Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

Actually what increases is energy. Heat is just one aspect of that increase.Look at the little difference in sea temperature for a large difference in the power of a hurricane, and you can see that straight {temperature\heat} increase is mitigated by transferal into energy systems.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Given that 3/4ths the planet is water, I would expect most of that re-radiation to be (1) disbursed in the atmosphere (radiated omnidirectionally) and (2) mostly absorbed in the oceans. Given the heat sink that the oceans are, this would require a large influx of heat before much was noticeable (how much would be below the surface?)A couple of new studies show more of a link than ever before between warming and higher energy storms:From Severe Hurricanes Increasing, Study Finds (click) Hurricane's get their energy from the sea temperature, and increase in sea temperature means more energy available for the storms, meaning each storm will be a little bigger. Jargon is no impediment to communication as long as the ideas are conveyed, when jargon gets in the way of communication, then it is counter-productive.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If you stir a pot harder do you get more current or less? All weather is due to temperature differentials, and it doesn't take much to create a wind. The difference between land and air temps is what makes {on-shore\off-shore} breezes in the absence of any larger weather systems.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I was just picking on your use of "ground" rather than surface.thanks for the ref.

No, that is specifically referring to the non-political definition, "with a small 'c'," to mean skeptical, moderate, cautious: a conservative estimate. He was talking about scientific critics being conservative in there association of {data\observation} with {theory\hypothesis}. But this is not saying that, it is saying that Katrina is part of an ongoing trend towards bigger storms (not necessarily more, btw), and that the actual measured rise in ocean temperature also fits the models for larger storms when the ocean temperature is higher. So now I need to quote the entire article for you in addition to providing the link so that you can read the rest? Of course I took the more salient points to highlight them. I also am cognizant that there is disagreement among scientists and fully expect others to be aware of that as well. I shouldn't need to say "but some scientists disagree" unless I am implying otherwise, and that is not the case.Certainly there were parts of the article that I thought were irrelevant at best ... Yes, I thought it was totally inappropriate for the article to include this kind of thing in a discussion of the scientific paper, and why I quoted none of this political pandering. So even though there is a clear trend it is meaningless because se don't have a long enough period of data? Guess we better wait to send aid to New Orleans until we have more data, it's only a couple of weeks now, how do we know it is not just a short term trend?You can't just throw your hands up when you run out of data and walk away, you look at what you have and see what can reasonably be used.We do have extensive data on ocean temperatures, albeit not all of it in the deep ocean or extensive far from land, but in the areas of more complete records we can show temperatures rising over time from early records. We also have a pretty good idea of the ocean {current\underwater weather} system now (more on that later) that models the whole {heat\energy} transportation system. Then there is the association between the recorded storms with the current rise in temperature.If we do know that increased water temperature makes existing storms bigger, and we do know that the temperature of the ocean has actually increased, and we do know that our behavior has resulted in an increased retention of energy in the earth system, it does add up to "warming" (increased energy retention) = more energy available = bigger storms.The question, to me, is how do we {invalidate\test} this? oo oo Strawman? That is not what was stated, but that increased temps add energy to the storms making them bigger, not necessarily more numerous. A larger storm is also more likely to last longer, cover more area, and in the process sweep up smaller systems that would have turned into independent storms if it had been smaller, and thus easily result in fewer but larger storms. A boiling pot of water starts with many local hot-spots forming bubbles and rising currents (buddhist meditation on the 10 stages of boiling water), when the pot reaches full boil there is no differentiation between local and pot-wide behavior. Of course, and this is also why you can have more, larger winter storms, such as struck Boston when they were having the global warming conference. This is why "warming" is such a bad choice in terminology. It's increased energy retention. Again Katrina is not data on it's own, it is a data point in a string of data that region by region show increased energy in the storms. Again, "warming" is a bad term. The {total earth energy} is an equilibrium system that is in flux, both short term (daily, annually) and long term (geologically), and has been throughout the existence of the earth.What we do know is that GHGs increase the amount of energy that is retained in the system - we've tested it, we've measured it, we've confirmed it - and that GHGs therefore contribute to an elevated equilibrium state over what would exist without them.There has been a lot of scientific discussion on whether the amount of human contribution is significant over a long term natural trend, whether that trend was toward a cooler earth (entering an ice age scenario, one that has been prevented - so far - by our inadvertent unconscious intervention) or towards a warmer earth (similar to some past ages, helped along by our inadvertent unconscious intervention, but not out of the realms of past experience).The question to me is not whether the result is a measurable change in the equilibrium level of the earth, but whether we like the result: it is a purely human question as the rest of the world has already "been there, done that, bought the T-shirt" (and will survive as a shift in populations over time reaches eco-equilibriums between species and niches).The question is do we want hotter summers, bigger storms on beaches where we like to live and play, higher water in places we like to live and changing ecology in places were we live around the world? Do we want a shift in the equilibrium to a higher level of energy retention?In the big long-term picture it is not necessarily a bad thing for life on earth, it just may not be that good for some species, or certain populations of some species, human included.There is also a question that has not been broached yet on this thread of threshold levels and related "sudden" (geological) changes to large scale {weather\current} patterns (here using "current" as a ~equivalent to weather in water systems rather than air).There is some indication that changes to "ice ages" occurred relatively rapidly, as though some threshold had been reached that forced a significant change to the pattern of behavior of weather and currents. Abrupt Climate Change - Are We on the Brink of a New Little Ice Age? (click) There is indication that we may be near one such event: the loss of the "Great Ocean Conveyor" due to warmer fresher water in the area of the cold sink, blocking it. We could actually kick off an ice age with our slight shift in the energy equilibrium. Note that ice ages are not marked by global reductions in temperature but by stratification of temperature regions such that what is experienced in {Minnisota\Siberia} is spread to all areas at those latitudes, while the equatorial areas can actually be warmer.Again, the question is not whether (or not) this has ever happened before or whether (or not) life will continue to adapt to the changing environments, but whether specific populations of a specific species that have the ability to reduce their effect on the system (or even to begin to control it in a "desired" manner) will appreciate the changes. I agree that abuse of data is wrong. But I also suggest that there is valid data that should make rational people very concerned about what the ultimate result will be, and that denial of this evidence is no different than denial of evidence in any other science (like, say, evolution). I guess it just depends on what kind of world you want to live in.The shortsighted view is that we can just increase our use of energy to maintain pockets of human habitable ecosystems that are not in equilibrium with the environment around them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You can, of course, chose who to believe and who not to believe.What I quoted was not "popular media" but is from the WHOI's (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), Ocean and Climate Change Institute website."By Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and
Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics"Hardly rabid sensationalist journalists.I agree that the jury is still out on this hypothesis (and likely will be until such a seminal event occurs?).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

heh. I read it as completely innocent of political implication. Perceptions. I thought you were criticising the article. Politics is a spectrum from insane to deluded quickly passing through reasonable to reach the extremes. This goes back to your {Public Information Bureau} to seperate fact from fiction. Here is another article on the study:
Forbes.com: Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming (click)
Same kind of comments from Landsea in this article, which downplays the data, imho, rather than sensationalize or politicise it.I found the comment from Landsea on "the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast" to be totally bizarre in relating this to global warming effects, and I'm still trying to figure out how doubling (say) the numbers of people on the coast would affect global warming more than their living anywhere else.I also included the remarks on Katrina because the mirrored my own . Heh. figured that would get a rise out of you. Overstatment for the purpose of making a point.The point being that to me the question is NOT whether {behavior-this\behavior-that\behavior-the-other} is causing "global warming" but whether certain long term trends that we see in {weather\climate\ocean current} are desirable from out species survival aspect, and IF NOT then what can we do about it (including reducing anything we do that contributes to {bad things are going to happen}).Do we want higher sea levels, waarmer seas, more energetic storms, changing climate and weather patterns (droughts\deluges in different places), hotter summers (that link was just for you btw), more stormy winters?Do we want possible disruption of ocean currents, possible stratification of weather patterns by latitude and the like?If not, then what are we prepared to do about it. I don't worry that the pattern is man-made, I worry that it is happening, and that the human species will suffer as a result. To address the issue of {man-made\induced} increase tp the energy equilibrium level, there are a lot of hidden aspects that are very difficult to identifiy let alone quantify. For instance the predominant use of airconditioners these days compared to 50 years ago coupled