Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes

Whoa by Ninja27 · 2004-10-02 07:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Look out florida...

Nature's way... by chrispyman · 2004-10-02 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps this is nature's way of saying "I hate you."

Re:Nature's way... by Zarks · 2004-10-02 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Prehaps this is nature's way of telling America, the worlds biggest polluter by far to take global warming seriously.

If this doesn't do it nothing will. It is the equivilant of being hit on the back of the head and not bothering to turn round to stop whatever hit you from hitting you again.
Re:Nature's way... by operagost · 2004-10-02 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would like to point out that this article describes a study of what could happen if CO2 emissions were to increase over the next few decades:
"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."
That's under simulated conditions. This is not a study saying, "OMFG TEH USIANS ARE TEH PULLUT3RZ! THEY R KILING TEH PLANET!!!!!1111" It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually. I don't know whether this is actually the current trend.
I'd also like to point out that carbon dioxide emissions should not be confused with traditional pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and surphur dioxide (SO2). The irony is that continued advances in catalyst technology used in ULEV vehicles is eliminating these poisons, only to produce more water and, you guessed it, carbon dioxide. Of course, the answer is to increase efficiency of internal combustion engines until they can be eliminated by a more efficient technology entirely.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Nature's way... by Thagg · 2004-10-02 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

CO2 emissions will likely increase over the next few decades, unless the countries that produce the most CO2 will start taking drastic action. That means the US, and to some extent, Europe and China. The 1% figure is about right.

The ULEV vehicles you trash actually eliminate far worse greenhouse gases. Methane, for example, is 100x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the advanced catalysts do eliminate almost all the hydrocarbons (like methane) from the exhaust.

These hurricanes are really Nature's way of suggesting to Floridians that their vote really matters.

Thad

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Nature's way... by Phil246 · 2004-10-02 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Nah its gods way ( if you believe in such an entity ) of making a point to florida http://bash.org/GODvsBUSH.gif makes it rather clear ;)
Re:Nature's way... by Aglassis · 2004-10-02 08:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

You said: "That's under simulated conditions. This is not a study saying, "OMFG TEH USIANS ARE TEH PULLUT3RZ! THEY R KILING TEH PLANET!!!!!1111" It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually. I don't know whether this is actually the current trend.
I'd also like to point out that carbon dioxide emissions should not be confused with traditional pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and surphur dioxide (SO2). The irony is that continued advances in catalyst technology used in ULEV vehicles is eliminating these poisons, only to produce more water and, you guessed it, carbon dioxide. Of course, the answer is to increase efficiency of internal combustion engines until they can be eliminated by a more efficient technology"

In these two conflicting reports, the CO2 concentrations is shown to increase from about 310 ppm to 360 ppm from year 1960 to 2000. About a 0.4% increase per year. Of course the rate of increase is increasing so the current value is higher than 0.4% increase per year; therefore, the 1% increase per year figure is certainly possible. The two reports cited are but an example of several reports trying to understand the connection of CO2 to future surface temperatures. I think you will have to take all these reports into mind before coming to a conclusion on whether the current trend of CO2 increase will affect hurricanes.

I think its pretty obvious from most studies that rapid deforestation, massive livestock populations, and industrialization have pretty much been the cause of the CO2 and methane increases over the past 200 years. If there is a connection between our pollutants and global temperatures and events like hurricanes or if it is sufficiently probable then it is logical to impose some kinds of restrictions on the above mentioned pollutant emissions. Currently, there are no absolutely conclusive reports one way or the other so it is a view of opinion which studies you agree are more probable in being correct. I tend to agree with the global warming hypothesis but I am still going to monitor the other literature to see if it will change my opinion.

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Re:Nature's way... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 08:54 · Score: 1, Informative

It sounds like you're skeptical of simulations themselves. Remember, a simulation is just the numerical solution of a bunch of equations. The equations are physical laws involving heat, irradiation, evaporation, convection, etc., and the numerical solutions should indeed describe the real world, within a certain level of confidence.
Every time a tank gunner fires a shot, a computer runs a simulation---accounting for air resistance, winds, even the Coriolis effect---to figure out where the shell will land. Don't worry, though, it's describing where the shot could land if the Earth continues rotating.
And, CO2 is increasing, so that's the most useful thing to put into the simulations, no? Another post backs up the 1% number---the scientists didn't just make that up. But, if that is a bit too speculative for you, perhaps they can run another simulation under the assumption that an extraterrestrial carbon-neutral energy source will be unveiled at Area 51 in early 2005.
Re:Nature's way... by Phronesis · 2004-10-02 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually. I don't know whether this is actually the current trend.
CO2 concent rations in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent in the last 50 years, with most of the increase happening in the last few decades.
The actual growth of CO2 varies from year to year, but has averaged about 0.5% per year for the last 15 years, with about 0.9% per year rates in the last four years (but these are probably related to El Nino cycles).
China's rapid industrialization (fuelled mostly by coal---the fuel richest in carbon emissions) threatens to accelerate this growth rate for the next several decades, so 1% annual growth is quite a reasonable estimate.
Re:Nature's way... by Kent+Recal · 2004-10-02 09:00 · Score: 2, Informative

It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually. I don't know whether this is actually the current trend.

1% annual increase of CO2 has indeed been the trend over the past 40 years.

It took me 15 secs to find that link via google. Maybe you should have spent these to avoid humiliating yourself...
Re:Nature's way... by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-10-02 10:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, we are not 100% sure although there is a large body of evidence that points in that direction. At what point are you going to be be convinced that Global Warming is a real threat? When florida sinks into the ocean?

Given the seriousness of the disasters we're talking about if we're right, I think its important that we do whhat we can to eliminate it until we're sure global warming is not our doing. You wait till you're 100% sure your house is on fire before buying fire extinguishers, do you? If a few businesses lose a few percent of their profits and SUV drivers have to pay extra...tough.
Re:Nature's way... by ipfwadm · 2004-10-02 11:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's under simulated conditions.
There's really no other way to study the effect of global warming without using some sort of simulation, aside from waiting until the warming occurs and then measuring the result. At which point, if the predictions of this study bear out, it'll be a little too late for anything more than "shit, they were right".
It describes what could happen were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to increase by 1% annually.
I think the point of the study was to describe what would probably happen. There could be a decrease in storm intensity, but the study said that there would probably be a rather significant increase.
Of course, the answer is to increase efficiency of internal combustion engines until they can be eliminated by a more efficient technology entirely.
I disagree that this is the answer. It is certainly an answer, but it misses the point. The U.S. is the largest polluter on the planet largely by choice (and I'm considering laziness [i.e. I was too lazy to wait the 45 seconds for the computer to boot up in the morning, so I left it on all night] as a choice). There are already ICEs that are more efficient than others (i.e. my Toyota Corolla gets near 40 mpg the way I drive, various large SUVs get 10 or less), but huge numbers of Americans CHOOSE to drive less efficient vehicles.
And it's not all about ICEs either -- IIRC transportation accounts for about a third of the average person's greenhouse emissions. More insulation in homes would go a long long way towards helping, and doesn't even require high tech solutions (yes, you could heat your house with a candle if it was insulated with aerogel, but fiberglass works pretty well too). Buy an on-demand water heater and stop keeping a tank of water hot while you're at work all day. Buy a compact fluorescent light bulb or two, or turn off a light or two when you leave the room. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Re:Nature's way... by flyneye · 2004-10-02 11:50 · Score: 1

Perhaps this is the lefts way of telling America,the worlds grocery store and bank that the sky is falling and they should stop industry immediatly so other countries with poorer people could produce plastic crap for less and enrich themselves by selling increasingly valueless said consumer garbage back to the Americans who used to produce the same product to higher standards but now cant afford the imitation because they are no longer employed.GO Dems! Thats O.K. because the Democrats have Welfare Programs for them all,paid for by those with remaining incomes.
Did anyone notice that earlier story about the hole in the ozone layer that closed 20% this year?the same hole thats supposed to be causing global warming.Can the left at least sync up their story when whining about their (ir)refutable research and global modeling?

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Nature's way... by khallow · 2004-10-02 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Prehaps this is nature's way of telling America, the worlds biggest polluter by far to take global warming seriously.
If so, nature needs to speak up. A few hurricanes don't mean much to the US which has experienced seasons like this before. I suspect instead that you are projecting your psychoses on the weather.
Second, by "world's biggest polluter", you of course ignore China which pollutes more in certain very substantial categories (eg, heavy metals, particulate matter, human fecal material) and would at least be a contender for the title.
Re:Nature's way... by bobbuck · 2004-10-02 13:05 · Score: 1

How would you feel if the (huge) amount of money spent on controlling CO2 emissions ended up as wasted money? What if those trillions of wasted dollars could have provided safe water to all the developing nations, or saved millions of people from AIDS, or fed half the people in the world? If you're that worried about carbon go plant a tree, wait, chop it down, bury it, repeat.
Re:Nature's way... by Madcapjack · 2004-10-02 13:17 · Score: 1

The same hole thats supposed to be causing global warming.
The ozone hole does not cause global warming. Global warming is caused by an increase in ozone gases in the atmosphere: it keeps the heat here, preventing sun energy from re-radiating out into space. The ozone hole may though be, funnily enough, caused by global warming here
The problem with ozone depletion is that the ozone shields us from high-energy cancer causing light. here

--
Logic, macros, and more
Re:Nature's way... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 14:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Because Bush deliberately opposes the idea of global warming because doing something about it will hurt his buddies in the oil industry. To that end, he's hired scientists to further his agenda rather than to provide an independent viewpoint.
Re:Nature's way... by peterzum · 2004-10-02 15:34 · Score: 1

I think it might be nature's way of saying "I hate you" but it has nothing to do with polution or the president. If most of you really are hippies, which seems like you are from reading the responses, then you'll agree that everything has a sense of intelligence, including "mother earth."

Yeah I think the earth is pissed off, but I think it's more pissed off at the state of the inhabitants than it is in the state of it's material composition.

Look at all the lies being spewed out of our poloticians, and all the hate coming from the supporters of the said politicians for the supporters of the opposing politician or political view. Look at all the broken families from people being selfish, and only concerned about their own feelings and or careers. How many people actually get on their knees and tell God how grateful they are for what they receive. I think everyone has a feeling for what the answers to these questions are.

I think the earth is tired of all the hate and lies and arrogance and selfishness and hipocracy. We may be doing it to ourselves, but it is not because of our SUV's, it's because of our "negative energy" for lack of a better word. Don't point a finger at the President. Point a finger at yourself, and ask yourself when the last time was that you did something nice for a complete stranger, or your neighbor, or even your own kids or wife? You might think I'm crazy, and that's fine, I'm just telling you natural law, and the way things actually are. Negative energy gravitates toward negative energy and positive energy gravitates toward positive energy.

And if you think you have me pegged as a liberal hippy type, your wrong, I'm a Christian conservative Republican, and if the voting system were better, I would vote for someone better than Bush, but I got to 'play' the politics game, so I'm voting for Bush, because Kerry vaselates on too many important issues. I believe that he would do a worse job than Bush. There is no way to really tell what Kerry would do because he changes his mind on important matters too frequently.
Re:Nature's way... by aled · 2004-10-02 16:11 · Score: 1

It would be like your government started a war based on wrong data. I wouldn't what I would if my government wasted trillions of dollar and thousands of lives like that. Disclaimer: I don't think I'm trolling but your mileage may vary :-)

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:Nature's way... by JDevers · 2004-10-02 16:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only problem is that providing safe water to all the developing nations, saving millions of people from AIDS, or feeding half the people in the world that are starving would make the problem a hell of a lot worse. There are too many people on this planet as it is, if we elevated the entire current population to US/Western Europe/Japan standards or living, we would bankrupt the natural resources of this planet in very short order. The real solution is to lower the US/Western Europe/Japan resource demand and do our best to help the developing countries deal with their overpopulation problem...feeding them won't do it though.
Re:Nature's way... by quax · 2004-10-02 16:32 · Score: 1

The USA seems to be very comitted to making this simualtion a realty though with not signing the Kyoto agrreement.

<sarcasm>
Now that even Russia signed on the USA will have to work so much harder to make it happen. But being the main global source of CO2 I am sure America will prevail.
</sarcasm>
Re:Nature's way... by arivanov · 2004-10-02 20:07 · Score: 1

There's really no other way to study the effect of global warming without using some sort of simulation,
Incorrect. Study history.
During 800-1100 the Northern hemisphere was a degree or two higher then now. As a result the Gulfstream was weaker to the point where:
0.5-1m sustained winter snowcover in Britain was normal. Summer temperatures were sustained 27+ with a relatively dry climate and wheat was the main crop.
There was a number of winters at the height of this period where the bay of Venice, the Bosphorus, most of the Black Sea as well as the north of the Adriatic froze.
At the same time at the height of the period the entire Central America went into a 30+ year deadly draught which lead to the fall of the Maya civilization.
Similarly tree ring records from the same period show extremely wet and relatively colder conditions in Texas.
Iceland was mostly ice (as on the label).
So on, so fourth. If you compare this with the current climate model for what will global warming bring you will see that it matches 100%.

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Nature's way... by WoodstockJeff · 2004-10-02 23:50 · Score: 1

Yes, history has many lessons.
I remember watching a PBS show on global warming and its effects a couple of years ago, which tracked climate changes over the eons. They used data from ice cores, sea bed cores, tree rings, etc., and corelated the results with known phenomena about the solar system, such as the "wobble" of Earth's axis relative to the sun, the eccentricity of its orbit, long-term solar cycles, and dozens of other factors.
When the cycles of these factors were graphed, and the temperature/rainfall/atmospheric gasses data gleaned from the core samples was superimposed upon it, it was very evident that when Earth wobbled one way, temps got colder, and warmer when it wobbled the other way. When the orbit moved a bit futher off-center, summer/winter extremes got wider. When the sun was quiet, Earth was cooler than when the sun was more energetic. And, when cycles overlapped the "wrong way", things got either very hot, or very cold...
The graph showed that nearly all of these long-term factors had "recently" (past few centuries) passed through their average position, and were now trending towards the WARM side of the equation. And the modern historical record confirmed that temperatures have been rising.
Now, most of these factors are well beyond the control of man. But the conclusion of the show's producers was that we (man) must change our ways on greenhouse gas emissions, in the hope that we can slow what the previous 45 minutes had shown as a repeating, natural progression conditions on this planet, which predates our existance. Excuse me? Someone must have carried a decimal point incorrectly....
Re:Nature's way... by stephanruby · 2004-10-03 00:50 · Score: 1

(and I'm considering laziness [i.e. I was too lazy to wait the 45 seconds for the computer to boot up in the morning, so I left it on all night] as a choice).
People don't keep their computers on because of lazyness. They keep them on because it makes them last longer. It's the change in temperatures that expands and contracts electronic parts and it's the expanding and the contracting of those parts that make those computers malfunction.
Keep those computers turned on and make those computers last longer. Keep those computers turned off and save electricity during the hours for which we are already generating excess electricity most of which will never be stored.
Re:Nature's way... by Syberghost · 2004-10-03 02:49 · Score: 1

Given the seriousness of the disasters we're talking about if we're right, I think its important that we do whhat we can to eliminate it until we're sure global warming is not our doing.

But what if global warming is the only thing preventing another ice age? Given the seriousness of the disasters we're talking about if you're wrong, I think it's important that we do what we can to increase it until we're sure global warming isn't saving our butts.
Re:Nature's way... by flyneye · 2004-10-03 04:28 · Score: 1

neither does any of the crap lefty research claims.whats the difference? cowfarts.perhaps we should ban cows.
Then we can have the environmentalists vs. the bunny huggers.
Death Match 2004
The Left VS The Left
last man standing gets thrown in a global warmer.
Kids,dont be scared there is no such thing as man made global warming.No one has proved it.Just the bad kids trying to scare you.Now quiet down and sleep.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Nature's way... by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-10-03 06:48 · Score: 1

Except that there's a lot of evidence that the earth is getting warmer, and elementary physics tells you what will happen if huge blocks of permanent ice that are close to 0degC start the warm up by a few degrees.

Your "preventing ice age" theory is something you just made up, with little or no scientific corroboration.
Re:Nature's way... by RWerp · 2004-10-03 08:19 · Score: 1

Not true. We could feed much more people that live on the planet now. We could eliminate CO2 emissions and not lower our standard of living. The way developed nations survived energy crisis in 1973 shows that capitalist economy can adapt to changed circumstances and maintain, or even increase, the standard of living.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Nature's way... by ipfwadm · 2004-10-03 13:55 · Score: 1

Incorrect. Study history.
I am well aware that there are a variety of ways to study SOME effects of global warming without using simulations. However, we were referring to the effects of global warming on hurricanes, and the fact of the matter is, there isn't much historical record on either Atlantic or Pacific hurricanes. And it's only been the last few decades where we've really studied the hurricanes that didn't come near land.
So thank you for the heads up about that thing called "history", but it really doesn't help here.
Re:Nature's way... by ipfwadm · 2004-10-03 13:58 · Score: 1

The average computer is discarded because of obsolesence long before it breaks.
Further, the average joe sixpack does not have a clue that leaving the computer on will make it last longer, he thinks it's the opposite, that it'll break sooner because it's been on more.
Re:Nature's way... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-03 14:44 · Score: 1

Let's not forget that Russia signed because they got a special deal. They can keep their targets without destroying their existing economy. The USA can't.

Besides, do you really think European countries are going to voluntarily butcher their own electrical generating systems and transportation just to meet Kyoto? Power on from 9AM to 5PM, no private cars? Sure.

France and Germany bitch at the USA, but they haven't met their targets and never will.

Besides, the USA's CO2 is a drop in the bucket compared to Iceland's volcanos. Maybe we should tax the Icelanders! Yeah! FUCK ICELAND!!!! MAKE THE BASTARDS PAY!!!!
Re:Nature's way... by quax · 2004-10-03 15:12 · Score: 1

Besides, the USA's CO2 is a drop in the bucket compared to Iceland's volcanos.

... and of course the output of Iceland has been steadily improving over the last couple of centuries. Small wonder they are the first to completly switch over to a hydrogen econmy. Poor bastards.

Seriously, have you wasted more than a split second on this BS comparison before posting? If your answere is 'yes' I think you are in serious denial.
Re:Nature's way... by timts · 2004-10-04 02:45 · Score: 1

all of this, just keep reminding of that movie [the day after tomorrow].

the 2nd part of the movie isnot very interesting, but the first part... which seems to be happening, now, instead of "the day after tomorrow".
Re:Nature's way... by JDevers · 2004-10-04 03:51 · Score: 1

How about we wait until a viable alternative to petroleum plastics are found before we decide how many people this planet can support.
Re:Nature's way... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-04 05:55 · Score: 1

Its sarcasm. De Nile is a river in Egypt.
Re:Nature's way... by RWerp · 2004-10-04 11:41 · Score: 1

Chemists are very ingenious people, so this is one of the least problems. Sooner than later, we will grow carbon nanotubes out of, for example, cow manure. And thus one of the most pressing problems in Texas is going to be solved, finally.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Nature's way... by Syberghost · 2004-10-08 05:55 · Score: 1

Your "preventing ice age" theory is something you just made up, with little or no scientific corroboration.

Actually, it's something the environmentalist community made up, with little or no scientific corroboration, and peddled for 20 years before they switched to the current inanity.
Re:Nature's way... by Lours · 2004-10-11 12:20 · Score: 1

I tend to agree with the global warming hypothesis but I am still going to monitor the other literature to see if it will change my opinion.

Don't waste your time doing so when a whole intergovernmental group of scientists has been appointed to the task by the United Nations' governments.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reviews all scientific litterature and publishes the current evidence for or against climate change.

You will find more information (including their extensive reports) here : http://www.ipcc.ch.

Problem Solved by TheFlyingGoat · 2004-10-02 07:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Problem solved...
See Here

--
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill

Re:Problem Solved by julesh · 2004-10-02 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Despite popular confusion, global warming and ozone depletion are two entirely independent phenomena with little or no relation to each other, except that both are probably caused by pollution of differing kinds.
Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:26 · Score: 1, Informative

Not quite true. Ozone is actually a very effective greenhouse gas, more effective than CO2. But stratospheric ozone is needed to protect us from dangerous radiation from the sun.
Re:Problem Solved by julesh · 2004-10-02 07:30 · Score: 1

Ozone is actually a very effective greenhouse gas, more effective than CO2.

OK, but that's my point improved... they aren't the same thing -- ozone depletion actually reduces global warming, if that's true.
Re:Problem Solved by spikexyz · 2004-10-02 07:36 · Score: 1

Wow. At the risk of being called a troll, that's probably the dumbest thing I've read all week.
Re:Problem Solved by joelgrimes · 2004-10-02 07:58 · Score: 2, Informative

ozone depletion actually reduces global warming

I don't think so. Ozone reflects radiation. Near the earth's surface, that's a bad thing because it keeps heat down. In the upper atmosphere, it's a good thing because it keeps far more heat out.

"Ozone reflects light in the upper part of the stratosphere, and thereby has a cooling effect. However, ozone in the troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas, and has a direct warming effect."

http://www.grida.no/inf/kurs/themes/ozon/ozon4.htm

--
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources

Weather is complicated by erick99 · 2004-10-02 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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/

Re:Weather is complicated by Aglassis · 2004-10-02 07:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

You said "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."

The key point is that they are less than 50% accurate for short term forcasts. The same rule applies to psychology for diagnosing a single patient (meaning that it isn't always particularly effective).

This rule does not apply for large sums. Psychology, for example, is an extremely predictable science for sample sizes greater than 1000 or so. The same will apply to weather forcasts. And it makes complete sense since hurricanes are fueled by thermal energy. Increasing the overall thermal energy of the planet can only make them more probable.

Of course predicting when one will occur is very difficult.

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Re:Weather is complicated by Henry+V+.009 · 2004-10-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah. I just love these "plug all this data into the computer and see what comes out" studies. In the end, it's only as good as your model. And how good is the model? To answer that, we've got a big fat: "Who knows?"
Re:Weather is complicated by Martin+Blank · 2004-10-02 07:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Indeed. In fact, when I saw this headline, I went looking for another story I saw just a few days ago that says that this may be part of a normal cycle of increasing and decreasing cyclone counts and intensities. It doesn't rule out global warming effects, but it does present an alternate theory.

I have seen some other alternate theories to cover possible issues with global warming. Increases in geothermal activity under Greenland, for example, causing increased movement of the glaciers there. There's been the suggestion that increased energy output by the sun (a fraction of a percent, but at the level of the sun's output, that adds up pretty quickly) may be more at fault than man-made atmospheric releases. I don't mind research into man-made effects -- I'm all for getting off of oil dependency, and tech innovations are Very Good Things(TM) in general -- but alternate ideas do need to be suggested, considered, and explored.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Weather is complicated by knutal · 2004-10-02 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
And they never will be. Period. This is the result of imperfect models and imperfect initial conditions. Even though your model was "perfect", uncertainty in your initial conditions will cause large error growths by some time. This is one aspect of chaotic systems....

That being said, one should keep in mind that climate models do not forecast the wather into the future. They do not attempt to forecast the weather on Jan. 26th 2043. What we call weather forecast is an attempt to model the weather systems (low pressures, high pressures) on short time scales. At best, the position and intensities of these systems can be modeled with some accuracy. For climate simulations the positions and intensities of weather systems are of less value, it is the statistics of these weather systems which can be described.

To me it seems natural that the intensities of hurricanes will change as a result of any global warming, since the intensity of hurricanes are closely linked to ocean surface temperature (evaporation is the primary energy source for tropical hurricanes).
Re:Weather is complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

An increase in storm intensity can be predicted without complex computer models. Warm surface waters are what drive storm intensity. Furthermore, warm air can hold more water. Basically, the extra heat adds energy to the storm system.

The more remarkable finding would have been that warmer ocean water somehow doesn't increase hurricane strength, or that global warming doesn't increase surface ocean temperature. No such conclusions were reached, and at this time all evidence suggests the educated guess behavior, that heat drives storm strength, will lead to more intense storms.

This also doesn't mean the current hurricane season is caused by global warming -- I don't think many sefl-respecting climate scientists will try to say that -- but it does mean that over the decades storm intensities could increase as the average surface temperature increases.
Re:Weather is complicated by MikeCapone · 2004-10-02 08:02 · Score: 1

But they are not trying to predict exactly when and how many hurricanes there will be, they are looking at what effect the warming up of oceans has on hurricanes.

--
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Re:Weather is complicated by erick99 · 2004-10-02 08:10 · Score: 1

So what if you are a meteorologist? Offer something substantative. What part of density of the atmosphere did you not get? What percentage of the overall atmosphere do the models account for? How many intervening and contravening variables are not accounted for?

