Global Warming and Hurricanes

[Viper]

I too have read of many well respected climatologists who are predicting Europe to hit an extremely cold period in the next decade or two.

What this should tell us is that if so many respected people in their fields of study disagree to such a degree, no one conlusion should be granted as fact.

We simply do not know. We have theories. It could be this...it could be that...but, we simply don't know for sure. We need to know more before we act. Hasty decisions based on fear and ignorance should be avoided (My liberal friends against the War in Iraq better nod their heads).

[Gusterfell]

We simply do not know. We have theories. It could be this...it could be that...but, we simply don't know for sure. We need to know more before we act. Hasty decisions based on fear and ignorance should be avoided (My liberal friends against the War in Iraq better nod their heads).

*Nods head* I agree, but until we know more, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? It may not have been proven that human activities are exacerbating global warming, but given current knowledge, it is a very real possibility. If we take actions to lessen human impact and turn out to be mistaken, the only real loss is that some industries have to deal with unnecessary environmental restrictions. On the other hand, if we do nothing and turn out to be mistaken, we risk global catastrophe.

[Viper]

The precautionary principle. "I do not know that this gun is unloaded, so I will assume that it is loaded." A noble principle and one we are actually following. Pollution has been cut down and more cuts are coming. If you are referring to the Kyoto Protocol, that's going overboard while still allowing the most crazed gunman to carry a loaded weapon unsaftied (China and India wouldn't be subject to the Protocol yet they produce as much if not more pollution than we do).

[Ruso]

I too have read of many well respected climatologists who are predicting Europe to hit an extremely cold period in the next decade or two.

What this should tell us is that if so many respected people in their fields of study disagree to such a degree, no one conlusion should be granted as fact.

We simply do not know. We have theories. It could be this...it could be that...but, we simply don't know for sure. We need to know more before we act. Hasty decisions based on fear and ignorance should be avoided (My liberal friends against the War in Iraq better nod their heads).

LOL, I did nod my head with delight. But, as you have stated, there is no harm in trying to prevent future catastrophes by controlling human wastes in our environment. I'll reply to your so accurate commentary with a reference of the republican policy of "preventive strike". Now we have only conjectures, but in the future, they will have to deal with the actual problem. Why dont we try to safe them the trouble? Better preventing than lamenting.

Of course, this policy is only applicable in certain situations.

[MR-2]

I too have read of many well respected climatologists who are predicting Europe to hit an extremely cold period in the next decade or two.

What this should tell us is that if so many respected people in their fields of study disagree to such a degree, no one conlusion should be granted as fact.

We simply do not know. We have theories. It could be this...it could be that...but, we simply don't know for sure. We need to know more before we act. Hasty decisions based on fear and ignorance should be avoided (My liberal friends against the War in Iraq better nod their heads).

The freezing of Europe scenario isn't treated with nearly as much regard because it's one of many projected scenarios. It's an effect. Stop thinking from the top down, it doesn't change the mechanism for global warming itself. The global average temperature would still be higher. Ocean currents would change, but that's another level of complexity we're not about to discuss.

Think of a refrigerator: it doesn't "take away" heat from the universe. It just moves it, specifically out of an enclosed compartment to somewhere else. Similarly, without a gulf stream, that heat still exists; its dynamics are simply different.

The total heat flow from the center of the earth is too miniscule to affect the atmosphere. If it's CO2 you're talking about, first that would require acknowledging that it corresponds to the greenhouse effect (which you seem skeptical of), and second it's that humans produce substantially more than volcanoes. Indeed, one of the main fears from volcanoes is that a heavy level would cause a "winter" of sorts, releasing sooty compouds into the atmosphere and reducing the sunlight that enters to a dangerous level.

(And... Global warming is not the War in Iraq. For starters, one has evidence, and implications for the future).

[TennBear]

Greenland was named GREENland for a very good reason. Strange it's no longer green since we are warming up.

