other limitiations. The Science article is silent on the relation between the different SSTs in the different hurricane regions with respect to the proportion that reach category 4 and 5 intensities.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=53

Same page but further down...


Finally, the same analysis, as shown by Pat Michaels (Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection), when applied to an earlier time period (starting in 1945) than in the Webster et al. Science study, indicates that a high proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes also occurred then. Webster et al. is clear as to why they chose to use the more recent era with the better data coverage. However, coverage for the Atlantic basin, for instance, is quite good since 1945 and should have been assessed against the more recent time period. The Michaels communication ideally should have been submitted to Science as a comment, so that Webster et al. would need to respond. Nonetheless, it highlights an important issue that needs to be resolved as to whether Webster et al. are analyzing the upward portion of a cyclic behavior of hurricane intensities or a real much longer-term trend.


They only took the recent information for the North Atlantic regardless of a longer running line of information for that region. However, the AMO which I mentioned before has only recently been trending upwards so the same timeframe is concurrent with an upwards swing in the AMO.

In other words, they took data from an AMO period that was warmer and are attirbuting the affect on hurricanes to something other than the AMO without comparing it to a time when the AMO was in a cooler period. It is selective data!

[MannyIsGod]

You guys can keep spouting off your cute little anacdotes or provide actual data. It is up to you.

[DarkReign]

lol

[MannyIsGod]

et’s put that in perspective. Last year, Thomas Knutson and Robert Tuleya published a modeling study showing that a 2.0ºC increase in SST maximum hurricane wind speed of about 6 percent over eighty years. That’s ten times the non-AMO warming. That means global warming is likely to be responsible, right now, for, at best, an increase of about 0.6% in hurricane wind speeds—raising a decent hurricane of 120mph to 120.7mph, a change too small to measure.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/10/31/hurricanes-and-global-warming-do-not-believe-the-hype/

[Sec24Row7]

Hehehe.

You a Meteorologist?

What got you so into weather and hurricane intensity?

[Nbadan]

Chris Landsea was a memeber of the International Panel on Climate Change or the leading reasearch body in regards to global warming.

Yeah, until he resigned....quitter...

Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization
Thomas R. Knutson
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey
Robert E. Tuleya
Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia



Previous studies have found that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. The present study explores the sensitivity of this result to the choice of climate model used to define the CO2-warmed environment and to the choice of convective parameterization used in the nested regional model that simulates the hurricanes. Approximately 1300 five-day idealized simulations are performed using a higher-resolution version of the GFDL hurricane prediction system (grid spacing as fine as 9 km, with 42 levels). All storms were embedded in a uniform 5 m s−1 easterly background flow. The large-scale thermodynamic boundary conditions for the experiments— atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles and SSTs—are derived from nine different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP2+) climate models. The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1% yr−1 CO2 increase experiments, range from about +0.8° to +2.4°C in the three tropical storm basins studied. Four different moist convection parameterizations are tested in the hurricane model, including the use of no convective parameterization in the highest resolution inner grid. Nearly all combinations of climate model boundary conditions and hurricane model convection schemes show a CO2-induced increase in both storm intensity and near-storm precipitation rates. The aggregate results, averaged across all experiments, indicate a 14% increase in central pressure fall, a 6% increase in maximum surface wind speed, and an 18% increase in average precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm center. The fractional change in precipitation is more sensitive to the choice of convective parameterization than is the fractional change of intensity. Current hurricane potential intensity theories, applied to the climate model environments, yield an average increase of intensity (pressure fall) of 8% (Emanuel) to 16% (Holland) for the high-CO2 environments. Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is 21% higher on average in the high-CO2 environments. One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

American Meterology Society (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2004)017%3C3477:IOCWOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

[MannyIsGod]

And why did he resign? Because of distortion of data and the use of science not for truth but for the advandcement of poltical data.

And by the way, Knutson says the following in that study


“CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come.”


One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.


So how is it pratical to apply that study to last years hurricane season?

[Vashner]

The ice has melted 4 times before....
That was before man was industrialized. Bush did it... he went back in time with a F250 ford truck.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, the Knutson study used a rate of increased CO2 levels that isn't realistic


Carbon dioxide levels in the modeled atmosphere were increased at a rate of 1 percent per year. That rate led to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 80 years from now (the period Knutson and Tuleya chose to define the future climate conditions) that are more than double the levels of today.

In the real world, the concentration of carbon dioxide is growing at a rate of about 0.45 percent per year—a rate that is less than half of that presumed in the model.

It also provides the ideal environment for hurricane formation as a control. This is fine because everything is even so it will demonstrate a point, but the actual percentages of increased power cannot be applied as an actual prediction. Their study was an example that increased CO2 levels that leading to a warming trend can fuel more powerful storms but just how much is uncertain.

In other words, it may increase the instensity by 1mph on average or 10mph on average depending on how much CO2 increases and other variables.

[MannyIsGod]

To bring it all together...


Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

That is text from the open letter by Chris Landsea explaining why he was quiting the IPCC. It also talks about the Knutson study you are using to prove that climate change has already affected the hurricanes we are seeing.

It points out that the study says that in 2080 - a mear 74 years from now - hurricane intensity would have increased 5%. In otherwords, a 100mph storm today would be 105mph then due to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is hardly the catastrophic storm increase you are trying to make it out to be, Dan. Furthermore, that is 3/4ths of a century IN THE FUTURE after further CO2 buildup. It has NOTHING to do with 2005.


So it all boils down to this Dan.