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Weather is complicated by stevelinton · 2004-10-02 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Interestingly, of course, even if increased solar output or whatever else is causing the global warming (and these theories are being looked at and discounted by very respectable scientific reviews), the correct response is the same -- increase the IR transmittance of the atmosphere by decreasing the levels of CO2 and various other gasses to allow the Earth to lose heat faster.

The 30ish year hurricane cycle is well established, but global warming cuts across that -- if the sea is generally warmer there will be more hurricanes compared to the same point in the 30 year cycle when the sea is cooler.
Re:Weather is complicated by Martin+Blank · 2004-10-02 08:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

If the sun is increasing its output, even cutting CO2 and methane in the atmosphere almost to zero may not be of much help.

I don't think we have more than a couple hundred years or so of reasonably accurate overall hurricane reporting, and even of those that have hit land, it's not more than a few hundred years of accurate records in North America. I imagine the records are even worse for typhoons in the Pacific, though the Indian Ocean cyclones may have somewhat better records, having been part of civilized life for a few thousand years there.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Weather is complicated by DrAegoon · 2004-10-02 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative

"Increasing the overall thermal energy of the planet can only make them more probable. "

Not exactly. Hurricanes are fueled by convection so they need warm ocean surface temperatures and considerably cooler temperatures aloft. Warmer temperatures aloft don't support convection as well and will either lead to weaker or fewer storms. Also, during years of El Nino warm conditions in the Pacific, the upper level wind shear is less favorable for hurricane formation. All this shows is that weather is much more complicated than just "more thermal energy = more hurricanes".

Check out this faq for tons of info on hurricanes and tropical cyclone prediction.
Re:Weather is complicated by arodland · 2004-10-02 08:55 · Score: 1

However, there's this thing called "space", and wherever you are, it's above you. And it's cold.
Re:Weather is complicated by stevelinton · 2004-10-02 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Obviously depends on how much the Sun is increasing. I believe that global average temperature is 10 or 20 Kelvins more than it would be if there was no greenhouse at all, so there is some way to go.

As you say hurricane records are pretty spotty, but the basic connection -- warmer sea surfaces leads ot more and bigger hurricanes globally is pretty clear. Some places might end up with fewer and smaller because of some weird feedback effect, but overall, that heat energy needs to be moved and a hurricane moves a lot of it.
Re:Weather is complicated by drdrea · 2004-10-02 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Hurricanes are heat engines driven by the energy contained in warm surface water. As the winds pick up, they are able to suck more and more of the energy from the sea surface. Because there is a limited supply of warm surface water, they need to keep moving to continue to grow.

In many ways, they are like wildfires burning through brush. The heavier the brush, the more intense the fire. If there is global warming, it will certainly lead to increases in mean sea surface temperatures, which increases the energy available to storms such as Hurricanes, therefore, bigger hurricanes.

While many aspects of global warming, like the rate and the detailed effect it will have on different regions is controversial, saying that global warming will lead to more intense hurricanes is not controversial.

I've been a bit of a skeptic about global warming for years. The chicken little crowd has always bugged me. But, if you turn off the politics and look at the data you see that currrent C02 levels are the highest in the last 150K years and are rising every year. This is a dangerous experiment we are doing with our atmosphere.

If reducing CO2 was going to cost lives or billions of dollars, then it is debatable whether we should do it. But, the things you'd do to reduce C02 like driving more efficient cars, buying more efficient appliances, insulating your houses, etc. are things we should do anyway, for other reasons - reduce polution, dependence on foreign oil, and on a micro scale, save everyone money.

My $.02
-DT-
Re:Weather is complicated by DrAegoon · 2004-10-02 11:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, but weather occurs almost entirely in the first 15km of atmosphere. There's another 35km just to get to the ozone layer. Space has nothing to do with it.
Re:Weather is complicated by Genda · 2004-10-02 11:37 · Score: 1

I have seen some other alternate theories to cover possible issues with global warming. Increases in geothermal activity under Greenland, for example, causing increased movement of the glaciers there. There's been the suggestion that increased energy output by the sun (a fraction of a percent, but at the level of the sun's output, that adds up pretty quickly) may be more at fault than man-made atmospheric releases. I don't mind research into man-made effects -- I'm all for getting off of oil dependency, and tech innovations are Very Good Things(TM) in general -- but alternate ideas do need to be suggested, considered, and explored.

The point is that we know that CO2 and Methane and even Water Vapor are greenhouse gases, and that we want to make certain that our contribution to a changing environment isn't going to make a natural fluctuation in earth's temp or solar output into a thermal runaway disaster.

There's another way of looking at this. Even if the problem is natural in it's cause, human kind now has the ability to mitigate potentially disasterous repercussions. Instead we're making the problem worse. Even if humanity didn't pour gasoline all over the floor in a small closed room (and the chances are getting pretty good it did), only an mouth breathing idiot would go around lighting matches in that room.

Genda

"I come from Southern California, a place where you have to chew the air before swallowing."
Re:Weather is complicated by Martin+Blank · 2004-10-02 13:16 · Score: 1

I've never said that global warming is a fantasy. What I have said is that we can't latch onto one idea at the expense of all others. That leads to a great deal of hype and cuts the idea's public believeability.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Weather is complicated by Tony-A · 2004-10-02 14:25 · Score: 1

To make a hurricane, you need lots of warm surface water under the path of the would-be hurricane. If there's enough warm surface water in the equatorial Atlantic, any minor squall coming off the west coast of Africa will likely become a hurricane.
If you've got a good handle on ocean surface conditions, by itself, you can make fairly reliable predictions on numbers and strengths of hurricanes. Where they hit land is another matter.
What's really missing is good modeling of the oceans.

I just don't think the models are there yet.
That's an understatement.
Re:Weather is complicated by aled · 2004-10-02 16:19 · Score: 1

(and these theories are being looked at and discounted by very respectable scientific reviews)

But are those so called respectable scientific /.ers that answer to posts 1:30 in the morning? What about their karma? I thought so. Man, they have no credibility.

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:Weather is complicated by haxor.dk · 2004-10-02 19:43 · Score: 1

"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."

You are quite correct, just not enough so.

People in the field say themselves that climatology and the study of greenhouse effects is still in its infancy. To make broad allegation of the kind propagated in thie blurp of this article is unscientific, at best.

At worst, it's used for political motives, just look at what Clinton, Kerry, Nader has used the greenhouse bogeyman for... Kyoto...
Re:Weather is complicated by stephanruby · 2004-10-03 01:12 · Score: 1

Of course predicting when one will occur is very difficult.
That's probably why they're keeping their prediction very vague and not even referencing a specific timeline.

Thanks Bush! by NeuroManson · 2004-10-02 07:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe when Jeb has to invest in scuba gear, that would be a good time to finally believe in global warming?

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

Re:Thanks Bush! by hugesmile · 2004-10-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Thanks George for giving our children such a great future, you are truely a great President.
So much for "no child left behind". It's truly.
I hate the spelling police, but this one was too tempting.
Re:Thanks Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Pull your head out of your ass. Kyoto was voted down by congress before Bush was even in office.
Re:Thanks Bush! by NeuroManson · 2004-10-03 07:47 · Score: 1

Yep, and who had a majority in congress? D'oh! Republicans!

Since the Kyoto accord was originally agreed to by a Democratic administration AND congress, it was one of the first things the neocons wanted to vote out.

Pity one cannot mod parent threads down as "stupid".

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

Great by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 07:08 · Score: 4, Funny

The environment seems to solve the Bush problem at least in Florida itself.

Re:Great by Steamhead · 2004-10-02 09:08 · Score: 1

For those who don't know:
http://bash.org/GODvsBUSH.gif
Re:Great by FrYGuY101 · 2004-10-02 18:02 · Score: 1

For those who are gullible enough to fall for that:

Snopes

-Floridian in the path of three of the four hurricanes.

Post Script: Any politician in Florida will tell you that a hurricane will actually benefit the incumbent. It means aid checks will be paid to thousands of people, the politicians get a nice photo op, and it gives people a sense of "This politician helped me out in a time of need!"

--
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

- Seneca
Re:Great by grozzie2 · 2004-10-02 18:49 · Score: 1

The map is humorous, even if the tracks it plots are factually in error.
What it's really showing though is, now we can rest assured most floridians can count to 3. There's still plenty of time before the election, bet mother nature and god team up to ensure they can count a little higher by election day, and then we wont see another fiasco like the last go around.
Re:Great by killjoe · 2004-10-02 20:19 · Score: 1

"Post Script: Any politician in Florida will tell you that a hurricane will actually benefit the incumbent. It means aid checks will be paid to thousands of people, the politicians get a nice photo op, and it gives people a sense of "This politician helped me out in a time of need!""

Yes but what if the politician is a conservative who rails against goverment spending and pork?

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Great by FrYGuY101 · 2004-10-03 11:42 · Score: 1

Yes but what if the politician is a conservative who rails against goverment spending and pork?
Simple.

Disaster relief isn't seen by most people as 'pork'. It's seen as disaster relief. Besides, "Compasionate Conservatism" is in.

--
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

- Seneca

The only way to motivate by bobhagopian · 2004-10-02 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:The only way to motivate by fitten · 2004-10-02 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure that humans don't help the problem much, but nothing has been presented yet to convince me that this warming trend (if there is one) isn't part of the natural cycle of our planet over 1000s (and 1,000,000s) of years. Our data doesn't go back far enough to definitively say that it's all because of human impact.

Again, I'm sure that humans don't help the problem and can do a lot better than we currently do, but I'm not convinced that if we immediately stopped all the "bad stuff" that the warming trend wouldn't continue simply because it's a part of a natural cycle.
Re:The only way to motivate by Zarks · 2004-10-02 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, but nothing has been presented to prove that global warming IS part of a a natural cycle. We dont know nearly enough about the weather to say anything 100%. Even the best computer models have yet to come close to the real complexity of the weather patterns. They could be many other effects that we know nothing about which could cause disaster.

Right now we're running into a dark cave and hoping there isn't a bear in it. Not a very good strategy for survival.
Re:The only way to motivate by deragon · 2004-10-02 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If we stop pushing out green house gases nothing will change, environmently speaking. The % of CO2 in the atmosphere will still remain at the current level and will take decades to come down.

If we stop pushing out green house gases, we stop agravating the situation. We do not improve the current situation. The pollution already released will remain. The issue is not about improving the situation, but stoping its deterioration.

--
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Re:The only way to motivate by BlowChunx · 2004-10-02 07:59 · Score: 1

In general, endangered species get "help" based largely on their photogenic quality (e.g. the sea otters during the Exon Valdez oil spill). Snails and toads just don't cut it.

How does this pertain to anything? Well with the beach erosion being caused by these hurricanes, where will all the bikini clad beach bunnies go?

Won't you help us save the beach bunnies?
Re:The only way to motivate by DoraLives · 2004-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1

Well with the beach erosion being caused by these hurricanes, where will all the bikini clad beach bunnies go?
Actually, the beach merely steps back a bit (or even a lot) and the BCBB's step back right along with it. Net result: A beach, as ever. Relocated some, I'll grant you, but still a beach and still fine for BCBB's. So actually, we don't need to be worrying about this particular "endangered species" in the slightest.
There now, don't you feel better?

--
Is it fascism yet?
Re:The only way to motivate by isorox · 2004-10-02 08:28 · Score: 1

non-Kyoto countries

So anywhere but Japan then?
Re:The only way to motivate by gcaseye6677 · 2004-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1

Would you care to post some links showing a direct connection between industry, global warming, and hurricanes? Do you realize you just made this incredible leap of logic without backing it up in any way whatsoever? It's hard to say which is worse, people making these huge assumptions with no evidence or idiots modding this crap up to +5 Insightful. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you've come nowhere close to proving yourself right.
Re:The only way to motivate by fitten · 2004-10-02 08:37 · Score: 1

We *do* have solid evidence that periodic cooling cycles are a part of a natural cycle of our planet (ice ages) so I can't rule out warming cycles.
Re:The only way to motivate by LiquidCoooled · 2004-10-02 08:48 · Score: 1

You must be new here ;)

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:The only way to motivate by Kyosuke77 · 2004-10-02 10:18 · Score: 1

Perhaps then this will convince you.

The point of that article, and expecially the excellent graph in it, is that we've pushed atmospheric CO2 levels far above what they've ever gone to in recent geological history. That, and the mean global temperature is being pushed above even their highest estimates of its natural fluctuations. Worse yet, this is all happening in the equivalent of a geological microsecond.

I think if you look at the sizes of the different schools of thought on this, you'll find that the number of scientists who think we're screwing ourselves outnumbers those who think it's a natural phenomenon by about 10:1.

--
GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
Re:The only way to motivate by AaronGTurner · 2004-10-02 10:38 · Score: 1

"The % of CO2 in the atmosphere will still remain at the current level and will take decades to come down"
There are carbon sinks that can absorb some of the CO2 being put into the environment. Some of these we have little control over (ocean chemistry) others we do (forest and other vegetation). We can have some effect on how quickly existing CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by reducing deforestation and/or encouraging fast-growing vegetation to trap the CO2. It may not be a big effect but since the system may be unstable relatively small effects on the total of CO2 when it is at a higher concentration now, as is likely a few years hence, might have a large effect on the dollars of damage done to property by adverse weather effects.
Re:The only way to motivate by beakburke · 2004-10-02 13:39 · Score: 1

No, we KNOW from the fossil record that the earth goes through "frequent" climate changes. The question we have right now is how much is our climate changing, how much of it is related to human activity, and what is the cost/benefit to counter act any cliamte change, regardless of the source. The last part people want to ignore. Apparently "natural" climate change would be ok, but human caused changes are "bad". Seems like a value judgement to me, not science.
Sure, we may very well be to blame for at least some of the change in climate, the question is, what are the future effects going to be, and what should we do about it? Adapt? Try to reverse climate change? What are the costs and benefits of these options.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Re:The only way to motivate by beakburke · 2004-10-02 13:49 · Score: 1

And of course higher CO2 levels will result in more favorable conditions for photosynthesis. So there is a sort of builtin stabilizer counteraction to increasing CO2 emmissions. But it does come back to making tradeoffs in terms of costs and benefits.
It's unfortunate that any debate seems to be so polarized. The environmentalist types think that everything should be subborned to their agenda, and their most vocal opponenets (well, most of them) seem to write the whole issue off because the opposing side seems to be selling claims that aren't wholely true (the rationale being the FUD is ok, since the cause is the right one).

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Re:The only way to motivate by russotto · 2004-10-02 14:35 · Score: 1

And new, enormous, carbon sinks and sources are periodically discovered. Since climate models don't (obviously) take undiscovered sources and sinks into consideration, they can't help but be defective.

Trying to predict the behavior of a chaotic system when you've got only the most general idea of the initial conditions is just not going to work.
Re:The only way to motivate by TapeCutter · 2004-10-02 15:51 · Score: 1

I agree. That is why the US and Australia should negotiate and sign on to the Kyoto treaty. The treaty is aimed at reducing the RATE of increase in emmissions.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:The only way to motivate by AaronGTurner · 2004-10-02 20:25 · Score: 1

And of course higher CO2 levels will result in more favorable conditions for photosynthesis.
All other things being constant, but there will be all sorts of other climate changes going on, so the picture is somewhat more complicated. We might find that rainfall changes and the rainforests start dying off or something (hopefully not!). I don't know what the latest state of research is, but the worry is that there are some feed forward mechanisms as well as feed back.
But it does come back to making tradeoffs in terms of costs and benefits.

Very much so, and some countries will lose and some will gain with global warming. Since we are all interlinked by trade these days then, to coin a phrase, no man is an island any longer.
The environmentalist types

I care about the environment. I think there are opportunities for future economic development and profit in devising ways to reduce global warming as well as a potential for avoiding costs from rapid climate change. I am not going to susbscribe to the extreme such as us all going and living in mud huts somewhere. Very very few environmentalists think that, thankfully.
Re:The only way to motivate by AaronGTurner · 2004-10-02 20:28 · Score: 1

As time goes on the models are hopefully heading in the right direction in terms of sophistication, though. In general the conclusions being drawn from a variety of sources and methods tend to point in the same general direction, but conclusions about extents, time scales, or some details (what will happen to the Atlantic Conveyer) differ. Concern about global warming isn't new, though. The trend was noticed over 100 years ago, but the cause was unknown.

Haiti by Scrameustache · 2004-10-02 07:09 · Score: 4, Informative

If you think Florida had it bad, they don't even know how many thousands of people died in Haiti yet, they'll have to dig through the mud to find the bodies. Once they get food that is...
The estimates are one or two thousand dead these days.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:Haiti by DigiShaman · 2004-10-02 07:30 · Score: 1

And it's aaallllllll USAs fault!!! EVERY BIT of it. USA is to blame!!!!

*sigh* You just know it would be said sooner or later. And yes..i'm being sarcastic.

Damn hippies.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Haiti by say · 2004-10-02 07:38 · Score: 1

WTF? Your being paranoid. Noone accused USA of being the fault of this.

A little more money to aid the Haitians wouldn't hurt, though.

--
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Re:Haiti by DigiShaman · 2004-10-02 07:57 · Score: 1

No no. I'm not saying that the US is to blame. I'm just stating something your average greenpeace hippies would say. heh

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Haiti by Scrameustache · 2004-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1

And it's aaallllllll USAs fault!!! EVERY BIT of it. USA is to blame!!!!

Actually, its partly their own fault, sadly.
They've been deforesting pretty hard over there for a long time, for cooking and building wood. Well, with all the trees gone, there was nothing to hold all that dirt there, hence the giant deadly mudslides.

That country is perpetually fucked up, they just have one crazy corrupt dictator after another. Can't really blame the people for their short sighted want for fire wood, but the leaders were too incompetant/corrupt to take actions to stop the deforestation. Now: hell.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Haiti by Scrameustache · 2004-10-02 11:17 · Score: 1

bullshit [...] You guys go ahead and rag the US [...] But its much more fun to just bash the US, using conjecture and assumptions, without getting the facts.

I was talking about Haiti, you retarded troll. See the title?

But its much more fun just to bash people, using conjecture and assumptions, without getting the facts, huh?

--
You can't take the sky from me...

Once again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:09 · Score: 5, Funny

I think that this, once again, shows the faliure of closed source.

If we had access to the source code for the weather module, we wouldn't have to wait for god to fix the bug, do some sort of mediocre quality control, and then release it after 6 months.

Re:Once again... by johannesg · 2004-10-02 08:26 · Score: 2, Funny

I think it is premature to suspect the weather module, it might just as well be the smiting module. If that is true it would be operating according to spec. Anyway, let's just wait and gather some more data first. If mt. Helen blows and wipes out a significant part of the landscape, the Big Earthquake hits and drops California into the ocean, and half a dozen further hurricanes hit Florida, all this year, I'm inclined to think it wasn't weather.cpp...
Re:Once again... by LiquidCoooled · 2004-10-02 08:50 · Score: 1

My universe must be running in debug mode.

I keep seeing console output whilst im walking down the street.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Once again... by sideshow · 2004-10-02 19:40 · Score: 1

Actually you got it wrong. The Big Earthquake comes and the whole rest of the US except for California falls into the sea. It's gonna happen right after Los Angeles beats Anaheim in the World Series.

--
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

Kyoto by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Democrats blaming Bush in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

(Kerry voted against the Kyoto agreement in the Senate in 1998)

Re:Kyoto by MillionthMonkey · 2004-10-02 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Democrats blaming Bush in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

(Kerry voted against the Kyoto agreement in the Senate in 1998)

You know, I've seen so many Republican talking points that come in the form of "Kerry voted against X", that turn out to be based on procedural details and similar bullshit. So I did some Googling and found this article from December 1997 (smothered in an avalanche of right wing blogs essentially parroting what you said).
In Kyoto, a leading Democratic member of the observer delegation agreed that the treaty was not acceptable to the Senate in its current form. "What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate in my judgment," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said. According to aides in Washington, Kerry wanted Clinton to sign the deal but hold off submission of it until follow-on conferences scheduled for Bonn in June and Buenos Aires in November.

At those meetings, the next step in the process of designing an international strategy to combat global warming, international delegates will again discuss more active participation by developing countries, which was essentially removed from the pact during the final hours of deliberation in Kyoto because of objections from China and India.

U.S. opponents of a global warming pact, including the Republicans and major American industries, especially coal, oil, steel and electric power producers, have argued that a deal that requires industry in this country to go through the expensive process of significantly cutting emissions of greenhouse gases was unfair unless the same requirements applied to all nations.
In January 1998 the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto because the exemptions for developing countries were widely viewed as unfair.
Re:Kyoto by clone22 · 2004-10-02 08:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Mod parent up. Kerry authored an ammendment to the bill:

KERRY (AND CHAFEE) AMENDMENT NO. 987 (Senate - July 24, 1997)

[Page: S8101] GPO's PDF

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chafee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the resolution (S. Res. 98) expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; as follows:

On page 4, line 13, after `period,' insert the following:

`(ii) provides countries with incentives and flexibility in reducing emissions cost-effectively by using the market-oriented approaches of emissions budgets, emissions trading, and appropriate joint implementation with all Parties,

`(iii) includes credible compliance mechanisms, and

`(iv) provides appropriate recognition for countries that undertake emissions reductions prior to the start of the mandated reductions;'.

--
Ask me about my vow of silence!
Re:Kyoto by arodland · 2004-10-02 08:58 · Score: 1

I knew someone would jump at this. You should tone down the "global warming" trigger some. It doesn't say "we're making the earth warmer" it says "the earth has been getting a bit warmer, looks like it will be for a little while, and we think that might stir up some more hurricanes."
Re:Kyoto by Artraze · 2004-10-02 11:31 · Score: 1

Neither Kerry nor Bush supported Kyoto, but even if they had, it wouldn't have solved the problem. A major step in the right direction is nuclear power. And here, Bush wants a new plant by 2010, while Kerry has noting concrete ("nuclear power will continue to be key...").
Nuclear power may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Re:Kyoto by bobbuck · 2004-10-02 12:35 · Score: 1

Sure he wants nuclear power. Just not outside of Iran.

Hurricanes in Florida by Richard+Aday · 2004-10-02 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Hurricanes in Florida by johannesg · 2004-10-02 08:21 · Score: 1

Apart from tourism and general property damage, there is something else I'm curious about: how does this affect NASA and its ability to launch space shuttles?
Since this is a serious question I might as well make the obvious joke myself: "not at all. They cannot launch space shuttles right now and that won't change because of the storms."
Having gotten that out of the way, does someone know a real answer?
Re:Hurricanes in Florida by theCoder · 2004-10-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Last I heard (I live just south of NASA, and I miss watching the shuttles go up), the return to space launch has been pushed out 2-3 months to May or June of 2005. It may even be pushed out to July depending on lanuch conditions.

Source (caution: may have popups, so use protection).

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown

you mean Look Out East Coast! by johnpaul191 · 2004-10-02 07:10 · Score: 3, Informative

the hurricanes have been nothing more than intense storms when they make it up to my area (Philadelphia), but they have made a mess. just this last week all over PA, DE and NJ had lots of mess i watched on the local news. there was a few feet of mud from runoff on I-76 just outside the city. they had to get people off a bus using an xtension ladder from the other side of the road (the jersey wall acted like a dam). in all 30 cars and one bus were destroyed. countless houses and stores flodded out. sinkholes all over the place opening up. a lady was killed in the city because the water coming down the sidewalk was so strong it knocked her over and washed her down the street, she got stuck under a car and by the time people pulled her up she had drowned!

Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by ACNSlave · 2004-10-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Be glad you just got a few intense storms. They were a little more powerful here in central Florida. We're still in shock. Its a weird feeling being told to make backups because your building may not be there after the hurricane (4 times in 6 weeks). In many cases that prediction came true, but thankfully not for my own place of business and home. Six days ago I was watching the trees blow sideways and wondering if my roof was in any shape to stay on after 2 near misses and several feet of rain. Storm indeed!

Bruce

--
Today is a good day to code.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by apikoros · 2004-10-02 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

IANAM (meteorologist) but if the sea surface is getting warmer then it seems to me that it will support hurricane paths further north. This means that the hurricanes that are aimed at the gulf will be stronger but there will be hurricanes hitting further north as well.
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!
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by johannesg · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 1

I have watched the news and I sympathize from my rather safer location in the world. However, there is something I just don't understand: why do americans build their houses of wood? Why not use concrete or something else that can actually withstand hurricanes?
BTW, you don't suppose this will change the general opinion about the Kyoto protocols do you? Now that pollution can be linked to bad weather, and bad weather has a price tag worth billions of dollars, maybe there is some incentive to actually tackle the problem...
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 1, Informative

Hurricane Karl recently travelled nearly to ICELAND while maintaining tropical characteristics!

The Gulf Stream is nothing new. It's just uncommon for a storm to last long enough to make it almost to the end.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-10-02 08:18 · Score: 1

Because wood is cheap.

There is wood all over the United States in large quanities so there isn't a high cost involved with the shipping of it.