Yes, Greenland was named Greenland by the Viking to have invaders say that if this is Greenland how bad is Iceland. It was a form of misinformation to prevent invasion.

Another fun fact about Global Warming, or lack there of. Over the past forty years the length of Summer tundra thaw in Alaska has increased by 2.5 days per decade. It has increased by a week and half since 1965 and the increase is speading up, due to the fact that shubs and grasses have sprung up and they are absorbing more heat from the sun. The Pine forests are dying due to the fact that there has been a decrease in the amount of moisture in the north. This should lead to more shrubs and grasses. It is actually increasing in temperature faster than the earth in general.

[Viper]

Strange that they would continue to call it Greenland if Eric the Red only named it that to trick his buddies into coming (That's the story I just read elsewhere). How would calling an island Greenland prevent invasion? Sounds like the reasoning behind Icelands moniker. Either way, why continue the false name?

Ok, interesting note about Alaskan summers. Can you link it to human intervention or is it natural as many geoligist and climatologists are backing?

[Snowguy716]

The Greenland/Iceland thing is something that most children learn when they are 11.

The Vikings had successfully colonized Iceland and it was beginning to fill up, so in an effort to find more room, they sailed west and landed on Greenland. To attract more settlers, they called in Greenland, to imply that it was green and that life was easy there. They did attract quite a few settlers, but then in the 1300s the climate began to get colder. The glaciers pushed forward, crops failed, animals died, and the population of the Vikings on Greenland actually fell to 0.

Now, it is rather remarkable that with a rise in CO2 in the mid-1800s, the temperature of the earth began to rise. Since then, the settlements on Greenland have been uncovered againl... so, Greenland is about as Green as it was 1000 years ago.

This should not be confused with "natural global warming" because Greenland is a very local climate. In fact, if you take temperature records from sediment and other sources throughout the rest of the world, the effects of the little ice age disappear. It was a local phenomena... and because the temperature of the entire earth is now warming up, that shows that something quite different is happening at the moment.

But, without a degree in the sciences, I can safely tell you that the reason behind continuing to call it "Greenland" has very little to do with a conspiracy or what have you.

And yes, we can link Alaska to human intervention. A rise in CO2 has co-incided almost perfectly with a rise in temperatures. This rise has been magnified over the north pole because of the reason stated above... it's a positive feedback loop. The planet begins to warm, you get an extra week without snowcover, and the ground stays warm for an extra week, and radiates more heat even later... the process is unending until major correctional action is taken by the planet.. which it has done before, like in the theorized younger Dryas event, which in effect was such a severe climate change in the arctic and in Europe that it did in fact put the earth back into an ice age for a couple thousand years.

Now I would fear that much more than I'd fear the global warming that we're up against... because the human population would be in some serious poo.

[TennBear]

Showguy, very interesting post. Another point on the Artic. The ice flow began melting 17 days earlier than what is normal by historical record this year and has shrunk to the smallest size on record.

[RiversideGator]

I know I said I wouldnt post in the Coffee House anymore, but this discussion of what "most children learn when they are 11" about Greenland was too enticing. First, I dont remember learning much about Greenland at age 11, but a little research found this:

Icelandic settlers found the land uninhabited when they arrived ca. 982 CE. They established three settlements near the very Southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries.

After almost five hundred years, the settlements simply vanished, probably due to famine during the 15th century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated.

Of particular interest is the following:

Between 1989 and 1993, U.S. and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's ice sheet, obtaining a pair of two-mile (3.2 km) long ice cores. Analysis of the layering and chemical composition of the cores has provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Conclusion, Greenland has been both warmer and colder in the past than it is today. Ice core research indicates that temperatures over the past 100,000 years have shifted rapidly and this was way before the industrial era. So, I think the bottom line is there is no normal temperature for the world. Instead, temperatures are constantly changing throughout history.

[Viper]

Thank you Riverside.

As I keep pointing out, data is still inconclusive. You wouldn't buy a home on inconclusive data, would you?

