Hurricanes-Where are they?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Hurricanes-Where are they? » Hurricanes-Where are they?

Hurricanes-Where are they?
If man-made global warming is true, we'd have hurricanes right now.

Page: 1 2

Hurricanes-Where are they?

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/11/07 - 03:46 PM: Subject: Hurricanes-Where are they?	#1
Alright, by now the theory of man-made global warming has been accepted as absolute truth and anyone who disputes that must be considered in the pay of the evil corporations. But for any of you theory-supporters out there who are siting on the sofa looking smug, let me ask you this: where are the hurricanes? We were told that Katrina was just the beginning and that each year they'd become bigger and more frequent. Yet somehow not only has there been a utter lack of hurricanes at major size and frequency this year, but also last year. Further more, I am told that CO2 levels only continue to increase. So...would anyone like to make an excuse? Perhaps it switched from hurricane to tornado. Or earthquake. Or volcano. Or asteroid. Then again, I don't have to add those last silly remarks to make this whole philosophy of doom more rediculous, given how rediculous already is.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 08/11/07 - 05:22 PM:	#2
Where I live there is a taboo about hurricanes. We've had enough here already!!!
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 08/11/07 - 07:06 PM:	#3
There's not even one scientist in the world who believes that global warming causes more hurricanes every year, or more heat every day everywhere. You're picking the stupidest possible person who believes the point of view you oppose and declaring that they're representative. That's called a straw man and either indicates you don't think your argument can survive on its own, or that you're unable to think clearly. As for where the hurricanes are, over a statistically meaningful sample: the number of severe hurricanes has doubled in the past 35 years. Whether it's related to global warming is another issue, but it's a plain fact that severe hurricanes are significantly more common. You're fighting statistics with anecdotes. One should note that the total number of hurricanes are down over the same 35 years, by the way, so in fact a lack of hurricanes fits the climate change trend. There are fewer, much more severe hurricanes. Edited by Paul on 08/11/07 - 07:15 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 2872

Posted 08/11/07 - 07:28 PM:	#4
http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm
_____________________ Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/12/07 - 09:05 AM:	#5
Paul wrote: There's not even one scientist in the world who believes that global warming causes more hurricanes every year, or more heat every day everywhere. You're picking the stupidest possible person who believes the point of view you oppose and declaring that they're representative. That's called a straw man and either indicates you don't think your argument can survive on its own, or that you're unable to think clearly. Pardon me, but Al-Gore himself implied this in The Inconvient Truth (which is the most convient "truth" possible). And it wasn't the movie I watched, I read his book. If the prophet of this whole religion is stupidest possible person, I guess the theory of man-made global warming will soon have a Reformation movement of its own. As for where the hurricanes are, over a statistically meaningful sample: the number of severe hurricanes has doubled in the past 35 years. Whether it's related to global warming is another issue, but it's a plain fact that severe hurricanes are significantly more common. You're fighting statistics with anecdotes. Statistics? Remember the statistic that 1998 was the hotest year on record? I've been informed recently that this is not true and that it was an error on NASA's part. I'll be providing a source soon: I need to find it again. One should note that the total number of hurricanes are down over the same 35 years, by the way, so in fact a lack of hurricanes fits the climate change trend. There are fewer, much more severe hurricanes. Doesn't seem natural? As in...not man-made?
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

To
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 152

Posted 08/12/07 - 09:28 AM:	#6
Global warming theory predicts that there will be more, and more powerful, hurricanes in even numbered years... Or possibly every third year. Whichever it is it is absolutely true.

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/12/07 - 11:14 AM:	#7
To wrote: Global warming theory predicts that there will be more, and more powerful, hurricanes in even numbered years... Or possibly every third year. Possibly? Whichever it is it is absolutely true. Wow. If you are so certain, why bother with possibly? Sadly, your statement is equivalent to "If it means that global warming is true, it simply must be true." No offense, but that's the logic I am seeing in your statement.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/12/07 - 11:14 AM:	#8
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Statistics? Remember the statistic that 1998 was the hotest year on record? I've been informed recently that this is not true and that it was an error on NASA's part. I'll be providing a source soon: I need to find it again. I thought 2005 was the hottest year, was this a world temperature or a US one you are referring to? (Oh dear link time again!) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/ Then go to all land and ocean annual 90S 90N. It is about halfway down. The file which has been recently updated 1998 0.5772 1999 0.3943 2000 0.3629 2001 0.4935 2002 0.5583 2003 0.5581 2004 0.5343 2005 0.6058 2006 0.5391 or just go here to view a graph http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 08/12/07 - 11:35 AM. Reason: fixed WSN tag
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

