Hurricanes and Global Warming - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Astrocloud · 08-30-2005, 10:04 AM

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html

Quote:

Hurricanes growing fiercer with global warming
Elizabeth A. Thomson, News Office
July 31, 2005

Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue.

"My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes'] destructive potential, and--taking into account an increasing coastal population--a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century," reports Kerry Emanuel in a paper appearing in the July 31 online edition of the journal Nature.

Emanuel is a professor of meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Theories and computer simulations of climate indicate that warming should generate an increase in storm intensity. In other words, they should hit harder, produce higher winds and last longer.

To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones--commonly called hurricanes or typhoons--since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.

He further reports that these increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperature at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming--some of which can be ascribed to global warming--is responsible for the greater power of the cyclones.

According to Jay Fein, director of the National Science Foundation's climate dynamics program, which funded the research, Emanuel's work "has resulted in an important measure of the potential impact of hurricanes on social, economic and ecological systems. It's an innovative application of a theoretical concept, and has produced a new analysis of hurricanes' strength and destructive potential."

This is pretty obvious from a physics perspective. Warmer oceans have more energy to contribute to storms which brew there.

Quote:

Hurricanes form when the energy released by the condensation of moisture in rising air causes a chain reaction. The air heats up, rising further, which leads to more condensation. The air flowing out of the top of this “chimney” drops towards the ground, forming powerful winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

tecoyah · 08-30-2005, 11:08 AM

"Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue."

Just thought I would point this part out before anyone gets pissy....heh

ngdawg · 08-30-2005, 11:24 AM

It is also going by statistics of the last 30 years, but in searching out, I found this: powerful hurricanes It's too much to copy and paste, but clearly not all of the most powerful storms occurred during the span given in that article.

Ustwo · 08-30-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

"Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue."

Just thought I would point this part out before anyone gets pissy....heh

Since I can assume you aimed this one at me.

So whats the other parts contributing to the hurricanes?

Rather incomplete story dont you think? How much of a part is due to global warming? 1% 99.9%?

Ever wonder why they only mention global warming?

On a side note there is something called the hurricane cycle, and apparently we are in the upswing of it.

Astrocloud · 08-30-2005, 12:53 PM

Does anyone ever wonder why Hurricanes don't frequently form over cool waters?

Quote:

Sea surface temperatures above 26.5 degrees Celsius to at least a depth of 50 meters. Warm waters are the energy source for tropical cyclones. When these storms move over land or cooler areas of water they weaken rapidly.

again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

tecoyah · 08-30-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since I can assume you aimed this one at me.

So whats the other parts contributing to the hurricanes?

Rather incomplete story dont you think? How much of a part is due to global warming? 1% 99.9%?

Ever wonder why they only mention global warming?

On a side note there is something called the hurricane cycle, and apparently we are in the upswing of it.

Actually....no, I aimed it at no one....geez

Ustwo · 08-30-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Actually....no, I aimed it at no one....geez

If you say so

After the last global warming thread on this board I find that hard to believe.

Charlatan · 08-30-2005, 01:26 PM

After reading the original post my first thought was... "What will Ustwo say..."

Ustwo · 08-30-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

After reading the original post my first thought was... "What will Ustwo say..."

Not be be confused with WWJD

Charlatan · 08-30-2005, 01:41 PM

naturally...

RangerDick · 08-30-2005, 02:19 PM

I read an article somewhere that claimed that the decrease in the number of pirates worldwide is the main cause for global warming and the ubsequent increase in the fury of nature's wrath. There does appear to be an uncanny correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in the average global temperature.

It was even accompanied by this pretty graph........ that proves it!

wolf · 08-30-2005, 02:56 PM

That's it we need more pirates.

Ustwo · 08-30-2005, 08:31 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/na...gewanted=print

Quote:

Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Apparently I'm not the only one who remembers this cycle thingy....