Concreate is more expensive and fluxates more in price.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by CajunArson · 2004-10-02 08:29 · Score: 2, Informative

why do americans build their houses of wood?
As a former Floridian I can tell you that they don't, at least not in the major Hurricane areas. Wood houses are much more common in the rest of the country, and I might add that a properly built wood house can be pretty tough. There are areas of the Atlantic coast with more wood construction, but they are in places where a hurricane hasn't landed in recorded history. It could happen though, and would probably spawn new building codes.
I forget the exact 3 letter abbreviation, but standard Florida code calls for concrete block construction with steel rebar, as well as extra bindings to keep the roof of a building from being blown off which is the major precursor to full structural failure.
As for hurricanes getting worse due to global warming, there is a much more important natural cycle that plays a far larger role. Back in the 1940's there were hurricanes worse than what we have today, but then the weather system was not able to effectively track them, and far fewer people lived in FL anyway.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by Ptraci · 2004-10-02 09:58 · Score: 1

But the other piece of the puzzle is the weakening of the North Atlantic Conveyor, and the probable slowing or redirection southward of the Gulf Stream. I'm wondering what kind of weather patterns we'll get out of a cooling of the North Atlantic combined with warming in the south.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by skahshah · 2004-10-02 10:41 · Score: 1

Wooden houses have no problem resisting to hurricanes. In fact, they may well resist better than concrete houses, because wood is more elastic. In countries where there are anti-cyclonic norms in construction (in either wood or concrete), few or no houses are blown by the wind, for example, in the French Carribean.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by AstroDrabb · 2004-10-02 13:51 · Score: 1

why do americans build their houses of wood?
Actaully, down here in Flordia we use concrete blocks to build homes. I live 10 miles from Walt Disney. Usually the block work is only the first floor and if you have a two storey home like I do, then the second floor is wood construction.
We were lucky through Charley, Frances, Ivan missed us, and Jeanne. We did not lose a single shingle. Though we did lose power for 36 hours or so from Jeanne. That might not sound bad, however you need to remember the heat down here. Our home was just getting too hot, so we stay at a Disney resort for two nights.
I think this topic is just trying to scare people. There have never been this many hurricanes in Flordia so close together in one season in recorded history. I hope it doesn't happen again : )
It is kind of cool being in a hurricane. I went out to feel the power of the wind and it was pretty strong. However, once they get to upper cat-3 or cat-4 things get REAL scary. Our windows were rattling for hours, it sounded like our home was about to colapse on me and my family.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by Grishnakh · 2004-10-02 14:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by RWerp · 2004-10-03 08:12 · Score: 1

Notice how every time an earthquake hits a third world country like Mexico or Turkey, thousands of people die because their concrete houses collapse?

It's not just because people in thirld world country live in concrete houses. It's mainly because these houses are built with utter disregard for building codes and laws of engineering (in Europe, Turkish construction companies don't get much of a good publicity). Also, many people die in mud slides or other accidents which happen and bring casualties because society is worse organized than in the USA. I read somewhere that when a flood hit some town in the rural USA, the authorities quickly dispensed many walkie-talkies to people, allowing them to coordinate the rescue and evacuation operation.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by Grishnakh · 2004-10-03 16:44 · Score: 1

Ok, maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but why is it so hard for third-world countries to get their act together and do things as well as they're done in first-world countries? Why is it so impossible to ensure buildings are built to good building codes? We have corruption here too, but you almost never see buildings collapsing because of it, and when that does happen, someone gets in trouble for it.
Re:you mean Look Out East Coast! by RWerp · 2004-10-04 11:36 · Score: 1

Ok, maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but why is it so hard for third-world countries to get their act together and do things as well as they're done in first-world countries?

They wouldn't be thirld-world countries then. Seriously, for lots of reasons: war, lack of resources, lack of knowledge, lack of will, etc...

We have corruption here too, but you almost never see buildings collapsing because of it, and when that does happen, someone gets in trouble for it.

So, you need to have a working judicial system, which is (mostly) immune to corruption itself.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)

In other news... by MagicDude · 2004-10-02 07:11 · Score: 4, Funny

In other news, the State of Florida has changed its name to State of Emergency.

Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:39 · Score: 1, Informative

...yet the Bush family still denies that global warming exists or has any effect on the planet...

"Two legs good! Four legs bad!"

Eight years of Clinton... 40+ years of Democrat controlled Congress... Clinton shoots down the Kyoto Accords... and you're blaming Bush? Do ya really think it's a Halliburton-Bush-Bildeberger-Alien Abduction-Jews are Blood Suckers conspiracy? It's shocking how these self-professed intellectuals can latch onto such bizarre, poorly constructed delusions.

Please, take the tin foil hats off. Quit blindly trusting political parties and their media arms (NY Times is one of the least credible news sources now days and every "news" story should be treated as more anti-objective thinking hatred.

Consider this article that explains that the credibile sources understand there is not a cororlation between alleged warming and hurricanes:

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- As hurricane after hurricane strikes the southeastern United States, many people wonder whether the rash of storms is the result of global warming.

The answer from scientists: Probably not, and certainly not with this year's weather. In fact, the overall global temperatures .

Although many experts think global warming could increase the number or the intensity of hurricanes 50 years from now, they say this year's storms were caused by natural changes in the ocean and atmosphere. These include a multi-decade cycle of warm water moving through the Atlantic Ocean, and the unusual mildness of the hurricane-suppressing patch of warm water in the Pacific called El Nino.

"This isn't a global-warming sort of thing," said Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University. "It's a natural cycle."

Curiously, the data shows we're in a cooling pattern (many of the credible scientists understand nearly all of the effect is associated with sun cycles and these are thankfully out of the reach of Halliburton for now). Data from non-urban sources confirms the overall cooling trend, while urban heating continues to be a problem. If you really want to do something about it, quit living in the damn cities!

And according to these people, global cooling kills more people than warming (I can see the NYTimes correction now: Climate cooling, not warming, but Bush-induced cooling kills more than warming!)

And this cooling trend isn't a new phenomenon that can be "blamed on Bush" - unless you want to include Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and (gasp) Carter this cooling has been happening since 1975. Pretty interesting that the NY Times gets this wrong too. Then again, when the media feels it appropriate to run forged documents provided by mentally unsound oddballs that every expert consulted says are fraudulant, should we be surprised?
Re:In other news... by Chatmag · 2004-10-02 07:59 · Score: 1

I dubbed it "Floricane" but there is a variety of raspberry named that.

--
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Re:In other news... by spuke4000 · 2004-10-02 08:12 · Score: 1

Also, ravaged named Florida's offical state adjective.

--
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
Re:In other news... by inKubus · 2004-10-02 09:55 · Score: 1

The government is using secret weather changing technology to affect the outcome of the Florida elections. /mount tinfoilhat

--
Cool! Amazing Toys.

Conclusion by julesh · 2004-10-02 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Conclusion by Eloquence · 2004-10-02 08:50 · Score: 1

No, what's needed is the application of the precautionary principle.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

With the way people are blaming everything else in the world on Bush.. I'm surprised..

Because he's set the US on a course that pisses-off a lot of people worldwide.

Look Four Posts Up by Bryan+Gividen · 2004-10-02 07:14 · Score: 1

There is someone who blames Jeb Bush instead.

Personally, I'm thinking its the burning bush that has something to do with it...

Re:Bush said! by wibs · 2004-10-02 07:15 · Score: 2, Informative

But Bush said that greenhouse effect was nonsense!

Even the Bush administration has issued reports saying that global temperatures should rise about 4 degrees over the next century (independent studies say it's more like 10). Global warming is technically a theory, but it's one of the best supported and widely believed in the scientific community. Whether or not humans have played a part in it is up for debate, though. Quick side note: since the last ice age, 1 degree/100 year increase is generally regarded as a fast temperature increase.

Back on topic, any rapid change in climate is going to have some major natural disasters, be it hurricanes or undue rain or even prolonged drought, depending on the area. It's not going to be like that movie where everything happens at once and tidal waves are suddenly racing through manhattan, but florida isn't the only place in for a rough time.

--
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by w3rzr0b0t5 · 2004-10-02 07:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Do you know how many senators voted not to ratify the treaty?

98 out of 100. Two senators did not vote.

So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west. And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.

Apparently, 98 senators who are normally split along party lines figured that one out. There's 1+1=2 for you.

Reminds me of a book. by ezraekman · 2004-10-02 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Check out Mother of Storms by John Barnes. EXACTLY this theory was the premise of the book... though taken to it's extreme, of course. :-)

Re:Reminds me of a book. by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1

So does Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Reminds me of a book. by johannesg · 2004-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1

And so does Peter Hamilton's "Night's dawn" trilogy, although it is only a minor element of the overal story there. Those humans still living on Earth (quite a few, at 43 billion(?)) live under giant domes that keep out the devastating "armada storms". The only thing that still grows outside is a particularly tough breed of grass.
His "Greg Mandel" series of books are set in the same universe, at an earlier time. The hero of those books grows oranges in Great Brittain, also made possible through global warming...

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by susano_otter · 2004-10-02 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto, therefore hurricanes?

What if the U.S. had signed, but Russia hadn't? Would the hurricanes be Russia's fault?

Your mastery of simple addition is impressive, but I don't think you have any understanding of how the weather works.

Nice burn on SUVs, though! So at least your post wasn't a total failure.

--

Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

Forseen 18 years ago by Randym · 2004-10-02 07:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

In 1986, my dad -- an agriclimatologist -- worked on a report for the DOE, analyzing the impact of global warming upon crop regions and yield. Even then, the temperate perimeter had moved northward. I asked him to give me a quick overview of what global warming would bring. His reply was chilling:

"Hotter summers, colder winters, and more intense hurricanes. But we can't rule out a sudden (say, within a century) plunge into a little ice age, if the ice caps at the poles melt, causing the earth to lose too much albedo from the loss of the reflective ice caps. Also, glacial runoff from Greenland could stop the warming North Atlantic current and make northern Europe uninhabitable, like in the last big ice age, which ended 11,000 years ago."

So far he's been right. Not that that's a good thing.

--
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.

Re:Forseen 18 years ago by VivianC · 2004-10-02 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
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.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Hey num-nuts. There is a difference between 5 degree change over 100,000 years and 5 degree change of 10 years.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by R2.0 · 2004-10-02 09:00 · Score: 2, Funny

"make northern Europe uninhabitable"

So all I have to do to get the Europeans out of my hair - and off the planet - is let my SUV idle all night?

I'm waiting for the downside of this...

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by JohnnyGTO · 2004-10-02 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by Carbonite · 2004-10-02 09:34 · Score: 1

There is a difference between 5 degree change over 100,000 years and 5 degree change of 10 years.

Ummm, Mr. AC, I really hope you don't consider 10 years of data to represent a global warming trend.

--
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by Oligonicella · 2004-10-02 11:24 · Score: 1

Yes, that is true. The evidence also shows that there have been periods in the past where the change to the warmer (and cooler) have been as or more drastic than today. Don't pick and choose your data.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by ipfwadm · 2004-10-02 11:59 · Score: 1

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!!
Sure, electric cars require electrical generation. Further, fuel cell cars require hydrogen, which requires electrical generation. But the beauty of such devices is that the electricity can be made in ONE PLACE. It's a lot easier to put high quality pollution scrubbers on one big pipe that doesn't move than it is to try and clean up after millions of individual automobiles that can't have heavyweight pollution controls onboard. Plus it's a lot easier to upgrade just a few scrubbers on power plants when the technology improves than it is to change all the cars in the world. I've heard this "but I'll pollute just as much since I still need to get the electricity from somewhere" argument before, and it's crap.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by khallow · 2004-10-02 13:19 · Score: 1

It's not "vanity" to realize that Brazil is losing an astonishing amount of forest and turning it into atmospheric carbon. (Oh, I'm aware that deforestation isn't all that big an influence on the oxygen cycle; plankton and algae do more than trees. It still matters.)
Last I saw, the contribution to atmospheric CO2 from deforestation was estimated to be a substantial portion (40-60% IIRC) of the contribution from first world industrial and transportation sources.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by beakburke · 2004-10-02 13:51 · Score: 1

There hasn't be a 5 degree change in one decade silly. Actually, many climatologists now think that periods of global warming and cooling happened much more rapidly than previously thought. Akin to the "punctuated equilibrium" theory in biology.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by JohnnyGTO · 2004-10-02 14:13 · Score: 1

Untill we can build either hydrogen fusion or more nuclear plants there will be no reduction in coal fired plants AND there NEVER,EVER will be single source power plants.

Image your life with no electricity.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by ipfwadm · 2004-10-02 14:25 · Score: 1

Untill we can build either hydrogen fusion or more nuclear plants there will be no reduction in coal fired plants AND there NEVER,EVER will be single source power plants. Image your life with no electricity.
Huh?
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by CheshireCatCO · 2004-10-03 15:29 · Score: 1

Technically, melting the ice caps and lower Earth's albedo makes us warmer. At least in the short run. (Feedbacks with oceanic circulation and such make the ultimate effect harder to predict.) A lower albedo means MORE sunlight is being absorbed so that the Earth has to warm up to radiate that energy back to space.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by aggiefalcon01 · 2004-10-04 12:42 · Score: 1

In other news, "agriclimatologist" is apparently a real word! Film at 11.

--
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by juhaz · 2004-10-05 05:23 · Score: 1

And you electric vehicle assholes, where do you think your pollution is going.

Same place your gas guzzlers pollution is going. Air. Fact is, the bigger the plant, the better the efficiency, and vastly more easier to filter. Which means, less pollution for the same amount of energy.

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!!

No, it's being made at those big electric power plants everywhere on the planet, you know they really haven't concentrated the power production of the whole world in Arizona to piss of those poor native americans. Nice spin, though, but you might consider making it little less transparent...
Re:Forseen 18 years ago by JohnnyGTO · 2004-10-05 06:13 · Score: 1

My point being too many greenes are running around with the "we're saving the world cause we're electric" then trying to shutdown the very power plants and dams (think Parker dam so we can restore the natural beauty of the desert, and at the same time drain thelargest man made fresh water lake in America. Guess California and Arizona DON'T NEED DRINKING WATER) making their electricity. They fight against any new plants and god forbid (sorry not being secular there)you use the "N" world (nuclear for you bigots out there)They have these bullshit pie in the sky plans to carpet the desert in solar and wind, but oops that will kill the green spotted desert toad and chop up Woodsie tree owl in those blades, scrap those ideas (there is a call to actually take down several large wind fars to save the birdies)!! Or more likely they'll fight the creation of the manufacuting plants need to creat these "wonder" system... that will not work. Untill someone finds a way to make cheap power with out offending some tree frog some where we're going to use the FEW power plants we have currently online and YES I know we are rushing to build more, it's about time why don't we build a few more refineries while we're at it. Hey imagine how much more advanced these plants could be if we had actually been building new ones and trying new ieas all this time?

As for the GTO it get 15mpg and will do better after I finish with the fuel injection, better then many of those smokey VW buses I deal with every day Thank You. And please consider the amount of energy required to retire this car, I will need a new car and that take raw resources and power to creat from scratch. The real gas guzzler is my 84 Suburban, o'boy 10 maybe 11 mpg on a good day and boy i it fun to drive! But no problem it's paid for, none of those $800.00 a month, might as well live init cause it as much as a house car payments for me. Nope I'll spend less then have that a month on gas an blow by those dinky electric cars that can't go more then 55mph for 200 miles, Insert Evil Laugh Here

BTW - I'm think of switching them both to propane/LPG but there is no solid infastructure for dispensing fuel, kinda like hydrogen,eh!

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 07:19 · Score: 1, Troll

The problem is that the Kyoto treaty is by far not enough. The Kyoto treaty was not even enough at the time of the ratification.
See more problems chugging along, in europe we have felt the impact of global warming almost since 1985 when the winters from one year to the next suddenly had much less snow. These things dont usually become worse gradually and slowly but basically from one year to the next, then things seddle for a while and then wham, the next smack.
Well I see it as a real sign of god (not the one Bush seems to believe to talk to) that Florida was one of the most devastated states this year so, that the Bush familiy in general gets a lousy feeling on what the environment thinks about their politics.
The funny thing is that the USA probably would have very easy ways to save much more energy than the kyoto treaty. From what I could see the USAs one family homes have a lousys system of preserve warmth within their walls. The constructions over here in europe are much more sophisticated in this regard (the problem and saving energy has been a big issue for a long time over here)
The people have to cut down on big cars, which they probably will never need. Face it, there already exists cars which suck 6 liters (about 1 1/2 gallons) / 100kms and much more.
Cut down on those dreaded air conditions, cut down on the power consumption of computers and so on.
All those things can be done without hurting the industry. Give tax returns on measures which add heat saving mechanisms to the average homes.
Do the taxing system according to the consumption of the cars and so on.
Bushs plan was to kick the kyoto treaty and let Enron decide what to do. Aka build more nuclear plants which yet still have an unresolved waste problem.

Re:one problem ... by julesh · 2004-10-02 07:19 · Score: 1

there is no evidence of this nonsense called global warming.

Other than a general increasing trend in recorded temperatures over recent years. Sure, it isn't conclusive evidence (we don't know that this wouldn't be happening naturally without our intervention), but it is evidence.

It's complicated and there are 2 compelling sides by erick99 · 2004-10-02 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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/

MOD PARENT UP (Informative) by SomeGuyTyping · 2004-10-02 07:19 · Score: 1

I did not know this

--
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by stubear · 2004-10-02 07:20 · Score: 1

"If people kick the shrub out, the US will stand a better chance at ratifying the Kyoto accord and remove the wasteful SUVs from the roads."

Kerry voted against the Kyoto treaty. oh, I'm sorry, you actually expect either the Green or Independant party candidates to be serious contenders for the Office of President of the United states.

By the way, SUVs aren't the problem, combustion engines that burn fossil fuels are. SUVs that run off Biodeisel are every bit as eco-friendly as little "roller skates" that currently get 50+ MPG. SUVs that run off hydrogen will be every bit as eco-friendly as well.

"Was bad"? by Joao · 2004-10-02 07:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Just for the record, hurricane season lasts until the end of November.

Re:"Was bad"? by ReciprocityProject · 2004-10-02 17:06 · Score: 1

And, just for the record, Florida is still attached to the mainland. (disclaimer: so says my roommate . . . )

--
Upstairs Dog, Downstairs People.

The atmosphere is a heat engine... by Simon+Brooke · 2004-10-02 07:21 · Score: 4, Informative

This (more hurricanes) comes as a surprise to anyone? The atmosphere is a heat engine. You put more heat energy in, you get more wind energy out. It's as simple as that. Of course you're going to get more high wind events. In the Carribean, you call those Hurricanes.

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.

Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by code_rage · 2004-10-02 07:41 · Score: 4, Informative

From the NYTimes article:
"Dr. Emanuel and the study's authors cautioned that it was too soon to know whether hurricanes would form more or less frequently in a warmer world. Even as seas warm, for example, accelerating high-level winds can shred the towering cloud formations of a tropical storm."

The important take-away is that the models predict a higher proportion of severe hurricanes, but no one knows yet whether there would be more or less hurricanes.

Ironically, we could wind up with both drought and more severe hurricanes. If the total number of hurricanes diminishes, large areas of the South could experience drought. Yet, when a hurricane does form, it could be more severe than has been usual so far. Worst of both effects...
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by goon+america · 2004-10-02 08:34 · Score: 1

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

What's also interesting is that those least likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack are most likely to vote for Bush. That is, the best predictor of being a victim of a terrorist attack is population density, and this is also the best predictor of voting for Kerry. At the moment, Kerry is leading in Washington, DC at 78-11. That's an impressive 67 point lead. (Nader, at 9%, is only 2 points behind Bush.) Similar numbers for NYC.

It's been pointed out before that states receiving comparatively less and paying more for federal benefits are more likely to be in favor of them.

I don't know, I had just been thinking about this when I came across the above post. Some explanations are simple but I think there's gotta be another variable behind this somewhere.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by khallow · 2004-10-02 12:42 · Score: 1

Not quite. The atmosphere is just a medium. The hurricane is the heat engine transfering heat from the oceans to the upper atmosphere and ultimately radiated into space.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by evacuate_the_bull · 2004-10-02 12:52 · Score: 1

Many scientists are also predicting global warming to also slow or destroy the circulatory system of the ocean, or the Thermohaline Circulation. However, this is part of what powers Hurricanes. The Gulf stream (sorry, I'm from the US) flows up from the Carribean across the shores of the Atlantic Coastal States and back up and across towards Europe. If this conveyor belt were to be disrupted (forgetting the dramatic climactic changes that would already occur) it seems to me that Hurricanes hitting the US would be weaker as there would be less warm water moving up the East Coast of the US since warm water is what powers Hurricanes.

I am certainly not a meteorologist, but it seems that these two catastrophe scenerios do not coexist well. I suppose Hurricanes could be much worse around the equator. Any thougts on all that?

--
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by khallow · 2004-10-02 13:14 · Score: 1

One interesting thing that came up was that military spending is far more variable than other federal spending.
Defense spending is considerably more volatile than any other component of Federal spending, with actual defense spending dispersed widely around the national average. Dollar for dollar, defense spending imparts three times as much variation among the states as any other area of Federal spending; distribution of the parts of Federal spending that are largely determined by characteristics of the population.

[...]
The result is that defense drives the outcomes considerably more than one would expect by examining its budget share alone. And, over the time period of this analysis, defense spending became more concentrated in fewer states as the overall level of defense spending declined.

So here's an alternate hypothesis. I suspect that the red states have in addition to more voting power, have more per capita serving in the US military (and perhaps in Federal law enforcement as well). The military continues to play a substantial role in US foreign policy. Perhaps the importance of the organization and the role the red states play in staffing this organization result in greater funds spent per capita.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by CXI · 2004-10-02 13:57 · Score: 1

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

Are you kidding me? You need to get your European eye checked then. Pretty much ALL major cities and areas around them vote democrat (after all, welfare spending buys votes), and there are a lot of coastal cities that are going to be screwed with higher sea levels. Nice try though.

Further more, in case someone brings it up: no the hurricanes didn't target Bush counties.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by PetoskeyGuy · 2004-10-02 15:46 · Score: 1

This (more hurricanes) comes as a surprise to anyone? The atmosphere is a heat engine. You put more heat energy in, you get more wind energy out. It's as simple as that. Of course you're going to get more high wind events. In the Carribean, you call those Hurricanes.

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

Just because Bush is full of Hot Air doesn't mean you can blame the hurricanes on him.
Re:The atmosphere is a heat engine... by Jules+Labrie · 2004-10-03 00:09 · Score: 1

What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.

And what about the 15000 French dead because of the very hot summer last year ???

Re:This is just the beginning! by Heraklit · 2004-10-02 07:21 · Score: 1

Jokes about Al Gore aside, one possible outcome of global warming is the deep sea currents changing their course. One of them, the gulf stream, veers off completely in the model, leading to a projected dramatic temperature drop in Europe... have you ever wondered why the UK/France/Germany are so far north compared with US locations of similar warm climate?

Still more to come probably.. by JimmehAH · 2004-10-02 07:21 · Score: 1

"Think this hurricane season was bad?"

It's not over yet, is it? There could be more hurricanes in the next 8 weeks.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by fmaxwell · 2004-10-02 07:23 · Score: 4, Informative

With the way people are blaming everything else in the world on Bush.. I'm surprised.

Bush is getting part of the blame for it, and rightfully so. President Bush and his advisers maintain that reducing emissions through costly near-term measures is unjustified. The White House argues that forecasting climate change is too imprecise to agree to long-term, international, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In April of 2001, ten of the world's most prominent citizens wrote a letter (published in Time magazine) urging President George W. Bush to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced by the United States. Signatories included Stephen Hawking, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Senator John Glenn, Walter Cronkite, George Soros, and Jane Goodall. The letter was initiated by Charles Alexander, environment editor of "Time," while he was collaborating on the magazine's project to explore the scientific evidence for the existence and extent of global warming and the political furor over Bush's withdrawal of U.S. support for the Kyoto climate protocol after nine years of international negotiations.

Actor Harrison Ford, who is a board member of Conservation International, signed as did J. Craig Venter who decoded the human genome. Venerable zoologist, ecologist and Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward O. Wilson added the weight of his signature.

Bush apparently round-filed the letter.

Gee, doesn't that sound like he should be shouldering some of the blame?

Re:Lomborg's gambit by julesh · 2004-10-02 07:24 · Score: 1

Sorry, I wouldn't want to live in Florida even if I did expect conditions to continue pretty much as they are now.

Kyoto agreement by bstadil · 2004-10-02 07:24 · Score: 1

He cancelled the Kyoto agreement so he actually is to blame to some degree.

--
Help fight continental drift.

Emoticon by CGP314 · 2004-10-02 07:25 · Score: 1

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

What make you think it was cheerfully concluded? Did they end the paper with a smiley?