To
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 152

Posted 08/12/07 - 02:01 PM:	#9
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Possibly? Wow. If you are so certain, why bother with possibly? Sadly, your statement is equivalent to "If it means that global warming is true, it simply must be true." No offense, but that's the logic I am seeing in your statement. Sorry Mate, I was being tongue in cheek. Should've put a smiley. I can't help thinking tht the Climate Change people have all the bases covered. If it gets warmer, they can say 'we told you so'. If there's a new ice age due to a change in ocean currents and we all freeze to death, they can still say 'we told you so'. Whatever happens with hurricanes, whether there are more or less, or fewer with greater energy or whatever, at least one of their computer models will have got it right; and if not they can still predict it retrospectively! Hurricane activity definitely will/won't increase in the long term. To

Opies
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 59

Posted 08/12/07 - 03:21 PM:	#10
Science Daily — Dec. 30, 2004 The total number of tornadoes reported in the United States reached a record high during the year 2004, surpassing the previous record by almost 300, according to officials at the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/0501... NORMAN, Oklahoma (ENS) — The total number of tornado reports hit a record high for the month of August across the United States, according to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma Preliminary numbers indicate a total of 173 tornadoes reported during the month, said Dan McCarthy, the Storm Prediction Center's warning coordination meteorologist. Based on tornado records going back to 1950, this tops the previous August record of 126 tornadoes set in 1979. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_20... (2005)Including Epsilon and Zeta, there were 27 named storms this year, surpassing the record of 21 set in 1933. Thirteen of the storms were hurricanes, edging by one the previous record set in 1969. Seven of the hurricanes were considered major. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/12/19/hurricane.s... The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, repeatedly shattering previous records. The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with at least 2,280 deaths and record damages of over $128 billion USD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurric... The National Hurricane Center predicted that the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season would see above normal tropical storm activity, with 12-15 named storms, 7 reaching hurricane strength. This prediction was close but conservative, as there were 15 named storms and 9 hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center described this number of events as "well above-normal activity." http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm The National Hurricane Center expected significantly greater activity for 2005 than occurred in 2004, predicting 18-21 tropical storms and 9-11 hurricanes, 5-7 of which were expected to reach category 3 or greater. The actual activity significantly exceeded these expectations, as well as all previously recorded activity for a single season. The following activity occurred during the 2005 season: * 28 tropical storms for the first time since systematic record keeping began about 150 years ago. The previous record was 21 storms, set in 1933. http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm Yep. No increase in storms here...
_____________________ Don't take the red pill.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/13/07 - 02:14 AM:	#11
perseus wrote: I thought 2005 was the hottest year, was this a world temperature or a US one you are referring to? (Oh dear link time again!) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/ Then go to all land and ocean annual 90S 90N. It is about halfway down. The file which has been recently updated 1998 0.5772 1999 0.3943 2000 0.3629 2001 0.4935 2002 0.5583 2003 0.5581 2004 0.5343 2005 0.6058 2006 0.5391 Those are the old records. In the light of a YK2 Bug anomaly (discovered by Dr Mckitrick, they have been corrected by Nasa. 1998 1.23 .51 1999 .93 .69 2000 .52 .79 2001 .76 .65 2002 .53 .55 2003 .50 .58 2004 .44 .66 2005 .69 * 2006 1.13 * The 2006 looks significantly more elevated than your figure for the same time period. Nevertheless, according to the corrected sources, a number of facts are clear. 1934 was the hottest year on record. (1.25) Of the 6 years recording 1.00 and over ( annual mean )... 1917 1.06 1921 1.15 1931 1.08 1934 1.25 1998 1.23 2006 1.13 4 of them were before World War 2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.tx... Furthermore, when using Nasa's "Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)" http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.tx... 1998 stands out clearly. 1998. 12 1.01 .79 Where as 2005 does not. 2005.12 .76 .55 As to the latter, I am not sure if they have been ammended in the light of Dr Mckitricks' statistical findings. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/... http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in... http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_... Still the last word should go to this guy... who posted this in the above link... Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data.. Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. "This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error." He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem. He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.tx... Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA. According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.) Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007 Year Old New 1934 1.23 1.25 1998 1.24 1.23 1921 1.12 1.15 2006 1.23 1.13 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86 1939 0.84 0.85 Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures. Year Old New 1998 1.24 1.23 1934 1.23 1.25 2006 1.23 1.13 1921 1.12 1.15 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 2001 0.90 0.76 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86 Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