Nothing to see here, carry on.

alansmithee · 08-31-2005, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

I read an article somewhere that claimed that the decrease in the number of pirates worldwide is the main cause for global warming and the ubsequent increase in the fury of nature's wrath. There does appear to be an uncanny correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in the average global temperature.

It was even accompanied by this pretty graph........ that proves it!

I'm all for more pirates to offset global warming.

Also, this is just as valid reason for global warming as any other i've seen.

JustJess · 08-31-2005, 04:57 AM

*laughs to herself because Ustwo used NYT as a source to counter the OP, oh the irony*

Charlatan · 08-31-2005, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/na...gewanted=print

Apparently I'm not the only one who remembers this cycle thingy....

Nothing to see here, carry on.

You aren't the only one...

...and JustJess...

Astrocloud · 08-31-2005, 05:42 AM

Yet another source, this time I'd like to focus on the people who have something to lose in this... the (re)insurance company. Munich Re has nothing to gain and something to lose if they make false assumptions about the cause of Hurricanes. They say there is a correlation and yet somehow their statement does not include anthing about pirates (yet).

Quote:

KATRINA HITS THE GULF COAST
Storm Turns Focus to Global Warming
Though some scientists connect the growing severity of hurricanes to climate change, most insist that there's not enough proof.

By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer

Is the rash of powerful Atlantic storms in recent years a symptom of global warming?

Although most mainstream hurricane scientists are skeptical of any connection between global warming and heightened storm activity, the growing intensity of hurricanes and the frequency of large storms are leading some to rethink long-held views.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most hurricane scientists maintain that linking global warming to more-frequent severe storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, is premature, at best.

Though warmer sea-surface temperatures caused by climate change theoretically could boost the frequency and potency of hurricanes, scientists say the 150-year record of Atlantic storms shows ample precedent for recent events.

But a paper published last month in the journal Nature by meteorologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is part of an emerging body of research challenging the prevailing view.

It concluded that the destructive power of hurricanes had increased 50% over the last half a century, and that a rise in surface temperatures linked to global warming was at least partly responsible.

"I was one of those skeptics myself — a year ago," Emanuel said Monday.

But after examining data on hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons in the Pacific, he said, "I was startled to see this upward trend" in duration and top wind speeds.

"People are beginning to seriously wonder whether there is a [global warming] signal there. I think you are going to see a lot more of a focus on this in coming years."

Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This month, the agency raised its already-high hurricane forecast for this year to 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes and five to seven that would reach major-hurricane status. That could make 2005 one of the most violent hurricane seasons ever recorded. A typical storm year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes.

But the agency believes that the increase in hurricanes is most likely the result of a confluence of cyclical ocean and atmospheric conditions that tend to produce heightened tropical storms every 20 to 30 years. If global warming is playing any role in the hurricanes, it is a minor one, the federal agency maintains.

Computer models have shown for years that rising sea-surface temperatures resulting from global warming could create more ideal conditions for hurricanes.

Yet before Emanuel's research there were few indications that hurricanes had become stronger or more frequent, despite well-documented increases in surface temperatures.

Moreover, skeptical hurricane scientists were quick to point out that worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of such trends. They said that would require an analysis of storm activity going back hundreds if not thousands of years.

"There is absolutely no empirical evidence. The people who have a bias in favor of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests that humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so," said William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist who is considered one of the fathers of modern tropical cyclone science and who sharply questions Emanuel's conclusions.

"A lot of my colleagues who have been around a long time are very skeptical of this idea that global warming is leading to more frequent or intense storms," Gray said. "In the Atlantic, there has been a change recently, sure. But if you go back to the 1930s, you see a lot of storms again. These are natural cycles, not related to changes in global temperature. I can't say there is no human signal there, but it's minute."

Nonetheless, some scientists have maintained that the rise in mean global temperatures over the last half a century — a well-documented trend widely linked to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels — will inevitably have an effect on storms, if it hasn't already.

"It's the ocean temperatures and sea-surface temperatures that provide the fuel for hurricanes," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who recently published a paper in the journal Science contending that climate change could cause hurricanes to produce more rain and thereby become more dangerous.

