Slashdot Mirror
Warmer Oceans linked to Stronger Hurricanes
linguizic writes "According to Scientific American, global warming could be creating stronger hurricanes: 'Since the 1970s, ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region. Last summer, two studies linked this temperature rise to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend.'"
Ok, well, for some people it was. :)
You are not the customer.
Warmer sea leads to more viscous water, containing more energy. I don't see why it's any suprise...
It sure would be nice if people could discuss science and not politics, especially for something so important. But I'm not holding my breath. Not as bad as evolution debates, I suppose.
English is easier said than done.
Granted the fact that, as someone already mentioned, we already knew this, we still don't have a definite explanation as to why the waters are warming up. Environmentalists say global warming thanks to oil. Oleum (latin for oil... it's where the term "Petroleum" comes from) companies say it's a result of excess water in the atmosphere or that it's part of a constant cycle. Each side needs to defend their cred, but one better turn out to be right, because these hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are killing more and more people by the year.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
One of the major origin of hurricanes is the ocean temperature. If enough water is above 27C you are likely to see hurricanes poping on the radar. If some still want to believe that it was bad luck/fate/god's vengeance/*pick dump excuse* that braught the south of the USA to the ground... let them do.
Home of Faramir Paint Shop Pro scripts
Long term statistics suggest that the number of hurrican strikes is at a cyclic low. Kyotoists tend to use sensational single incidents to bolster their hysterical, political claims. Kyoto was rejected because it is an economic Jonestown that will do nothing to affect global warming.
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm cautious reading stories like these. TFA indicates that statistical analysis says the 1 degree warmer water increases hurricane intensity. That makes sense. Now what can they do with that information? Does it help prediction models? Even if we were a totally rational and science-founded world (which we are not), this study shouldn't sway us either way. Obviously we can't directly control ocean temperature. Can anyone quantify changes humanity can make and implement to lower ocean temperature directly? Nope.
Maybe the study answers it, but what does the increased temperature do to other weather? Does it change, speed up, or slow down the oceanic currents and trade winds? Is the water temperature becoming less entropic, with higher temperature but smaller surface area or volume, or more? Is the depth of heating increasing or decreasing? "More hot water means stronger hurricanes" doesn't add much to what we already know.
Obviously more study is warranted before we all go spaztastic.
The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless. Everyone would need to sign the Kyoto treaty some 50 times or so to even NOTICE changes in the environment. Secondly, the way the treaty is arranged no one who's signed it is actually meeting the requirements it sets, they're just trading their excess productions in each field with people who do. So why sign a treaty that's economically damaging since it's so useless? The only thing that will reduce our environmental footprint is creating and using cleaner technologies, and the best way to do that is to have as efficient and powerful an economy as possible, but direct it in the ways that we want to.
~~~~ Curry says. Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted." ~~~
..etc that were moving further north.. leaving local indiginous people that had lived in the areas affected for well..... a LONG ASS TIME. for the first time w/out the food recourses to survive as they have for centuries...
as i'm reading this they are saying the storms now are 50% worse than the storms in 1950 (which should have been the high point of storm activity based on natural cycle)... and that the natural cycle would point to natural warming for next 20~years........
I'm honestly starting to wonder if humanity even has time left to get our stuff together or if we've already taken things to far, with our climate impacting activities.
I was reading the other day about artic wild life...seals
human caused global warming is close enough to completely proved for me.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
I don't know what stypraphone is, byut Styrofoam has little to do with global warming. The CFCs used to expand styrofoam until the mid-1980s deplete ozone in the stratosphere. This causes an increase in UV radiation at ground level, not global warming.
Recycling reduces the energy consumed in industry. On one extreme, aluminum takes huge amounts of energy to smelt from ore, but relatively little to melt and re-cast. On the other, seperating, transporting, and recycling paper products takes slightly more energy than using new material, BUT reduces deforestation, thus preserving the CO2 absorbtion capabilities of the worlds forests.
