Global Warming and Katrina...

[Flatlander]

The sun cycle has a contribution that can be measured. On a graph, if it was regular, it would look like a sine wave.

Do you have a source for this? I hadn't heard of this particular natural symmetry before, and would like to read up on it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

This chain of reasoning is pretty sound...Carbon Dioxide traps heat in he atmosphere. Humans release trapped carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels. More heat is trapped. Oceans get "warmer" because more heat is trapped. Warmer oceans cause more hurricances.

The disagreement is over "how warm?" NOAA says that a one degree temperature rise is more then enough.

Then why did the oceans cool back down for a while in the 70's and 80's, and now are back a degree higher?

As to humans releasing more CO2, the more efficient the reaction on the hydrocarbon the more CO2 and H2O produced.

More CO2 and Sulfur is released from the power plants that burn coal then vehicles, yet power plants are outside of cities or in Down Wind areas already, and everone wants to have a clean coastal city. i.e. SanFranciso, Los Angeles.

Yet, Oakland is down wind of San Franciso and has always had more polution issues.

As to the human addition to your relationship, you need to understand the relationship between humans and how much CO2 we produce in relationship to other producers, such as Volcanos and natural fires, and ..., .

 

[Makalakumu]

Then why did the oceans cool back down for a while in the 70's and 80's, and now are back a degree higher?

Think back to that elevated sine wave. There are localized dips and rises, but the overall trend is upward. The NOAA studies take this into account when they talk about global warming and hurricanes.

As to humans releasing more CO2, the more efficient the reaction on the hydrocarbon the more CO2 and H2O produced.

Fossil fuel production has never dropped and neither has demand. The more we burn, the more greenhouse gasses get put into the atmosphere.

More CO2 and Sulfur is released from the power plants that burn coal then vehicles, yet power plants are outside of cities or in Down Wind areas already, and everone wants to have a clean coastal city. i.e. SanFranciso, Los Angeles.

Yet, Oakland is down wind of San Franciso and has always had more polution issues..

Greenhouse Gasses operate like...well...gasses. They diffuse. Eventually mixing in the atmosphere. However, certain "lense" effects have been measured...raising local temps. JFK jr. mentions one in the initial post. He seems to believe that this help make the hurricane worse.

As to the human addition to your relationship, you need to understand the relationship between humans and how much CO2 we produce in relationship to other producers, such as Volcanos and natural fires, and ...

Volcanoes, fires, and ocean solution fluctuations can release CO2 into the atmosphere and all of these have caused the greenhouse effect to increase in the past. In fact, a single large volcanic eruption could cause unprecedented global warming...after the volcanic winters. However, the measureable increases in greenhouse gasses in the last few hundred years have come mostly from one source...humans. We are a year after year, regular phenomenon, that keeps putting an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Think back to that elevated sine wave. There are localized dips and rises, but the overall trend is upward. The NOAA studies take this into account when they talk about global warming and hurricanes.

I would like to see this trend from the last minor ice age. Is there data from before the last localized ice age about temperature fluctuations?

Can we guess about the different ages of the earth and the average temperature?

Fossil fuel production has never dropped and neither has demand. The more we burn, the more greenhouse gasses get put into the atmosphere.

And my comment was using the simple logic of only looking at the surface, if you are worried about Greeenhouse gases then we should go back to the old ways of doing things and get 8 miles per gallon, and less efficient engines which produce less CO2.

Greenhouse Gasses operate like...well...gasses. They diffuse. Eventually mixing in the atmosphere. However, certain "lense" effects have been measured...raising local temps. JFK jr. mentions one in the initial post. He seems to believe that this help make the hurricane worse.

Yes, one or two people can make a conjecture, and be in the news. I agree it should be investgated but I have not seen enough of a trend form the data to confirm anything. I have seen enough of a trend to see investigation.

Volcanoes, fires, and ocean solution fluctuations can release CO2 into the atmosphere and all of these have caused the greenhouse effect to increase in the past. In fact, a single large volcanic eruption could cause unprecedented global warming...after the volcanic winters. However, the measureable increases in greenhouse gasses in the last few hundred years have come mostly from one source...humans. We are a year after year, regular phenomenon, that keeps putting an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

So Mt. St Helen's caused a Winter? Yet the gases caused changes to the atmosphere, and have ew studied them as well?

 

[Makalakumu]

Global Warming and Ophelia

1. If you go back before industrialization occured, natural sources of CO2 are going to dominate. Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution.

2. Or we could find ways to live our lives without emitting greenhouse gasses. There is no need to roll back "progress".

3. Local Warming is controversial I think. I'll see what I can find out about it.

4. St. Helens lowered global temps with the amount of dust in threw in the air. This counteracted the effects of the CO2 in put in the air. When the dust fell, the gas mixed into the atmosphere. Some graphs posted earlier show a spike in temp and emission during the eruption. The spike was small. Large eruptions can be much worse. See the eruption of Toba for instance...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Global Warming and Ophelia

1. If you go back before industrialization occured, natural sources of CO2 are going to dominate. Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution.

Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution.

Are they the dominate?

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

I wanted to repost this link and discuss it. For some reason, NOAA's predictions are being ignored...

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

If you look at the study, you will find several things.

1. Their model is based on the assumption that global warming exists. Therefore it is tautological to say it supports the argument of global warming. The model they use is one that predicts global warming and the conclusion was after 80 years on the projected model.

2. The focus of the study is to find out what effects global warming potentially may have on hurricanes, assuming it exists. Not whether it does exist or has had an impact at all. In fact, they say historically, it has not.

3. Their model was for "idealized hurricanes". In other words, worst-case scenarios in a controlled model where the myriad of other factors that make predicting weather so unreliable were not included. Do you know what made Hurricane Katrina go down from 5 to 4? A puff of dry air from the continent. Just that. Very random.

4. They found it didn't have any relation to the number of hurricanes which would occur.

5. In the most extreme of cases, surface winds were only increased by a mere 6% after 80 years of continuous global warming using the model they based their assumption on. Looking at Katrina if it were a model, you can take off 6% of the previoius total (135 mph) and it still would be a category 4 hurricane. Note that the dry puff of air from the continent knocked off 30 mph. But again, you can't even say the increase from 135 to 145 was due to global warming because that is a "worst-case scenario" in a model which eliminates other mitigating factors. Furthermore, that 6% increase isn't even now...it is 80 years from now.

6. Again, this study was to say "What if?" "What if" we took all C02 increases and global warming (human and natural) accepted in our assumptions and in the absence of any other factors, let us look at how it would affect hurricanes. The answer is not much, even if it does exist.

7. That is why the findings are being ignored.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Their model is based on the assumption that global warming exists. Therefore it is tautological to say it supports the argument of global warming. The model they use is one that predicts global warming and the conclusion was after 80 years on the projected model.

Global warming as in the Greenhouse effect is a known fact. CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat. Its as simple as that.

2. The focus of the study is to find out what effects global warming potentially may have on hurricanes, assuming it exists. Not whether it does exist or has had an impact at all. In fact, they say historically, it has not.

Ok

3. Their model was for "idealized hurricanes". In other words, worst-case scenarios in a controlled model where the myriad of other factors that make predicting weather so unreliable were not included. Do you know what made Hurricane Katrina go down from 5 to 4? A puff of dry air from the continent. Just that. Very random.

Of course, there are other factors that can make hurricanes worse...the bottom line is that an "Idealized Hurricane" is a run of the mill average hurricane created by averaging a huge pool of data. General principles of hurricanes can be divined from this.

4. They found it didn't have any relation to the number of hurricanes which would occur.

Here is what they actually said...

An implication of these studies 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.

5. In the most extreme of cases, surface winds were only increased by a mere 6% after 80 years of continuous global warming using the model they based their assumption on. Looking at Katrina if it were a model, you can take off 6% of the previoius total (135 mph) and it still would be a category 4 hurricane. Note that the dry puff of air from the continent knocked off 30 mph. But again, you can't even say the increase from 135 to 145 was due to global warming because that is a "worst-case scenario" in a model which eliminates other mitigating factors. Furthermore, that 6% increase isn't even now...it is 80 years from now.

They used an extremely conservative estimate. A 1% increase in CO2 could be acheived by population growth alone. It does not take into account the skyrocketing demand for oil and coal. Nor does it take into account the fact that so many other countries are attempting to industrialize.

6. Again, this study was to say "What if?" "What if" we took all C02 increases and global warming (human and natural) accepted in our assumptions and in the absence of any other factors, let us look at how it would affect hurricanes. The answer is not much, even if it does exist.

A 1% increase is tiny and probably unrealistic. As China and India ramp up their economies we can really expect that number to rise.

7. That is why the findings are being ignored.

I doubt it. Take a look again at figure 1 in the website and imagine what it would look like with a 2% increase. 3%. 4%. 5%! This isn't unrealistic. People around the world want to be industrialized and the cheapest and easiest way is through fossil fuels.

 

[Sapper6]

hey upnorthkyosa,

you need to take a look at the NWS hurricane website. please note that the number catastrophic hurricanes has DECLINED over the last decade. this isn't theory, or speculation, or biased reasoning; this is fact. it's in the numbers; they are getting SMALLER, how hard is this to fathom?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html

The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.

Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.

 

[Shorin Ryuu]

Global warming as in the Greenhouse effect is a known fact. CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat. Its as simple as that.

No, it isn't. That is why the human-induced C02 greenhouse gas global warming debate is known as "junk science". You never did answer my objections I raised to that laughable "hockey stick" graph used so often in Kyoto.