"It's the big guys, the more intense storms, that have been increasing," Trenberth said. Hurricane scientists have been "unduly influenced by what has been happening in their corner of the world in the Atlantic. But if you look more broadly, at what has been happening in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, there is a clear trend."

Such views remain controversial among veteran hurricane scientists.

Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, withdrew this year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international scientific group that periodically sums up the consensus on global warming. Landsea said in a letter to scientific colleagues that he resigned because he strongly disagreed with public statements made by Trenberth, who was also part of the panel, suggesting that last year's Atlantic hurricanes were linked to global warming.

Despite the dispute among scientists, the prospect of stronger hurricanes has alarmed some insurance companies, which are concerned that disaster losses could increase in years to come.

Munich Re, the world's largest insurer of insurance companies, said that global warming was at least partly responsible for a rise in worldwide insurance losses over the last 50 years, including $114.5 billion in losses last year, the second-highest total ever.

Critics, including Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado science professor, have attributed the losses to a simpler cause: more people living in harm's way in areas such as Florida and Louisiana.

Still, some experts believe that hurricane scientists will have to consider climate change more seriously if the streak of Atlantic storms persists.

"You are seeing more intense storms, which is consistent with what you would see" under global warming scenarios, said Richard Murnane, a hurricane expert with the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, which studies storms for insurance companies.

"The majority view is that if this keeps up for a few more years, we will be outside of natural variability. But people are still leery of saying that this is a result" of human-caused climate change, he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

avhg1 · 08-31-2005, 06:21 AM

I'm not a tree hugger or anything, but I wrote a paper about global warming and its role in weather conditions for an human/environmental impact course I took. It's too much info to post here, but if you want a copy, I'll email it to you. All the sources are documented. Summary is that while global warming may not increase the number of storms, it provides better conditions for storms to form and a broader area that the can travel. Wait until a major hurricane makes it's way to NYC. New Orleans will look like nothing.

Ustwo · 08-31-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

*laughs to herself because Ustwo used NYT as a source to counter the OP, oh the irony*

Yea I found it funny too, but their science page isn't that bad. Unlike their front page / editorial page (one in the same).

08-31-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

On a side note there is something called the hurricane cycle

Ustwo, don't you see the hypocrisy in quoting one unsubstantiated theory in order to rubbish another one?

What's your problem with the idea of global warming anyway?

There would seem to be a lot of evidence suggesting that, one way or another, things are slowly changing, and it seems reasonable to assume that one of the many causes for those changes might have something to do with our activites on the planet.

Whether we happen to have a 1% or a 99% effect on the environment, isn't it worth learning as much as possible about how these things work, and, in the meantime, until it's as clear as it possibly can be, take at least some steps to mitigate some of the risk?

Ustwo · 08-31-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

Ustwo, don't you see the hypocrisy in quoting one unsubstantiated theory in order to rubbish another one?

What's your problem with the idea of global warming anyway?

I have nothing against the idea of global warming. It may well be happening.

What I do have a problem with is the politicizing of the theory to promote an agenda in such a manner that it will ignore and distort real science in order to scare the uninformed into supporting said agenda.

08-31-2005, 10:51 AM

I can respect that, but I don't know if it's possible to expect such an issue not to be politicised - The climate, ecology and economics are all equally complex dynamic systems that no-one can claim to fully understand, yet governments and businesses across the globe employ economists who will gladly politicise their own crystal ball readings without anyone batting an eyelid. Why should more robust, physical science be any different?

So, I say, if there are some people who believe an approaching doomsday is coming wish to call for action, then let them - it can do us no harm to tread carefully in these respects. There will be those who abjectly disbelieve any such thing is ever possible, and, as usual, the reasonable majority will remain in the middle. I just hope that if the evidence does ever show that the global climate is changing because of us, that we wont be too late to stop and reverse it.