PeeGee
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 158

Posted 08/13/07 - 02:40 PM:	#12
I'm not 100% sure on the cause of Hurricanes and whether it correlates with global climate change. However I will say this: we put a lot of junk into the biosphere, and if you think this has no effect on the environment, I'm not sure if there is anything that can be stated to convince you, as most people I've encountered have already 'concluded' that the effect we have on the environment is negligible. The tricky thing here is that regardless, since global climate change is a NATURAL part of the climate cycle of the planet, there are scientists that have concluded that that is what is happening. Trixy business. I tend to side with the view that we are a contributer to global climate change, and it will take a lot of justification to sway my end.
_____________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/13/07 - 03:02 PM:	#13
Gramm Are we at cross purposes? I am referring to world temperatures, these are US temperatures. So are you saying all the temperatures have to be revised, if so I doubt even the US covers so much of the earths surface to make much difference. I think the link you are trying to post is here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.tx...
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/13/07 - 06:50 PM:

#14

Perseus,

My apologies for offering up stats related to the USA. I misread the title. ( I have no excuse for faulty vision other than my own wretched tiredness and relative business.

Nevertheless, the figures are important for a number of reasons, not least being that they point to statistical errors having a gross impact on our understanding of what exactly is going on in the environment.

Furthermore, the political implications are clear in as much as what those corrected stats show, is that (at minimum) the USA is not contributing to Global Warming.

How can it, when its own temperatures are what they are?

The second internconnected collary that runs into trouble as a result of NASA's own amended figures, is the one of CO2 being the agent cause celebre of the piece. If the USA's Industrial output has increased in all this time, you would expect that the increased CO2 levels would be reflected in an increase in continental US temperatures

But this is clearly NOT the case.

So it puts a huge question mark under the claims of the IPCC and other ancillary support groups..

Anyway, in the end, we have McKitrik and other similarly dedicated sleuths to thank for these vital corrections..

My understanding is that McKitrick and others will also be putting the NOAA statistics under the microscope as well. So don't be suprised if they turn out to be flawed as well.