-Colin

Re:Emoticon by Paleomacus · 2004-10-02 07:56 · Score: 1

Maybe the submitter was trying to be facetious?

Global Warming by DaFallus · 2004-10-02 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Global Warming by nomadic · 2004-10-02 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not especially relevant. Human beings weren't around 200 million years ago.

The question isn't what the planet can handle but what WE can handle.
Re:Global Warming by evilviper · 2004-10-02 08:23 · Score: 1

The Earth is a big rock, essentially. It can survive anything.

However, we do potentially run the risk of a climate change that erradicates many species of plants and animals, wipes away the coastal areas, etc. I'm not a global-warming alarmist, I am just pointing out that it's not necessarily true that it won't potentially have very serious consequences.

Personally, I find it a bit suspicious... It does seem to be the new Y2K story from hard-core environmentalists, partially because the only solution ever touted is eliminating coal and oil, while there are thousands of other ways to cool down the globe if we so choose.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Global Warming by gnuman99 · 2004-10-02 08:37 · Score: 1

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.
The question is, can we handle it?
Re:Global Warming by perrin5 · 2004-10-02 09:34 · Score: 1

Um...

Can I just state, for the record, that your comment has nothing to do with either the article or the potential impact?

1) Global Warming is currently occuring (it's really hard to argue with this one right now)
2) hurricanes threaten habitated islands, and the costal regions of the atlantic coast currently. More severe hurricanes will make them less habitable, and cause more damage inland.
3) the ability of the world to withstand them has NOTHING to do with prediction. We are concerned with human and monetary impact of these putative hurricanes.
4) History of past global warming events also has not bearing on the current situation. It's too late for blame. It is not too late for mitigation and preparation.

OK, I'm done.

--
hmmmm?
Re:Global Warming by evilviper · 2004-10-03 23:08 · Score: 1

I knew Y2K was a joke and most of my friends knew it too.

I know global warming is a joke, and most of my friends know it too.

Unless you and your friends are all scientists that were working on studying the effects of Y2K, your example here is completely stupid and pointless.

Everyone knew Y2K was not a problem but the media kept showing those 3 or 4 morons saying the world would collapse.

No, no. There were a LOT of "experts in the field" that were only too happy to talk about the potential destruction of this computer bug.

As for global warming, almost every scientists who work in the field agree on the conclusions.

No, what I see is you making a bold assertion, with no sources, and no facts to back up your claim. Considering the stupidity I've found in the first two sentences you've typed, I have plenty of reason to believe you are just pulling this out of your ass.

If you have sources, start listing them. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Personally, I have only heard that many scientists believe it is a trend, and not a fluke heat-wave, if you will. However, that's far from proof, and most scientist used to believe that "spontaneous life" was a sure-thing too, right up until it was conclusively disproved.

I was evidence that this is not a natural global occurance... After all, there was a global tempurature drop about 4 years ago, IIRC, and I haven't seen any evidence that the cooling was a fluke, and the warming trend isn't a fluke.

In addition to that, I also need very good evidence that greenhouse gases are to blame, and all other possibilities have been ruled out.

as for other ways to cool down the globe... [...] Because no one seems to know how except you.

There are a lot of simple ways to do it. Since you have shown yourself to be a complete idiot already, why should I believe that nobody but me knows the obvious?

Care to share you idea on how we can do it?

Well, I'm nearly fed-up with you, but I guess I'm willing to spend a few seconds on this, in the vague hope that you are perhaps misinformed, and not really intentionally a troll... Here goes:

Reflective materials covering large areas, reflecting sunlight away from the planet, before it's turned into heat.

Changing all electric heating and/or cooling systems to Peltier-based units. More effecient than other heating/cooling methods, but more importantly, as it heats up the enclosed area (your house) it cools the outdoor air at about the same rate.

Wind/Hydro/Geo-thermal turbines. I have heard that taking the energy out of the wind/water/etc leads to cooling. Makes sense, but I'm not personally sure of the facts, so take this as a grain of salt. Anyhow, you have to put the energy somewhere, so make the turbines electrical generators, and spend the electricity in a way that spends as little as possible on making earthbound heat. In other words, power light, radio, or microwave transmissions, aimed torwards space.

These are only the less exotic ideas that come to mind right away.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

It's not a bug, it's a feature ;) by thedirektor · 2004-10-02 07:26 · Score: 1

It's not a bug, it's a feature ;)

The Cause of Global Warming by thelizman · 2004-10-02 07:26 · Score: 1

"greenhouse gas-induced"

Brrrt. No credible scientist has yet come out and stated that the miniscule amounts of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is in any way a significant factor for global warming. Nature puts more of the other green house gasses into the atmosphere than all of human activity to date. So it seems that we're back to the obvious; the cause of global warming is (drums please) the SUN!

Re:The Cause of Global Warming by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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"
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by janne · 2004-10-02 07:49 · Score: 1

Nature is putting CO2 into the atmosphere all the time, and also taking it away. It is all about balance - even now that we have managed to raise atmospheric CO2 by 30% (yes, 30%, up to 380ppm), oceans have taken half of all our excess CO2. We just have to hope they will do that in future as well, and that land ecosystems will stay neutral.

There is no question about the warming effects of CO2. A historical confirmation exists as the temperature-CO2 time series for the diehards not willing to believe basic physics. Recent studies, published in <em>Nature</em>, <em>Science</em>, and other prestigious journals have put the effects of sun under 10% on the current (30-year) warming.

Uncertainties remain however: 1) nobody quite knows how sensitive the atmosphere is to raising CO2; 2) nobody knows how much we are going to put CO2 to the atmosphere in future; 3) effects of CO2 may be highly nonlinear and abrupt due to various positive and negative feedback effects, which are and will be about impossible to estimate.

All this uncertainty, however, does not make me sleep better.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 07:51 · Score: 4, Informative

miniscule amounts of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere

Since the industrial age has begun, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280ppmv to 380ppmv. You can argue about the effects of that carbon dioxide, but this does not strike me as a "miniscule" change; we've modified the carbon dioxide in the entire planet's atmosphere by almost a third!

The fact that humans can have such a drastic effect on an entire planet is pretty amazing.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by Waffle+Iron · 2004-10-02 07:57 · Score: 1

No credible scientist has yet come out and stated that the miniscule amounts of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is in any way a significant factor for global warming.
This statement is true, if we redefine "credible" to mean "hosts a talk radio show".
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by janne · 2004-10-02 08:00 · Score: 1

It has risen about 30%, from 280ppm to 380ppm.
The current trend is up about 1.6ppm per year, and
it is accelerating. You can find this everywhere in the web. Google for 'atmospheric CO2', for example.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 09:47 · Score: 3, Informative

In fact, it's damn near ridiculous. These arguments always are.

I'm not making an argument; I'm presenting evidence, gathered by NASA, measured several different ways, all of which agree.

You, on the other hand, are an anonymous coward making some unsuppored claims that disagree with all published data I've ever seen. Very convincing of you...

In any case, look for the phrase "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities." on this USGS page. Or you can choose any of the other pages you find on volcanic CO2. If you're too lazy to read it, let me summarize it: humans add about 100x the CO2 to the atmosphere than volcanos do.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by j.+andrew+rogers · 2004-10-02 10:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since the industrial age has begun, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280ppmv to 380ppmv.
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.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 10:27 · Score: 1

I see that you are trying to make a correlation here

Hey, it's not just me. I've got NASA in my corner; on the very page I linked to, they make the correlation. As it turns out, I tend to believe NASA.

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?

I don't know what data you're talking about. Link, please?

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

Our best data says that CO2 has gone up because of the industrial revolution, and our best computer models show that increased CO2 will have an effect on climate change. Do we have all the variables? No, and it's unlikely that we ever will. Can we explain every climate change in the fossil record? Nope. But at what point do we say, "Hey, almost all of our historical data and dozens of multi-million dollar computer models say that there's a looming problem...let's consider what we could do to solve the problem?"

There are plenty of small, non-drastic, non-costly steps we could take at this point to lessen the amount of impact we're having on the atmosphere. It sure feels better than saying, "There might not be a problem, and if there is, we should just fatalistically resign ourselves to our fate rather than trying anything."

(And yes, there are large, drastic, costly steps too, but I'm certainly not advocating them, yet. But I'm optimistic about human ingenuity, and I'm convinced that we will soon have less polluting, less wasteful vehicles, and this seems like a good thing to me.)
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by j.+andrew+rogers · 2004-10-02 10:53 · Score: 1

What do you mean, "what data"? Try the Vostok ice core data for starters. People (on both sides) love to quote what they've heard about the data that seems to support their position but it seems that hardly anyone has actually studied it themselves.
There is a lot more ambiguity in the data we have than is commonly presented -- that's why both sides can use it. You soundbited your way to an argument without understanding the context. I'm not disagreeing with global warming, I'm disagreeing with the shoddy construction and specious reasoning of your position. All heat, no light. If you end up at a good result from poor premises, it is only because you were lucky.
Unfortunately, many of the most vocal people on both sides have about as deep an understanding of the issue as you do. I object to letting a mob of fools be heavy-handed with people using a specious argument. It is no different than fundamentalists forcing everyone to learn Christian Creationism in schools. If people don't want to be bothered to understand something from the first principles up, I don't want them making policy. The ability to assert an axiom does not make an axiom valid or relevant to the issue at hand.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by Oligonicella · 2004-10-02 11:45 · Score: 1

Thousands is an overstatement and is balanced by others.

Doubled is an overstatement by seven.

Billion s of cattle? This year (ERS/USDA) "U.S.--94.9 million head - Canada--14.7 million head". Overstatement by twenty times for combined countries.

Eliminated means to remove completely, they were replaced by grasses, large overstatement.

I'll bet you didn't know just how overblown your statements were, did you?
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by Oligonicella · 2004-10-02 11:59 · Score: 1

Those would be the spikes that occurred at 410K, 330K, 240K, and 130K yrs ago. That can be found here (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/i/ice-core.htm).
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by beakburke · 2004-10-02 14:00 · Score: 1

How can you decide if the changes in CO2 levels are "huge" if you don't have any context to compare them to? How much natural variation occurs in CO2 levels? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I object to the "do something now" attitude of many people who act like our understanding of this, in terms of the actual climatological effects, and the degree to which human interaction is the cause, is much more solid than it is.
The worst effects of global warming are a couple decades into the future. Sure, there is a cost to waiting and "doing nothing", but there is also a significant cost to "doing something" as well. Unfortunately people only want to see one cost or the other, not both.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by $tendec · 2004-10-02 15:02 · Score: 1

here is an article the disagrees with the paridime that modern co2 consentrations are abnormaly high

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by MtViewGuy · 2004-10-02 16:39 · Score: 1

The Sun is by far the biggest influence on the Earth's climate, no contest. Scientists have noted substantial weather changes at various spots around the world based on the sunspot cycle, with records going back at least back to the time of the invention of the refractor lens telescope by Galileo.

One thing that has been studied was the so-called Maunder minimum, a period during the 17th and 18th centuries when NO sunspots were observed on the Sun. That was the period when the Thames River through London regularly froze over in winter and even the canals of Venice occasionally froze over! With the near-regular 11-year sunspot cycle, no wonder why the Earth has been heating up in the last 250 years.

Besides, all we need is one major volcanic eruption and all bets are off in regards to climatic conditions. If we have a massive eruption that spews over 3.5 cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere (there are many volcanoes capable of spewing out that much ash), the planet's atmosphere could cool over one degree Celsius and there will be quite dramatic effects on the climate.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by TapeCutter · 2004-10-02 17:11 · Score: 1

If you don't have enough information then perform this experiment while you are waiting. Take a large length of hose and recycle the exhaust fumes in thru the window of your SUV. Have an acurate timepiece handy to see how long you last. You are simply justifying your SUV by finding counter arguments from anybody who has one. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not because you just want your SUV to come guilt free. Just one snag in all that. The overwhelming scientific opinion is we are screwing the planet and it will come back and bite us. Point to one reputable scientific organization that says we are NOT affecting climate in an alarming way. There have been no such references so far in this debate, perhaps because there aren't any? I am old enough to remember all the "scientific studies" that clearly demonstrated no link between smoking and lung disease. The "equal number who don't believe it" do not have Nobel prizes because there is no category for psuedo science. Coporate puppets are rarely awarded and never respected in the "Republic of Science".

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:The Cause of Global Warming by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 17:26 · Score: 1

Are you disagreeing with the NASA data I presented? I can't quite tell. They're pretty unabmigious about attributing the recent increase in CO2 to human activity. Are you saying there other reasons atmospheric CO2 has gone up in the past? I suppose there probably were, although you've failed to present any alternative explanation for the existing data yourself. I still like the NASA link, and haven't seen anything to make me question it.

Anyone can say "specious reasoning" and "All heat, no light" in an attempt to look like they're coming from a position of authority and knowledge. Most people can do it more concisely than you did. The single piece of hard piece of evidence you seem to have presented has been the words "Vostok ice core data", but you can't even be bothered to find a link or explain what that data means. Lofty assertions about some strawmen "on both sides" isn't evidence; it's bluster. You end up attempting a weird analogy to christian fundamentalists teaching creationism; huh?

Are you going to present some links and data, or are you going to keep giving us a bunch of soundbites about "soundbiting"? I've put the evidence I've seen up, explained what I think it means, and waited for someone to give a good, clear counterexample. I'm still waiting.

The ability to assert an axiom does not make an axiom valid or relevant to the issue at hand.

Well said, although I suspect you didn't intend it to be so ironic.

Actually, florida, texas, and washington by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:27 · Score: 1, Funny

It seems that disaster seems to follow the bush sons.

Neil stole billons in Colorado.
Jeb has ran Florida down.
GWB ran down Texas and now the USA.

I thought by hdd · 2004-10-02 07:27 · Score: 1

this year is bad simply because it is a election year...that is right, I said it: presidential election is a major contributor to global warming...perhaps if we change the presidential election to once every 40 years, we could save billions in disaster prevention along!

--
This Sig is removed due to factual inaccuracy

Re:I thought by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:30 · Score: 1

shhhh you don't want to give Bush any ideas, there are enough dictatorships out there.

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Re:one problem ... by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

you mean, there is no evidence that Dubya will admit to.

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 ... which has since been clearly proven.

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 .. 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.

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"

Pros and Cons by ari_j · 2004-10-02 07:29 · Score: 1

Global warming is also responsible for ending every ice age (including the one that we're still in the tail end of). I'll take global warming over global cooling, thank you much.

Re:Pros and Cons by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:43 · Score: 1

Actually, global warming may in fact induce a new ice age by shutting down the gulf stream ocean current.

Can't happen? ... do some reading on the 'little ice age' that lasted 300+ years in the middle ages.

Do you think it makes sense for us to help trigger this process?

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Re:Pros and Cons by ari_j · 2004-10-02 12:07 · Score: 1

"may in fact"

The real point here is that everyone has an opinion and it's not clear who's right, yet. We'll find out when either Florida is completely underwater or Canada is completely under ice. I'm not overly concerned - the Earth has weathered plenty of interference, and I'm not so arrogant as to think that humans can intentionally destroy her or save her by their acts.

"Oh joy." - Karma in action? by Colin+Smith · 2004-10-02 07:30 · Score: 1

Not a problem.

I don't live anywhere near Florida, so I don't see any reason not to continue driving the Landrover.

--
Deleted

Re:"Oh joy." - Karma in action? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:32 · Score: 1

In fact, we should drive our landrovers harder, maybe one of those storms will take out Jeb Bush before he can take a run at ruining the USA more as president.

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

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?

CLIMATE CHANGE! Not "Global Warming" by Believe · 2004-10-02 07:37 · Score: 1

Please, oh please stop with calling it "Global Warming" already. Humans effects on the climate will NOT lead to universally higher temperatures. From the best we can tell it will instead lead to greater variance in most places around the globe, including these severe storms, droughts, floods, and even more snowstorms in certain places. It is my pet peeve when it's referred to as "Global Warming" because then people who don't know what they're talking about (but still vote and drive SUV's) think there's no problem every time we have a cooler than average summer. Global climate change *is* a serious problem and having half the population ignore it because "damn, it didn't get hotter than 70 the last week in august" doesn't help.

Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! Not "Global Warming" by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 07:41 · Score: 1

Call it whatever the hell you want.

It is still happening.

Increased storm activity and severity is just one symptom. ... and one that many fools on this board have chosen to ignore as being proof even as they board up their houses 3 or 4 times a season against hurricanes, where in the past it was only once every few years.

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Common Misconceptions on Kerry and Kyoto by bullitB · 2004-10-02 07:42 · Score: 1

If people kick the shrub out, the US will stand a better chance at ratifying the Kyoto accord and remove the wasteful SUVs from the roads.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. (unless you're not referring to John Kerry being Bush's replacement)

As reported in the IHT and other news sources, John Kerry has made a point that he will not be getting the US back into Kyoto. This should come as no surprise. As a senator, he voted against allowing the department of the interior to fund implementation of the Kyoto protocols. On the campaign trail, he has made a point that he will fix the current rising gas prices. As the Kyoto protocols are widely estimated to cause a huge increase (as high as 30%) in national gas prices, implementing the protocol would while lowering gas prices, or even keeping them where they are, would be impossible.

(On a side note, though I hate to use the f-word here (flip-flop), in his 2003 document John Kerry's Comprehensive Vision for a Clean Environment, A Stronger Economy, Healthier Communities, his campaign claims "Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today.")

There is a popular feeling that goes something like "Bush single handedly killed Kyoto." This is absurd. Clinton couldn't get it ratified in 1997 because everyone in congress, including people from his own party (yes, even John Kerry), refused to even consider voting for it. In fact, it was only signed because Al Gore disregarded the resolution of the senate he was supposed to be in charge of. Bush's decision to not re-submit the treaty to congress for ratification was, frankly, a formality; there is no way he could have gotten congress to ratify it, even if he supported it (and he clearly doesn't).

Though I would love to see green house gas emissions get lower, the fact remains that the Kyoto protocol, as it stands, would be economic suicide for the United States, and odds are essentially zero we'll ever see it ratified

Re:Common Misconceptions on Kerry and Kyoto by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

All this confirms what more and more people throughout the world think: the US is a rogue nation.

OK, that's not really a problem by TLouden · 2004-10-02 07:45 · Score: 1

We can just move to Mars where the heat isn't a problem. In fact, on Mars all our environmentally unfriendly activities well help to increase the tempurature to livable. Problem solved.

--
-Tim Louden

Re:OK, that's not really a problem by TLouden · 2004-10-02 09:47 · Score: 1

Given how important it is to most people I'd say the private sector will take care of that problem.

--
-Tim Louden

You can't even blame Mr. Bush Junior for this by rainer_d · 2004-10-02 07:46 · Score: 1

Because the reason for the current surge in temperature is mainly the greenhouse-gas sent into the air some decades ago.
And yes, for people in Germany (that's me) and France etc, it will be a very tough life, when the Gulf stream changes route and maybe leaves us with a climate like Hudson Bay or so.

What you can blame Bush of course is that he refused to acknowledge these effects even now (or back when he didn't want to sign the Kyoto Treaty)!
But then, it's hard to say what he really decides and what is prepared by other people and he just signs it - like with any politician.

Rainer

--
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin

Re:You can't even blame Mr. Bush Junior for this by William+Baric · 2004-10-02 09:32 · Score: 1

Bush did acknowledge those effects. It's just that he thinks Kyoto would hurt the economy.
Re:You can't even blame Mr. Bush Junior for this by rainer_d · 2004-10-02 13:17 · Score: 1

> Bush did acknowledge those effects. It's just
> that he thinks Kyoto would hurt the economy.

He's right. In the short run.
But no spin-doctor can argue that a hurricane season like the current one (which isn't even over, as someone else here noted) will also hurt the economy.
Plus the fact that oil supplies are very limited - and there's currently no backup "plan" for the day the last barrel of crude is produced.
There won't be any new one for a couple of hundred million years.
I think, people have no idea what this world would look like with world-wide energy-shortage - it's a truely apocalyptic projection.

Rainer

--
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin

Re:Lomborg's gambit by TheGavster · 2004-10-02 07:48 · Score: 1

Florida has been getting washed over by hurricanes for millenia. I wouldn't live there even if the hurricanes were getting smaller.

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".

Blame China by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 07:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

WTF? Your being paranoid. Noone accused USA of being the fault of this.

If we want to find a source for the blame, China should be first on the list. China has let numerous coal fires burn out of control, becoming the number one source for carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

According to experts, 2% to 3% of CO2 emissions originate from this single source. Check this map out to see how widespread the problem is - literally all of northern China has fires raging uncontrolled and disregarded by the Chinese government. So what if the USA has more storms that kill its citizens - in fact, this is a good thing for China.

If only the Deep Atlantic Conveyer Belt would shut down so the colonialist European pigs would freeze to death. Then China would be the world's only superpower. Serves them right for all their meddling!!!

Re:Blame China by dapyx · 2004-10-02 08:08 · Score: 1, Informative

But don't forget that USA is no.1 in CO2 emissions per capita.
Back to the topic of coal fires, they only "produce about 2-3% of the total world carbon dioxide", while the US produces around 30%.

--
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
Re:Blame China by WhiteBandit · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

If only the Deep Atlantic Conveyer Belt would shut down so the colonialist European pigs would freeze to death.

I keep seeing this theory hopped up in every discussion about global warming. How cold water runoff (from melting ice sheets) from the North Pole and Greenland will mix with the North Atlantic and cause the Gulf Stream to suddenly stop. Then there's all these horrible scenarios about ice ages and such.

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, but isn't the only reason there is a Gulf Steam/strong current in the Atlantic Ocean anyway is because of the Coriolis Effect? So technically, unless the Earth stops rotating, the "Deep Atlantic Conveyer Belt" should still work (albeit, the northern latitudes may be colder because of the melting ice sheets, but you'd still have the current there).
Re:Blame China by stevelinton · 2004-10-02 09:09 · Score: 1

The currents in the Atlantic are not simply driven by the Coriolis force. It's a LOT more complicated. In particular, there is a fairly small region near Greenland where surface water is very drastically and fairly quickly cooled by very cold winds coming of the Candian and Greenland ice cover. This very cold water sinks down deep and drives the whole cycle. I don't know all the details, but they're pretty well understood.

If you dump too much fresh water in at that point (as has happened in the past when large lakes drained suddenly, for instance) the water, although cold, is so much less saline that the surroundings that it won't sink and the cycle dies.
Re:Blame China by Artifakt · 2004-10-02 09:31 · Score: 2, Informative

The Coriolis effect is one factor in shaping cyclic convection currents. The sun itself is a factor - solar warming is an energy source that has a built in gradient, and so creates the potential difference in this case. Even a slowly rotating or even non-rotating earth would have the same potential for heat to flow from the hottest parts to cooler ones. However, the exact speed at which heat would be transferred would vary widely in such cases.
Remember, convection isn't a true zero sum game by itself. If heat is carried away more slowly from warm areas, they also radiate heat back to space at night faster to help balance out. If the ocean currents move significant warm water out of the hottest areas in less than a full day's rotation, they cause more mixing with cooler water and move it too, doing their work lesss efficiently, so only the average amount of energy transfered has to equal the average amount the sun dumped into the area. Even things like cloud cover and the resulting local albedo are part of a series of feedback loops that makes this system meta-stable.
Planetary rotation tends to make lots of little interlaced convection cells into a few big ones, but various features, like submarine topography, how steep the thermal gradients become, and probably even 'chaotic' effects, all let the system switch between meta-stable modes.
Climatologists mostly hope thae 'chaos' effects aren't as significant as they are for weather, because the butterfly effect stops sounding as cool when it's " A codfish farts, and two weeks later..." instead of pretty stuff that Jeff Goldblum can use for pick up lines.
Unfortunately, the geologic record shows some of these modes seem to include ones where the gulf stream flattens out a lot towards the equator, or breaks away from either the European or North American coastlines so that it becomes more triangular rather than extending to about the same latitudes on both sides. This is based on such measurements as thickness of sedements deposited in the same layers, and types of fossil species found during ice ages, so there's some guesswork included, but it looks like the way to bet.
Since some of the planetary heat transfer processes don't go fast enough to keep up with the 24 hour warming and cooling cycle, or even the seasonal ones, Those areas where slow transfer rates predominate can get hotter or colder even though the average isn't moving the same way. If the system was actually getting close to equilibrium at any point, the seasons wouldn't lag months behind when the planet is closest to the Sun.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Blame China by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 23:29 · Score: 1, Informative

First post ever, my apologies if I foof up the links.
True, the Gulf Stream is a western boundary current (the Brazil, Agulhas, East Australian and Kuroshio Currents are as well). They are a "return" current caused by wind driven currents and the coreolis force. For example, in the Subtropical North Atlanic (Below 45 degrees N or so), the prevaling winds blow from west to east ("the westerlies"), which causes an equatorward drift. The Gulf Stream is the return flow of that drift "bunched up" on the western side of the the Atlantic. A bit of an oversimplification, you can read a bit more here.
The thermohaline circulation is related to deep circulation. In the North Atlantic (the Labrador, Norwegian and Greenland Seas), water can be cooled very rapidly during winter, which sets up convection cells - when cooled, the water becomes more dense and starts to sink; the formation of ice also removes pure water and increases density. So the cold, salty "deep water" sinks down (to somewhere between 1000 m and the bottom - about 4000 m), and drifts equatorward , underneath the gulf stream. That deep water is thought to make its way to the Southern Ocean, and around into the Pacific and Indian Oceans, where it eventually upwells. Deep water moves slowly, but is the counterpart to surface circulation (and there's a lot of it). This theory was put forward by an Oceanographer named Wally Broeker, who called it the "global conveyor belt" - it is thought to be very important for moving heat around.
There is some evidence for rapid climate changes in ice core records, and some have speculated that the conveyor belt could be shut down (a la The Day After Tomorrow), which had some pretty hilarious science, climate-wise). There is some geochemical evidence that it has happened in the past - for instance there's some evidence that two massive lakes filled with meltwater from the last glaciation drained into the North Atlantic over a very short period (following the failure of a massive ice dam) about 8200 years ago. The idea is that a surface layer of very fresh (i.e. low-salinity, hence low density) water, would "cap" the deepwater production areas. If it's already pretty fresh, ice formation wouldn't increase the salinity as much (and density is mostly from salinity, not temperature) - thus requiring much more cooling to make new deep water (which would be exacerbated by any warming). At some point deep water would not be created, and since the water from the Gulf Stream must go somewhere, it would "pile up" in the North Atlantic, eventually disrupting or stopping the Gulf Sream.
Obviously there aren't any glacial lakes that we need to worry about suddently draining into the North Atlantic, but the idea is that increased inputs of fresh water would eventually reduce the amount of deepwater formation. That would take a fairly large amount of warming, but is possible (~ a 20% chance in the next 50-100 IIRC). I'll refer you to a good article on the topic by Wally Broeker. It's five years old now, but still pretty much on the money. I'll refer you particularly to his figure 5.
Sorry also for my "excessive" use of "quotation marks" - bad habit.

look at the other side of the arguement by LEPP · 2004-10-02 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Before you jump on the human cause for global warming, I would suggest reading some articles and papers by John Christy. He is a very respected climatologist. He provides some very convincing counter arguements.