Here is what they actually said...

An implication of these studies 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.

What that does mean is that any hurricane around 145-155 mph (the majority of the difference between present day and the 80 years from now model) may or may not be bumped to around 160-165 mph (over 155 is what makes it category 5). As mentioned above, the number of catastrophic hurricanes has actually been declining. Furthermore, the statistical probability of a hurricane at any level is equal. That's a fancy way of saying just because there is the chance, it doesn't even mean they will occur.

Furthermore, it goes on to say "CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come. Related to this issue, SSTs over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999)."

Models for human-induced CO2 global warming has to come from somewhere, right? The supposed junk science of these models cite "unprecedented" rises in C02 levels from industrialization. So why wasn't there a dramatic rise in the past?

I also looked at your ice core data you provided earlier on. As expected, the CO2 level graphs do not correlate with global temperature. It totally ignores things like the Medieval Warm Period in which temperatures were much warmer than now, yet the CO2 data indicated lower levels for that time.

They used an extremely conservative estimate. A 1% increase in CO2 could be acheived by population growth alone. It does not take into account the skyrocketing demand for oil and coal. Nor does it take into account the fact that so many other countries are attempting to industrialize.
A 1% increase is tiny and probably unrealistic. As China and India ramp up their economies we can really expect that number to rise.

Even if your argument is valid (which I don't agree with), to argue that the U.S. is at fault for not signing Kyoto is to ignore the fact that developing countries (China and India) are exempt. Therefore even if we did everything we could, it still wouldn't matter because China and India's output would dwarf ours immensely. Of course, it is a moot point because none of the CO2 data correlates with temperature. You have often said that there is a cyclical temperature rise and fall, yet CO2 makes the whole system higher in temperature each time. This isn't true...

I am starting to lose interest in the debate. I, and others, keep bringing up facts and data, but you either ignore them, address them with incorrect data, or change the direction of the argument. I could sit here all day and bring up damning evidence against your arguments, but you would never change your opinion. So, I leave this thread in the capable hands of other, more active posters who are already doing a sound job of demonstrating the human-induced global warming via greenhouse gases argument is simply junk science.

 

[Tgace]

Three Views on Global Warming
Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds

 

[Tgace]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller16.html

Policy makers and environmentalists claim that a "consensus of a very large group of scientists" agrees that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. In his Caltech lecture, Dr. Crichton says, "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels… In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results… Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." He’s right. Furthermore, the proclaimed consensus for global warming is bogus: 1,500 scientists (of whom only 181 work in fields related to climatology) signed a pro-global warming petition in 1997, but 19,000 scientists signed a petition a year later opposing the U.N.’s Kyoto Treaty Against Global Warming.

Why do so many people (including those 1,500 scientists) believe in global warming? One reason, as one of the characters in State of Fear puts it, is that "all reality is media reality." People who get their information from watching television and reading the New York Times do not learn the true facts of the matter. Media reality says there is man-made global warming, which if not constrained will be catastrophic.

For some scientists their views on this subject can affect their livelihood. Government and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) award $2 billion in grants each year for climate research. These organizations expect the scientists they fund to support the idea that global warming is a problem. As Michael Crichton points out (in his Caltech lecture), we now live in an "anything-goes world where science – or non-science – is the hand maiden of questionable public policy… Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron."

Hmmmm....

Global warming also has ideological underpinnings. "Environmentalism is the last refuge of socialism," as one observer puts it. Although socialism may have failed as an economic model, many believe it can halt man-made global warming and, by this means, reform civilization.Constraining CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, as stipulated in the Kyoto Treaty, will require a kind of global governance that only a socialist state can provide – a totalitarian global bureaucracy with international government inspectors at one’s doorstep that closely regulates, prosecutes, and confiscates property of people and industries that make "greedy [CO2 producing] choices" (like driving SUVs). The apparatchiks of this movement – lawyers, bureaucrats, environmentalists, and media people – use scare tactics as part of a "global warming sales campaign" to promote their agenda and acquire influence. As Professor Norman Hoffman in State of Fear points out, fear is one of the best managers of social control in a state’s armamentarium.

BINGO!

 

[michaeledward]

You know, I have never caught an Atlantic Salmon; this is the King of Fish. Spawned in the tiny tributary streams of the Northern Atlantic Oceans, the fish mature, and migrate out into the Ocean. After feeding along the coast of Greenland in the Spring they return to their home river to spawn.

In the past, the Salmon return to their home rivers was as predictable as a clock. If you were standing on the banks of the Miramichi river during the third week of June, the Salmon would be beginning their run up the river.; every year, year after year.

Well, that's not happening anymore. The run is not so regular now; sometimes it starts in June, sometimes not til later in July.