How does a study that reports a possible 5% increase in storm power by 2080 correspond to prove that 2005's hurricane season was in any way global warming related?

[Nbadan]

We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.

The fact that global warming exists though is now undeniable. All you have to do is look your window at the wimpy winter we just had. Snowfall in the Midwest is way off which could lead to drought in the summer on ranches and farms, lakes in the N.E. which have frozen for decades, no longer freeze, mountain glaciers in serious retreat around the globe which could lead to water shortages. That's what were facing though, add water as yet another scarce commodity to the long list of reasons that we will have much future war and pandemic.

[Sec24Row7]

Nbadan is now property of MannyisGod.

[MannyIsGod]

We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.
You're damn straight. So tell me, why do people - including you - want to present a corrolation as fact????

[MannyIsGod]

Your contention here is laughable. Especially since we ran out of named hurricanes last season. The truth is we don't know exactly how warmer climate affects things like wind sheer which feed and guide hurricanes, but what we do know is that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius and we had a record number of deadly hurricanes.




We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.

Fucking A! The "truth" morphed in half an hour!


The fact that global warming exists though is now undeniable. All you have to do is look your window at the wimpy winter we just had. Snowfall in the Midwest is way off which could lead to drought in the summer on ranches and farms, lakes in the N.E. which have frozen for decades, no longer freeze, mountain glaciers in serious retreat around the globe which could lead to water shortages. That's what were facing though, add water as yet another scarce commodity to the long list of reasons that we will have much future war and pandemic.

You're so full of non sequitors on this subject that it is flat out hillarious. Climate change is undenaiable, but the past winter proves nothing about climate change. And that is something you fail to understand.

[Marklar MM]

Poor polar bears.

[Nbadan]

You're damn straight. So tell me, why do people - including you - want to present a corrolation as fact????

Blah, people have been lied to some much about the very existence of global warming by paid scientific shill working for the energy lobby that they don't know what to believe anymore on global warming. Even though a proven link has yet to be established, you have to wonder was last year just a statistical anomaly? or is there, in fact, some relation between increased CO2 levels and Hurricane intensity. The future will tell.

I say, don’t buy any coastal property.

[Nbadan]

Fucking A! The "truth" morphed in half an hour!

The weather is unpredictable, but it is a function of larger forces that we have yet to form working scientific/mathmatical models to help us understand. I've added this cavet of unpredictablility in all of my posts.

[spurster]

You guys can keep spouting off your cute little anacdotes or provide actual data. It is up to you.
How about "fiddling while Rome burns"?

The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is melting, Greenland is melting, the sea is rising, and all of this is projected to continue while we nitpick on climate models instead of trying to prevent a global catastrophe.

[Sec24Row7]

WHAT catastrophe?

Prevent it HOW?

Jesus read the thread.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Even if we supose that global warming is only a natural process and there's nothing we can do about it, or that it won't be bad for the planet, there is still the Ozone layer depletion over the Poles. That alone can produce a meltdown of the Polar Ice Caps, without a global warming. Some people think this is bullshit, or conspiracy, tell that to people from Tuvalu, Netherlands, Bangladesh, Maldives, Seychelles, etc.

I'm writing this because I have a feeling that many people say "Oh, global warming isn't our fault, so it's OK to keep polluting the enviroment and killing all animals, we pw3d the bastards, humans rule! yeah!".

[Sec24Row7]

The big animals are going to go away.

There isn't anything we can do about it.

I've spent the majority of my life concerned about the megafauna in Africa, India Asia and the Americas.

I've spent time and money on conservation efforts for them.

We can slow the process, but in the long run, it is a lost cause.

Time is their enemy. As our population increases in their habitats they will slowly be driven into extinction no matter what we do.

The only thing that can save them, is if there is a huge human die off.

Enjoy them. Enjoy the wild they live in. Enjoy your life. Fight against reason for their survival. 200, 300, 1,000 or 2,000 years from now they will all be gone unless something happens to us.

Just typing it makes me sad.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

The big animals are going to go away.

There isn't anything we can do about it.

I've spent the majority of my life concerned about the megafauna in Africa, India Asia and the Americas.

I've spent time and money on conservation efforts for them.

We can slow the process, but in the long run, it is a lost cause.

Time is their enemy. As our population increases in their habitats they will slowly be driven into extinction no matter what we do.

The only thing that can save them, is if there is a huge human die off.

Enjoy them. Enjoy the wild they live in. Enjoy your life. Fight against reason for their survival. 200, 300, 1,000 or 2,000 years from now they will all be gone unless something happens to us.

Just typing it makes me sad.


There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like :pctoss :cuss when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.

[Extra Stout]

(Time.com) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.
This article is a prime reason this stuff doesn't get taken seriously. The global climate is "crashing?" We're in "self-perpetuating collapse?" And their evidence is heat waves, storms, floods, and fires?

Don't these fucking goddamned know-it-all liberal journalists ever open a history book?

The rising sea level is going to be enough of a problem. And history shows that changes in climate can disrupt human settlements. Why do they have to add the alarmist bullshit?

[Extra Stout]

There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like :pctoss :cuss when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.
Starving children in third-world countries have more to do with rampant corruption in those countries than with any problem concerning how the food is grown or distributed.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish people would actualy educated themselves on the subject. I'm so tired of the "save the planet" opinion that has nothing to back it up other than the warm fuzzies someone gets when they march around in a beluga whale costume with a peace sign knit on the front.