Zeraph · 08-31-2005, 10:58 AM

Sweatness, we will also need more ninjas to balance out the extra pirates we need to stop global warming. *goes out to fill out a ninja application form*

Ustwo · 09-04-2005, 04:02 PM

Currently (as in on right now) discovery has a documentary on the hurricane cycle which will most likely be rerun a few times.

Jinn · 09-04-2005, 05:57 PM

For those still thoroughly convinced that global warming is causing hurricanes, lets look at a little bit of math here:

Age of Earth: 4.54 billion years
(4,540,000,000 years)

Length of comparison for global temperature: 30 years.

Anyone see problem with this sample size used in this "science" ?

Our current understanding of the long-term climate cycles shows that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration, called Ice Ages, have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years, known as Interglacials. (We are now about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial.)

Do you really think a couple hundred years of human microwave civilization altered 4.54 BILLION years of natural cycle?

Astrocloud · 03-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Yet another study... This time published in National Geographic (and you thought I read it for the nekkid womens)

Quote:

Warming Oceans Are Fueling Stronger Hurricanes, Study Finds

John Roach
for National Geographic News

March 16, 2006

...
"Global warming is sending sea-surface temperatures up, so we're looking at an increase in hurricane intensity globally," Curry said.

She added that in the North Atlantic Ocean basin—where hurricanes that affect the U.S. form—the number of hurricanes may also increase.

"Other ocean basins don't show an increase in [the] number [of hurricanes], but the North Atlantic does," she said.

Curry is a co-author of the new study, which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

percy · 03-16-2006, 06:09 PM

I don't believe in global warming. I do believe in the earth's natural cyclical tendencies to make things cooler or warmer. But then I'm not someone who's job depends on global warming.

Jinn · 03-16-2006, 06:22 PM

I really don't think anyone disagrees that warmer water = more hurricanes and less warm water = less hurricanes. It's a natural phenomenon that we've been observing for centuries, and can even duplicate in those fancy water-bottle cyclones that you make in middle school science classes.

HOWEVER, suggesting (as I noted months ago) that 30 years of human activity has altered 4.54 billion years of cyclical variation in temperature is a bit egotistical, don't you think?

Ustwo · 03-16-2006, 06:46 PM

To the average person science is no different than magic.

When it comes to global warming, this is painfully clear.

Nimetic · 03-17-2006, 03:34 AM

I think that's from the church of the flying spaghetti monser. But I'm not sure.

Nimetic · 03-17-2006, 03:40 AM

I don't believe that the view of a single professor means anything.

Global warming has a lot of study behind it. Any quick link to hurricanes at the moment would seem tenuous at best to me. Real research and simulation takes years.

tecoyah · 03-17-2006, 03:57 AM

Seems pretty much a Given that the Earth is experiencing Climate change, I dont think this is even up for debate anymore. Is it "Caused" by Human activity...not likely, as the evidence thus far points to a continuous shifting climate long before we had technology. We might be speeding things up a tiny bit, but that does not mean we are the cause.
Will we experience more extremes in weather...I say yes, and actually think we are seeing it manifest everyday. This does not mean to me, that increased Carbon output is the cause, nor does it keep me up at night. That said, there are concerns in my mind for my kids, and what the change will mean to them. Climate change is an extremely complex issue, and even those who study this as a living are hard pressed to understand the variables involved in the Dynamics of our planets Water/Air interaction.
Watching the Polar changes over the last decades has finally forced me to accept this is a real phenomenon, and does cause me a bit of worry if I think too hard on it. But there is literally, nothing we can do about it, as it is most likely irreversible, and a primarily natural occurance. My biggest worry is the slow down, or God Forbid failure of the North Atlantic Conveyor......this would really suck.

"The North Atlantic loop of the THC is controlled by the sinking of dense (cold and salty) water at high latitudes. The density of seawater is a result of both temperature and salinity (salty water is denser than fresh water, and cold water denser than warm water). Although the Gulf Stream water is saltier than the deep water below, it is much warmer, so its density is lower, and it remains on the surface. On its journey north, the water releases heat to the atmosphere, and cools gradually, until it is cold enough for its density to match that of the deep layer. Sinking can begin.

