Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes
DoraLives writes "Think this hurricane season was bad? Well according to the New York Times, a study was published online on Tuesday by The Journal of Climate indicating that warming ocean temperatures are going to make for stronger, wetter hurricanes in the coming years and decades. An abstract of the article concludes cheerfully enough that 'greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.' Oh joy."
Perhaps this is nature's way of saying "I hate you."
Even the most complicated computer models for weather systems can only approach less than 5% of the actual variability and density of the atmosphere. Consider that most forecasts are less than 50% accurate at 48hrs+. I am not dismissing the research, far from it, I just don't think the models are there yet.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I'm really sad that residents of Florida, Cuba, Haiti, and all those other hurricane-hit places will have to face more severe and more frequent hurricanes in the future. However, global warming is bigger than just Florida; as terrible as extra hurricanes are, this just might be the wake up call that the rest of the world (especially those of us in non-Kyoto countries) needs to really appreciate the significance of global warming. Maybe now people will realize that global warming isn't an issue put forth by tree-hugging hippies, but rather a serious concern with serious implications.
I'm currently living in Florida, and let me tell you what we had this season was bad. If in the future, we're going to have these types of hurricanes on even a stronger level we're going to lose a lot of tourism.
This year our damages are estimated at $18 billion because of the hurricanes (that's $3 billion more then Andrew). I can only imagine how much we will loose if we get stronger and more frequent hurricanes.
An abstract of the article concludes cheerfully enough that 'greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms
That's not a conclusion. That's a hypothesis. When they conclude 'greenhouse gas-induced warming probably lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms' or something equally as strong, let me know.
I mean, anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject could have you told that this _may_ happen. What's needed is someone to get a good idea of how likely it is to be true.
I don't know if human-induced global warming is a problem or not, but, there are points of view out there, from highly respected scientists, that argue that it is not a problem. Here is one such article. Having a life-long interest in weather, I've tried to read both sides and both sides make compelling arguments. To the extent that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot economically and otherwise, it is probably a good idea to err on the side of believing that human-induced global warming is a problem. However, I don't see anything productive in blaming Bush or any previous president, republican or democrat for global warming. It is a hellish complicated problem and the ramifications for choosing either side are not small.
http://www.busyweather.com/
One important thing to remember is that this is nothing the planet hasn't seen before. Things have gotten no worse than they were 200 million years ago. There have been plenty of studies in dendrochronology that prove this and that while the earth might be heating up, its nothing the planet can't handle.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
you mean, there is no evidence that Dubya will admit to.
... which has since been clearly proven.
.. someone who gets great benefit through the selling of greenhouse gas producing Oil, hmmm and Dubya is someone who would benefit greatly from high oil prices produced by pinching world oil reserves through destabilizing oil markets with the false fear of terrorism, and by taking the Iraq supply off the market.
In fact there is much much evidence, that perhaps you have chosen not to see.
Funny how Dubya can invade Iraq, killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, and over a 1000 americans on NO ACCURATE EVIDENCE of there ever being ANY WMD's in Iraq
yet at the same time, he can totally ignore the decades of research that show the world is getting warmer (whether or not its by our own hand).
hmmm coincedentally, Dubya is an Oil man
damn I dont know why you Bushies can't see the damage Bush has done for his own personal greed. Instead you blindly follow him, ignorantly thinking he's saving you.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Sorry, but your figures about the seante vote are far from correct and the purpose of Kyoto sure as hell is not to shackle the economies of the west.
If the later were the case, do you really think that all the economies of the west were in favor of it with the notable exception of the US?
Ignorance is bliss isnt it?
Actually thousands of scientists have come out and stated our CO2 emissions ARE a significant factor. You've chosen to ignore them.
I guess you are ignoring that we've nearly doubled atmostpheric CO2 since our industrial revolution. (I bet you didnt even know that)
I guess you are ignoring the huge greenhouse effect of methane, which we spew into the air in tremendous amounts through Oil/gas production and through the raising of Billions of cattle each year. (I bet you thought that burnt oil just disappeared, that it didn't make CO2)
I guess you have chosen to ignore the large percentage of the planet where we have eliminated trees and other plants, removing a huge carbon sink. (did you even know that plants absorb CO2 as part of their metabolism?)
dumbass.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Or, we could quit trying to blame everything on "global warming" and realize that hurricane severity is cyclical. Florida's been due for a couple of years now.