#1. In order to "solve" a problem, one must pinpoint the cause. No one has done that in regards to climate change and it is unkown whether the change is prompted by the sun, CO2, or another factor. Yes, many people have latched onto the greenhouse effect theory, but there are plenty of holes in that theory and it is far from being prooven - even in a theoretical sense.

#2. If it is CO2, you can't really stop it.

#3. If you're really worried about world hunger, read up on the side effects of having large regions of artic area thaw. Say hello to a knew breadbasket.









TIME IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

[MannyIsGod]

Global warming is a myth.

At least if I believe the phrase above, I don't feel guitly driving around in my Tahoe.
If global warming is a indeed caused by CO2 emissions, you think you contributed less CO2 than the average resident of the planet earth? Because, you're in America so I doubt it. Tahoe's aren't the only ones distributing C02.

How does that make you feel? Do you still feel superior to Tahoe drivers?

[MannyIsGod]

From this study:

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming.


The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.

[Extra Stout]

Nbadan is now property of MannyisGod.
Nbadan is not interested in honest intellectual discussion. He's interested in partisan ideological demagoguery. Carry on.

[Sec24Row7]

There is a huge contradiction in this world, when there is enough food produced to feed the entire population and there are starving children in many countries. What am I trying to say? That animals wouldn't be driven to extinction if we had a different distribution of food. I'm not talking about distribution of wealth, just food. I just feel like :pctoss :cuss when there are places where food is thrown into the garbage and other places where children don't eat for weeks.

It's not about hunger, it's about population and time. In fact, bountiful food for everyone would increase the process becauase the population explosion would be steady. Starving children in Africa actually gives respite to animals because we can put laws and enforcement in place to slow down the local poachers from meat hunting. As long as the environment is still there the animals can bounce back the way they were. If you have a bazillion new people that go move into an uninhabited area or that need firewood... that is what creates the problem that isn't as easily solved.

Anything that curbs human population gives the megafauna more time. Disease (AIDS may play a huge role), Famine and Natural disaster.

War is another story though. Nothing cleans out the environment of animals faster than giving 150,000 people automatic weapons and a short supply of food.

As an animal lover, how can you root for AIDS or famine though? You just can't. In the long run it is either us or them, and you are crazy to take any other side but your own.

[Nbadan]

Nbadan is not interested in honest intellectual discussion. He's interested in partisan ideological demagoguery. Carry on.

No, Manny, in his over-zeal ness on this topic, seems to be the only one now debating with himself minute details about something we know, scientifically/mathematically/statistically, which every way he wants it, is going on...he keeps posting these sun spot articles, and any study, or articles, no-doubt sponsored by the energy industry, which attempt to debunk any theory relating CO2 emissions, Global-warming, and the severity of Hurricanes and other natural earth phenomenon. I've already posted that if the scientific community can't come to a consensus on Global warming, we certainly aren't gonna get to it in this forum.

If that's being owned then you've been owned in the forum since you poked your head in here, biatch!


:hat

[Sec24Row7]

I've been corrected on specifics by people who post here and have accredited evidence to back it up.

I don't post bullshit lies like you do.

*shrug*

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

Eh, I don't have to spin anything, the numbers speak for themselves..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Source:Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

[Sec24Row7]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?

Find that for me and then we will talk. Until then, in pre history, I've got to say that the increase in Co2 levels in the atmosphere were a result of and not a cause of the earth warming up.


As long as you are doing that, find out where it went when the next ice age started.

Thanks.

As far as the second graph, I think that surface temperature models have been significantly trounced in enough publications now that I don't have to respond to that one.

[MannyIsGod]

The funny thing is, I'm using the studies Dan posts against what he's saying. When he uses them, they are ok. When I quote these same scientists they are sponsored by the energy lobby in order to distort the truth.

Ok.

Oh, and I provided scholarly sources while Dan provides Wikifuckingpedia. Its good to know that not just anyone can edit the good ole wiki.

[Nbadan]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?

Find that for me and then we will talk. Until then, in pre history, I've got to say that the increase in Co2 levels in the atmosphere were a result of and not a cause of the earth warming up.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect):


he degree of the greenhouse effect is dependent primarily on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the planetary atmosphere. The deep and carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere of Venus causes a runaway greenhouse effect with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead, the atmosphere of Earth creates habitable temperatures, and the thin atmosphere of Mars causes a minimal greenhouse effect.

The use of the term runaway greenhouse effect to describe the effect as it occurs on Venus emphasises the interaction of the greenhouse effect with other processes in feedback cycles. Venus is sufficiently strongly heated by the Sun that water is vaporised and so carbon dioxide is not reabsorbed by the planetary crust. As a result, the greenhouse effect has been progressively intensified by positive feedback. On Earth there is a substantial hydrosphere and biosphere which respond to higher temperatures by recycling atmospheric carbon more quickly (in geologic terms; the timescale for the ocean/biosphere to remove a CO2 perturbation is on the order of several hundred years). The presence of liquid water thus limits the increase in the greenhouse effect through negative feedback. This state of affairs is expected to persist for at least hundreds of millions of years, but, ultimately, the warming of an aging Sun will overwhelm this regulatory effect.