At this stage the surface water is still warmer than the deep water, but it also saltier, so its density matches that of the deeper water, allowing the two layers to mix. Should the surface water freshen for some reasons, it would have to cool further before it can sink. Sufficient freshwater input might reduce salinity to the extent that the surface water could not possibly sink, even at sub-zero temperatures.

Paradoxically global warming could create precisely this effect. Increased rainfall, melting of sea ice, glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet are all possible consequences of higher temperatures, and could reduce North Atlantic surface salinity sufficiently to slow down or even stop the formation of deep water. If this happens, the THC may shut down. Once stopped, the heat conveyor may take time to recover, and the consequences would be a cooling of northwest Europe. "

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis...c_conveyor.php

The_Jazz · 03-17-2006, 05:23 AM

I have no idea whether or not global warming is a reality or not, although I'm inclined to accept it for no other reason than all the melting glaciers around the world. That said, I can confirm that the insurance industry, especially the property carriers, is crapping its collective pants about the hurricane forecast for the next few years. If more people in MS, AL and LA had bought flood insurance, 2005 would have been the worst year for the industry ever. As it stands, roughly half the Katrina claims aren't covered. Let me put it this way - Katrina alone wiped out all of Allstate's profits back to 1992, the year of Hurricane Andrew. Andrew and Allstate are famous because the storm losses basically equalled all premiums that Allstate had ever written in Florida.

My property folks are seeing huge increases in premiums in all the Southern coastal states. If there's a chance that the wind could hammer the building, the rates are going up as much as 400%, and in a lot of cases, that's a very good deal. I know if 3 companies that have stopped writing coastal wind business altogether.

What does all of this mean to the topic at hand? Well, there are 2 committees that I know of that are talking about how to counteract global warming storms. There's at least one environmental organization that I know of (my friend works there) that is working with a few insurance companies to offer credits for low emmissions, etc.

highthief · 03-17-2006, 09:25 AM

Personally, I'm undecided on just how much man is affecting the environment. It is a given (and anyone arguing otherwise is simply uneducated) that we are affecting it. The earth is a closed system, it is inevitable. The question is how much are we affecting it?

We don't know with any certainty. However, I am inclined to adopt measures to counteract global warming (the expression of the various gasses that contribute to greenhouse effects) as, if the theories are even close to correct, we have far, far more to close by doing nothing than by doing something.

Hell, adoption of stricter environmental standards usually creates more jobs, so why not?

Ustwo · 03-17-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Hell, adoption of stricter environmental standards usually creates more jobs, so why not?

More expensive energy is not conducive to the creation of anything beyond more bureaucracy.

The_Jazz · 03-17-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

More expensive energy is not conducive to the creation of anything beyond more bureaucracy.

How does more expensive energy create more bureaucracy? I can see how it could have the opposite effective of highthief's intentions by making goods cost more and creating an economic slowdown, but I don't follow your logic on bureaucracy. Did the artificial spike of gas prices after Katrina give us some additional bureaucrats that I don't know about? I don't see how raising electric, natural gas and gasoline rates are necessarily going to create additional bureaucracy since the bodies that raise rates are already in place and fully staffed. They have been for decades.

What am I missing?

kutulu · 03-17-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Hell, adoption of stricter environmental standards usually creates more jobs, so why not?

Environmental regulation created all kinds of jobs but it's something companies would never admit, unless the company exists solely as environmental consultants. Depending on the industry, companies have to comply with these basic areas:

Stormwater pollution
Spill prevention
Air Quality
Water Quality
Soil Quality

There are others, but those are the most typical.