History by Tiggan · 2004-10-02 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:History by ozborn · 2004-10-02 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hotter earth- > warmer water -> more hurricanes

Hurricane severity may be cyclical, but it doesn't mean global warming is not involved.
Re:History by joeaggie · 2004-10-03 11:05 · Score: 1

hotter earth -> higher upper level wind speeds -> hurricanes can't form, or at least they can't form into strong ones

depends on what rapid is... and also... by zogger · 2004-10-02 07:57 · Score: 1

...whether or not we experience one of the pole reversals concurrently with a rapid heating trend. Then it's anyone's guess what will shake out.

Something I've noticed though, over the decades. When I was a kid, the sun looked a lot more yellow colored, now it's a lot more white colored. Wonder what that means...There's also a heck of a lot less wild birds then there used to be, and the trees in general all seem wimpy, not as robust and healthy as they could and should be. All very generally speaking of course..

We've also been experiencing some rather strange geomagnetic differences with the planet, from what I read it's reducing in intensity and moving around a lot more than it used to.

All interesting topics to be sure.

The polar regions ice melting though, is the most convincing to me of imminent severe global weather changes, you just can't fake or ignore how much the arctic and antarctic regions have been melting the past few years, you can see it with any subsequent series of pictures taken in the same areas, the stuff is melting, fast. It WILL have some profound effects on global weather patterns. And if the atlantic conveyor slows down or stops, there will be crash programs to burn more coal, burn more trees, burn more oil and tarsands stuff, and etc, etc, a lot more human activity which will lead to more greenhouse gases being released, which will lead to more environmental changes, and on and on.

Interesting times, glad I am a survivalist.

Re:Lomborg's gambit by reedmon29 · 2004-10-02 07:57 · Score: 1

What if I'm really not sure about those dolphins in aquariums? They could be terrorist splinter cells... Should I just go and shoot them all because I'm not sure, just to be safe?

Climate change is going to happen by slashname3 · 2004-10-02 07:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Having lived through the recent series of storms here in Florida I can say first hand it is not any fun. This is the worst set of storms that central Florida area has had in the 30 years I have been here. I am not looking forward to more hurricane seasons like this one. This season I fared fairly well. I had a generator and transfer switch installed to power the house. Did that back in February, great timing for me. Went many days without commercial power during the storms this year.

Global warming may be a major factor. It is debatable if humans are responsible for global warming or not. (I expect this to get me modded down by the tree huggers.) What people need to realize is that change in the environment is constant. The last couple of thousand years things have been mild enough for humans to not only remember how things have been in the past but allowed us to develop the scientific processes that have allowed us to understand a lot of what is going on. We don't understand it all but we are working on it.

The big thing is to recognize that the earth is not a static diorama that never changes. It has gone through major weather cycles in the past and will continue to do so until the ultimate when the Sun goes nova. I personally doubt that people have as big an effect on the climate as some would like us to believe.

As things change people will adapt or find ways to adapt the environment to them. It is the way it has always been. If people survive for the next 10,000 years then we might figure out how to control the weather patterns. But hopefully we will be smart enough by then to know that we should leave well enough alone. And by that time we should have established self sustaining colonies off planet. So if the Earth becomes less than hospitable for us we can continue else where.

Another thing to remember, is if and when we try to control the weather, and that includes trying to fix global warming, we are more than likely going to cause more problems than what we had to start with. Remember, the job will go to the lowest bidder. And I expect the weather control stations will have the normal set of defects and shoddy workmanship which will lead to break downs and control problems.

Re:Climate change is going to happen by nomadic · 2004-10-02 08:20 · Score: 1

I did fine, too, because I live in Miami. We were completely spared all the hurricanes.

I think it's because we're such a virtuous city that God protected us.
Re:Climate change is going to happen by slashname3 · 2004-10-02 08:48 · Score: 1

If you believe in God then you must believe that God gave people free will. And if he gave people free will why would he do anything to affect what happens to people?

The storm missed Miami because the various high and low pressure systems, and other environmental factors, steered the storm away. Nothing else, nothing less.

I am glad you were not affected by the this series of hurricanes. But to ascribe it to God (any God) means you want to blame things that happen in your life on others.

Warm water is the blood of a hurricane by Gary+Destruction · 2004-10-02 07:58 · Score: 1

It's that warm ocean and gulf water that gives the hurricane its heartbeat. The warmer the water, the stronger it can get. That is assuming of course that it doesn't encouter any upper level troughs or other shearing mechanisms.

Now as far as global warming is concerned, you have to first look at the ITCZ (Intertropical Conversion Zone) aka the Equatorial Trough. Look where it's at. The equator is a hot place to begin with. Global warming is just going to make it sizzle some more.

Now take into account the F2 and occasional F3 tornadoes that hurricanes spawn. You can bet that those F2's and F3's are going to be more numerous thanks to global warming.

And it goes beyond the tropics. Remember that near F6 tornadoa that hit Oklahoma in 1999? It had 318 MPH winds. That's the very tail end of an F5. Thunderstorms are getting more severe and the tornadoes they're dropping are getting fiercer. True, population increase has result in more storms being reported, but the intensity cannot be denied.

Re:Warm water is the blood of a hurricane by LEPP · 2004-10-02 10:59 · Score: 2, Informative

If only climate prediction were so predictable that someone with (big assumption on my part) no formal advanced training in climatology could make such broad assertions with such certainty. I don't have any advanced formal training in climatology but I don't think that you do either.

First, yes warm water is the fuel of a hurricane, but the assumption that you make that "it doesn't encouter any upper level troughs or other shearing mechanisms" is a huge assumption. If you are someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, like myself and many other millions, you are made aware of certain facts. The first is that small changes in climate in one area of the earth has a massive affect on the climate on another area of the earth. El Nino is the classic example. El Nino leads to far fewer hurricanes because the warm water in the Pacific causes different upper level wind patterns (i.e. shearing) in the Atlantic (not to mention all over the world). I am sure that you knew this because you made the assumption about shearing in the first place. My point is that this is a huge huge assumption.

Secondly, most models suggest that the temperate regions will have the greatest affect by global climate change. This means that your reference to the equitorial region warming is another huge assumption.

Third, we have for the past several decades had substantiall fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic and Carribean and Gulf than the statistical average. That happened during those years of "global warming". Why have the number of hurricanes been lower than average during years that many scientists say the temperature went up? 2 reasons, climate is very very difficult to predict and hurricanes are very very difficult to predict (meaning hotter does not necessarily mean more). You cannot use static analysis on whether.

Hurricane experts, for the past couple of years, have been saying that the number of hurricanes is going to climb back to the historical normal level and that people are going to be surprised because they are used to the hurricane lull. They have not been saying this because of global warming, they have been saying this because of the natural hurricane cycle.

This whole thing reminds me of that summer when there were some high profile shark attacks. The press declared the current year as having a epidemic of shark attacks. They spent many many words editorializing on the cause of this massive increase (global warming was implicated I think). The number of shark attacks for that year turned out to be fewer than the average. It was just alot hype from the press.

I have no clue whether or not there is substantial global climate change or an increase in the number of hurricanes as a result, but I do know there is alot of hype and conjecture.
Re:Warm water is the blood of a hurricane by Gary+Destruction · 2004-10-02 12:15 · Score: 1

The part about the upper level troughs has nothing to do with global warming. They shear the thunderstorms away from the center of circulation. Hurricane Andrew was a perfect example. Before it was even a hurricane, it was thought that that the storm didn't stand a chance because there was an upper level trough that was shearing the thunderstorms away from its center of circulation. The trough moved on eventually and Andrew started blossoming and later became a powerful category 5 hurricane which weakened slightly to a category 4 just before landfall on south Florida. The National Hurricane Center was in Coral Gables Florida under the direction of Dr. Bob Sheet at that time.
Re:Warm water is the blood of a hurricane by LEPP · 2004-10-02 12:35 · Score: 1

Understood. My only point is that people have made some very broad conclusions based upon a very static analysis on an extremely dynamic process. To say "all things being equal" warmer water creates more hurricanes is one thing, but to say warmer water means more hurricanes is a giant leap and scientificly spurious. This is not to say that it will not turn out to be the case.

Problem is decades away by DeepRedux · 2004-10-02 07:58 · Score: 1

It is not correct to link this year's hurricane season with global warming. Any possible current effect of global warming on hurricanes is too small to detect. Any measurable effect of global warming on hurricanes is decades away. From the 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. Related to this issue, SSTs ( sea surface temperature) over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century.

Four hurricanes hitting a single state in a year is unusual, but it has happened before.

going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 07:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

... 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.

Re:going out on a limb here... by janne · 2004-10-02 08:10 · Score: 1

(A) The earth has warmed about 0.5-0.6 Celsius degrees during the last few decades.

(B) Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to about 380ppm since the beginning of the industrial age. The trend is +1.6ppm per year, and it is accelerating. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas from basic physics, and time series of prehistory confirm the relationship between temperature and CO2.

(C) Business as usual. Most of the science is sound.

(D) Yes, you are right that currently we cannot blame global warming on hurricanes. There is too little (hurricane) data, and the current warming is thought to be not enough to make a measurable difference. But this is going to change in future, for simulations indicate that warming and hurricanes are connected.

Ok, tropical sea surface temperatures are about +5 degrees over normal...
Re:going out on a limb here... by stevelinton · 2004-10-02 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Try looking at the facts. Every major indpendent study for years (for instance the US National Academy of Sciences study) has concluded that beyong reasonable doubt:

A: the planet is warming faster than it has done for millions of years
B: human releases of CO2 is almost certainly the main cause

and I would observe that B actually doesn't matter. If the planet is warming, we should release less CO2, to try and cool it, regardless of the reason.
Re:going out on a limb here... by uncadonna · 2004-10-02 10:09 · Score: 1

grunt. I've been modded down on a climate change thread. That's a first, but I guess it says something about the state of things, really.
Anyway, y'all have a look at the IPCC reports, ok?
That's here

--
mt
Re:going out on a limb here... by jc42 · 2004-10-02 11:00 · Score: 1

(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), ...

To put it into some sort of perspective, I remember back in the 1950's, when I was a nerdy kid liviing in the Seattle area, something that I read about a number of times was a local climate anomaly: In that general area (roughly BC to Oregon), the mean annual temperature had been falling for most of the century. This is easy to measure in that area - just keep track of the termination lines of the glaciers.

The articles on this invariably mentioned the "well-documented" fact that in almost all of the world, temperatures had been slowly rising for the century or so that we actually had accurate records. At the time, the idea that this might be in part due to human (i.e., industrial) activity was a conjecture, for which "further research is necessary". But the warming was considered a fact, not a conjecture.

Half a century later, this only qualifies as conjecture in political circles. There is abundant scientific data now, and there have been a great many articles not just saying what the temperature change has been, but also what fraction is attributable to human activities.

Of course, these articles, if they are really scientific, will include error bars on their numbers. To politicians, an error bar means "The scientists don't really know what the number is." To scientists, an error bar means that the writer isn't trying to hoodwink the reader. (It also helps establish that you're a scientist and not a politician. ;-)

One of the curious sources of warming that has been measured is the methane output of cattle. Methane is, of course, a strong "greenhouse gas". But the numbers show that cattle account for less than half the methane in the atmosphere, and most of the rest was a mystery until last year. Then some entomologists reported that they'd found the other major source: termites. You might not believe how many of those little critters are living on the planet now. There's some evidence that their numbers are increasing, but the numbers on this are not good (to my knowledge).

Anyway, the one thing that the scientists and politicians agree on is that further research is needed. (But then, scientists always say that. ;-)

Oh, and the glaciers in the Pacific Northwest stopped growing back in the 60's and 70's. They've been retreating rapidly since then, like everywhere else in the world. The general explanation for the half century of cooling in the area seems to be that the Japanese current got stronger and moved a bit closer to shore. But this might be a conjecture; I don't recall reading anything that gave good evidence on the topic.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 15:20 · Score: 1

(A) who says, what did they measure, how did they measure it, and how many people disagree with their findings? How many people have replicated their findings? Is 0.5 really a harbinger of a long term trend, or is it normal variation? Etc.

(B) Yeah, but is that causative or just a correlation? Unless A is know, B is not a given. That's why they call it a hypothesis.

(C) Yeah, but a lot of it isn't, and there's considerable pressure to find in favor of warming. Enough that caution is warranted.

(D) Simulations are no better than the data they run on, and the understanding of the phenomena they simulate. I have yet to see a simulation that can predict last week's weather with any degree of accuracy. If you can't do last week, 50 years from now is a stretch, yes?

Bottom line, there's some cause for concern here that these climate change predictions have more of politics than science about them. They just seem to fall so conveniently on one side of the political spectrum during a US election year, don't you think?
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 15:30 · Score: 1

What, you think the USNAS is "independent"? Let's not be silly. That's like saying the CDC ran "independent" studies on gun control in the 1980's and 1990's.

There's plenty of evidence against the global warming hypothesis, its just that we don't hear much about it. That's what makes me suspicious of it.

In science you try to DISprove the hypothesis, not shore it up. They pillory dissenters in religion, not science.
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 15:40 · Score: 1

Indeed.

We actually know the temperature in Europe has been climbing slowly since the Little Ice Age, when all those canals in Holland used to freeze over. Currently they don't do that.

Problem being for the global warming hypothesis, that trend started long before human industrial activity contributed much in the way of greenhouse gases. I have yet to see an explanation of what started that particular warming trend.

Hence my caution. The bandwagon is not where scientists usually go looking for the truth, its where politicians go to get in on the free drinks.
Re:going out on a limb here... by janne · 2004-10-02 18:03 · Score: 1

The CO2 concentration measures (our point A) are not rocket science. Mauna Loa is a place with a particularly long time series of measurements available, and by searching for 'Mauna Loa CO2' you will find more than you want to know about this. Nobody (except for crackpots?) disagrees on recent CO2 concentrations and its trends. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. And geological time series from ice cores etc. tell us that the current concentrations have not been seen for at least 100000 years, maybe for millions of years.

Warming effects of CO2 cannot be denied (our point B). The effect of CO2 is about radiation balance, and the absorption spectra of CO2, that is, basic physics. Mars has no greenhouse effect, Venus has a run-out greenhouse effect. Earth is somewhere between, with calculations indicating our temperature would be around -15 Celcius degrees without a greenhouse.

About (C), I think the pressure, at least the political pressure in US, is quite the contrary. Floods of money are available from industry-funded groups for those who would be able to disprove the CO2 connection. It just has not happened, and will not.

Simulating climate in the sense claimed in (D) is much easier than simulating weather. Think of weather as a microstate of a gas, and climate as the macrostate. Temperature and pressure are easy to predict, locations of individual particles not.
That said, climate models are uncertain. There is both parametric uncertainty and uncertainty due to unknown nonlinear effects in the atmosphere, land, seas, and ecosystems.

But you do not need models to predict warming. Models are only required to predict the details (how much, where, what else happens).

In scientific circles, global warming has been around for decades, and even international conventions now exist to limit CO2. Global warming has become political because it fundamentally affects the interests of both industry and individual people.

In climate politics, your current federal administration is simply not up to its task. We just have to hope the next one will be.
Re:going out on a limb here... by stevelinton · 2004-10-02 20:11 · Score: 1

Who are the CDC? The USNAS was asked by Bush to take a skeptical look at the
global warming question. They appointed a panel of top scientists with no previous
links to work in the field. They produced a detailed study running for several thousand pages, in which they examined the evidence on all sides, considered a range of alternative hypotheses and concluded as I said. It's not "proved beyond a shadow of a doubt" the Earth is too complicated a system for that level of certainty, but their result was pretty conclusive. The summary is pretty good and only a few dozen pages -- try reading it.
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-03 05:44 · Score: 1

Pretty much boiling the argument down to (C) now, because that's really the crux of the issue. I submit that you will be very hard pressed to find a faculty at a major educational institution who would countenance a study designed to disprove the global warming hypothesis.

As I mentioned in the parent of this thread, take a look at what happened to Bjorn Lomborg over the last couple of years. He writes his book, all the big journals and associations go to extreme lengths to slag him, his own government goes after him, he's a pariah. Now, some years later, all those journals and "respected scientists", all those government officials etc. are eating crow. Lomborg's been vindicated.

Important to note that Lomborg doesn't even disagree with the global warming hypothesis, he just disagrees with the conventional wisdom on what to do about it. Imagine if he tried to disprove it! They'd have nailed his hide to the front gates.

Call me cynical, but this kind of behaviour doesn't fill me with confidence in the science supporting the likes of the Kyoto Accords.

Hence my caution at accepting the business about the hurricanes, particularly as it gets released in October of a US presidential election year. Its all just too convenient.

Or to be blunt, I just don't believe it. I think 20 years from now we will have discovered the whole thing was a crock, the same as the New Ice Age they were all upset about in the 1970's was a crock.

Speaking of crocks, my Canadian government has signed on to Kyoto, much against my personal better judgement. In order to keep the targets Canadian economic activity will have to be reduced to pre 1990s levels. That's because pretty much anything one does in manufacturing, transportation or natural resource production requires energy, which ultimately means either burning something or using nuclear fission.

I don't see any new nuke plants being proposed, and the old Candu ones are getting pretty rickety.

So either we Canadians are going to have the biggest economic depression and general ruination since post World War One Germany, or the government is going to lie.

George Bush seems to take his word a bit more seriously than Jean Chretien does. He didn't sign the accords because he knew damn well the USA wasn't going to keep those targets. Chretien knew it too, but chose to take the short term brownie points and go with the long term lying.

Gotta say, based on that choice to stand up and speak the truth, I have more respect for George.

People want to reduce CO2 emissions, they are going to have to find a better way to do it than trashing modern society. We really aren't going to go back to an 1890's economy. Not going to happen. The Americans will go to war a hell of a lot faster than they'll let that happen, and don't kid yourself, the Europeans will too.
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-03 06:08 · Score: 1

CDC = Center for Disease Control That's the American government's central clearing house for important public health information. If somebody shows up with the Andromeda Strain, the CDC are the guys who put on their bunny suits and go get the body.

During the Regan, Bush 1 and Clinton Administrations the CDC funded some of the most transparently bogus studies on gun control I've ever seen. As in, independent of what party the President was from, they were bent on making shit up to suit their own agenda. To the point where Congress curtailed their budget. Cut their funding in the mid 1990s. Since then it has been admitted that the whole thing was a pile. I have references if you want.

I've seen the USNAS report. I don't think its believeable, and neither does the Bush administration because they came out after it was released and questioned the findings.

Government orgs are not always truthful, nor always scientific. Sometimes they set out to make a case for things they want. This might well be one of those times.

Discretion is the better part of valor. That's all I'm saying here.
Re:going out on a limb here... by stevelinton · 2004-10-03 08:27 · Score: 1

You said it:

I've seen the USNAS report. I don't think its believeable, and neither does the Bush administration because they came out after it was released and questioned the findings.

Government orgs are not always truthful, nor always scientific. Sometimes they set out to make a case for things they want. This might well be one of those times.

The Bush administration is surely more of a "government org" than the NAS. Seriously I don't know of a serious "broad review" type study by any group not funded by the oil industry (which admittedly rules out the Bush administration) which has not more or less agreed with the NAS.

You also said:

Discretion is the better part of valor

which surely speaks for not filling the atmosphere with more CO2 than it's had for several hundred million years.
Re:going out on a limb here... by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-03 14:31 · Score: 1

You know, if there wasn't much of anything at stake in the CO2 effort I might be inclined to go along, do the experiment and see what happens.

However this is not a trivial thing we are speaking of here. What you are suggesting is nothing other than voluntarily curtailing the total energy output of our civilization. That ain't small potatos.

So at the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that I don't find the existing evidence sufficiently compelling to sell my car and take up walking. Because that is what will have to happen to do as you and the rest of the global warming crowd want. You're going to have to make it "water is wet" convincing, and so far, it isn't.

Clearly the Bush administration agrees, and wants some more convincing stuff on the table before they will even countenance the discussion. That's not short sighted, that's called looking out for America first which is what they are supposed to do. That's their job.

Besides, don't you find it even slightly interesting that only the oil industry is interested in disproving the hypothesis? Physicists have been busting their asses since 1914 trying to prove Einstein wrong, why is Global warming so holy? That's the whole point really, where's the mainstream criticism? There should be a lot more than there is.

My idiot government seems content to sell my country's future for a handful of magic beans, either by honouring the Kyoto Agreement or renegging on it after a suitable pause, therby blowing our credibility. either way my kids future isn't looking bright here in the Great White North.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 07:59 · Score: 1

The first way to reduce green house gases is to cut down on energy consumption not to increase the production, which would be the second way. The more energy you produce the more it it gets consumed.
Somebody mentioned France, yes they produce a lot of energy via nuclear power. But the problems are not solved. The waste is a long term problem which lasts 10 thousands of years, basically pushing the problem into the far future to a time where the containers start to leak.
What I meant was that the USA has a much easier task to reduce the power consumption than for instance Europe, because they have so many things which are already covered over here still lingering. The first measuer of giving tax refunds on people who build heat saving measures into their homes already probably would be enough to fulfill Kyoto. This is a nono over here in europe in many areas already because every house already is built with that in mind over here. We face a much harder task.
The problem with the big cars is not a US only problem. Cross country cars are also things to have over here, by people who mainly drive them only on roads. But that problem has to be targeted as well. After those problems are solved we should and can think about raising the energy production. The US has lots of untapped potential here. Vast plains which would be perfect for wind driven power plants (this is not experimental stuff I am talking about) Lots of area which could used for artificial reforestation and then out of those forests several heat driven power plants could be built (I am talking about a natural CO2 circle here which does not increase the short term CO2 level) the list of ideas is probably endless. And as I said the US has a much easier task than Europe in this regard.

Can't wait by Merovign · 2004-10-02 08:02 · Score: 1

I can't wait until until the election is over and the Kerry Campaign hands Slashdot back to the old editors and posters. If I want rampant political posturing I'll go to LGF or Kos.

This place used to be full of people who could see through the posturing but it sure seems like a large number of posters are just toeing the whatever-party line here.

Let's get back to geekdom for five minutes, OK?

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 08:03 · Score: 1

Well the problem with nuclear energy is, besides the saftey problems, that it is a long term waste problem. The halftime of the waste of those plants can be measured in 10.000 years or more. The next thing is, that the conatainer storage problem is not fully solved then. The containers start to leak and then what? Dont expect the inhabitants on earth in 10.000 years to now about those issues. It is like, we have this clean energy, see no CO2 but the waste is absolutely deadly and will become tolerable by mammals again at a time when mammals maybe dont exist anymore.