with the population in the US doubling in that time period: higher usage by a larger population. With normal operation the only "emissions" of the systems are (slightly) increased exhaust from power plants and (measurable) increased air temperature on the outside of the buildings (more heat is produced outside than is removed inside). Same with refrigeration systems increased usages, more office buildings built as tall heat innefficient towers that are heated 24/7 even though only used 8/5, paving areas with blacktop that used to be grass or forest ... and dumping pollution into the sea ... the amount of "latent heat" or energy that is distributed by our society is really orders of magnetude higher than any natural system in these same areas. GHGs are just the cap that hold in this increase in available energy, they don't generate it themselves.BUT. This would not be considered a problem if the observed trends in global {weather\climate} were not in a direction that people don't like or think is good for our long term survival: the issue is the long term trends, and then what we can do about it. IF one thing we can do is reduce out profligate ways and that reduces the effects or prolongs the periods between {good environment} and {not so good environment} then it is in our very species selfish self interest to do so. It is hard to seperate out just the effect of population increase in the same periods. There is no experimental control system? Let's talk about observed trends in climate and weather and whether we would like to see them continue or change. Let's talk about the possibility of changing the global {climate\weather} intentionally to suit us better (terraforming) and look at what we could do on some other planet (mars? the moon?) in the same manner. Proactive. Being one who lives at near sea-level in the Northeast\New England area now, I will watch it anyway. Do a google on {deep sea frozen methane} or read
Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program | U.S. Geological Survey An "eruption" of methane could easily dwarf the production of all the cows in the world.Using methane could also replace oil in the US with little infrastructure change other than conversion to "natural gas" -- it's a mixed bag. I don't recall nuclear energy being touted as an answer to aerosols so much as a source of energy that didn't produce soot and smelly gases.To me fission technology is {inadequate} as it produces more problems than it solves. But I also think that we need to go through fission development to get to workable fussion technology. That needs to be the goal, not half way there. So we need to look at making positive effects rather than just taking whatever comes along eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

just because nobody is there doesn't mean the tree doesn't fall in the forest. whether it makes a sound or not, it fall, and whether the people are there or not it is the same effect, so it either exists or doesn't independent of the population distribution.

but he said "compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise."Why does this depend on the location of the people? Why should we notice less global warming if they lived eleswhere? Why should we notice more effect of global warming in other places because more people are living on the gulf coast? The study is about recognizing the effects globally, and often in places that are uninhabited (open ocean), not just effects where people live. Heh. But is that is a scientist talking on a personal level to a reporter, or a scientific statement where they have gone through the exercise of eliminating other possibilities as much as they can forsee? Talk to our physicists about the level of understanding of gravity ... it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data to make GR wrong ... ? Total survival no, loss of whole subpopulations possible. Current droughts in africa for example. Of course this comes back to what we (as a species) finds acceptable, and it seems that we find it quite acceptable that large numbers of people die elsewhere, based on experience. Yes, there could be a limiting effect of the ability of storms to draw in materials from outside the storm system, and limiting effects of how tall the storm can get in the atmospheric column, such that it is harder to get beyond a certain level. Wonder what the storm models say about it. My impression is that sea level rise would be a fairly global effect, and one of the more easily related to higher temperatures and the {melting\breaking up} of the polar caps. But yes there will be regional changes too -- some areas more drought (Africa?) and some places more rain -- and probably more divergence from the mean climate than is known today. I think there are co-factors and things that can show trends when they are both results of another relationship.For instance I was involved in a noise pollution study back in the 70's and we found some information on ambient noise levels in different urban environments that could be correlated with violent crime data from the same areas (the interest was due to a propensity towards violence in high noise environments from another study). We could draw a straight line correlation for US cities and Canadian cities, but the slopes were different in the different countries.Is the general relationship between ambient noise level and violent crime real? I happen to believe that it is related at a broad cultural level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved at the specific cultural level (like americans being more likely to carry guns).Or the relation between brain volume and individual IQ -- there is a correlation with brain volume and intelligence displayed by hominids, but there is also variability in {volume/IQ} ratios