Jobs are created at:
1. Industry level, people at the plants that are responsible for managing the related tasks, people they report to, and the people in charge of the ones they are reporting to. Otherwise, they delegate compliance to:
2. Consultants, they handle environmental issues for the plant, the company may use several consultants to cover all areas. These places may perform sampling and testing services to demonstrate compliance.
3. Regulatory agencies (EPA, 1,000's of people, then there are state, county and sometimes, even city agencies)
4. Companies that build pollution control devices such as baghouses that collect particulates and scrubbers that remove sulfer from stacks
5. Companies that build monitoring equipment, ranging from hand-held equipment to continuous monitors placed permanently on stacks.

You always hear about how environmental comliance is a drain on industry. Yes, it costs them money but not as much as Rush tells you. It's more like a couple thousand here, a couple thousand there. A small portion of a design project is spent on controllling pollution created by the exapansion. What you never hear about is the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created as a result of environmental regulations in addition to the benefits of having cleaner air, water, and soil.

The fact is we have a large population that keeps growing. People can only buy so much 'stuff' and as time goes by, the amount of people required to manufacture, distribute, and sell that stuff keeps decreasing. The birth of environmental responsibility and compliance has been good for the country. Not only has it given us a cleaner environment, but it has also created tons of jobs.

Still waiting for Rush to give that perspective some thought...

Rodney · 03-17-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

More expensive energy is not conducive to the creation of anything beyond more bureaucracy.

Heh. Over the the Silicon Valley the last couple of years, venture capitalists -- who are actually pretty reactionary, in that they're loathe to fund a company unless another company's already succeeded with the same idea -- have finally started to put big bucks into alternative energy start-ups; mainly solar, but not soley. The reason: high energy prices that look likely to stay high or go higher.

If energy prices keep going up and alt-energy/energy conservation technologies keep improving because of the price incentive, at some point it'll be a no-brainer to start an alt-energy plant or retrofit a house or facility with solar or other technology, because the systems will pay for themselves in shorter and shorter cycles. Leading, at the very least, to an orgy of retrofitting in this country and well as increased mfg jobs if all the manufacturing _isn't_ outsourced to China.

Ustwo · 03-17-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

Heh. Over the the Silicon Valley the last couple of years, venture capitalists -- who are actually pretty reactionary, in that they're loathe to fund a company unless another company's already succeeded with the same idea -- have finally started to put big bucks into alternative energy start-ups; mainly solar, but not soley. The reason: high energy prices that look likely to stay high or go higher.

If energy prices keep going up and alt-energy/energy conservation technologies keep improving because of the price incentive, at some point it'll be a no-brainer to start an alt-energy plant or retrofit a house or facility with solar or other technology, because the systems will pay for themselves in shorter and shorter cycles. Leading, at the very least, to an orgy of retrofitting in this country and well as increased mfg jobs if all the manufacturing _isn't_ outsourced to China.

Refiting is only an expense, someone is making and someone is losing. Alternative energy is great, but the problem with the humans are causing global warming crowd is they only think of it in terms of emmisions, how we make up that lost energy is not their concern.

Bad science and politics have become bedfellows in global warming, its pathetic. They rely on the ignorance of most people in this matter. Its frusterating to say the least. You can expect this 'debate' to heat up (pun intended) with the newly discovered oil reserves meaning that fossil fuels are not going anywhere for a long time.

highthief · 03-17-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

More expensive energy is not conducive to the creation of anything beyond more bureaucracy.

Wrong. When the need for tougher environmental protection is needed (say in the form of fitlers for smokestacks) guess what happens? Someone has to MANUFACTURE and INSTALL the filters.

When tougher emission standards are required for automobiles, and new parts needed to be made, again, companies sprang up to fill the need and employed engineers and line workers alike.

The need to create cleaner burning fuels and a desire to incinerate garbage more cleanly have created jobs.

Hell, I've made bags of cash investing in better ways to dispose of garbage.

