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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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-

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 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.

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

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

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...

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...

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...

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!

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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!

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/

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

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

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: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?

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: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"

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"

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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.

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: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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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: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: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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Slashdot Mirror

Global Warming Expected to Intensify Hurricanes

99 of 589 comments (clear)