Sure, there are some other theories as to why this is happening, but changes in the ocean tempurature, are at least as plausible as any others.

Not very scientific, but it works for me, til I hear something more likely.

 

[Tgace]

Well..evidence does show that temperatures are changing. What I dont buy (nor do many scientists) is that its "proven" that humans are the driving cause.

 

[Makalakumu]

you need to take a look at the NWS hurricane website. please note that the number catastrophic hurricanes has DECLINED over the last decade. this isn't theory, or speculation, or biased reasoning; this is fact. it's in the numbers; they are getting SMALLER, how hard is this to fathom?

We are on the fifteenth named storm of the year. This is an all time record...surpassing the record set last year. I would love to see a link to the information you just made up.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, it isn't. That is why the human-induced C02 greenhouse gas global warming debate is known as "junk science". You never did answer my objections I raised to that laughable "hockey stick" graph used so often in Kyoto.

CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat. Humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. It doesn't get any clearer then that.

What that does mean is that any hurricane around 145-155 mph (the majority of the difference between present day and the 80 years from now model) may or may not be bumped to around 160-165 mph (over 155 is what makes it category 5). As mentioned above, the number of catastrophic hurricanes has actually been declining.

We have better warnings, better flood control technology, and better forecasts. Catastrophic hurricanes aren't just measured by their strength. They are measured by the amount of life lost and damage done. Great steps have been taken to deal with this.

Furthermore, the statistical probability of a hurricane at any level is equal. That's a fancy way of saying just because there is the chance, it doesn't even mean they will occur.

Its a prediction, not a vision.

Furthermore, it goes on to say "CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come. Related to this issue, SSTs over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999)."

Water has a higher specific heat then air. The atmosphere can warm much quicker. Thus, there is a lag time between the warming of the atmosphere and the warming of the ocean. It has been shown that climatic temperatures have climbed quickly in the last 100 years and THIS YEAR we have some of the highest ocean temps ever recorded.

Models for human-induced CO2 global warming has to come from somewhere, right? The supposed junk science of these models cite "unprecedented" rises in C02 levels from industrialization. So why wasn't there a dramatic rise in the past?

There are more people now then ever before that are seeking to industrialize. Six billion people on the planet would like a peice of the pie. This is the source of the unprecedented rise.

I also looked at your ice core data you provided earlier on. As expected, the CO2 level graphs do not correlate with global temperature. It totally ignores things like the Medieval Warm Period in which temperatures were much warmer than now, yet the CO2 data indicated lower levels for that time.

If you go back before the period of industrialization, the system fluctuates in a more natural way. Afterward, the human effect gets more pronounced and the graphs do correlate nicely.

Even if your argument is valid (which I don't agree with), to argue that the U.S. is at fault for not signing Kyoto is to ignore the fact that developing countries (China and India) are exempt. Therefore even if we did everything we could, it still wouldn't matter because China and India's output would dwarf ours immensely.

By signing Kyoto, the US could have led the way to a cleaner future. We are the richest country in the world and we are the biggest emmitter of greenhouse gasses. We could have used our resources to give our children a better legacy.

Of course, it is a moot point because none of the CO2 data correlates with temperature.

Yeah, especially when you ignore that it does.

You have often said that there is a cyclical temperature rise and fall, yet CO2 makes the whole system higher in temperature each time. This isn't true.

Ice core data going back into the Eocene shows that amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere surely did have an effect on global temperature. However, it is not the only thing that can effect global temperature.

I am starting to lose interest in the debate. I, and others, keep bringing up facts and data, but you either ignore them, address them with incorrect data, or change the direction of the argument.

Actually, I am the only one who has posted an actual study in this debate. I am the only one who has actually posted a graph or any data. Most rebuttles have come come from right-wing echo chambers and were written by people with little or no scientific training.

I could sit here all day and bring up damning evidence against your arguments, but you would never change your opinion.

Bring on some real arguments with some real data and you might change my opinion.

 

[Sapper6]

We are on the fifteenth named storm of the year. This is an all time record...surpassing the record set last year. I would love to see a link to the information you just made up.

look it up. the link is in this thread.

and i didn't make up anything, it's right in front of your eyes on the NWS website.

 

[Sapper6]

Actually, I am the only one who has posted an actual study in this debate. I am the only one who has actually posted a graph or any data. Most rebuttles have come come from right-wing echo chambers and were written by people with little or no scientific training.

BS. i've posted two links to the National Hurricane Center that reflects number of hurricanes by scale and years that proves the material you've posted and linked to is false.

 

[Makalakumu]

BS. i've posted two links to the National Hurricane Center that reflects number of hurricanes by scale and years that proves the material you've posted and linked to is false.

You might want to take a look at the criteria they use to judge hurricanes...then think about how things have changed over the last century. Your ONE study doesn't really address much other then the fact that we have better technology.