Talking about Global Warming is unpatriotic! by NoSuchGuy · 2004-10-02 08:04 · Score: 1

Remember that talking about Global Warming is very unpatriotic in the US!

Just ask a "sponsored" (read: lobbied) politican.
Then ask a "censored" (read: cut off from money because of non compliant research) scientist.

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by TheGavster · 2004-10-02 08:04 · Score: 1

So ... we don't want to use fossil fuels, or nuclear fuels ... but we want a solution *right now*. This seems a bit incompatible; wind, solar, etc are all in development, but you won't get them overnight. Nuclear plants are worlds better than fossil fuel plants; all the waste goes into a big dense brick rather than into the atmosphere.

Modern American homes are rather energy conscious; there are just a lot of older homes that are impractical to upgrade. Once they start to fall down, the buildings replacing them will be built under new more efficient standards

We definately need tax breaks on green cars (those Smart Cars are amazing, and hybrids are coming along) and reduced/eliminated A/C. You don't need a tank to go to the supermarket (no roadside bombs, you see) and residential A/C is way overused.

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".

See, there's a problem here. by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 08:05 · Score: 4, Funny

The problem is that you're clouding the issue with facts. You just can't let the facts, or God forbid actual reasoning to interfere with a perfectly good anti-USA hate-Bush rant.

Besides which you read the article. That's cheating.

Re:See, there's a problem here. by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 14:46 · Score: 1

You know, there's somebody else famous who said more recently that as soon as a thread contains a reference to the Nazis, the discussion is over.

Jumping the gun a bit here, aren't you? You should have given me at least one go 'round before dusting off Goebbels.
Re:See, there's a problem here. by killjoe · 2004-10-02 20:14 · Score: 1

I hate to but into this conversation but it was you who paraphrased goebbels.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:See, there's a problem here. by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-03 06:16 · Score: 1

The "N" word's been used already. This conversation's over. All we have now is name calling and spitball throwing.

But hey, this is Slashdot. Flame on if y'want.

Federal Insurance and FEMA by WindBourne · 2004-10-02 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Florida; Hurricane, Tornadoes, and Floods.
California; Earth quake, drought for south, mud slides for north, etc.
Texas; Just about every thing; Hurricanes, tornados, flood, drought, fire, hail, too much sun/heat/whatever, too little sun/heat/whatever, etc.
Colorado; Front range - hail, drought, Heavy snow; Highlands - Fire, flood, drought, Heavy snow.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Federal Insurance and FEMA by WindBourne · 2004-10-02 08:58 · Score: 1

I guess you think nobody should like in Kansas. Somebody better go tell Toto and the Tin Man.
Not at all. I think that ppl should be free to live where ever they want. I just do not believe in subsidizing it. A good example is that Houston is talking about building a subterrain LRT through the city. They seem to ignore the fact that the city floods frequently. That is not different than ppl buying stick homes in FL or Kansas or OK. They should not be wood homes that fly apart. But if they do wish to buy them, I do want to subsidize them bu giving them free money or even low cost loans.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Federal Insurance and FEMA by WindBourne · 2004-10-02 09:53 · Score: 1

You never know what a disaster truely is until you are it's victim. Why don't you do something to help your fellow man, like join the Red Cross?
First off, I certainly feel for your Grandmother. My parents live in Stuart Fl (if you will, ground zero for frances and Jeanne) and my Grandmother use to live in Orlando. But, just because a disaster hits my family does not make me want to have the feds pay for it.

I use to be am EMT. I have been at disasters. In the past, I have regularly donated to Charities such as Red Cross (now on the low-end of pay due to working on start-ups, so i give minimal amounts).

I suspect that you will think me as being some heartless republican (disregard the fact that I am not a republican). But the problem exists because Florida encourages the poor to come down there by allowing cheap hosuing codes. In addition, politicians try like mad to cover up the situation becuase they want that tax base ("nah the hurricanes, alligators, and floods are not a problem"). Too make matters worse, most of the same politicians that pushed for a weakening of the housing codes, are the same ones that pushed no law suits against politicians and now want to minimize or remove liabiabilty from home builders. All of these folks should be held accountable.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Federal Insurance and FEMA by Artifakt · 2004-10-02 09:56 · Score: 1

There is a real problem, in that insurance firms do frequently not adjust rates to reflect realities. FEMA based low cost loans to rebuild may be compassionate, but they also let insurors get sloppy, knowing that the government will bail them out if an "unusual" load of damages happens, so they don't always charge realistically.
However, Florida has tightened up on building coads in most municipal areas repeatedly. It's just that all those buildings that were grandfathered in haven't all been blown away yet. (That and trailer parks).
A better example of your point than Fla. is Lousiana, and parts of Georgia and Miss. These states have all tended not to revise building codes for hurricane country, perhaps because they expect Fla. to block for them. California, where rural codes haven't been adjusted nearly as much, is also probably doing worse than you suggest, because it's more than drought for south, mudslides for north, it's often alternating drought induced forest fires and rain induced mud-slides in the same parts of the state.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Federal Insurance and FEMA by WindBourne · 2004-10-02 10:22 · Score: 1

California, where rural codes haven't been adjusted nearly as much, is also probably doing worse than you suggest, because it's more than drought for south, mudslides for north, it's often alternating drought induced forest fires and rain induced mud-slides in the same parts of the state.
Yeah, that is why I gave etc. on all those. I sit here in Colorado, and see that I am paying higher taxes and insurance becuase politicians and builders have elected to build cheap homes in some of the worse states (in terms of natural conditions); Texas, Florida and California are just 3 of them. Personally, I view these as cost of living for the states that incur them. Calirfornia is probably about the only state that will alter their codes to improve the situation (in cities anyways). Of course, that leads to expensive homes, but hey, cost of living. Actually, Florida has improved since Andrew, but not by that much. I saw some of the construction that was going into Stuart Fl, and was unimpressed.

As for the deep south and for that matter, the east coast, it is only a matter of time before they get hit by larger hurricanes. As it is, they are getting hit by larger tornados and drought and from what I have seen, few of the codes have been changed (of course, I do not stay up on them on all 50 states, but occaisionly I see and hear things).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Federal Insurance and FEMA by sideshow · 2004-10-02 19:50 · Score: 1

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.
DONE!, well at least in California. Earthquake insurance is definetly in effect. I rent so I'm not sure but I think earthquake insurance costs more the rest of the homeowner insurance (fire, flood, etc) combined.

Also, our building codes are heavily modified after we learn why certain buildings fell down after a major quake.

--
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

hurricanes - more than used to be ? by l3v1 · 2004-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1

Actually between Ivan and Jeanne I heard a researcher guy speaking who said that in fact there haven't been more hurricanes this year than in the previous 50 or so, just that they came more close to each other. He said that statistics don't show a definitive increasing tendency of increase in the numbers of hurricanes. He also said the strength of these also varied pretty much over the decades.

So who knows, one says the end of the world is coming, another says it's just casual/by chance.

I say, I'm glad I never run from a hurricane. I hope I'll never have to.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by Insipid+Trunculance · 2004-10-02 08:11 · Score: 1

Does any body in the US realise that China will be the world's leading energy consumer in a very short period.

That the Chinese economy isnt so efficient that they will implement green policies in their industries.

That the only thing between Chinese pollution and the US is the Pacific ocean.

US should have signed the Kyoto treaty so that it could , along with Europe , force China to keep its pollution under check.

At the moment China has a carte blanche to pollute as it wishes.

US has been very short sighted on Kyoto and this will come to haunt the next generation.

Or is it , no body wants to Save the children anymore if it costs them?

--
Wanted : A Signature.

You anti-american terrorists! by michajoe · 2004-10-02 08:12 · Score: 1

Come on, not again, you whining anti-american underground terrorists.

Pres. Bush has repeatedly stated that all this talk about global warming is unsubstantiated hogwash. There simply is no such thing as global warming.

And he's the prez, he oughta know.

Suspicious... by Cerebron · 2004-10-02 08:13 · Score: 1

Especially in light of the previous article that says the ozone 'hole' is getting smaller.

--
xyzzy - operation overload.

Re:Suspicious... by Cyberhawk · 2004-10-02 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

There is more than one side to this story by beezlebub739 · 2004-10-02 08:14 · Score: 2, Informative

There was recently a well regarded Climatalogist from Colorado that stated that global warming woulg actually have the reverse effect and lessen hurricane season. Who to belive? All I know is that I don't have a great deal of trust in the Times. Thier agenda seems to track more along the lines of fear mongering than full and balanced research.

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by Forge · 2004-10-02 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 ?

Ecosystem by Tokerat · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Polution produces greenhouse gasses and puts holes in the ozone layer. Atmosphere allows more radiation in and traps more of it as heat.
Planet warms up.
Ocean tempatures rise.
Tropical storms, including hurricanes and typhoons become more severe.
Increased lightning activity means more ozone is generated, patching the ozone hole.
Wetter inland weather means more plant life is active to use some greenhouse gasses, thus reducing their atmospheric amounts
Things cool off a bit and then the cycle starts again, leaving the world not a whole lot different than it started.

It could run deeper and somehow the warming of the earth is what is starting volcanos to trigger again, producing carbon monoxide which in turn eventually helps form ozone, but I can't think of a way those two events could be directly related.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:Ecosystem by graffix_jones · 2004-10-02 15:23 · Score: 1

Not to nitpick, but you're kinda running two separate occurrances together, global warming and ozone layer depletion.

With ozone depletion, CFC's and any other molecule that contains Chlorine spend their time robbing O3 molecules of one of their oxygen atoms, in a recurring cycle until the Chlorine atom is spent and can no longer split O3 molecules apart.

Global warming on the other hand, is from the proliferation of molecules that contain 3 atoms or more (such as CO2, and even H2O!). These molecules act to trap infrared radiation, which normally radiates back out into space, by reflecting it back to earth.

Let me also state that the earth has a normal 'Greenhouse Effect' built in to the atmosphere... were it not for this, the average Earth temperature would be in the range of -400 degrees Fahrenheit.

I hear that Canada and Ukraine are pretty stoked about global warming... since that's where the new corn and wheat belts will be in about 20 or so years if we continue with our current rate of pollution.

It's also unknown what the Earth's self-correction mechanism will be, but I predict that we face some pretty serious climactic changes before it regains balance... something that I don't think the human race can survive.
Re:Ecosystem by janne · 2004-10-02 18:23 · Score: 1

The ozone and global warming should be separated. Lightning will not patch the ozone hole, because surface ozone (lightning) is separate from the upper-level ozone protecting us from UV radiation. Surface ozone is actually a pollutant.

Increased vegetation is really thought to play a role in mitigating global warming. But the effect is not strong enough and not fast enough. Recent studies (summer 2004) also raise the possibility that increased CO2 will increase CO2 emissions from arctic beat bogs and from forests as well, due to the changes in microbe fauna in the soil.

More info on beat bogs and on carbon loss from forests. (More or less random links to the news articles that appeared everywhere.)

You should also be aware of some not so reliable information sources.

Re:Weather is NOT climate by gnuman99 · 2004-10-02 08:15 · Score: 1

Weather prediction != climate prediction. Weather prodictions suck for anything more than 48hours. Climate predictions suck for anything less than 5 years.

Global warming is about cliamatic change, NOT about the temperature on the weekend.

Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHING? by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Well.... by jeephistorian · 2004-10-02 08:22 · Score: 1

...I once thought Windows was the greatest OS in the world!

People change their minds as they learn! I'd rather have someone who is constantly thinking about the pros and cons, rather than stubbornly insisting that the current course of action will always be the right one!

________________

--
Huh?

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by rogabean · 2004-10-02 08:23 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree with you more Forge. As a Floridian down here hit by three hurricanes this year, it has still shocked me how little attention has been paid to the devastation caused byt these same hurricanes to our neighbors to the south.

And I can't even imagine how these countries are going to handle with the coming years. :(

--
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"

Could they get together and settle on one story? by rspress · 2004-10-02 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems that no matter what happens it is the cause of global warming.

Lots of hurricanes, global warming. No hurricanes, global warming.

Big hurricanes, global warming. Small hurricanes, global warming.

Drought, global warming. Flooding, global warming.

Hot weather, global warming. Cold weather, global warming.

Different weather, global warming. Same weather, global warming.

Obviously the planet is warmer than it was 50,000 years ago and at least he in California it has been wetter and cooler in the last several thousand years than it has been before that. One super volcano or asteroid and we may be trying to warm the planet up or it will be very, very cold.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 08:26 · Score: 1

Great to hear the news, about the home energy problem. Anyway, I think the US has lots of potential for energy generation without the nuclear waste problem. The wide open spaces of US are an untapped potential, for wind energy, for plant growing (wood for instance) which could be burned within a short term CO2 cycle. This would be a solution for now. Would definitely save several power plants. But the problem is, that the lobbyists wouldnt be too happy about it, if every average joe in the midwest put out his/her small wind energy station and feeds it back into the national grid.

Haiti + deforestation = many dead and more to come by gnuman99 · 2004-10-02 08:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Thousand+ died in Haiti because they almost deforested their entire island. When the rain came (only tropical storm there), there was nothing to stop the water so it went down the mountains and though the cities.

Of course, no one in Haiti is going to do much about it. They will just continue to chop down what trees remain for charcoal, etc.. They are digging their own graves. This is not a troll, this is reality.

more info

the current trend... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 08:28 · Score: 1

...is still on the upslope of a big sigmoid curve.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by slashname3 · 2004-10-02 08:30 · Score: 1

So some publicly recongnized figures signed a letter. Did they stop driving cars, flying in planes, or convert their million dollar houses to solar power? I don't think so.

I think those signatures would carry more "weight" if the signers turned the A/C off in their houses and stopped driving the SUVs that are most likely parked in their garages.

Weather patterns in the world change. They changed in the past and they will change in the future. The evidence trying to link human action to climate change is debatable. We would be better off spending our energy finding ways to establish self sustaining colonies off world. But then the tree huggers are against that also.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by Exanter · 2004-10-02 08:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

No, it doesnt.

A bunch of avowed leftists/marxists who have no specilized exptertise in climatology write the president a letter whining about greenhouse gases, and the president roundfiles the letter... good, I would have too. I don't know what was in it, but color me less than shocked if it came off as a bunch of leftist/environmentalist wanking...

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or the Appeal to False Authority, I belive it's called... a rather large example of such, I'd say.

And yes, the president decided not to waste our time with Kyoto... it was voted down 98-0 in the senate for cripes sakes... he couldn't have done anything with it anyways. It's called a reality check. Check out how treaties are ratified in this country sometime...

global warming is not about our fault by circletimessquare · 2004-10-02 08:44 · Score: 1

the whole debate about whether or not global warming is natural or manmade is moot

what both camps have to realize is that, for better or for worse, we humans are now the stewards of the planet

which means it is our reponsibility to preserve the planet as we found it- not our fault, but our responsibility

not for any nebulous moral reason, but simply because we want to save money from hurricane damage, off-par crop yields, etc.

so then the argument is not one of it's our fault vs it's mother nature's natural cycling... the argument is really one of it's our responsibility, versus, we can do anything we want to the environment and we can't do anything about what the environment throws back at us

au contraire: we CAN change what we throw at the environment and we CAN change what the environment throws back at us, so we can engineer the environment to our specifications, and so we can steward the entire planet

we can seed the ocean with iron here, we can dump CO2 into the atmosphere there... so we can bring the ice age back to scandinavia, or turn the sahara into a jungle

we are approaching the ability to do that

there is no question as to our "right" to do that

it is simply that preservation of the status quo: the sahara right where the sahara is, forever, and the taiga exactly where the taiga is, forever

simply because our economies and population patterns and comfort levels are attuned to the way it currently is, so why allow the earth to overheat or cool down, whether manmade or not?

so we have to think less along the lines of blame, and more along the lines of terraforming: the earth is our garden, and we can do whatever we want to it, so let's preserve it, simply for the sake of saving money and lives, not for any nebulous impractical moral purpose

likewise, those who say throw any CO2 crap into the atmosphere we want are wrong too: we can track the change CO2 levels have on that atmosphere, so we should tune that

so, for example, if we start noticing the earth is entering another ice age, who cares if it is a natural process? we can stop it, for the benefit of current species and our creature comforts, so we should

so evolution and natural climatic cycling stops on mother earth, due to the naked ape

it's not blame and accountability that is the human factor in global warming, it's responsibility and foresight

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

APOLOGY by LiquidCoooled · 2004-10-02 08:45 · Score: 2, Funny

I just thought I would take this opportunity to apologise for the florida hurricanes.

My attempts to capture the errant butterfly in my backyard failed.

The little git managed to evade my net on several occasions before fluttering elsewhere.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by gcaseye6677 · 2004-10-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Ever noticed how the extreme environmentalist groups are opposed to ALL forms of electrical generation? They oppose coal and oil because of pollution, nuclear because it's scary, hydro because it changes ecosystems, wind because it can kill birds that get caught in the turbines, and geothermal because of heat dissipation. It would be nice to hear their plan for how they plan for the human race to just do without electricity at all. At a minimum, I'd like to see them practice what they preach and live in the woods somewhere without modern conveniences.

No Precedent by Databass · 2004-10-02 08:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well.... actually, I think the order of magnitude of carbon and other greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere IS without precedence in the earth's history. I wonder how many acres of rainforest burning would be equivilant to all the exhaust put out by cars and other gas engines? But even more importantly- engine exhaust is ON TOP OF all the usual forest fires and burning peat bogs that usually occur. We have diesel soot microparticles from boats and trucks landing on the polar icecaps, reducing their albeda. In even the most volcanic periods of earth's biological history, did soot manage to find its ways to the poles? I don't know.

Also, as a smaller issue there are chemicals like CFCs which don't have any precedent in nature.

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by Martin+Blank · 2004-10-02 08:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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

A lot of this has to do with the rampant deforestation in Haiti. Notice that the Dominican Republic, which is on the same island, did not suffer nearly as badly, as it still has much of its forest remaining. There's a picture where you can pretty clearly see the border of Haiti and the DR -- DR is green, and Haiti is not.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:Haiti + deforestation = many dead and more to c by Mard · 2004-10-02 08:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, please see http://www.wunderground.com/education/haiti.asp and the Florida Sun's interactive article (flash required) linked at the end.

--
DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.

This just in... by pixelcort · 2004-10-02 08:57 · Score: 1

Driving motorized cars increases the chances of hurricanes/tornadoes/cyclones/(the Japanese ones that I can't think of the name of).

Damn SUVs! Bah!

--
http://pixelcort.com/

Re:News is NOT a good data source by WindBourne · 2004-10-02 09:02 · Score: 1

low interest loans are subsidies that we pay. As I mentioned, the rescue help is warrented.

But I also have an issue with it. Consider the case of Andrew. Many wooden homes that were allowed to be built were simply blown over. This created a disaster. Had the homes been built to a decent code, then the disaster would simply broken trees, cars, and a lot of flooding. Basically, we paid a huge resuce bill becuase Florida allowed such low requirements for homes.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 09:04 · Score: 1

Well, yes there are certain groups which oppose everything without a plan. But lets face it, Wind and Water currently are the best and cleanest ways to do the job.

Third probably heat generators, if they dont rely on fossile fuels or on nuclear energy. A growing burning wood cycle is perfectly acceptable if the trees are replanted, thus take the CO2 from the air and soil again. I think probably some kind of sun based energy source (which water and wind is indirectly) might be the best solution in the long term, given the huge deserts the earth has. Also the oceans are somehwat an untapped territority for energy production (algae production and burning comes ot my mind), but those things currently are sci fi given the current technologies.

Given water and wind, I think, micro plants are an untapped territorrity, in many countries there is the potential to do small micro sized power plants relying on wind and water which can feed back in thousands into the national grid, those things are untapped possiblities.

Lets go back to nuclear energy. The waste problem is there and still is unsolved. I would say, this is the last option if everything else fails. For me it is less the scarity, but the waste problem which does not make it a clean energy.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 09:08 · Score: 1

It will but they will run definitely into huge environmental problems, given the fact that everything industrywise settles down around the south coast there mainly Shanghai. What china will face are huge environmental problems, but even worse because they will be densely focused on a rather small spot of the mainland.

But back to global warming, China already has serious problems with it, did you notice the flood catastrophes this country faces and already has faced. Those were not of normal size.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by svin · 2004-10-02 09:10 · Score: 1

So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west.

If I remember correctly the two countries. who did not (Russia just did) ratify the aggreement were USA and Australia. These countries were asked to reduce their CO2 emission by 7%, which is not an unreasonable figure considering the fact that these countries discharge the most (per capita). Especially since countries that emit less (eg. Germany & Denmark) woved to reduce their discharge with 21% (!).

The argument presented by the USA was, that the developing countries should also reduce their emission. An argument that, IMHO, does not make much sense as these countries emit very litte (eg. they would have to give up public transportation to reduce emissions, contrasted with the fact that it would only require americans to drop their SUVs).

And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.

I believe the "trade concessions" you talk of, namely allowing Russia to keep their discharge constant, was made in an attempt to get them to sign. It could also be argued that it was not an unreasonable compromise, as Russia has had a disastrous economy since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and is still struggling to regain it's footing.

BTW. This is not to be considered an critique of neither Republicans nor Democrats. This is an internal affair, and as I am not an US citizen I will keep out of it (although I have my opinions ;). It is however a critique of the twocountries that did not sign the Kyoto agreement.

Kerry and global warming by Von+Rex · 2004-10-02 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Kerry voted against Kyoto? Gee, that's pretty amazing considering the Kyoto protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

Kerry had some problems with that version of the protocol but he definitely recognizes that we have to do something about global warming. That's why he has authored legislation to cut down on greenhouse gases.

Here's a quote from him on Kyoto:

"Bush's abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of this Administration's misguided approach to dealing with the community of nations. Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today."

And here's some info on his legislative efforts regarding global warming:

Compare Kerry and Bush's environmental policies
Kerry and Bush sharply divided on response to global warming

Excerpt from the Seattle Times article:

"Kerry, like Bush, opposed American participation in the current Kyoto treaty. In 1999, he joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that stated that the United States should not ratify the treaty unless China and other rapidly developing countries were also required to reduce greenhouse gases.

But Kerry, who has called pollution a "mortal threat" to the climate, wants to reopen the Kyoto negotiations to refashion an agreement acceptable to the United States.

And even without U.S. participation in the treaty, Kerry has backed mandatory efforts to control carbon dioxide.

His most high-profile effort was a 2002 bill that he and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., submitted to the Senate to force automakers to improve automobile efficiency.

The bill would have required that average fuel economy for autos sold in the U.S. to rise from 24 mpg to 36 mpg by 2015. Lower fuel consumption would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

That bill was opposed by the U.S. automotive industry and automotive unions, which argued that the target was too extreme. It failed to pass the Senate.

Kerry also supports at least modest federal caps on U.S. emissions of greenhouses gases, such as the caps contained in legislation submitted to the Senate last year by McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

That bill seeks to ensure that the overall U.S. emissions in 2010 would be no higher than the overall levels back in 2000.

Re:Kerry and global warming by mvdwege · 2004-10-02 21:47 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight:

The US auto industry opposed a bill that would have given them 13 years to reduce consumption to 36 mpg average, saying that that target was (in effect) not reachable?

I did some calculating, and 36 mpg is about 6.5 l/100 km or 1 l/15 km, which is currently attainable by most European and Japanese automobile manufacturers. Granted, most of them market cars with lesser fuel efficiency, mostly because of the US carmakers influence in marketing gas-guzzling mostrosities, but 36 mpg has been an attainable goal for at least 15 years now.

Are US autos really that bad in fuel efficiency?

Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Re:Haiti + deforestation = many dead and more to c by Scrameustache · 2004-10-02 09:13 · Score: 1

They are digging their own graves. This is not a troll, this is reality.

Saddly, I think they need someone to step in and do some nation building in their place. Its really sad, Haiti was founded by rebellious slaves who overthrew their masters, quite noble that, but evidently, it didn't devellop well. There must be a way to get them to admit they need help, its quite a big blow to a nation's collective ego, but, dammit, people are dying.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Tell me it's not happening by Deorus · 2004-10-02 09:28 · Score: 1

Whatta hell... These things threaten human lifes and you are worried about money and property damage? Haven't you seen how many people died in Haiti? The last thing they must be thinking about now is tourism!

oh my by nomadic · 2004-10-02 09:29 · Score: 1

If you ever hear or see someone put "virtuous" and "Miami" in the same sentence, you should probably be aware that they're not being serious.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-02 09:29 · Score: 1

Great, somebody who is against your view of the world is a marxist.... I think you should readjust your opinions about it a little bit.

Re:Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHIN by Teancum · 2004-10-02 09:31 · Score: 1

You are very quick to openly dismiss the potential for sources other than industrial pollution causing an increase in CO2. Even if you assume that the global increase is due to industrial pollution, most environmentalist are quick to point straight to 1st World countries, and most specifically the United States of America.