in people today, and there is also known variability in {surface area/volume} and {connectivity/volume} in people today.Is the general relationship between brain volume and intelligence real? I happen to believe it is related at the broad species level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved at the individual level.Is the general relationship between global warming and GHGs real? I happen to believe it is related at the broad climate level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved that muddy the waters at the individual storm region level.Unfortunately we don't really have any control data on this experiment, so it is hard to eliminate variables by degree of effect. It was sold as a means to reduce pollution, with the dust and dirt and smell and lung disease and the ruining of wedding pictures, not based on the pollution causing some big hairy global destruction scenario. What do you do with waste plutonium? With a half life of 24,000 years it'll be around a while, and the prduction of it will be at a faster rate than this natural decay so there will necessarily be a build-up somewhere.http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/pluto.htm Don't be surprised if you start to see fossil deepsea frozen methane energy production get started in the next couple of years as the demand for oil increases globally and the supple can't keep up. Personally I think the US should be jumping all over this as it could totally alleviate dependancy on the muddled east. That's why I say the question is not whether the global warming will exceed any previously measured level at any time in the geological past (although really, any measure over geological time should be limited to the period of human existence, as that is the ecological niche we evolved in, eh?), but two fold:(1) will we like it a little warmer? and(2) is there anything we can do about it if we DON'T want it a little warmer?This de-links the question that is important, (1), from our past behavior and relates it directly to our future behavior, (2). It also accepts it that it will be getting warmer, because that is the trend in all the data. If that is "the sky is falling" shouting, then I guess I'll be guilty of it: the world is getting measurably warmer over time.Will we like it? Do we want more summer weather?That's the perspective eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's not opaque to me. I don't confuse the cost of human (re)construction in risky areas with the size of the storm.Whether 10 houses are knocked down or 20 is a result of building in way of the storm, and not on the size of the storm.The effect of GW is on the size of the storm: it is big enough to knock down houses (and trees and telephone poles etc, however many there are or what they are).We notice the effect of GW is that the storm is big enough to knock down houses (and trees and telephone poles etc), regardless of the number of houses.The effect (under discussion) is that there are more storms that are cat 3 and up as a result of GW even though many of them stay out to sea (like cat 2 Phillipe right now) -- how is that effected by where people live? I would argue the opposite because more people would be moved into marginal habitats, and the climate changes are likely to be more to increasing extremes than tempering them (hence the bigger winter storms too) Does it? We can argue about the amount of change seen, but not that change has been seen. We can argue about the amount of effect human interaction has in the total, but not that it is a contributing factor on many different fronts, and not any (as far as I know) mitigating factors\behaviors.Let's eliminate the variable of human interaction and see what happens ... oh, that's right, we don't have any {control elements} on this experiment to cover that. Watch out for antarctica rising. You don't think that loss of the Arctic cap would change ocean currents? That this would not affect global climate patterns? It may be distinquishable by regions, but still be a global rearrangement. Because it's my recollection that nuclear energy was already on the way out before global warming became a big issue. It may well have been adopted as a reason, but that is like saying the reason to invade iraq is to bring democracy to the middle east. You mean controlled the reactions so that a lot more of it was formed during our processes than ever occured in nature with natural reactions. Burning it breaks it down into smaller components. Wikipedia - Methane (click)
Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gases (click)
From (one molecule x gwp 21 or 22) to (two molecules x gwp 1) is an 11 fold reduction, isn't it? Numerical Study of Contaminant Effects on Combustion of Hydrogen, Ethane and Methane in Air (click)
So that makes it a better choice for fuel than the others eh? Ah, regarding topic applicability. I think people that don't understand it both overplay and underplay it. AND I think the ones who underplay it are more dangerous (and are more likely to be misrepresenting the information intentionally).Most people would also think that a little warming would not be a bad thing. It is the change to climate patterns, sizes of destructive storms, possible change to ocean currents that concern me, whether we are the cause or 1% of the cause.