[Chtimi]

I think his claim is that there is no conclusive evidence that that global warming is caused by human activity. And from what I've heard from other experts not employed by an idealogical thinktank, they would agree.

Viper isn't arguing that we should use the atmosphere as our own personal carbon dump. He isn't arguing that conservation and pro-environmental policy is bad. He isn't trying to propagate Republican hate-mongering. All he's doing is pointing out what should be obvious: a politically motivated, overzealous approach to something as complicated as global climate change isn't going to answer any questions.

In France the catastrophe of 2003 was so terrible that we want depoliticize the problem regarding the climate. The temperature grow more in France than elsewhere. Scientists have reported an increase of 0,6

[monsoon]

Agreed Chitimi, Europe is seeing weather now that is not in recorded history. Mankind's activities have much to do with the warming

Much closer to my home there is a rather lenghy article in the Charlotte observer that discusses the thousands of square miles that will be underwater on our coast by 2100 if the seas keep rising. Killer storms like katrina may cause that to occur much sooner. Entire parts of the Outer Banks will be gone by then.

Here is the article. You need to register, but you can use bugmenot.com if you would rather not.

N.C. coastal future sits in jeopardy

[Viper]

Chtimi, we've already noted that there is a situation coming up that could put Europe into an ice age in 10-20 years. However, it's actually a natural phenomena and it happens very rapidly.

[Chtimi]

There is a peculiar theory saying that the greenhouse effect would provoke a weakening of the Gulf Stream. The outcome would be a decrease of 10

[Gusterfell]

The idea is that global warming would melt ice in the Arctic, causing a massive flow of cold water into the north Atlantic. The Gulf Stream is a current of warm water running from the Carribean up the US coast, and cold water flowing southward in the central Atlantic. The additional cold water would disrupt this cycle, causing Europe and the northeastern US to lose their natural heat pump. The Gulf Stream is the only thing that keeps these areas from having winters like Siberia and Minnesota, which are at about the same latitude.

[CtownMikey]

I think people tend to look at the long term affects, which may all come true, and the seem to think its going to happen in like a 10 year span. WHEN all of this does happen, it should be very gradual, and we are going to adapt very gradually. It's just another Y2K in my book.

[Chtimi]

Thanks.

Indeed, the densiest area of Europe (England, Northern France, Benelux and Western Germany) - with about 100 millions inhabitants, is situated at the latitude of Sept-

[Miesian Corners]

Not to trivialize this discussion, but is anyone aware there is a current storm named "Typhoon Longwang" lashing the Indian Ocean.

Who comes up with these names? "Hurricane Johnny Holmes" can't be far from becoming reality.

[fromdust]

i heard the other day that scientists now say that "global warming" is to far advanced for us to reverse it. alright since we cant stop it lets all buy h3s, better yet h1s for they get even less gas mileage; load them down with steel and cement and just have fun. i think i'll go out and just empty spray cans into the atmosphere. anyone interested in some heated gloves im working on? they are gowing to use coal.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Woods Hole has been saying for some time, that the Gulf stream is slowing down. As in Gusterfell post, people in northern Europe will be on the cold side. The big problem is Western Europe raises a lot of food,

and colder weather would make it hard to raise crops there.

[TennBear]

Here is an interesting article that ties into what we have been discussing:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/0...9.k9j70y9k.html

[Viper]

"Its 1,000-day mission"

That's it? Less than 3 years and they plan to end it? On a glabal scale of decades long weather patterns, that's a very tiny sampling of data. I wouldn't trust any conclusion made from such short timsespan.

[Gusterfell]

You're right that this study won't tell us whether the ice caps are shrinking as a general trend, but it sounds to me like that isn't the goal here per se. This particular project is concerned not so much with changes in the ice caps over time, but rather with their present state. We can't know how stable they are without accurate measurements of their thickness.

[fromdust]

all this global warming and hurricanes is of course caused by george bush;anyone in a right state of mind knows this. geez man you should have signed that kyoto agreement.