The average surface temperature would be −18°C without a greenhouse effect or 72°C with just the greenhouse effect and no convection, but in reality this temperature is closer to 15°C due to convective flow of heat energy within the atmosphere and partly above much of the thermal IR absorbence of the atmosphere. [2]

Recent measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climate Change, 61, 269, 2005). This suggests that the CO2 production rate from increased industrial activity (automobile use and fossil fuel generation) and other human activities such as land-use changes has overwhelmed the normal feedback control mechanisms. Global climate model calculations indicate that the elevated CO2 levels are likely to lead to global warming. There has been an observed global average temperature increase of about 0.5oC since 1960 (Science 308, 1431, 2005). There is still some public controversy about the role of human activities and that of CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases for global warming.

[Extra Stout]

Ok dan... if Co2 causes warming... what caused the release of it in previous ice age thaws? Things just don't happen on their own. What was the trigger that released the Co2 before that caused the warming?
Well, duh, it was prehistoric Republicans.

[Extra Stout]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect):
That Wikipedia quote failed to answer the question.

[Nbadan]

The Oh, and I provided scholarly sources while Dan provides Wikifuckingpedia. Its good to know that not just anyone can edit the good ole wiki.

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's sources maybe you and your best-buddy, Chris Landsea, ought to take it up with them Manny. There, now you have a new goal in life, go debate the sources Wikipedia uses in it's Green-house effect section.

[Nbadan]

That Wikipedia quote failed to answer the question.

I think it answered it quite effectively.

[Sec24Row7]

Exactly. They don't have an answer. When they do answer they go... well.. warming caused the increase in Co2...

Ummm?

Ok so Co2 caused the warming and warming causes the Co2 increase...

On the same token, Cooling causes co2 drops and co2 drops cause cooling...

WHAT?

[Oh, Gee!!]

prehistoric Republicans.

Redundant

[Nbadan]

The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climate Change, 61, 269, 2005)

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?

[Sec24Row7]

Redundant


Apparently so.

You KNOW some flower wearing hippie is going to be the one slamming a 4 foot pole into the side of a Mastadon with an atl atl.

[Sec24Row7]

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?


There are also more cows on the planet than there have ever been. What does that have to do with anything?

[Extra Stout]

Have you been getting electro-shock therapy? Or did this finding not click in that Spurs-dominated brain of yours?
Sec24Row 7 asked you to explain the driving force behind previous warming trends, specifically the ones following ice ages over the past 400,000 years.

Your answer is that current CO2 levels exceed any found in ice core samples.

That does not answer the question he asked.

I happen to know the correct answer. Manny and Sec24 certainly know it. You don't because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You're posting wikipedia articles and calling yourself an expert. I don't claim to be an expert, but a lot of this information is readily obtained. Clearly, you are evidence that obtaining information is not the same thing as comprehending it.

And it's funny, because those two are not denying the existence of global warming. They simply are separating the hard science from the political bullshit. This bothers you because you care more about the political bullshit.

[Nbadan]

There are also more cows on the planet than there have ever been. What does that have to do with anything?

The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.

[Extra Stout]

The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.

Time to unpimp your argument:

from the Univ. of Colorado: (http://www.pagetwister.com/generic/templates/cej_news_wide.cfm?id=534&secver=sec1name&pid=33&storyid=1734)

White is particularly interested in rapid climate change. The evidence he has uncovered suggests that temperature fluctuations sometimes occur as abrupt spikes, rather than gradual trends.

White’s research team has studied ice samples from the Siple Dome core in Antarctica to deduce that air temperatures there rose up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit in just a few decades as the last ice age began to wane some 19,000 years ago, the largest and most abrupt warming spike ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.

Oh, snap!

[Sec24Row7]

The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.

Bullshit.

http://www.lasraicesranch.com/images/basketball/solactivity.jpg
From Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.

[MannyIsGod]

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's sources maybe you and your best-buddy, Chris Landsea, ought to take it up with them Manny. There, now you have a new goal in life, go debate the sources Wikipedia uses in it's Green-house effect section.Me and my buddy Chris Landsea? Are you capable of having a coherent discussion Dan?

I'm going to ask you a direct question and I hope you can answer it directly.

What do you consider a better source for scientific information: Wikipedia or an academic study?

[spurster]

What do you consider a better source for scientific information: Wikipedia or an academic study?

For general scientific information (consensus), I would consider Wikipedia to be a better, though obviously much less than perfect, source. Individual academic studies will illuminate one small part of the picture (in the best case) or be totally useless if overly flawed.

Maybe the National Academy of Sciences knows something.

http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate

[Oh, Gee!!]

Maybe the National Academy of Sciences knows something.

http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate



Manny just got pwn3d

[MannyIsGod]

For general scientific information (consensus), I would consider Wikipedia to be a better, though obviously much less than perfect, source. Individual academic studies will illuminate one small part of the picture (in the best case) or be totally useless if overly flawed.

Maybe the National Academy of Sciences knows something.

http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climateWikipedia is a horrible source. It is open to change at any point and need not be verifiable. It's only advantadge over any other source in this regard is its readability.

Individual academic studies that deal with the rise of the global mean tempature or simillar subjects now illuminate one part of the picture? Well, considering the picture IS the rise of the the global mean tempature thats prety damn silly.

Let me know the next time a scientist cites wikipedia in any way for information. That includes the NAS.

[Jekka]

For general scientific information (consensus), I would consider Wikipedia to be a better, though obviously much less than perfect, source.

What are you smoking? And how does "less perfect" constitute as "better"?

[MannyIsGod]

examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity.

Thats from your page Spurster. The report seems to be a collection of other studies, but it doesn't come out and say that global warming is caused primarily by humans. Perhaps the NAS does know what its talking about.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Earthquakes due to global warming as well now?