08-30-2005, 11:08 AM	#2 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	"Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue." Just thought I would point this part out before anyone gets pissy....heh __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-30-2005, 11:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	It is also going by statistics of the last 30 years, but in searching out, I found this: powerful hurricanes It's too much to copy and paste, but clearly not all of the most powerful storms occurred during the span given in that article. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

08-30-2005, 01:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	After reading the original post my first thought was... "What will Ustwo say..." __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-30-2005, 01:41 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	naturally... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-30-2005, 02:56 PM	#12 (permalink)
wolf Ravenous Location: Right Behind You	That's it we need more pirates. __________________ Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.

08-30-2005, 02:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	I read an article somewhere that claimed that the decrease in the number of pirates worldwide is the main cause for global warming and the ubsequent increase in the fury of nature's wrath. There does appear to be an uncanny correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in the average global temperature. It was even accompanied by this pretty graph........ that proves it!

08-31-2005, 04:57 AM	#15 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	laughs to herself because Ustwo used NYT as a source to counter the OP, oh the irony __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

08-31-2005, 06:21 AM	#18 (permalink)
avhg1 Insane Location: MD	I'm not a tree hugger or anything, but I wrote a paper about global warming and its role in weather conditions for an human/environmental impact course I took. It's too much info to post here, but if you want a copy, I'll email it to you. All the sources are documented. Summary is that while global warming may not increase the number of storms, it provides better conditions for storms to form and a broader area that the can travel. Wait until a major hurricane makes it's way to NYC. New Orleans will look like nothing.

08-31-2005, 10:51 AM	#22 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	I can respect that, but I don't know if it's possible to expect such an issue not to be politicised - The climate, ecology and economics are all equally complex dynamic systems that no-one can claim to fully understand, yet governments and businesses across the globe employ economists who will gladly politicise their own crystal ball readings without anyone batting an eyelid. Why should more robust, physical science be any different? So, I say, if there are some people who believe an approaching doomsday is coming wish to call for action, then let them - it can do us no harm to tread carefully in these respects. There will be those who abjectly disbelieve any such thing is ever possible, and, as usual, the reasonable majority will remain in the middle. I just hope that if the evidence does ever show that the global climate is changing because of us, that we wont be too late to stop and reverse it.

08-31-2005, 10:58 AM	#23 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Sweatness, we will also need more ninjas to balance out the extra pirates we need to stop global warming. goes out to fill out a ninja application form

09-04-2005, 04:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Currently (as in on right now) discovery has a documentary on the hurricane cycle which will most likely be rerun a few times. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-04-2005, 05:57 PM	#25 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	For those still thoroughly convinced that global warming is causing hurricanes, lets look at a little bit of math here: Age of Earth: 4.54 billion years (4,540,000,000 years) Length of comparison for global temperature: 30 years. Anyone see problem with this sample size used in this "science" ? Our current understanding of the long-term climate cycles shows that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration, called Ice Ages, have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years, known as Interglacials. (We are now about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial.) Do you really think a couple hundred years of human microwave civilization altered 4.54 BILLION years of natural cycle? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 03-16-2006 at 06:23 PM..

03-16-2006, 06:09 PM	#27 (permalink)
percy Addict	I don't believe in global warming. I do believe in the earth's natural cyclical tendencies to make things cooler or warmer. But then I'm not someone who's job depends on global warming.

03-16-2006, 06:22 PM	#28 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I really don't think anyone disagrees that warmer water = more hurricanes and less warm water = less hurricanes. It's a natural phenomenon that we've been observing for centuries, and can even duplicate in those fancy water-bottle cyclones that you make in middle school science classes. HOWEVER, suggesting (as I noted months ago) that 30 years of human activity has altered 4.54 billion years of cyclical variation in temperature is a bit egotistical, don't you think? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

03-16-2006, 06:46 PM	#29 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	To the average person science is no different than magic. When it comes to global warming, this is painfully clear. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-17-2006, 03:34 AM	#30 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I think that's from the church of the flying spaghetti monser. But I'm not sure.

03-17-2006, 03:40 AM	#31 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I don't believe that the view of a single professor means anything. Global warming has a lot of study behind it. Any quick link to hurricanes at the moment would seem tenuous at best to me. Real research and simulation takes years.