Gramm

Edited by Gramm on 08/13/07 - 10:06 PM

_____________________
Light is not diminished by being shared.

Desiderata

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 08/13/07 - 09:57 PM:	#15
As usual, climate change debate comes down to science vs. people who pick and choose whatever fits their worldview best, but have no coherent predictive theory to fit the known facts. An instructive article: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_... A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science. [...] “All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn’t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.” Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor. The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the Earth’s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming. Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day). Hansen's model predictions are “a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. Schmidt says that predictions by those who doubted global warming have failed to come true. “Why don’t you trust a psychic? Because their predictions are wrong,” he told LiveScience. “The credibility goes to the side that gets these predictions right.” The theory of climate change was not invented for any motive but the persuit of knowledge, quite unlike the opposition, and it has actually coincided with observation over the past century, quite unlike the opposition. Which is why there's almost as strong of scientific agreement on it as there is on evolution (and like with evolution, there's lots of quibbling over details), while also like evolution there are lots of unscientific opponents who believe they're making scientific arguments.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/13/07 - 10:25 PM:	#16
Paul wrote: As usual, climate change debate comes down to science vs. people who pick and choose whatever fits their worldview best, but have no coherent predictive theory to fit the known facts. I am not sure whose side your calling "science" vs the people. If your link is to show how Oreske has swept aside all doubt for the "Science" side... then all I can say is your terribly misguided. Oreske's infamous paper, is hardly a shining example of "Scientific research". If we did "hard science" in accordance with her flawed methodology, then the outcomes will all have been known even before the research began. If this is your measuring stick, then all I can say is that Contemporary standards in Scientific reporting and peer based research are going down the gurgler. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 08/14/07 - 12:59 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/14/07 - 01:09 AM:	#17
Gramm wrote: Furthermore, the political implications are clear in as much as what those corrected stats show, is that (at minimum) the USA is not contributing to Global Warming. How can it, when its own temperatures are what they are? The second internconnected collary that runs into trouble as a result of NASA's own amended figures, is the one of CO2 being the agent cause celebre of the piece. If the USA's Industrial output has increased in all this time, you would expect that the increased CO2 levels would be reflected in an increase in continental US temperatures But this is clearly NOT the case. So it puts a huge question mark under the claims of the IPCC and other ancillary support groups.. There are a number of factors that can affect local climate change, anthropogenic global warming is only one of them and even this can cause paradoxical effects locally. For example some models suggest that global warming could prevent the Atlantic gulf stream circulation thus leading to lower temperatures in Northern Europe. Although this scenario has a low probability it demonstrates how complex climate forcings can be. I doubt if localised increases in CO2 have such a great direct affect on temperature on a national scale, do you have any sources that suggest otherwise? I recently asked an IPCC scientist a similar question about localised tropospheric water vapour emissions such as from power stations and he didn't think it relevant on a national scale.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/14/07 - 02:05 AM:	#18
perseus wrote: i doubt if localised increases in CO2 have such a great direct affect on temperature on a national scale, do you have any sources that suggest otherwise? On the contrary Perseus, that is not my argument to make. Unlike the IPCC and its supporters, I am not the one claiming that CO2 is the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Nevertheless, as an ancillary argument, I do hope you have been following the issue concerning the particulate carbon "soot-brown cloud" engulfing much of China and India, along with its "localised effect" on the Himalayan Glaciers. http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13402 According to the Indian researchers who carried out extensive field research, this is a clear example of a localized effect. So answer this Perseus. (Keep in mind that the area is about the same size as continental USA.) How is it that on the one hand..such In the field scientists can clearly show how Carbon (as a particulate) is having a major local warming effect on the Himalayas, yet when it comes to Water vapour or Carbon (in relation to CO2) and its alleged global warming effect over continental USA, you accept the word of an un~named IPCC scientist ? In terms of a consistent scientific argument, and as a person deeply interested in Global warming issues, you can't accept one proposition and reject the other. Either they have a local and global effect or they don/t The only way for this to make any sense is to accept the unpalatable possibility that the IPCC has had it wrong over CO2 since the very beginning. This is a position I have always maintained. I won't pretend to understand the political machinations of the IPCC, but this I do know. Despite such clear hard physical evidence coming from these good Indian researchers, the matter of Particulate Carbon in the form of "Soot", has been treated by the IPCC as irelevant to Global Warming. Proof of this is to be found in the latest 2007 IPCC report. For verification of of the below graph I, please reference page 4 of 18 IPCC Climate Change Document : The Physical Science Basis : 2007 http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Gramm Edited by Gramm on 08/14/07 - 04:41 AM
Attached Files: ipccforcings.jpg (52 KB, 4 downloads) _____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/14/07 - 09:44 AM:	#19
Paul wrote: As usual, climate change debate comes down to science vs. people who pick and choose whatever fits their worldview best, but have no coherent predictive theory to fit the known facts. Indeed, but the unfortunate fact is that many of the so called "majority of scientists" are only agreeing with the man-made theory because that way they get money, qualifications they didn't earn, and high-pay jobs they don't deserve. Ever since man-made global warming became the new societal religion, hundreds of new "climatologists" have appeared that didn't exist before. The original experts, the ones who had the slightest doubts about this movement, have been shut out of the public's eye so that the only apparent opposition to the theory are the most unpopular individuals in America: Republicans and oil "barons". This of course suits the Green Movement perfectly. To-Sorry I misunderstood you, I was a bit too jumpy on the retaliation button...bad day. Gramm-I believe you have found exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/14/07 - 01:38 PM:

#20

Gramm wrote:
I do hope you have been following the issue concerning the particulate carbon "soot-brown cloud" engulfing much of China and India, along with its "localised effect" on the Himalayan Glaciers.