Secondly, the recent hurrican seasons are not directly related to climate change and the vast majorirty of meterologists/climatologists will tell you the same thing, so that argument flies out the door.

Third, flash flooding and drougth have always been an issue in some part of the world and I've seen no studies linking increases in either catagory to climate change. Feel free to provide me some. The same goes for tornados.

Third, I've seen no studies linking current species extinction to climate change. Once again, feel free to provide some. In fact, actions such as deforestation are by FAR in the lead as a cause of species extinction, so you might as well save your breath.

Dan, if you want to have a debate on this, I'm game, but you better bring something more than political bullshit from either side of the aisle and come with studies and facts because I'm not going to buy into anything less. You're quick hit posts with lots of flair but little substance are full of shit. You just linked earthquakes and climate change!!!!! Why can't people stick to the facts instead of throwing unproven bullshit out there? There is plenty of information on climate change and it is undenable, but how in the hell do people get away with linking plate techtonics with atmospheric sciences?

The first one was in the 90s, and there have been a handful (i think, but definitely not too much more) of studies showing a direct link of the species extinction to climate change.

The first one was a south american endemic frog that laid its eggs in shallow water

[MannyIsGod]

Whats also funny, is that most of the climate change and global warming studies are examining impacts on the earth later in the next century because thats when the warming will reach levels to effect things.

HOWEVER, now the recent ice melt and recent hurricane seasons are a result of this same climate change? Right.

[MannyIsGod]

The first one was in the 90s, and there have been a handful (i think, but definitely not too much more) of studies showing a direct link of the species extinction to climate change.

The first one was a south american endemic frog that laid its eggs in shallow waterAnd the study showed that the endangerment of this species was directly related to human greenhouse gas emission or the rise in the past centuries tempature? And can you like them?

[MannyIsGod]

This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link (with a few minor exceptions such as protected articles).

Gotta love sources that anyone can change.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

And the study showed that the endangerment of this species was directly related to human greenhouse gas emission or the rise in the past centuries tempature? And can you like them?


No it linked it to raised temperature which in turn dried up the high altitude ponds. I thought u said just linked to climate chang.

I can't hyperlink to it cuz I don't remember the name of the frog, and since I'm no longer a ut student, I can't access the databases anymore.

Manny, one thing I never understand about what you have against the current anthropogenic theory(s) is that you always claim the IPCC to be biased, non objective, and their evidence to be bull shit.
It's common knowledge that the IPCC was formed by the UN, and I'm sure you do know how it really works (as opposed to the marriots in here) [basically no policy makers have any say in the report, but the final report they receive is summarized from about 10k pages to 10.]

What I still don't get is how you can call them non objective or their results bull shit, then rely on other studies like meteorlogical ones, or even studies showing nonanthropogenic global warming, when the fact is that the PHD's that wrote those studies are in an overwhelming minority.

If you call the people that do the climate reports biased, its just the same as us calling any study or any researcher biased. I guess it's possible for an overwhelming majority of every scientific body from every country involved in the IPCC to be biased, but if thats the case, then it's even more plausible to say any other study against the current anthropogenic theories is equally or more biased.

[MannyIsGod]

CBF, there have been several scientists who have been members of the IPCC - such as Chris Landsea - who have quit because of the way things are carried out. Thats why I consider them biased.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

CBF, there have been several scientists who have been members of the IPCC - such as Chris Landsea - who have quit because of the way things are carried out. Thats why I consider them biased.

But a scientist is only working on a certain part of the IPCC study, and not every direction of study in the IPCC is involved with determining anthropogenic causes to the warming effect.

I just read up on this guy--he worked on cyclones, which could be all of 5% of the total assessment. Dr Landsea has a legitimate beef with the IPCC if that HArvard doctor did politicize his findings, but you realize he did not quit because of the methods, data, or assessment analysis of the data itself right?

After the assessment is written, anything can be done with it, it can be used politically for anything....I don't agree with what Dr. Trenberth did....but the huge ass document itself is reviewed and rewritten and worked on by such a sheer number of scientists in shitloads of fields, that to say the IPCC itself it biased is tantamount to a conspiracy theory imo.

[RandomGuy]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh my, whatever will we do? Global warming is just the latest doomsday scenario.


It would take just ONE of them to come true, and it's "bye-bye humans".

Wouldn't it be just a little bit sane to try and mitagate potential risks and reduce emissions?

We have insurance for the same reason: risk mitigation.

I think it is merely good sense that we take some steps to limit the effect we are having on our climate, as the "downside" of extinction is a bit more severe than giving up a little economic growth in the short term.

[Sec24Row7]

It would take just ONE of them to come true, and it's "bye-bye humans".




Man... if you want to die because it gets 3 degrees warmer, that's your problem.

Me?

I'm gonna be fishing for redfish in Boerne, wearing sunblock and drinking beer.

[Nbadan]

Third, I've seen no studies linking current species extinction to climate change. Once again, feel free to provide some. In fact, actions such as deforestation are by FAR in the lead as a cause of species extinction, so you might as well save your breath.

Dan, if you want to have a debate on this, I'm game, but you better bring something more than political bullshit from either side of the aisle and come with studies and facts because I'm not going to buy into anything less. You're quick hit posts with lots of flair but little substance are full of shit.

How about a study linking CO2 to species extinction?

Research in Pacific shows ocean trouble
Acidity rises, oxygen drops, scientists find
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER


Research fresh off a boat that docked Thursday in Alaska reveals some frightening changes taking place in the Pacific Ocean.