If you assume that the United States of America is directly responsible for the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale (a bunch of ifs so far I don't support), you are also presuming that giant wastful SUVs are the largest component of the production of CO2 in the USA. Truth be told, all of the SUVs in the entire USA amount to less than 1% of the total CO2 production in the USA. OK, I'll try to back that up with some hard figures, but this is somewhat hard to come by.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics does have some interesting numbers to compare, that can give some hard values. Basically, all categories of SUVs combined account for about 49% of all trucks sold. Trucks only account for 42% of all new vehicles sold, giving you about 20% of all new vehicles sold by dealerships in the USA are SUVs. OK, a major portion of vehicles, and certainly you can see them driven around near you, but not the #1 source of pollution. I'll also tell you that a light pickup will put out just as much if nor more pollution than an SUV, so are you trying to get them banned as well? If you look at this page, car & truck pollution is hardly even the single source of air pollution either. I feel very confident that if you take into account mass transit systems, bulk goods shipment, energy production systems (like coal fired power plants), agriculture production equipment (tractors, harvesters, irrigation pumps, etc.), industrial production equipment, and even other personal transportation equipment, you would find SUVs to be well less than 1% of all CO2 production in the USA. Statistically it is insignificant even if all SUVs were made illegal to use or own tomorrow.

Also, going back to the stats pages, The USA isn't even a majority of auto production It is barely even #1, with many interesting countries that are making significant gains for presumably domestic production, including China and Brazil.

The fact is that if the USA were to suddenly cease to exist (we all got in our rockets and went to Mars, or nuked ourselves in a Civil War when Bush and Kerry deadlock in the Presidential election), CO2 production will continue to grow, and grow substantially for the next century, and even make up for everything the USA is currently producing.

This is not even to mention that there may be other causes for global warming besides just CO2 production. Please think before you start throwing stats around, even if you think you are promoting a proper philosophy. I would agree that as individuals we can try to avoid messing up our environment. Just don't tell me to become a hunter/gatherer again like my ancestors were many years ago and force me to choose which of my neighbors are going to get killed in the coming genocide, if your philosophies prevail.

Help with more computer simulation by scattol · 2004-10-02 09:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Long range weather forecast is still an open research topic. There is a weather simulation project called ClimatePrediction.net where your computer simulate 15 years of the earth climate while you get a cool looking screen saver with the simulated weather.

Their goal is to have the most accurate weather forecast model around. This should lower the uncertainty and clear up this question of CO2 and how much it contributes to global warming They are calibrating with simulation of past weather. With the calibrated models they will then forecast the next 50 years and hopefully this will tell us if hurricanes become more likely.

Join in numbers and help clear up doubt about the future climate.

Pork! Re:See, there's a problem here. by mrmeval · 2004-10-02 09:34 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/ Thomas R. Knutson is from the government and he's here to
help you while he helps himself to some more pork.
http://www.okpork.org/

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

zerg by Lord+Omlette · 2004-10-02 09:42 · Score: 1

Is this like a feedback correction system? Civilization cuts down alot of trees, nature destroys civilization, tress grow back, civilization cuts down alot of trees, ...

--
[o]_O

Santeria by SunPin · 2004-10-02 09:44 · Score: 1

I'm sure the chicken and goat population is much lower today. It takes a lot of animal sacrifice to overcome Miami's "virtue." :)

--
Laws are for people with no friends.

BUNK! When they can predict .... by fygment · 2004-10-02 09:51 · Score: 1

... the non-idealized weather accurately, then perhaps that could lend credence to a statement that that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. Come on. Construct a model under say the wrong assumption that high jelly bean consumption will lead to stronger hurricanes, and when you boost that variable voila! Huge jelly bean consumption yields bigger hurricanes!! What a surprise. But it doesn't make the model an accurate reflection of reality.

Get real! "Idealized hurricanes" have yet to allow reliable forecasts. Most of the latter have come from experienced scientists, not from their models.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

Re:Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHIN by IvyMike · 2004-10-02 10:02 · Score: 1

You are very quick to openly dismiss the potential for sources other than industrial pollution causing an increase in CO2.

I'm sorry I did not repeat in this post, but please see my other post in this thread for the evidence.

If you assume that the United States of America is directly responsible for the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale (a bunch of ifs so far I don't support)

I never mentioned the USA once in my post. Who exatly are you arguing with? As it turns out, I would like the US to be the world leader in cleaner, less wasteful technologies; Not only could we help keep the planet liveable for humans, but I think we could make a lot of money. But I didn't mention that in my post...weird.

Just don't tell me to become a hunter/gatherer again like my ancestors were many years ago and force me to choose which of my neighbors are going to get killed in the coming genocide, if your philosophies prevail.

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh, come on... by Gordonjcp · 2004-10-02 10:07 · Score: 2

... a bit of rain and wind, and the whole of Florida freaks out. In the north-west of Scotland we get about a month of >100mph winds and torrential rain every winter.

In the previous scientific dark ages by b-baggins · 2004-10-02 10:14 · Score: 1

We blamed comets for natural disasters. At least that explanation had a certain romance to it.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by artson · 2004-10-02 10:15 · Score: 1

I wonder how many Europeans cringe when they hear your over simplified clap-trap?

"The first measuer of giving tax refunds on people who build heat saving measures into their homes already probably would be enough to fulfill Kyoto".

Piffle!The USA is not a pudding fer gawds sake, it is tall from North to South and broad from East to West. It encompasses climates from the bitter cold of arctic Alaska to tropical steam in Florida and from desert in California to the eden that is the Ohio river valley. It extends from the depths of Death Valley to the heights of Mount McKinley. In all of these regions and climates, Americans have built houses that make sense. The high thermal mass pueblo construction that serves so well in southern Arizona would freeze the balls off a Minnesotan.
You really should get out more and visit the Europe you prattle about. Take a little hike from Palermo to Stavanger and explain how the same heat retaining house will serve both places. Many of us have visited Europe and we know damn well that most of the housing is not modern and in those areas where it makes sense could use a little insulation.
Furthermore, when we Canadians were considering Kyoto and examining its failings and advantages, it was pointed out to us that many US states were already doing a better job of living up to the treaty's provisions than we were. They still are.

--
In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.

The statistical data says "BS" by FlimFlamboyant · 2004-10-02 10:19 · Score: 1

... As far as the quantity of hurricanes go. Have a look for yourself at NOAA and count them. I did, and here's what I found.

From the year 1901-1940, approximately 1.9 hurricanes made landfall per year during that time.

Have the industrial boom and SUVs doomed us to an ever-increasing number of hurricanes? From the year 1950-2003, there have been, on average, a total of only 1.7 hurricanes that have made landfall per year. That's right, that's less! Go ahead and count them yourself. The theories may be spelling doom, but reality tells a different tale, as it often does.

So we get slammed with 3 in a row and all of a sudden it's the end of the world, and we can blame it all on Chevrolet (or George Bush, if you're so inclined)? Whatever. Three, although slightly above average, is hardly out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is that they all happened to hit roughly the same area. Bad luck? You bet. Global warming? No way.

--
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)

bah, whiners by mgessner · 2004-10-02 10:55 · Score: 1

These people are hilarious.

There was just an program on the Weather Channel
about 2-3 weeks ago about the hurricanes.
They stated that the last few years' worth of
hurricanes were LIGHT compared to the average.
If you go back over the time people have been tracking such things (ahem, BEFORE the time that
"global warming" was a tree-huggers whine), they
said, you'll find that the average hurricane
season is more than we've been getting lately,
and it's expected.

--
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect

Re:You named 11 people... by fmaxwell · 2004-10-02 11:01 · Score: 1

For that matter, get off your lazy ass and post a link if you're going to reference the thing. Jeez.

Get off your lazy ass and use Google. It's not my job to try to help you discredit my arguments.

come on, not true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 11:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

None of this is true. the average temp of the world swings up and causes more hurricanes and this lasts for about 2 or 3 decades and the average world sea temp goes down a also lasts for a bout 2 or 3 decades. we are just experiencing an increase in temp by natural causes NOT BY MAN.

Re:come on, not true by Grishnakh · 2004-10-02 14:21 · Score: 1

Even if this is true, there's a lot more people and a lot more buildings in the areas where these hurricanes hit than there were a century or so ago. So the potential for destruction is much higher.

However, I'm not so sure your claim is true. If it were, we should have seen lots of really huge storms only 60 years or so ago. I don't think this is the case, according to historical record. The most destructive hurricane to hit the US, Camille, hit the Gulf Coast in the late 60's, around 35 years ago, which should be the weak-storm period according to you.
Re:come on, not true by catman · 2004-10-03 07:38 · Score: 1

Perhaps. But quite recently, live blue mussels - Mytilus edulis - were found at Svalbard (Spitzbergen ) where they have been absent for about 1000 years.
Google gave only Norwegian-language news articles, sorry

Before that, there was another 2000 year break when there were no mussels there. Doesn't look like a short cycle to me.

ummm... by GreenKiwi · 2004-10-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Someone must have watched "The Day After Tomorrow" last night!

Re:Something to remember in this inter-glacial per by Oligonicella · 2004-10-02 11:06 · Score: 1

"I know the red giant is aways off, but after earth is a blasted irradiated rock..."

What?!?!? You're actually worried about billions of years? Why?

Wind Power by craXORjack · 2004-10-02 11:07 · Score: 1

warming ocean temperatures are going to make for stronger, wetter hurricanes in the coming years and decades

Maybe if we put up enough 5 megawatt wind turbines we can suck that energy right back out of the system before tropical depressions can become hurricanes.

--
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.

More scientists confusing C & C? by Illserve · 2004-10-02 11:13 · Score: 1

It's getting warmer: we're causing it!

There are more hurricanes this year: it's because it's getting warmer!

I have a hard time putting much stock in climatologists claiming to understand dynamic systems. The problem is so hideously complicated, neglecting one feedback loop can throw all of the predictions out of whack.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by fmaxwell · 2004-10-02 11:17 · Score: 1

A bunch of avowed leftists/marxists who have no specilized exptertise in climatology write the president a letter whining about greenhouse gases, and the president roundfiles the letter... good, I would have too.

So you're no brighter than Bush is. No surprise there. Who the hell cares whether they are leftists or marxists? What does that have to do with whether they are correct? That's a typical right-winger ad-hominem attack. When someone as informed as the environmental editor of Time and someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking sign the letter, someone as stupid as George Bush should take it seriously.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or the Appeal to False Authority, I belive it's called... a rather large example of such, I'd say.

No, it's an appeal to intelligence. That's probably why you didn't find it appealing.

Lemmings with matches... by Genda · 2004-10-02 11:19 · Score: 1

Every time I hear somebody trying to downplay global warming, I go just a little crazy. There isn't a scientist (not on the payroll of a major oil or gas company anyway), that hasn't made it perfectly clear... there is no longer a doubt... the world is much warmer than it used to be, and it's going to get a whole lot hotter yet. Even if we stop making a mess, it will get hotter yet.

All the latest satellite research agrees. Testing thermal transfer into rock substrates agrees. Melting permafrost all over the world puntuates the obvious. Coral reefs dying because ocean water temperature exceeds the survivable limit demonstrates. Record climatic activity, heat waves, and large storm activity reflect the certainty, that the earth's ability to absorb more heat is at it's functional limit and we will soon begin seeing the kinds of disasters that can only happen when global thermal equilibrium completely breaks down. If you are ignorant of the current state of affairs, pick up this months National Geographic, the entire magazine is devoted this month to the subject. That or read the letters to the current national leadership from some of the most respected names in science in each months Scientific American. Only the truly deluded or self involved can possibly ignore what's happening now. To not be present to our growing dillema, indicates a serious personality flaw (our government as ever,is not our friend.)

Worse, the amount of CO2 in the permafrost, is equal to or greater than the amount currently in the atmosphere. If the permafrost should succeed in completely melting, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in short order. We are already seeing intermittent changes in the gulf stream due to changes in the haline cycle. Water is already increasing in the atmosphere (do to enhanced evaporation from rising temperatures), and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.

Detroit recently protested the new California Clean Air Standards saying that they would have to stop selling SUVs in CA, because it would be impossible to meet the standards with large motor, four wheel drive, vehicles. I wish we would be so lucky. Instead, Detroit will file suit in a regional court to demand that CA, change it's standards do they can continue to use our lungs and the sky in general as an open cesspool. People, it's time to choose between your monster truck with the zipcode size storage for your ego, and your children, because if you don't begin making that choice, your children won't get the opportunity to make that choice for their children.

Genda

"I come from Southern California, a place where you have to chew the air before swallowing."

Re:Lemmings with matches... by SEWilco · 2004-10-03 04:56 · Score: 1

Perhaps you're only hearing from scientists involved in the activism industry. There is plenty of doubt, it just isn't getting as much press as does "global warming". Try looking up how well understood are the effects of the major greenhouse gas. That's water vapor. That's not getting much press, is it? And there are plenty of things only recently learned about water vapor. Oh, and also clouds are not well understood -- look at your favorite picture of our planet and consider how much uncertainty that adds to the science.
Melting permafrost all over the world puntuates the obvious.
Do the Inuit have any scientific reports of what the permafrost was like a thousand years ago? They didn't move in to Greenland until a little later, when the Arctic ice reached far enough south to reach Greenland. It is not known how Vikings made maps of the north coast of Greenland around that time.
Coral reefs dying because ocean water temperature exceeds the survivable limit demonstrates.
The survivable limit for that type of coral inhabitant. Temperatures change and corals are repopulated by colonies which fare better at current temperatures. How old are those coral formations, and what does the record show about past climate changes?
Record climatic activity, heat waves, and large storm activity reflect the certainty, that the earth's ability to absorb more heat is at it's functional limit and we will soon begin seeing the kinds of disasters that can only happen when global thermal equilibrium completely breaks down.
Those records cover a brief period. What has the climate been like between recent glacial periods?
That or read the letters to the current national leadership from some of the most respected names in science in each months Scientific American.
How many of those people are experts in climate? Experts in statistics of climate records?
Worse, the amount of CO2 in the permafrost, is equal to or greater than the amount currently in the atmosphere. If the permafrost should succeed in completely melting, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in short order.
Now you're touching the edge of something. How much CO2 is that? How much CO2 moves into and out of the atmosphere due to natural activities? How much carbon is subducted inside the planet each year? Look at the size of those numbers and compare them to the numbers which you currently have.
Water is already increasing in the atmosphere (do to enhanced evaporation from rising temperatures), and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.
Oh, good, you noticed. And how well known are the effects of this? Does more water vapor produce more heating? Clouds which warm, or clouds which cool? Science doesn't know.
Detroit recently protested the new California Clean Air Standards saying that they would have to stop selling SUVs in CA, because it would be impossible to meet the standards with large motor, four wheel drive, vehicles.
Someone should point out thermal depolymerization to CA. Producing oil from carbon dioxide in the air (extracted by growing plants) means that when the oil is burned it is merely putting back in the air what came out of the air.

CLIMATE is much less complicated than weather by Intraloper · 2004-10-02 11:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Which is why thaey cn predit increased intensity of hurrricanes (largely climate-induced) but not frequency (much more dependent on imeidate weather events).

Re:CLIMATE is much less complicated than weather by DrAegoon · 2004-10-02 14:29 · Score: 1

You are correct that climate is easier predict than weather, but your assertion that climate is the main influence on hurricane intensity is not entirely accurate. The study ran models in an idealized environment. The models left out possible external influences such as wind shear that can have serious effects on the strength of a hurricane.

A more accurate way of putting it would be that the climate changes increase the maximum possible strength of a hurricane or that a hurricane given favorable external influences will be more powerful. Hurricane intensity is as sensitive to immediate weather conditions as frequency. In fact, statistical surveys over the past century suggest that every hurricane that forms has an equal chance of being any intensity. It's the external factors that determine how strong it can get.

And Bush withdrew from the Kyoto PROCESS! by Intraloper · 2004-10-02 11:41 · Score: 1

What people forget is that Bush didn't just withdraw us from this specific Kyoto treaty. He withdrew us from the Kyoto process, so that we arent involved in ongoing treaty negotiations regarding carb on emissions.

Re:And Bush withdrew from the Kyoto PROCESS! by MtViewGuy · 2004-10-02 16:25 · Score: 1

And with good reason, too.

The Kyoto Protocol does NOTHING to correct the serious pollution problems that are plaguing the two most populous countries in the world, namely China and India. If the Kyoto Protocol had said something about reducing CO2 output on a truly global per person basis with no exceptions for any countries, then there would have been far more support for the treaty in the USA.

It was tightly correlated with an increase by Intraloper · 2004-10-02 11:47 · Score: 1

in atmospheric CO2, which has been moving up and down within a reasonably narrow range of concentrations for the last 420,000 years. With tempsrature also cycling, in very tight lockstep with CO2 concentrations Our current inter-glacial period has been occuring with CO2 levels running right at the highest concentrations ever observed in the last 420,000 years. Our massive input of anthropogenic CO2 has been ON TOP OF that natural local high, and has pushed us some 30% above the highest levels ever observed over that 420,000 year period. Yes, earth;s climate changes naturally. And we are pushing it into regimes OUTSIDE the range of natural variation, based on 420,000 years of observations. Google for ice core climate data if you doubt the time period, by the way.

Psychic Predictions by Brandybuck · 2004-10-02 11:47 · Score: 1

Why does this sound like one of those psychic predictions? You know, like when an earthquake hits and suddenly all these psychics appear out of nowhere claiming they knew all along it was going to happen.

Why did this study appear *now*, a mere few weeks after some very large hurricanes? The timing smacks of cheap scare mongering.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHIN by Teancum · 2004-10-02 11:48 · Score: 1

If you assume that the United States of America is directly responsible for the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale (a bunch of ifs so far I don't support)

I never mentioned the USA once in my post. Who exatly are you arguing with? As it turns out, I would like the US to be the world leader in cleaner, less wasteful technologies; Not only could we help keep the planet liveable for humans, but I think we could make a lot of money. But I didn't mention that in my post...weird.

America is a very popular target for many reasons, not the least of which is the desire to deep-six the Kyoto Treaty. Signing that treaty is a very bad idea for America, and will do far more harm than good. I know that you specifically didn't mention the USA by name, but often because America is a big target and in one place with one government, therefore capable of actually doing something as a group and influence the rest of the world, is made to be the bad guy and responsible for much of the world's ills, particularly in regards to global pollution.

Just don't tell me to become a hunter/gatherer again like my ancestors were many years ago and force me to choose which of my neighbors are going to get killed in the coming genocide, if your philosophies prevail.

What the hell are you talking about?

The logical conclusion of trying to be an environmentalist is in many ways a reactionary movement to disband industrial technologies, or even agriculture-based economies. That means that we, as a people, will return to a time when we "lived in harmony with nature", and lived a subsistance hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Only by doing this can nature takes it proper course and impact of humanity is minimized. Also, by going to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle population pressures will be greatly diminished, simply because a given parcel of land can only support so many people.

If you accept that you must be allowed to have your cool gadgets, farm grown food, and enjoy a lifestyle similar to a 1st World country in the 21st Century, you must permit at least some burning of fossil fuels and the production of CO2 in some significant quantities. The only way out then is to apply more technology, not less, and be able to come up with some energy soruce that will diminish pollution. Nuclear Energy is a good alternative, but its pollution effects are in some ways even worse than fossil fuels. Solar Energy is proven to consume more energy in the manufacture of its components (particularly photovoltaic) than it produces over its lifetime. There are other environmental issues with solar energy sources as well. Wind energy kills birs and affects local climates as well. Hydroelectric systems are the best for air quality, but they do their own sort of damage to the environment.

Basically, I'm trying to point out that there are some tremendous compromises that will have to be done if you switch to anything. This is something that is going to have to be done gradually, and there is no single magical energy source that we can use to maintain our current lifestyles that will not also have a tremendous impact on the global environment in a negative way.

Should we be responsible stewards? Yes. I hope that we can make this world a cleaner place that my children and grandchildren can enjoy as much as I have been able to.

Miniscule, my ass. by Intraloper · 2004-10-02 11:50 · Score: 1

Over the last century, we have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by some 30%. And we were already at or very near a global maximum for concentration, for the period of he last 420,000 years, before we created that 30% increase.

Not all scientists agree about global warming. by AllergicToMilk · 2004-10-02 11:52 · Score: 2, Informative

In fact there is substantial dispute as to the nature and causes of climate change. Those curious might check out these websites: http://www.co2science.org/ http://geography.asu.edu/balling/

--
There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.

buildings by bonezed · 2004-10-02 12:07 · Score: 1

just build some decent buildings already!

for the extreme areas... semi underground domes

--
---- Put Sig here:

Re:Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHIN by uncadonna · 2004-10-02 12:13 · Score: 1

You are very quick to openly dismiss the potential for sources other than industrial pollution causing an increase in CO2.

Isotopic evidence is absolutely clear; the increased carbon in the environment is coming from fossil sources; it's completely C14 depleted. Where else would it be coming from, anyway? It's the term in the mass balance that's changed. If the increase in CO2 isn;t anthropogenic, you have two big questions. 1) where *is* it coming from and 2) where *did* the carbon we emitted go? Occam doesn't really have to work very hard here.

most environmentalist are quick to point ...

(massive sigh)

Can we talk about science, please, and not about why some ill-informed group of people you don't like picks some opinion that isn't the opinion preferred by the ill-informed people you do like?

This thread isn't about ideology, it's about measurable and understandable physical processes in the atmosphere and ocean. It wasn't "environmentalists" who brought ideology into it, it was you.

--
mt

Re:earth is not a diorama by slashname3 · 2004-10-02 12:37 · Score: 1

No that was the word I meant. It seems that when the tree huggers find some poor endangered species they want to put a bubble around to keep anything from changing. They don't realize that change is the way things work. Species die off to make room for other species. Has happened over and over and will continue to happen. Climate change is just one way that this change continues to happen.

Good example is here in Florida. They have laws that prevent someone from making use of their land if someone happens to find a gopher tortoise on it. The idea being that you can't disturb their habitat. If they had their way no new development would be permitted. But things will change regardless of what they do. You can't protect all these endangered species. It is the natural order of things. If they were meant to survive then they would adapt. If they are not meant to then say hello to the dodo when they get their. The way natural selection works. At some point it will happen to people also. Probably due to a virus of some kind. Some of us may survive then again we may make way for the next attempt. The dinosaurs made room for us after all.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by bobbuck · 2004-10-02 12:48 · Score: 1

Slashdot needs at least one conservative opinion. If you want a dose of reality to go with the hysteria go get your hands on The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.

The Sky Is Falling....The Sky Is Falling.... by I-Iillbilly · 2004-10-02 12:57 · Score: 1

Sheesh...ok so now man is gonna...no wait not man, Bush and the USA are gonna trash the earth with freaked out weather patterns again....and its all our fault....Do you know how many times (and how long) they predict the end of the world cause of global warm'n... ok so motown is caus'n Mt St Hellnes ta go off too right?

Talk about a bunch of brain washed geeks...so hmmm let me see....how close is the earth to this massive star we call the sun...what?.... you kidd'n that close....yea that has noth'n to do with what goes on here on earth noth'n at all...pay no attention to that man behind the curtin....

give me a freak'n break with this global warm'n cuased by man crap... speak'n of which....cows spew more methan gas than man could ever think of spew'n with all our machinary...

Cheers...its Saturdaynight.....

Short Answer: Wrong by tarogue · 2004-10-02 13:19 · Score: 1

According to George H. Taylor (Certified Consulting Meteorologist and State Climatologist in Oregon,) "'Global warming causes increased storminess' makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history."

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Link? was written 9/14/2004 and covers this issue rather well, thank you.

--
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp

Re:Could they get together and settle on one story by MagicDude · 2004-10-02 13:24 · Score: 1

Global Warming doesn't mean that everything gets polarized to just one extreme (like everything should get hot OR everything should get cold). Global Warming means that normal weather patterns get fucked up by the changes in average temperature. So global warming can lead to both flooding and droughts, both hot summers and cold winters, and lead to seasons of both unusually strong and unusually weak hurricanes. Having no hurricanes in a summer (while good for florida) is not normal, and thus reason for concern because when one part of a system isn't normal, than other parts are going to be off as well.

