Hurricanes and Global Warming
 

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0508...es/437007a.jpg

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html
This is pretty obvious from a physics perspective. Warmer oceans have more energy to contribute to storms which brew there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...le_graphic.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

"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

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.

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.

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

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

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

If you say so :lol:

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

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

Not be be confused with WWJD :D

naturally... ;)

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!


http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

That's it we need more pirates.

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.

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.

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

:lol:

You aren't the only one...

...and JustJess... :lol:

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).

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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*

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

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?

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

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

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.

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?

To the average person science is no different than magic.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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...

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.

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.