03-17-2006, 03:57 AM	#32 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Seems pretty much a Given that the Earth is experiencing Climate change, I dont think this is even up for debate anymore. Is it "Caused" by Human activity...not likely, as the evidence thus far points to a continuous shifting climate long before we had technology. We might be speeding things up a tiny bit, but that does not mean we are the cause. Will we experience more extremes in weather...I say yes, and actually think we are seeing it manifest everyday. This does not mean to me, that increased Carbon output is the cause, nor does it keep me up at night. That said, there are concerns in my mind for my kids, and what the change will mean to them. Climate change is an extremely complex issue, and even those who study this as a living are hard pressed to understand the variables involved in the Dynamics of our planets Water/Air interaction. Watching the Polar changes over the last decades has finally forced me to accept this is a real phenomenon, and does cause me a bit of worry if I think too hard on it. But there is literally, nothing we can do about it, as it is most likely irreversible, and a primarily natural occurance. My biggest worry is the slow down, or God Forbid failure of the North Atlantic Conveyor......this would really suck. "The North Atlantic loop of the THC is controlled by the sinking of dense (cold and salty) water at high latitudes. The density of seawater is a result of both temperature and salinity (salty water is denser than fresh water, and cold water denser than warm water). Although the Gulf Stream water is saltier than the deep water below, it is much warmer, so its density is lower, and it remains on the surface. On its journey north, the water releases heat to the atmosphere, and cools gradually, until it is cold enough for its density to match that of the deep layer. Sinking can begin. At this stage the surface water is still warmer than the deep water, but it also saltier, so its density matches that of the deeper water, allowing the two layers to mix. Should the surface water freshen for some reasons, it would have to cool further before it can sink. Sufficient freshwater input might reduce salinity to the extent that the surface water could not possibly sink, even at sub-zero temperatures. Paradoxically global warming could create precisely this effect. Increased rainfall, melting of sea ice, glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet are all possible consequences of higher temperatures, and could reduce North Atlantic surface salinity sufficiently to slow down or even stop the formation of deep water. If this happens, the THC may shut down. Once stopped, the heat conveyor may take time to recover, and the consequences would be a cooling of northwest Europe. " http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis...c_conveyor.php __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-17-2006, 05:23 AM	#33 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I have no idea whether or not global warming is a reality or not, although I'm inclined to accept it for no other reason than all the melting glaciers around the world. That said, I can confirm that the insurance industry, especially the property carriers, is crapping its collective pants about the hurricane forecast for the next few years. If more people in MS, AL and LA had bought flood insurance, 2005 would have been the worst year for the industry ever. As it stands, roughly half the Katrina claims aren't covered. Let me put it this way - Katrina alone wiped out all of Allstate's profits back to 1992, the year of Hurricane Andrew. Andrew and Allstate are famous because the storm losses basically equalled all premiums that Allstate had ever written in Florida. My property folks are seeing huge increases in premiums in all the Southern coastal states. If there's a chance that the wind could hammer the building, the rates are going up as much as 400%, and in a lot of cases, that's a very good deal. I know if 3 companies that have stopped writing coastal wind business altogether. What does all of this mean to the topic at hand? Well, there are 2 committees that I know of that are talking about how to counteract global warming storms. There's at least one environmental organization that I know of (my friend works there) that is working with a few insurance companies to offer credits for low emmissions, etc. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-17-2006, 09:25 AM	#34 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Personally, I'm undecided on just how much man is affecting the environment. It is a given (and anyone arguing otherwise is simply uneducated) that we are affecting it. The earth is a closed system, it is inevitable. The question is how much are we affecting it? We don't know with any certainty. However, I am inclined to adopt measures to counteract global warming (the expression of the various gasses that contribute to greenhouse effects) as, if the theories are even close to correct, we have far, far more to close by doing nothing than by doing something. Hell, adoption of stricter environmental standards usually creates more jobs, so why not? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.