... but
(A) given that it has not yet been established that there actually IS any long term warming due to green house gases or due to anything else for that matter (because nobody has measured it yet),
(B) and given that there's no conclusive evidence (measurements)that human activity is even a significant contribution to this as-yet unmeasured warming, much less causative,
(C) and given the amount of foul play there's been lately in the "scientific" community regarding the subject of warming (google up "Death Valley temperature sensor" for a giggle, or "urban heat island effect" or "hockey stick chart debunked" or "Bjorn Lomborg" maybe),
(D) perhaps the conclusions of aformentioned study may be a trifle premature. Possibly. Maybe.
We could even check the historical record and discover that this year's storms (although bad) were not extrordinary for the region in either number or severity, and that generally there are less such storms during the last 50 years than previously.
Or we could just go with it and scream DEATH TO THE SHRUB!!!
By all means, let us not cloud the issue with facts.
like in the last big ice age, which ended 11,000 years ago.
Did your dad ever mention what caused enough global warming 11,000 years ago to cause the glaciers to receed? I know it wasn't my SUV. Maybe it had something to do with proto-republicans?
Earth's climate has been going through changes for millions of years. Why are we so vain to think that it will stop changing just because we like it the way it was?
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Right now the northern limit for hurricane strikes seems to be Hatteras, with very rare exceptions. If the SSTs are higher, then the whole curve may be lifted a notch and in addition to more force 5s in the Gulf region we may start seeing force 1 and force 2 hurricanes making landfall between Hatteras and New Jersey and New York.
Hurricane Karl recently travelled nearly to ICELAND while maintaining tropical characteristics!
I have thought that a lot of money gets wasted by the USA government by always coming to the fiscal salvage of disaster. I am really a beliver that the feds should quit paying out for reoccuring natural damage. IOW, if something happens every 10 years or less, it is natural. Good example is Hurricanes in Florida. While we should help with rescue, we should not be paying for the rebuilding of a home, a business, etc. Yet we do. In fact, I think that every state and/or locale should be evaluated for what is naturally occuring and make locals pay the insurance and/or increase the building codes. Some example
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Florida has very little to worry about.
Hurricanes do NOT kill people. The supply strong winds and lots of rain but people actually die from pore planning, stupid choices, ineffective government and most importantly large scale poverty.
I.e. Florida lost less than 40 people in Hurricanes this year. They were directly hammered by 3 big ones (Category 3 to 5). A single category 4 passed 30 miles south of Jamaica and killed 16 people (.jm is small, 2.7 million). Meanwhile, Haiti was grazed by a tropical storm (not strong enough to be called a hurricane) and around 2000 people have died with another 100000 or so left homeless and starving (I.e. Likely to die if massive amounts of help isn't forthcoming).
PS: I am writing from Jamaica. In case that matters.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Probably because the evidence clearly shows that the rate of change has been accelerating since the industrial revolution. But don't let the facts get in the way of your nice comfortable lifestyle.
There are many models for the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere being proposed by scientists. Our best, most extensive computer models show that increased C02 will lead to climate change, and our best records show that humans activity has increased atmospheric C02 by about a third.
But the models all disagree exactly how much. And there are other sources of C02 (although there is no evidence any of them are responsible for the increases since the industial age). And since models always have to take a few shortcuts (instead of modelling every atom) they may have ignored something that could affect climate. Unfortunately, there are things we don't understand; our computer models don't explain all historical climate changes (even though every model has more C02 = climate change). And who knows, maybe the sun is hotter (even though the evidence for this is sketchier than any of the other data).
Some people turn these little bits of uncertainty into a complete lack of action. They argue that climate change is
natural", ignoring the fact that it's catastrophic and we might be able to do something about it. They choose to do nothing, and rush us ever faster into the abyss in our giant, wasteful SUVS.
A large climate change is bad news for humans, and we have some evidence that we are responsible for some of it, and we have some evidence that we might be able to slow or reverse it. Do we need more evidence? Hell yes. But if we wait for the climate experiment known as "the earth's atmosphere" to finish, we'll be doomed. I believe that human ingenuity will be able make the world a place where humans can continue to thrive.
P.S. I don't understand why "less pollution, less waste" is seen as more as a burden and not an opportunity for business.
Hey num-nuts. There is a difference between 5 degree change over 100,000 years and 5 degree change of 10 years.
I agree no one ever seems to want to look for any other cause other then those damb evil americans and their cars!! What about natural causes like ooo say a warming solar cycle, increased sunspot activity, maybe even that band of super heated helium atoms we are currently passing through? It is most likly a large combination of events that is driving this.
BTW I'm all for clean air and water simply for the sake of clean air and water. Heck I even went as far as putting cats on my 1967 Pontiac GTO and before you accuse me of driving a evil gas guzzler just think of all the energy I saved by recycling a car rather then buying a new one that wasted all that energy being manufactured.