As humans are pumping out more carbon dioxide that is helping to warm the planet, the ocean has been doing yeoman's work to lessen the effects -- but it's taking a toll.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060331/226acid_watersample.jpg
Scientists lower 36 bottles used for water sampling from the deck of the Thomas G. Thompson while doing research near the equator.

Over time, the changes could have an impact that ripples through the food chain, from microscopic plants that can't grow right to salmon and whales unable to find enough to eat.

The Pacific is getting warmer and more acidic, while the amount of oxygen and the building blocks for coral and some kinds of plankton are decreasing, according to initial results from scientists with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, the University of Washington and elsewhere.

"There are big changes," said Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for one leg of the research trip, which ultimately traveled from Antarctica to Alaska.

Many of the most interesting results are tied to the ocean becoming increasingly acidic because of its absorption of carbon dioxide.

"You don't have to believe in climate change to believe that this is happening," said Joanie Kleypas, an oceanographer with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a non-profit organization based in Boulder, Colo. "It's pretty much simple thermodynamics."

And it's alarming.

"Acidification is more frightening than a lot of the climate change issues," Kleypas said. That's in part because the process is hard to alter.

"It's a slow-moving ship, and we're all trying to row with toothpicks," she said.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Over the past 200 years, the ocean has absorbed about half of what's been released into the atmosphere.

Sabine and the other researchers found that in the past 15 years, there's been a detectable decline in the ocean's pH, which is a measure of acidity ranging from zero to 14, with zero being most acidic (water is neutral, or pH 7, while seawater is about pH 8).

The pH of the saltwater has dropped 0.025 units since the early 1990s. The number seems unremarkable, but the pH scale is exponential, so a one-unit drop is a 10-fold decrease. The new measurement also puts the ocean on track for a dramatic decline by the end of the century.

Plankton -- tiny plants and animals that live in the ocean -- are among the creatures that could be harmed by the change. In addition to the water becoming more acidic, the extra carbon dioxide reduces the amount of chemical compounds used to construct coral and the shells of plankton.

"That's a major issue," said John Guinotte, a marine scientist with the Bellevue-based Marine Conservation Biology Institute who studies deep sea corals.

"You're likely looking at serious effects through out the marine food web across the board," he said.

Seattle Pi (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html?dpfrom=thead)

[MannyIsGod]

Indeed. I posted simillar studies about Ocean PH in a previous climate change thread. If you want to talk semantics, this isn't climate change related but CO2 related but whatever. I made the pion before - and it stands out more now than ever - that people who want to see curtailed emissions should be fighting based on this rather than stupid doomsday sceanrios that may or may not occour. THIS is already happening.

Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.

[Nbadan]

Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.

Did I miss something? Seems to me that you've yet to prove conclusively that Climate Change and Hurricane strength are not inter-related. If you could do that, I'm sure you could do a lecture tour. In fact, all you've really manage to do is muddy the political water you so much complain about.

As far as getting a response, well, since this thread is on page 4, I would say it's gotten a pretty decent response.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you don't quite understand where the burden of proof lies. And yes, this political forum is entirely indicative of the American political cross section.

Have fun, Dan. The intelligent people within this thread understand things. You on the otherhand, don't. I think I've remember why I post less and less in this forum.

[word]

Yeah, you can go to Alaska and they've got that one glacier you can walk up the ravine where it's receded and they have signs where it was in 'x' year......dating all the way back to ..........uhmmmm.....the 1800's. *cough*

Golbal warmon and berd floo ......RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!!!!

<begin rant>

There has been global warming ever since they've been recording temperature. The earth heats and cools in cycles. Surprise surprise.

People are fools. Every generation always thinks the world is coming to an end. Now, we're on this kick of it's our fault and by OUR'S I mean the US.

The fact is, the US did not, and never will or should sign Kyoto. Of the industrialized nations we are the only non-signatory AND the only nation that has reduced their emissions voluntarily, exceeding what Kyoto would have asked for. Every other major industrialized nation that signed Kyoto has failed to meet it's requirements.

Kyoto isn't about the environment. It's about redistrubuiton of wealth, requiring some countries to limit emissions while allowing others to double and triple their emissions. Developing countries can sell their emission credits to the industrialized nations therefor it becomes a system of taxation which is a system of redistributing wealth.

Kyoto has fuck all to do with the environment and mankind has little to do with global warming. Further, who's to say global warming is bad. It could possibly open up a northwest passage and make development of the artic region a hell of a lot easier.

Oh yeah, the caribou...can't forget about the caribou....

Rather then being concerned about golbal warmon and berd floo I wish they'd stop fishing the oceans out, for example. I don't care what the temperature outside is, I still want to eat.

<end rant>

[Nbadan]

I think you don't quite understand where the burden of proof lies. And yes, this political forum is entirely indicative of the American political cross section.

Have fun, Dan. The intelligent people within this thread understand things. You on the otherhand, don't. I think I've remember why I post less and less in this forum

Seems to me that the reason you post less and less in this forum is because we don't just except your rants, especially as they relate to the weather or global warming, at face value like they do in the 'Boobs Club'. Someone calls you on one of your claims and you get all bent out of shape or worse yet you start demeaning them to make yourself feel superior. That's not an intelligent exchange of ideas, that's forum bullying. No one is saying, 'Ah, look at that Manny, he's an idiot', from what I've read CBF brought out some very good points concerning the IPCC study, Dr. Trenberth and Chris Landsea that you've completely ignored.