Global warming is a global phenomenon, and weather patterns are changing over the whole world. There may be some areas that have lower temperatures, but this does not disprove global warming, since the aggregate temperatures are still higher.
I suggest you go back to school and get brainwashed with grammer, critical thinking, composition, the scientific method, the meaning of a scientific theory and hypothesis, but mostly critical thinking.
America accounts for 25% of all the world's energy consumption.
That energy is not all consumed by Americans. Much of it is used in manufacturing products and raising food which is in turn exported all over the world.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
How your comment should look:
It's cost me 5 minutes to correct this gibberish. Wasted time, perhaps, considering that all I've ended up with is more grammatically correct gibberish. At least I now know two things I didn't before: a) what kind of person believes global warming isn't happening b) how that idiot got re-electedPenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
What, and we can trust the NOAA, after the recent evidence that the administration censors what they say?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
It's amazing how fully you understand the conservative point of view without even asking any of them.
I would say "I don't think you get it" but you already used up that line.
No, I don't fully embrace one 'side' or the other. I think, however, that polarizing dogmatists like you make the discussion worse.
"We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year.".
Which is what makes this new study actually news.
Note that NOAA is saying "we haven't seen a long-term increase in hurricane intensity".
This study now says "well, now you have, because there is one."
It should also be noted that this study studied all hurricane regions, not just the Atlantic region.
Are you sure? From the article...
Yes. They do, in fact know about the cycle.
Many scientists have studied past hurricanes
Yah, sure. That doesn't mean these guys are wrong. Scientists, y'know, discover stuff. And while a link hadn't been found before, it's entirely possible that it has been found now.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Hurricanes harm the poor far more than they harm the rich. An unrestrained economy on the other hand benefits the rich far more than it benefits the poor. Even if the US had a thousand hurricanes, the rich won't change their mind on this.
Global warming is going to result in more water in the atmosphere, as increased temperature permits air to hold more water. ( Decrease the temperature, as on the surface of a glass of cold beer, and you will see the atmospheric water condense out on the outside of the glass.)
Water goes through a significant change in volume between the liquid and vapor phase. Enough to explode boilers or vacuum-collapse cans of steam which are capped then cooled.
Couple the volume change of water passing from the vapor phase to the liquid phase, and throw in the velocity change as polar air is drawn equatorially by the sling of centrifugal force ( as cold air is heavier than hot air - hot air rises ), and you have the makings of hurricanes.
Remember, polar air is moving about 0 mph at the exact North pole, but will have to be accelerated to ( circumference of the earth/24 hours )MPH as it goes to the equator. We have a significant coriolis effect here.
I have cited my observation the very laws of physics themselves - which I understand govern this situation. It is my strongest belief that we are indeed making one helluva mess by messing with our planet's thermal systems.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
"The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
That's oil-company FUD. First: While reducing CO2 emission may not do anything in the next five years, it will do something for long term climate change. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because of its quantity. Reducing it will have an effect, just not immediately.
Second: Russia are meeting their requirements. Those are the only ones I know of, but they're also the only ones I've read about.
Yep, Global warming is just a myth until a hurricane hit Washington DC or New York City
Then you can bet someone will declare, it is global warming
Well, as a resident of Louisiana, I can attest that more hurricanes are a bad thing. We were not hit by Katrina, but we had the refugees staying in our houses. New Orleans is still on hell of a mess. On the other hand, we did get hit somewhat by the hurricane everyone forgets, Rita. That really trashed our coastal parishes and poisoned the land with salt (for details see here). A warmer Gulf means the risk of more storms and stronger storms. From where we sit, we really do not give a proverbial 'rats arse' about the politics. We just do not want hurricanes. If ANYTHING can be done to lower the temperature of the sea and thereby reduce the risk, I am for it. The politicos like to carp on about the causal link not being proved -- this was the line used by tobacco companies for years. Anyone who knows anything about the philosophy of science knows that it is almost possible to prove causation. What matters is strong correlation. This we seem to have, although I am sure whilst Haliburton runs the Whitehouse, nobody will pay any attention. Sorry, I needed to vent on this...