And you electric vehicle assholes, where do you think your pollution is going. It's being made at those big electric power plants like Navajo in Arizona and YOU ARE CLOUDING MY GRAND CANYON and CHOKING the poor Native Americans with you F^CKING POLLUTION!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Both are completely orthogonal... and show exactly how the environment would benefit if we could offer a truce...
The ozone hole was caused by the emission of CFC, and the industry accepted the regulation and started to abolish most of the products that needed CFC gases. This was easy to do, since all they did was change the gas that filled most of motors, radiators and airsprays... Once we got CFC emission under control, nature could easily recover from the damage weve done.
Industrial pollution, OTOH, is a whole other beast. There is no way to reduce or substitute the emission of CO2, unless you stop burning the freaking fossil fuel. And who wants to do that now?
Those who can offer a cheaper alternative, hands up... No one? Even with a $50 barrel?
I think you hit the nail directly on the head. Nobody thinks that Bush is responsible for the environmental mess (well at least not for the one outside of Texas :-) ), but the main problem is, that he has given in public speeches and given his non existent plans basically the whole world the impression, that he does not even care anyting about it, as long as it stops him and his oil buddies to earn their dollars. In fact after hearing a few of his speeches about environment I have the feeling this guy is on a war against nature as well (great drilling oil in national parks hey :-) )
I would not really see it as a sign of coincidence that his brothers butt currently is literally blown away by the environment down in Florida, which currently gives its vote on this issue.
I see that you are trying to make a correlation here, so answer me this: How do you explain CO2 concentrations that rapidly increase with a similar magnitude, pre-industrial revolution, pre-history, and even pre-homo-sapien? And why is CO2 concentration a lagging indicator of warming in previous cycles?
The climate is changing, but people trying to propose solutions based on cherry picking and pulling data out of context to suit some particular ideological viewpoint is a lot of foolishness that will create more problems than it will solve. It would make things seem so easy and ideologically pure if anthropogenic CO2 was the fulcrum of climate change, but it isn't that way in fact. There are a hell of a lot of other processes that are major contributing factors that will have to be acknowledged if a real solution is to be found, and a great many of those have nothing to do with CO2. It could very well be the case that all manmade CO2 sources could be eliminated tomorrow and it still wouldn't make a substantial difference in the climate trajectory.
The climate isn't a sitcom. You can't get a neat and tidy solution to anything in a half hour, and as is true of many types of systems, we may in fact be impotent when it comes to directing outcomes in a meaningful sense. Changing our CO2 emissions is far from free, and it would be prudent to study the systems more thoroughly before putting ourselves on a path that could find us in an even worse position than if we did nothing at all. Jumping on a ridiculously simplistic bandwagon as a solution in what is largely an absence of good knowledge is a sure way to generate a hell of a lot of heat with precious little light.
A lot of people are eager to jump on a bandwagon completely oblivious to the long-term consequences and unintended consequences that might occur -- we could end up screwing ourselves far worse than climate change. Ecosystems, fundamental economics, and a great many other things are profoundly effected by CO2 levels. You can't change global temperature in isolation by playing with CO2 levels, and the result of doing so naively may end up causing more harm than it prevented. And because of the changes made and their consequences, we may find ourselves in a situation where we are far less capable of dealing with the new mess we made.
More study, less slogan.
There are many reasons to build from wood, thought not all good. Wood is readily available in North America, thanks to lots of fast-growing coniferous forests (building-grade lumber is made from softwood). Wood is easily assembled by laborers with nails and now with various steel fasteners. Wood is lightweight, compared to most other building materials, so it doesn't cost as much to transport. Wood is resilient, which is why it's actually a very good material in earthquake zones (like California). Notice how every time an earthquake hits a third world country like Mexico or Turkey, thousands of people die because their concrete houses collapse? That doesn't happen here.
What's wrong with wood? It's getting expensive, as demand goes up. Forests can only grow so fast, even with good managements practices. It's gotten to the point where steel framing is comparable in price to wood. Wood is susceptible to termites and dry-rot (note: this was only a problem in more recent decades, since termites were imported from the far east) (dry rot is mainly a problem in the desert).
Some people might argue the environmental aspect; I'm not sure exactly how "green" wood is, but I've read some environmentalists saying that they believe wood is a better material than others because it's "renewable". Concrete and steel are not, and both take a lot of energy to produce in factories/plants. Wood gets its energy for production from the sun.
As others have pointed out, well-built wood structures can actually withstand hurricane-force winds quite well, thanks to their flexibility. The big problem with wood in these conditions is the joinery. Using better joinery than just simple nails usually solves all the problems. Also, architecture is very important: avoid overhangs which allow the wind to easily pick up the roof. A traditional New England house designed to hold tons of snow on the roof is not appropriate for a hurricane zone in the south where there is no snow.