[boutons_]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jd/2006/jd060330.gif

[Extra Stout]

I think it is merely good sense that we take some steps to limit the effect we are having on our climate, as the "downside" of extinction is a bit more severe than giving up a little economic growth in the short term.
I think that's a false dichotomy. I believe a more reasonable dichotomy would be:

A) long-term damage to coastal infrastructure, and mass migrations of vulnerable populations

vs.

B) abandonment of the Industrial Revolution and return to subsistence farming.

If the anthropocentric global warming model is correct, curtailing CO2 emissions a little isn't going to reverse the trend. The warming trend began when the world population was much, much smaller, and the level of industrial activity was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

[Extra Stout]

Did I miss something? Seems to me that you've yet to prove conclusively that Climate Change and Hurricane strength are not inter-related. If you could do that, I'm sure you could do a lecture tour. In fact, all you've really manage to do is muddy the political water you so much complain about.

As far as getting a response, well, since this thread is on page 4, I would say it's gotten a pretty decent response.
No, Dan, debate doesn't consist of you making wild-ass statements and declaring them valid unless they are conclusively disproven.


Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.
That's the frustrating thing with Dan. There are plenty of people waking up to the fact that this is a real problem with real consequences, but that doesn't matter to him at all. You've got a bunch of people who have some knowledge on the subject, taking a realistic tack on what we could be facing, and he's fighting these people in favor of his baseless emotional arguments from questionable sources. What he wants to do is throw every doomsday scenario up like spaghetti against the wall, then come back and claim how smart and superior he is when one comes true.

He has no interest in solving any actual problems. He's interested in feeling morally superior when some catastrophe comes.

But that's typical of those of his political persuasion.

[Sec24Row7]

I wish they would stop fishing out the Oceans too... that would be nice...

Get the Japanese and Koreans onto that shit... Kyoto meh..

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, you can go to Alaska and they've got that one glacier you can walk up the ravine where it's receded and they have signs where it was in 'x' year......dating all the way back to ..........uhmmmm.....the 1800's. *cough*

Golbal warmon and berd floo ......RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!!!!

<begin rant>

There has been global warming ever since they've been recording temperature. The earth heats and cools in cycles. Surprise surprise.

People are fools. Every generation always thinks the world is coming to an end. Now, we're on this kick of it's our fault and by OUR'S I mean the US.

The fact is, the US did not, and never will or should sign Kyoto. Of the industrialized nations we are the only non-signatory AND the only nation that has reduced their emissions voluntarily, exceeding what Kyoto would have asked for. Every other major industrialized nation that signed Kyoto has failed to meet it's requirements.

Kyoto isn't about the environment. It's about redistrubuiton of wealth, requiring some countries to limit emissions while allowing others to double and triple their emissions. Developing countries can sell their emission credits to the industrialized nations therefor it becomes a system of taxation which is a system of redistributing wealth.

Kyoto has fuck all to do with the environment and mankind has little to do with global warming. Further, who's to say global warming is bad. It could possibly open up a northwest passage and make development of the artic region a hell of a lot easier.

Oh yeah, the caribou...can't forget about the caribou....

Rather then being concerned about golbal warmon and berd floo I wish they'd stop fishing the oceans out, for example. I don't care what the temperature outside is, I still want to eat.

<end rant>

You got it my man. It's all about money and the Socialist of the world.
Canada our friends to the North have actually increased their output of
CO2. The big deal is "give me your money". You are just too rich to be
on the face of this earth. Mother Earth, as they like to call it, will do
what it always has: what it damn well wants to. Nothing we do, puny
man, will change that. You may mess up a small portion of YOUR earth,
but you aren't going to mess all of it up. Don't believe me, just visit
some of mans projects where they have moved on and see what
Mother Nature has done to correct the problem.

[Nbadan]

No, Dan, debate doesn't consist of you making wild-ass statements and declaring them valid unless they are conclusively disproven.

So making statements that are supported by a large, some would say, predominant, segment of the scientific community is 'making wild statements' now?

:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

There are plenty of people waking up to the fact that this is a real problem with real consequences, but that doesn't matter to him at all. You've got a bunch of people who have some knowledge on the subject, taking a realistic tack on what we could be facing, and he's fighting these people in favor of his baseless emotional arguments from questionable sources. What he wants to do is throw every doomsday scenario up like spaghetti against the wall, then come back and claim how smart and superior he is when one comes true.

Manny wants us to look past all the bad stuff and concentrate on only the good things to come from future global warming? (sound familiar?). That's not realistic. No one is insinuating that Manny shouldn't argue his point in this forum, he just gets bent when anyone has the audacity to question his sources or claims. Blah, that's not debate, that someone thinking they know better than everyone else on this subject and trying to lecture to the rest of us monkies. That shit don't fly here for long.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Ah man, just for fun, let me lay out in plain text so that Dan can understand.

The problems I have with the climate change "debate" today:

1. There is absolutely no proof linking last years or the previous years hurricane seasons in anyway to CO2 emissions. The studies that have been posted in this forum show a possible increase down the line, but that increase is hardly substantial.

In other words, don't like Katrina to global warming.

2. Political Bias in the IPCC leadership. There is an agenda at work with the IPCC which causes them to ignore a) possible positive benefits of a warmer global mean tempature, but also b) causes them to focus on one possible cause for climate change. They give very little time to solar warming and the like.

3. The inability for people to correctly establish what is fact and what is theory and just how sound some of those theories are.