To sum up: the data DO show a change in hurricane patterns. (Of course, if you look at property damage caused by hurricanes, it is skyrocketing mostly because people are dumb and build lots of expensive property by the beach, but that doesn't mean that hurricanes aren't getting worse at the same time as people are building more stuff in their path)
Just because something doesn't have guaranteed benefits does not mean there are none.
Here are three ways that, assuming your assertions are true, it still helps:
1. Having to trade emission output with other nations is a negative force (you have to negotiate, you may even have to pay), and therefore will want to avoid it. At some point, it will be more cost-effective to actually cut emissions.
2. Agreeing to it requires a nation to take stock of its contribution to global pollution. This may highlight problems not currently known or well measured. It also puts into place a system of actively addressing the issue of pollution, even if the treaty requires no changes to the nation's current industries.
3. (And this is the very reason America hasn't signed the treaty) It legitimizes the concern of pollution as a global issue that nations need to work together on. Signing Kyoto sets the stage for the world to address it again and work on Kyoto II. Additionally, you do not know that your assertions are actually true. Your assertions may turn out to be unfounded, but in the case that they are correct, the signatory nations will be motivated to work on another treaty to address those shortcomings.
In other words, you agree with me that the Kyoto treaty would have an effect, and disagree with your original statement that "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
I've pointed out ways it will help, and you've agreed that they would. You still don't think it's worth it, and really, I don't care if you think it's worth it or not. That's your own decision to make. I was only pointing out your premise was demonstrably wrong.
You can say the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough, or that it does more economic harm than it does environmental good. I disagree, but that's another topic altogether. But what you can't say is that it does absolutely no good.
If the treaty would change absolutely nothing in America (as you claim), then why don't we sign it? It would garner good will, and cost us nothing in return, right? Wrong. The reason we don't sign it is because the Bush administration does not want to legitimize the issue it addresses.
You mischaracterized my third point. I wasn't talking about "political brownie points" (a belittling term and in poor taste on your part). I wasn't talking about the government paying lip service on the PR front. I was talking about the government agreeing, in a meaningful way, that greenhouse gas emissions is a legitimate global issue that must be taken seriously. Even if the treaty would change nothing in the US, just signing the treaty would mean something, and it would pave the way for Kyoto II.
The US is not keeping out of the treaty because it would be "useless". No one in the Bush administration is saying, "we really need to do something, but the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough". They are saying that it does too much and that we are beholden to no one. Whatever happened to responsibility for our actions?
Again, I don't care if you agree with my support of the treaty, just don't mischaracterize it.
It would seem to me, irregardless of the causes to global warming, and irrespective of whether there is a solution, the industrialized world weening itself of its oil addiction as quickly as possible is a damn good idea.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I love how many people on one side of this debate (there are more than two) seem to think investing in new technology and researching effective ways of changing consumption patterns amount to "putting our economy on hold." Talk about futurephobia.
If I had a cent to invest, I'd be looking for the intersection for emerging consumer economies (that is, formerly 3rd world countries with rapidly growing middle classes) and alternative energy sources, particularly those that will survive increased international pressure as evidence for climate change caused by human carbon emissions masses (the evidence is already pretty rock solid, but as more amasses, fewer and fewer in the international community will be able to ignore it.) So look for zero carbon (wind looks to be the most promising right now) and carbon-neutral (biofuels, you only release as much carbon as what you grew absorbed in its lifetime - as opposed to burning carbon you dig out of the ground) power solutions in the former 3rd world. Invest across a handful of technologies and markets, and you're pretty sure to do well.
Put our economy on hold? WTF? Things are changing. Economies are always in states of flux. Don't deny science because it might be inconvenient to your pocketbook; reorient your pocketbook to the current situation.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!