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13402http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13402

According to the Indian researchers who carried out extensive field research, this is a clear example of a localized effect..... How is it that on the one hand..such In the field scientists can clearly show how Carbon (as a particulate) is having a major local warming effect on the Himalayas, yet when it comes to Water vapour or Carbon (in relation to CO2) and its alleged global warming effect over continental USA, you accept the word of an un~named IPCC scientist ?

In terms of a consistent scientific argument, and as a person deeply interested in Global warming issues, you can't accept one proposition and reject the other. Either they have a local and global effect or they don/t

The only way for this to make any sense is to accept the unpalatable possibility that the IPCC has had it wrong over CO2 since the very beginning.

This is a position I have always maintained.

The issue of particulate and CO2 has to be treated differently. Particulate falls out of the atmosphere, the residence time depending on its aerodynamic diameter. The residence time is therefore very short relative to CO2. Moreover the fallout of particulate will be more localised for the same reason, although there are globalwide effects as well. Since some types of particulate/aerosol can induce cloud formation that reduces solar radiation, the net effect is very complex relative to that of CO2. Stratospheric (as opposed to tropospheric) water vapour and particulate in the form of contrails and cirrus have a localised effect as well, which was demonstrated in the clear skies after 9/11.

Gramm wrote:
Despite such clear hard physical evidence coming from these good Indian researchers, the matter of Particulate Carbon in the form of "Soot", has been treated by the IPCC as irelevant to Global Warming.

Doesn’t the IPCC allow for the Soot as a positive climate forcing factor in the paper you linked? My understanding of this is that the effect of carbon will be more pronounced on snow and ice. The figures shown in the paper is just an overall average for the globe, which of course is largely ice free. I recall Hansen one of the most vehement global warming supporters has proposed focussing on non-CO2 emissions such as carbon black as a method of combating the polar ice melt.