But yes, I want everyone to believe that 2040 will consist of gigantic wheat fields in Siberia because of global warming and that world hunger will be solved. :rolleyes

[Sec24Row7]

It's just not doom and gloom and that drives people nuts.

It's cause for interest... but not concern.

[Extra Stout]

It's just not doom and gloom and that drives people nuts.

It's cause for interest... but not concern.
My concerns would be as follows:

1) Deluge of low-lying areas. Developed coastal lands below elevation 15 are vulnerable to rising seas. Coastal lands vulnerable to tropical cyclones are even more at risk. Even if hurricanes aren't much stronger, if someplace that used to be 25 feet above sea level becomes only 10 or 15 feet, it will be inundated by the storm surge from a much weaker hurricane.

Now, sea level isn't going to jump 10 feet overnight, so the impact on coastal infrastructure can be managed, but it still will be expensive to move buildings, roads, etc., inland, or raise them.

2) Migrations. Inhabited coral reef islands may become submerged. Flood-prone areas like Bangladesh may become uninhabitable.

Besides these coastal impacts, climate change in and of itself will cause disruption. Many human settlements and their economies are built upon having a particular climate. We have ample archaeological evidence of past climate change causing the abandonment of settlements.

If you have an area that depends on growing a certain crop, and the climate becomes too hot, cold, dry, or wet for that crop, you have disruption. If the condition of a body of water changes, that can have a major impact. Flora and fauna will be affected by changes in their habitat, and though life is resilient, the short-term impacts could be unpleasant and disruptive for us.

I'm sick of hearing that human impact on the climate is going to destroy the earth, though. This planet has been so hot in the past that all the ice melted, and half of North America was covered by an inland sea. In fact, geologically speaking, that condition is normal. Glaciation is abnormal. Even with this warming trend, we're still in the vestiges of an ice age.

Beyond that, it's once been so hot, due to asteroid impact, that rock vapor seared the entire face of the earth, and boiled off all the oceans. Also, this planet has been so cold that the ice caps met at the equator. Life has persevered through all of that.

I'll concern myself with the human impacts of climate change ONLY.

[word]

Glad we got that settled.

[word]

You got it my man. It's all about money and the Socialist of the world.
Canada our friends to the North have actually increased their output of
CO2. The big deal is "give me your money". You are just too rich to be
on the face of this earth. Mother Earth, as they like to call it, will do
what it always has: what it damn well wants to. Nothing we do, puny
man, will change that. You may mess up a small portion of YOUR earth,
but you aren't going to mess all of it up. Don't believe me, just visit
some of mans projects where they have moved on and see what
Mother Nature has done to correct the problem.

Nature does some pretty nasty shit as well and is in violation of EPA laws every day. See the La Brea tar pits, for example. Yellowstone and all those sulfer pools....

BERD FLOO !!!!

[Sec24Row7]

My concerns would be as follows:

1) Deluge of low-lying areas. Developed coastal lands below elevation 15 are vulnerable to rising seas. Coastal lands vulnerable to tropical cyclones are even more at risk. Even if hurricanes aren't much stronger, if someplace that used to be 25 feet above sea level becomes only 10 or 15 feet, it will be inundated by the storm surge from a much weaker hurricane.

Now, sea level isn't going to jump 10 feet overnight, so the impact on coastal infrastructure can be managed, but it still will be expensive to move buildings, roads, etc., inland, or raise them.

2) Migrations. Inhabited coral reef islands may become submerged. Flood-prone areas like Bangladesh may become uninhabitable.

Besides these coastal impacts, climate change in and of itself will cause disruption. Many human settlements and their economies are built upon having a particular climate. We have ample archaeological evidence of past climate change causing the abandonment of settlements.

If you have an area that depends on growing a certain crop, and the climate becomes too hot, cold, dry, or wet for that crop, you have disruption. If the condition of a body of water changes, that can have a major impact. Flora and fauna will be affected by changes in their habitat, and though life is resilient, the short-term impacts could be unpleasant and disruptive for us.

I'm sick of hearing that human impact on the climate is going to destroy the earth, though. This planet has been so hot in the past that all the ice melted, and half of North America was covered by an inland sea. In fact, geologically speaking, that condition is normal. Glaciation is abnormal. Even with this warming trend, we're still in the vestiges of an ice age.

Beyond that, it's once been so hot, due to asteroid impact, that rock vapor seared the entire face of the earth, and boiled off all the oceans. Also, this planet has been so cold that the ice caps met at the equator. Life has persevered through all of that.

I'll concern myself with the human impacts of climate change ONLY.


There is just shit all we can do about it so I don't worry about it.

If the sea rises, move. (You don't think the ancient egyptians, greeks and Mesopotamians built all those cities in 15 feet of water do you?)

The Flora and Fauna on earth will move just as rapidly as the oceans. Look at the huge forrests in Canada and tell me that life doesnt adapt quickly when 14,000 years ago there was two miles of ice on top of where they are now.

We preserve animals and habitat for our own personal enjoyment, nothing more. The earth isn't going to die if something as meaningless as a 20 foot sea level increase happens.

People just need to get used to the idea that we are Microbes clinging to a rock that is hurtling 10,000 miles an hour through space and there is pretty much nothing we can do to the rock short of strip mining 800 feet that is going to be visible on the surface 200,000 years from now.

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works ye mighty and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-- Percy Bysshe Shelley

[Sec24Row7]

back to the top... where it should stay instead of all this namecalling bullshit