Democrats don't drive SUV's by bobbuck · 2004-10-02 13:27 · Score: 1, Troll

Democrats like John Kerry drive a geo metro and live in a 950 sq ft house with no air conditioning. (And his jet is towed by reindeer.)

in case this hasn't been posted: by cosyne · 2004-10-02 13:52 · Score: 1

God vs Bush

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by beakburke · 2004-10-02 14:14 · Score: 1

As one scientist said, science is about facts, options, probabilites, risk and consequences. Not about telling the public what is the "right thing to do". Scientists certainly can tell me more about the probable outcomes and risks of various secnarios, but their "narrow" specialization means they are probably ill equiped to decide what the best course of action is for society is. Everyone thinks that their work doesn't get enough resources devoted to it. It's the natural human response. But that doesn't make for good balanced decision making. That's why we should be represented by a wide variety of people, not ruled by an autocratic body of experts.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

ok? by celeritas_2 · 2004-10-02 14:22 · Score: 1

Firstly, I'm trying hard as possible to not be a troll so hear me through. Watch the evening news, weather models have significant trouble "predicting" whether or not its going to rain tomorrow, so i don't put much faith in 'studys' dealing with simulations. It's a guess and nothing more, just one possiblity in a very chaotic, non-linear system.

--
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.

US the largest "polluter"? by beakburke · 2004-10-02 14:26 · Score: 1

I suppose if you call CO2 "pollution"..... which I think is the wrong term, given it's already existing connotations. You could say that the US is the country with the single greatest gross CO2 emissions, and that would be a fact. The dirty little secret that the Kyoto crowd doesn't talk about is that the US has much lower net emissions than most industrialized countries, no matter how you measure (per capita or as a proportion of GDP) (due to the large natural carbon sinks, etc). Does that mean the US can't do even more to reduce emissions? Of course not! But the self-righteous attitude of many Europeans (who had to make concessions to Russia and Austrailia that they refused to give to the US in Kyoto) irritates me to no end. It's like the Unibomer or OBL complaining about how cigarettes are killing people, because well, they aren't killing people right now, but tobacco is.

It might even surprise you to learn that the US is actually much better than much of the rest of the world in terms of ambient quality of air and water. (Though CA residents might not believe it.)

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

Anybody wanna buy a house? by st0rmshad0w · 2004-10-02 14:36 · Score: 1

Anyone looking for a fixer-upper about 200 feet from the Chesapeake Bay?

High ground here I come!

This is nothing more than political crap by peterzum · 2004-10-02 14:56 · Score: 1

There were a higher frequency of worse storms in the 40's and 50's than there are now. This is nothing more than a load of political crap. There is no link between global warming and the intensity of hurricanes. If there was, where did the horrible hurricane's from half a century ago come from, if we've been warming up the world ever since then. This is nothing more than a trumped up load of crap put out there by "scientists" that are Bush haters that are trying to blame the bad weather on president Bush. Who these people funded by, would be a more informative on what their report meant, than the report itself. Remember weather is a chaotic system, and as far as I know, there is no one that can predict chaotic weather patterns, to a very good accuracy. They can barely tell if it's going to rain in a week, how then can they pretend to know what the weather will be like next year.

Moded down? by snarkasaurus · 2004-10-02 15:09 · Score: 1

Gee, possibly because if it was all as cut and dried as you say, nobody would be arguing about it. Technical audience here y'know.

Nobody argues about the speed of light, because its been measured. Repeatedly. To a very high degree of accuracy. By lots and lots of people. Not all of whom can be trusted of course, but there are so many that the liars and cheats get snowed under by the honest results.

Nobody (except certain eccentric types) argues about evolution or relativity, because they've both been observed in the lab and in the wild, as it were. Again repeatedly by lots of people for years and years.

So with global warming, we have a hypothesis that has evidence supporting it, AND evidence which does not support it. When its as observed and verified as relativity currently is, then I'll sign on to spending trillions of dollars and billions of man-years of effort to curb it.

Until then, I'm thinking the whole thing is a bit too politicaly popular to be trusted, thanks. In the 1970's we were due for another ice age in 20 years, thirty years later its global warming and the same exact people are doing all the braying?

Gotta say I'm doubting it. Too much like gun control and cold fusion.

Re:Moded down? by uncadonna · 2004-10-05 07:26 · Score: 1

There's lots of room for real scientific controversy, and huge amounts of room for policy controversy, but the points I asserted as settled are indeed settled.
The idea that "nobody would argue" if it were that cut and dried only applies to pure science. In an applied science with implications for policy that threatens some economic interests, those interests inevitably trump up doubt.
That's to be expected. The tragedy is that they get away with it. I would love it if the technical audience went and looked at the evidence I pointed to, thanks very much.

--
mt

Mars by crankyspice · 2004-10-02 15:24 · Score: 1

We really don't know enough about the natural (historical) cycles of our world; to attribute global warming to Bush and Ford Excursions is, I believe, a gross oversimplification. No doubt we're contributing, but, I'm of the belief it would happen anyway... See, for example, "massive global warming" on ... mars. (Before our rovers got there and started driving around with their big diesel engines... er, wait...)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/m ars011207.html

--
geek. lawyer.

ObNuclearEnergyPost by Herger · 2004-10-02 15:33 · Score: 1

We wouldn't have to worry as much about global warming if the USA would build more nuclear power plants, and allow Westinghouse (or was it GE?) to build some in China. But Bush can't (even though it is part of his official platform this year!), thanks to Democrats, and Kerry won't, because he is a Democrat. Further, we could use ethanol for fuel, but even Bill Clinton lacked the political karma to impose that, though at least he did get Congress to mandate the development of E85 and M85 vehicles that run on 85% alcohol (Ethanol or Methanol) as part of the 1993 Energy Policy Act. Unfortunately, "development" and "widespread mandatory deployment" are quite different things...

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by Liquidrage · 2004-10-02 15:36 · Score: 2

Florida has very little to worry about.

So are you going to pay my mortgage when I lose my job due to the devestated economy?

There's a lot to worry about besiced a direct threat to life. Florida will basically become Wyoming with coastline and warm weather if we have seasons like this one for the next 10 years.

Climate != Weather by TapeCutter · 2004-10-02 15:44 · Score: 1

One simple rule answers this question, Climate != Weather. Long term weather (48hrs+) is inherently unpredictable, especilly in temprate regions. I live in a temperate climate but that doesn't tell me if it will rain tommorow. Antartica has its own climate, if it has a warm sunny day, no problem. If it's climate warms by just a few degrees we get our feet wet. The speed of the current climate change is what makes it a global disaster.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by Keebler71 · 2004-10-02 16:05 · Score: 1

Wait,...there is plenty of blame to go around! First, read up on the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol was negotiated in 1997, opened for signing in 1998 and closed in 1999. I am pretty sure there wasn't a signature spot for "Governor Bush". Contrary to popular belief however,... it was signed by the US. Gore signed the document, in a completely symbolic gesture. However, the US Senate had already passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which was really just a warning to President Clinton that if he sent the protocol to the Senate for ratification, it would fail. Incidently, the Senate vote on the resolution was 95-0, including Senator Kerry. As an excuse the Senator has said that the resolution was passed before the Kyoto protocol was finalized and was written so broadly that he pretty much had to.

Read it for yourself. It does say that the US should not sign any agreement unless all the countries are held to the same standard (currently 80% of the world is not restricted what-so-ever by the protocol - including China) and it shouldn't be signed if it would do severe damage to the US economy. It also says that if it is passed on to the Senate for ratification.. it needs to be delivered with an impact assessment.

To me - it all seems pretty reasonable.

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by aled · 2004-10-02 16:06 · Score: 1

Recently there was a story in CNN (in spanish) about how there were no deaths in Cuba after one of the big of the last hurricanes because of prevention.

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"

Chicken Little? by Rekrapt · 2004-10-02 16:16 · Score: 1

According to George Taylor, CCM - an Oregon State Climatologist and Faculty Member of Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences - there is no quantifiable relationship between global warming (at least a debatable concept) and an increase in hurricanes.

Living on the Gulf Coast, this is a topic of particular interest to me. Please read his article on the subject and comment. I personally don't know what to believe, myself.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091404D.html

"'Global warming causes increased storminess' makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history." - George Taylor

TParker (rekrapt)

--
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.

Two problems with your reply by Intraloper · 2004-10-02 17:02 · Score: 3, Informative

One, we not only withdrew from the 'protocol' (the treaty) we withdrew from the negotiating body that is still working to define future 'protocols.' I said that in my post; we withdrew from the PROCESS. We withdrew from having input into future proposed treaties. Two, on a per capita basis (or national basis, for that matter), the US emits MUCH more carbon than China and India. They were exempt precisely because their per capita emmissions are relatively very low compared to ours. The opposition was because it targeted the US as the major emitter of carbon, and that would hurt our economy. The Kyoto treaty was flawed, and could not have been ratified. But the process for modifying that, and working toward a more palatable treaty was extant, and Bush withdrew from THAT.

Re:Two problems with your reply by MtViewGuy · 2004-10-03 03:12 · Score: 1

Two, on a per capita basis (or national basis, for that matter), the US emits MUCH more carbon than China and India.

Alas, that is changing as the economies of China and India are rapidly growing, and as a result the CO2 output per person in these countries increasing rapidly, too. Besides, both China and India have other serious pollution problems with uncontrolled smokestack emissions and serious water pollution problems from factories and untreated sewage water.

That's why we need to kibosh the Kyoto Protocol and start all over again with a treaty that reduces all pollution output on a per person basis on a worldwide basis.

Hm. A lot of denial around here. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-02 17:34 · Score: 2, Informative

How long after The Phantom Menace came out were some fanboys in denial about the fact that it sucked?

Denial of unpleasant truths seems to be a big part of living in Western culture.

Every fifth post through this whole thread is, "The Sky is NOT falling!" and "There is NO link between global warming and strange weather!" Essentially, "NOTHING IS ABNORMAL! LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Ahem. . .

First Ever South Atlantic Hurricane Hits Brazil. (March of 2004)

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level.

Alaskan Glaciers Melting Faster.

desertification in China.

desertification in Africa.

Heck, even the rest of the solar system is acting funny. Remember the. . .

Blue Band on Jupiter this past March of 2004?

and

the Huge X-class solar flares of last year?

Interestingly, the evidence of past hurricanes categorized by decade suggests that there have been big hurricanes to make US landfall before. Indeed, the worst decade, from 1950-1959 saw a total of nine storms between category 3 and 4, (though none of category 5) during that ten year period. Sure. But we've just had four in just one summer. Nobody can say that this is par for any course.

Now, I am not claiming that this has anything to do with global warming. But anybody who tells me that everything is normal probably swore up and down that The Phantom Menace was a good film for a whole year after it came out.

-FL

poppycock! by BungoMan85 · 2004-10-02 17:55 · Score: 1

the height of humanities arrogance is its belief that it can drasticaly effect global climate (something it barely understands to begin with). look at weather patterns of an extended period of time (100+ years) and youll see that such storms happen on a fairly regular basis. yes, lets all blame america and rich suv driving republicans and especialy george bush because if it wasnt for him, these hurricans wouldnt have wanted to hit us in the first place.

--
Bungo!

Re:Hm. A lot of denial around here. . . by Rekrapt · 2004-10-02 18:55 · Score: 1

I would think that the Sun has far more to do with global warming on Earth than human activity on Earth would have to do with a blue band around Jupiter or x-class solar flares on the sun.

Understand, I never said I didn't believe in global warming... I said I didn't know what to believe. Chill, the planet hasn't burst into flames just yet.

And people who think the Phantom Menance sucked are just too old now to suspend their disbelief as they did when they were younger and watched the first Star Wars movie. Lighten up... those movies are made for kids. You sound bitter about it...

--
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.

Adlantic Conveyer by simoncrute · 2004-10-02 19:00 · Score: 1

No,
The adlantic convayer is thought to be because of the water cooling as it reaches the ice sheets. As it cools, it sinks driving the convayer.

The melting of the ice sheets decrease the salinity of the sea water causing it not to drop as deap or as fast, reducing the power of the conveyer, and ultimatly turning it off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchill trans.shtml

Re:Adlantic Conveyer by goober1473 · 2004-10-02 22:15 · Score: 1

Soo what I want to know is...
1) Earth gets hot
2) Ice sheets melt
3) Europe gets very cold (like Canadian winters)4) It's cold there's plenty of ice sat on Europe, albedo rates go up
5) The pesky ice sheets get bigger and the ocean is more saline
6)NADW starts up again
7) it's warmer in europe
8)ice sheets melt etc..
Surely I am missing something here, there's a huge amount of stuff in nature that seems to do this. If the world gets warm due to too much CO2 for example shelled creatures do well as there is more material to make shells with and take CO2 out of the atmosphere amd make limestone. But I hear you cry, how do they get more food, well a nice side effect of warm climates is more rain, which causes more nutrient rich detritus to be washed into the oceans.
Anyway my £0.02 worth, and speaking as an exgeologist it's been a lot warmer and colder before now, it wasn't that long ago that the "hockey stick" temperature graph was seen to be wrong and the climate isn't warming as quickly as we thought.

Re:Whoa : Florida has very little to worry about. by hikerhat · 2004-10-02 19:47 · Score: 1

Huh. Sounds to me like hurricanes kill a lot of people. There are factors that can increase/decrease your risk of being killed by a hurricain, but it is the hurricain that does it.

Adaptation by Perdo · 2004-10-02 20:16 · Score: 1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2002/06/03/MN215596.DTL

Bush to Florida: "Welcome to adaptation b**ches!"

And you all thought Bush didn't belive in evolution.

He thinks the floridians will grow gills and armored exoskeletons.

--

If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

Re:Could they get together and settle on one story by sql*kitten · 2004-10-02 20:33 · Score: 1

It seems that no matter what happens it is the cause of global warming.

Y'know, in the 1970s, the "green" movement was most worried about global cooling and the onset of a new ice age? Their prescription then was to reduce economic and industrial activity. Now they're worried about warming and you know what their prescription for that is? Exactly the same.

To me, it looks an awful lot like they've already decided what they wanted, and are constantly casting about finding a way to justify it. No-one should comment on environmental issue who hasn't at least read Bjorn Lomborg's book.

Re:Sigh by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2004-10-02 23:01 · Score: 1

hehehe hilarious.

you just cant stand that the truth hurts you so much.

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-03 00:48 · Score: 1

Hydro power is the worst; it absolutely destroys the ecosystem on the river in which they are placed. Does it really? I come from a country which does not have oceans but had to build up its main energy source without nuclear plants. Therefore hydro energy is big over here. Things seem to look bad first but are not that bad if you look closely. The main problem with hydro energy is that it basically interferes with natural habitats. But so do cities and other manmade resources. What has to be done is to place the plants into areas which interfere least, if possible. (near cities, in areas where there is already a strong influence of man on the surrounding) Or simply go the micro power plant route, and have thousands of small power plants on already existing water mill places which feed back into the grid.

The other problem is the obvious blocking of fish swarms. This problem is solved to a big degree already by so called fish ladders, which seem to work quite well.

The main problem for certain type of rivers is the blocking of flooding material. The main rivers which are affected by those are the ones, which build Deltas out of the flooding material, this is the biggest problem with hydro plants nowadays, but not all rivers are affected (The Yangtse river in china, the Nile in egypt and the Missispi in the USA)

But those problems are rather small if considered carfully, compared to atomic waste you dont even know to get rid of at the current day. If there was a secure way to get the waste into the sun without risiking a high chance to pollute huge parts of the planet in an accident, then I would be pro nuclear power plants, but since there is none, oh well.

As for the tree growing problem, I see not a big deal here, in the US, the USA has vast open lands which are untapped at all, a reforestation with some kind of ecological cycle would help as long as there are no mono cultures in the trees. Also the sea could be a huge ressource for such plants, growing algae in the see would be an excellent ressource for bio material based power plants.

Re:Could they get together and settle on one story by rspress · 2004-10-03 01:01 · Score: 1

And normal weather patterns have exactly the same symptoms. I have no doubt that we are affecting the weather to a certain extent but it seems whatever weather we have is proof of "massive" changes, which I cannot buy into.

Back in 1880's - 1900's the environmentalists solution to smog was to raise the factories smokestacks higher into the air. While it did cure the smog problem it created acid rain and hurt the environment in ways they could not have fathomed. Of course they really did not take the time to.

Would this study... by stephanruby · 2004-10-03 01:01 · Score: 1

Would this study have appeared four months ago, and not just four days ago, I would have been moderately impressed.

I say "moderately", because we already have a number of studies predicting all kinds of phenomenas "caused by global warming", and by sheer luck of the draw one of those studies is bound to eventually hit pay dirt.

Re:Could they get together and settle on one story by rspress · 2004-10-03 01:09 · Score: 1

I think you are giving them too much credit. As I stated in another post the environmentalists around the 1900's though the solution to smog was to raise the factory smokestacks higher in the air. It did solve that problem but created much more widespread, more damaging ones.

It is pretty much the same here. With little information they want to make massive changes. We have made changes....not that the rest of the world has kept up. But even in their own ranks that cannot agree on what will happen to the weather say 5 years from now, 10 years from now. Each camp has their own ideas. Both can't be right.

Re:Scientists don't know EVERYTHING=lets do NOTHIN by Teancum · 2004-10-03 02:47 · Score: 1

It is precisely because most people who discuss environmental policies in the light that "We must do something NOW!" usually throw science and hard figures out the window and throw up ideology right away. The topic subject is "Scientist don't know EVERTHING=lets do NOTHING?", and then went into a huge argument that criticized that most people suggest we do nothing to affect the CO2 levels in the atmoshpere. And then further threw up the whole SUV issue as if getting rid of all SUVs are going to stop the global rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. If that isn't ideology, I don't know what is.

I am not ill informed, and there are certainly changes to the overall atmosphere due to modern society. I think though that the way to solve these issues is not to dismantle our industrial society (getting rid of SUVs and other CO2 emission sources), nor do I think that this is an unsolvable problem. While I will admit and conceed that there is global warming, I will not admit that the primary and chief cause of this is due to human activity... there are far to many variables and the models that are used are by scientists with an axe to grind.

Also, two huge sources of CO2 emissions include volcanoes and forest fires. Forest fires are pretty much self-regulating, as a good healthy forest will pretty much output as much carbon as it absorbs, perhaps even bury some in the ground for future time periods. There are also some chemical processes in the ocean and with some geological processes that also can release CO2 under the right circumstances (although I'll admit that the ocean is more likely to absorb the CO2 than release it at the moment.) All of these processes can release C14 depleted CO2, just as you are citing.

Environmental monitoring is also suspect, as the methods used to obtain the numbers often involve political sensationalism and can be skewed by picking monitoring locations that best serve a political agenda, particularly if the scientists involved are trying to push for increased pollution regulation.

It is very difficult to obtain objectively very good numbers, as the consequences of what happens when those numbers get published can influence policy decisions that affect ordinary people like myself who is struggling to simply raise a family and to be honest sound like alarmist freaks trying to rob money from me. There are people pushing for environmental policies that have frankly done some very poor science, and there is a huge backlash going on against all environmental scientists because of this, even those scientists who really are using the scientific method properly and doing some remarkable and worthy work. If you can show me some hard numbers, explain very clearly how the method used to obtain those numbers is totally objective, and most importantly, that the numbers used contain more than simply 50 years of climate data, I am very impressed.

I am also very familiar with the schools for environmental science, and they tend to have students and professors with a slightly more liberal viewpoint, even compared to a typical college campus. I don't think you will too many Bush/Cheeny stickers on students in those schools, and indeed you will see many "Anybody but Bush" instead. Locally the Natural Resource College is a very good place to find a Kerry supporter if you wanted to find one in a hurry, even though the college Republicans on campus are quite strong in general. It is precisely this political leaning that also pushes ideological values that go straight to environmental policies as well, as these are the "experts" that come up with these numbers.

Re:How can you have a 30 year cycle then? by stevelinton · 2004-10-03 02:51 · Score: 1

Sorry, if Global Warming cuts across the cycle that implies it has an effect.

Yes that's what I was saying. There is a 30 year cycle, and, to the best of our understanding, if we (or something else) keep on heating the planet, there will still be a thirty-year cycles, but at a higher overall level of hurricanes across the cycle.

As for your other paragraph, who is supposed to be making excuses for what? There are, indeed, many environmental problems in the world. Ozone depletion and overall global warming are somewhat special because they can ONLY be dealt with on a global basis. A messy nuclear weapons stockpile, or the Aral Sea dustbowl are regional problems with possible regional solutions (although things like global trading arrangements have a big impact). Making the atmosphere more transparent to IR can, to the best of our knowledge, only be done by taking more CO2 out of it, and putting less in. The US produces a really very large amount of CO2 (even compared to Europe or Japan) and so really has to do some things. Roughly they must do some combination of:

1. Generating more power other than from fossil fuels -- nuclear, tide, wave, wind, hydro, etc...

2. Use less power overall -- smaller cars, not living in extreme climates, insulation etc.....

Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. are also doing these things, more or less. Russia, China and India need to find a way to leapfrog the really energy intensive phases of their industrial growth, or go into non-fossil fuel power generation early. South America and Asia needs to stop burning down forests.

It really is getting hard to find credible scientific opinion contradicting this view these days, the evidence just keeps coming.

Same thing happened 40 years ago by walterbyrd · 2004-10-03 03:37 · Score: 1

A series of hurricans hit the same area about 40 years ago. According to some weather scientist I saw on TV, it's a normal pattern. We can expect the same thing in another 40 years.

Re:What? We didnt blame Bush for it? by fmaxwell · 2004-10-03 03:57 · Score: 1

You're way too much of a pussy to ever take this liberal on in person. You're just another anonymous coward hiding behind a monitor.

Just think, if we got rid of all of those useless fucks we'd be left with a culture of self-sufficient people who didn't perpetually try to use the government for ripping off other people and sticking their noses in other people's business.

When conservatives are polluting the air I breathe, it's my business. When conservatives are handing over public lands to Exxon so that they can sell our oil to China, it's my business.

Ripping other people off? I probably pay way more in taxes than you ever will and you don't see me whining about it. John Kerry pays more in taxes every year than you'll ever earn, and he's not whining about it. It's the conservatives who want all of the benefits of living in this society without shouldering any of the costs.

Conservatives, as a group, are the least self-sufficient people in the world. They are a bunch of impoverished, innumerate idiots who think that they can have everything from roads to safe food and medicine and not pay any taxes. Just look at these results from the last election if you doubt me:

Top ten states by income:

1 Connecticut - Gore
New Jersey - Gore
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
New York - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
Minnesota - Gore
Illinois - Gore
Colorado - Bush
California - Gore

Bottom ten states by income:

Louisiana - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Montana - Bush
Utah - Bush
New Mexico - Gore
West Virginia - Bush
Arkansas - Bush
50 Mississippi - Bush

Now lets look at education. These are the top ten states rated by percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher:

1 Colorado - Bush
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
Virginia - Bush
Connecticut - Gore
Minnesota - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
New Jersey - Gore
Vermont - Gore
New York - Gore

And now for the bottom ten states (those with the smallest percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher):

Wyoming - Bush
Kentucky - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Nevada - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Mississippi - Bush
Arkansas - Bush
Indiana - Bush
50 West Virginia - Bush

So it looks like Gore was the strong favorite in states where the population was educated and enjoyed a good income while Bush was the candidate of choice in states where education and income were low.

Bias Detector by SEWilco · 2004-10-03 04:18 · Score: 1

'greenhouse gas-induced warming'

Political statement.
Any warming increases the energy available for hurricanes.

Automobile windshield-induced warming of CDs causes increased warping of CD material. CDs are warped the same by toaster-induced warming or fireplace-induced warming.

Re:Kyoto to the rescue by MemoryDragon · 2004-10-03 05:53 · Score: 1

No the ecosystem of rivers in western europe was hosed in the 50s and 60s but for instance the danube and rhine nowadays are quite clean. The huge chemical desaster in the rhine 15-20 years ago did its fair share for the reconstruction work. But if you mean that the water is regulated in huge parts in those rivers and has been, you are right to a certain degree.

Well the atomic waste problem is a different issue, the problem is, that even if you bury it in a mountain, the waste remains there for another 50.000 and more years unless it becomes untoxic. The other issue is, that the containers, do not last that long.

You basically bury in a heritage which a civlizatiion in the distant future has to cope with. If they are lucky they are technically advanced enough to deal with the problem, but if not, say goodbye to the civilization.

You are right about the prairies in the open spaces. But those would be perfect for a windmill system (yes I know the birds, whatever) or the grassy plains for harvesting grass like plants which could be burned.

Also as I said numerous times in that thread, the sea is an untapped potential for growing biomass. 2/3rd of the earths surface is ocean, numerous biomass able lifeforms grow there anyway, which could be harvested and raised in open sea farms. Raising algae for biomass energy production would be feasable for instance.

Re:Global Warming (Correction) by evilviper · 2004-10-03 23:11 · Score: 1

Correction. The sentence:

"I was evidence that..."

is supposed to start with:

"I want evidence that..."

Hope that clears it up.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

How to Scare People with Statistics by GQuon · 2004-10-07 04:04 · Score: 1

The number of shark attacks for that year turned out to be fewer than the average. It was just alot hype from the press.
See "How to Scare People with Statistics"

--
Irene KHAAAAAAN!

Slashdot Mirror

Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes

390 of 589 comments (clear)