Edited by perseus on 08/14/07 - 03:00 PM

_____________________
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/14/07 - 07:45 PM:	#21
perseus wrote: The issue of particulate and CO2 has to be treated differently. Particulate falls out of the atmosphere, the residence time depending on its aerodynamic diameter. The residence time is therefore very short relative to CO2. Moreover the fallout of particulate will be more localized for the same reason, although there are global-wide effects as well. Since some types of particulate/aerosol can induce cloud formation that reduces solar radiation, the net effect is very complex relative to that of CO2. Stratospheric (as opposed to troposphere) water vapour and particulate in the form of contrails and cirrus have a localized effect as well, which was demonstrated in the clear skies after 9/11. Doesn’t the IPCC allow for the Soot as a positive climate forcing factor in the paper you linked? My understanding of this is that the effect of carbon will be more pronounced on snow and ice. The figures shown in the paper is just an overall average for the globe, which of course is largely ice free. I recall Hansen one of the most vehement global warming supporters has proposed focussing on non-CO2 emissions such as carbon black as a method of combating the polar ice melt. Perseus, the notion of laying down a blanket of Carbon soot on Ice to somehow "combat Polar Ice Melt" is complete insanity. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of Carbon Black (soot) will tell you that it is a warming agent. Here is an experiment for you to try, Go out and sprinkle some crushed carbon onto an ice cube.. At the same time, put another untreated Ice cube next to it. Leave both in the Sun to melt. Guess which melts first ? Answer: It's basic Physics....Anything that is Black warms faster than anything that is White or Clear... That aside...thanks for raising the matter of air suspension time. I think it is mute, given that the amount of particulate matter in the form of Carbon Black soot is not only constantly being replenished, but actually increasing with time. I doubt if the IPCC has factored in the exponential growth in Carbon soot emmissions arising from the growth in two areas (relative to China and India's economic expansion) 1. The number of Coal fired Power stations being put up by China and India. These are on a massive scale compared to Europe and the USA. 2. The number of cars and trucks being put onto roads in China and India. Both countries are experiencing massive increases in such vehicular production and movement. Furthermore, the role of Carbon Black does not end, the moment it falls out of the air. Far from it. Carbon Black (soot) effects not only air quality and temperature, it also acts as a "warming blanket on snow and ice. And last but not least, it also contributes to Acid rain. These are all things we clearly know about... Yet the forcing that the IPCC has factored in....according to Hansen, it is grossly inadequate. Regrettably, I don't have the stats in front of me, but I recall he puts it (Carbon Black) up almost equal to Co2 in terms of its impact. So along with Hansen we have on the ground scientists disputing the IPCC's own estimatiuon of Carbon Blacks impact on Global Warming. Surely, that's the whole point... The evidence is clearly and unequivocally in support of a re-examination of Carbon Black as a particulate...regardless of the time it remains suspended in the air. (remember carbon black settles on the ground, clogs plants respiration and adds to Acid rain fall out). So which do you believe. Forced computational projections...(which summarise purely theoretical models) or On the Ground evidence gathered by flying through these carbon soot clouds at distinctive altitude levels. I know which one I back.. But then again, I prefer to see the hard evidence rather than trusting to projected "forced" modeling. Gramm Ps... Oh and while we're on the matter of Carbon Black, it is interesting to note that the Kyoto treaty doesn't include China or India's emmission of Carbon Soot. Surely in the light of this hard evidence, the whole treaty should be either rejigged or torn up. Afterall, seems hardly fair to allow such ongoing carbon pollution to continue in China and India, given the growing in the field evidence of its role in relation to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Edited by Gramm on 08/14/07 - 07:58 PM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/15/07 - 12:10 AM:	#22
Gramm wrote: Perseus, the notion of laying down a blanket of Carbon soot on Ice to somehow "combat Polar Ice Melt" is complete insanity. Gramm You misunderstand. Hansen has suggesting that we focus in removing carbon black in preference to CO2, possibly for the reasons you state, but also because it is easier to eradicate than CO2.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/15/07 - 01:04 AM:	#23
Perseus, Thankyou for your concern, but please allow me to assure you, I know what Dr Hansen is saying and his position in relation to Carbon (soot) Black. That is why I said, that he (along with the Indian Researchers) are clearly at at odds with the IPCC over the role that significant aerosols and particulates such as Carbon Black play in relation to global warming. To be perfectly frank, I am far more convinced of the role of such particulate Carbon in its on the ground role of warming, (literally) than the more suspect CO2. Also, at this point it is of value to the debate to be reminded of the issue that was raised a number of years ago cocerning "dimming" of sunlight. That has yet to be factored into the current research. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 08/15/07 - 01:24 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/17/07 - 09:10 PM:	#24
"If man-made global warming is true, we'd have hurricanes right now." Then I guess man-made global warming warming may be true, you were just a week early. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_04L_5-day... Not to talk of Erin, Flossie or Sepat. Edited by enkidu on 08/17/07 - 09:28 PM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/18/07 - 02:09 AM:	#25
enkidu wrote: "If man-made global warming is true, we'd have hurricanes right now." Then I guess man-made global warming warming may be true, you were just a week early. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_04L_5-day... Not to talk of Erin, Flossie or Sepat. Errmmmm cough... Not exactly overwhelming evidence, now is it ? If I may speak on Mr Anon's behalf. The ironic point Anon is making, is that most Global Warming Doomsayers have been shrill over the last five years with claims that MAN MADE Global Warming would cause both an increase in and an intensity of "Hurricanes". Ask Al Gore... You do remember his science fiction film...? Mr Anon correctly points out that the Doomsayers (virtually to a man) insisted that the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' agreed with the theory that a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, would cause Hurricanes to increase in both numbers and intensity. But reality... (away from the computer based projections) has once again shown us just how inadequate our computer based understandings of the atmosphere truly are. (An issue that is not so surprising to any of us Hard nosed Global Warming Skeptics.) Anyway... Something else far more significant 'drives' Hurricanes..... and it isn't CO2. Guess what is it ? (Answer is at the bottom of the page.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sun. Gosh... Cheers Gramm Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 08/25/07 - 12:04 PM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.