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let's try a different tack: were Landsea's comments made in criticism of the study showing and increase in the size of storms over the last 35 years, or were they made in some other context and tacked on by the author of the articles (two)?If they were criticism of the article, then the population of Gulfport MS bears no relationship to the size of hurricane Phillipe and it is a strawman argument.If they were made in some other context then it is a non-sequitur fallacy made by the author. If this is the case then they are irrelevant to the study.The study data shows that the storms are bigger, not that we are noticing them more: they are not based on {anecdotal\subjective\perceptional} criteria. Well that is a problem for the whole {life on earth} issue, isn't it. Hard to run a significant test based on one data set. Fine. But I'll keep an eye on it, and be glad to see anyone interested pursue futher study. The historical data does show a (geologically) quick transition in past events. I used to be directly involved in environmental science, I've moved out of that area, but that doesn't mean that my past is suddenly somehow changed. Argument from incredulity. The products of combustion and other possible sources of pollution (and GHGs) evaluated for an admittedly more extreme use than currently built into personal band wagons, do set an upper limit to what we would expect from the use of Methane in vehicles.We also have current technology to use this gas, so there is no {invention\reinvention} involved in the delivery end. The only concern would be in generating the supply.You also have the question of the relative rate of loss compared to (a) current technology and (b) cows. I agree with you there. It also seems to me that when you have a potential energy source (methane) that recovery of it should have some economic advantage as well as provide for a reduction in GHG effect. Probably not enough to be economic on its own, but possibly with the cost of reductions elsewhere thrown in.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But there is no baseline that can be established: we don't know what the natural change in that time would be. Perhaps it was (as some have claimed) supposed to be descent into an ice age that was slowed, stopped and then reversed by GW. The only difference is in the emphasis on the greenhouse effects. The reduction of CO₂ and other pollutants from fossil fuel combustion was emphasised (according to my recollections) to get rid of {haze\smog\inversion} patterns that were becoming increasingly {obvious\odious\hazardous}. LA was the {picture postcard\posterchild} of the obvious hazards to health ... while nuclear energy would make it look like bolder colorado. Of course now, bolder colorado looks like LA ...FROM: Wikipedia - smog (click)
Nitric Oxide is NO.FROM: Wikipedia - petrocchemical smog (click)
Nitrogen Dioxide is NO₂FROM: Wikipedia - greenhouse gases (click)
Nitrous Oxide is N₂O -- laughing gas, and also used to inject into racing engines to give them an added boost in power (adds available Oxygen to the combustion): it is not a product of combustion in power plants or vehicles.Why this long ramble? Because CO₂ is both smog pollutant and GHG, but the nitrogen oxides are not: ergo you can review the articles to see if they talked about reducing the {smog nitrogen oxides} or the {GHG nitrous oxide} (or no mention of Nitrogen Oxides) through the use of nuclear power.That being said, I think a positive national policy on energy would look at all availabe systems and solutions for their various problems. This would include nuclear energy, especially diversified in low population areas to serve multiple urban environments with minimum impacts. About combustion of the gases in the atmosphere (as oppossed to a pure oxygen combination typical of chemical classes) and looking for the possible production of pollutants. Thus you also look at the production of the nitrogen oxides.And in terms of GW, water vapour is a much larger factor than methane, although increases in water vapour can only reach a certain level before they result in percipitation events: storms, storms with more atmospheric moisture available riding over warmer oceans. Believe me I am more that a little leary of sending texas cowboys that don't believe in global warming in to tap this resource without taking precautions. But I also think it is the -->ONE

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From Yaro's post on the Rita forum
EvC Forum: Doin' It Again - Hurricane Ritawith this link
MIT Hurricane Study: Global Warming ‘Pumping Up’ Destructive Power Smoking gun? Interesting.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But this statement: Is no different than the conclusions of the latest studies, so he is just reiterating current information here -- this statement isn't politicising the data. If this growing trend makes people see it then some good will come of it.Still not politicising the specific events ... ah but then: Then we get your quote. So he was asked for a political comment tied to the current storms. Just because he is a little outspoken doesn't make this the big bad guy you portrayed.Of course he is also british, where open ridicule of our president is rather the rule than the exception ... tie that all together and it's not much of a case, imho.Again it seems to be more the journalism than the scientists that are making these stories.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*23*2005 06:07 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Would you agree that there are "climate loonies in the States" or not? Then demonstrate that he specifically refered to Katrina and/or Rita rather than the general hurricane climate with more intense storms (as the recent studies have shown)Before being asked the specific question to relate it to Bush and those storms. You are comparing a statement that is actually based on evidence to one based on pure faith. Of course if they could show an actual correlation between immoral behavior and the increase in storm strength then they might actually have a point. However there is no smoking gun there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.