Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:06 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
So...can the earth adjust to global warming?

Maybe we wong all die in thirty years.

But SOMETHING is happening, so what will happen in the end?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:53 pm 
AAAhmed46 wrote:
So...can the earth adjust to global warming?
It has before, the earth has been warmer in the past.The earth temperatures are constanly changing. When I was in school they were forcasting the next iceage. I haven't died under a mile of ice yet. Why do you believe the earth is spiraling to doom?

Quote:
Maybe we wong all die in thirty years.
The odds are pretty good that I'll be dead in thirty years no matter happens, but I suspect man will stilll populate the globe for many many generations to come because the earth is just fine.

Quote:
But SOMETHING is happening, so what will happen in the end?
There is no end Adam only change.
:wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Posts: 1146
Location: Massachusetts
Just to remind people that the waters are muddy, figuratively speaking, just saw this today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0727/p17s01-stss.html

So, we were thinking that scientists agree that increased CO2 concentration from human activites is responsible for melting polar ice? Doesn't sound like it in this article. This article doesn't challenge the idea that global warming is occurring or that humans are responsible, but you have to ask whether we might get more comprehensive benefits by reducing emissions more generically rather fixating on CO2 at this point.

_________________
Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
That's really reassuring Willy. I agree that everything will be balanced out and that our population will be "regulated," in fact, I already made that clear in prior posts and said the question will be HOW our population explosion ends. Just knowing that it will hardly seems like a solution or a reason not to worry. So I suggested we put the brakes on our numbers voluntarily before disaster ensues (fewer people means less concern about global warming, since you seemed to miss the link), and your reply just seems to be that nothing matters because we can count on disease or starvation at some point, after which the Earth is seriously damaged? I just don't follow your... logic.

Two minor points: take up your PTSD issues with the other urban dwelling econuts who offended you years ago--I have nothing to do with them and feel no need to defend my efforts to live with the smallest impact on the earth that's feasible for me. Lastly, we haven't been using fossil fuels since fire was discovered. We used wood (renewable if used judiciously). I doubt they immediately made the jump to coal, oil shale, and oil reserves (nonrenewable as they took a very long time to develop, too long to regenerate as we use them).

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Quote:
When I was in school they were forcasting the next iceage.


Seriously? Thats surprising.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:25 pm 
Yeah Adam the experts were claiming the sky was falling when I was a kid. Ice age cycles were reported to be 10,000 years apart. But "The experts" were forecasting the next one might be less than 2000 years down the road. Their supporting rational was that all the air pollution was blocking the suns rays from warming the earth and data indicated things were cooling down. Today the experts tell us the exact opposite.

What real distorts things are all the eco advocates promoting the global warming myth. Lots of scientists don't buy it, lots do. Bottom line is no one understands how the system cycles long term. Decisions driven by this flawed science are questionable.

To make a decision to deliberately reduce ones contribution to the waste stream or to use cleaner energy sources for the sake or air quality and water quality is common sense for most of us.

Sorry if I’ve offend you Ian. Thanks for the free public diagnosis on my mental state. I hope one day I get the opportunity to pay you for your efforts. Possibly you can pm me your mailing address so I can mail you your two cents.

This conversation is getting less than polite so I’m gone.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2431
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Ah Yes, well, depending on whether or not temperatures gradually soared or dropped (gradually being the operative word) a continuing warming trend is less alarming to some than a cooling one.

Should global warming, whether natural or human abetted, kick off a precipitous change in temperature, in either direction, then the call becomes one between two really nasty choices.

I believe cooling trends and mini ice ages have occurred during recorded history. A mini ice age occurred in the 17th century, it is proposed that one also occurred in the 5th CEntury BC and the first century AD..

It is suggested that both started significant population movement toward the mediterranean basin.

Can anyone shed a light on these dates?

Gontrans de Poncins, a student of the Inuit, noted that in the event of substantial warming or cooling, the Inuit (as he new them) would probably notice it first and be affected by it least.

JT

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:41 pm 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e_age.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Russian- ... 7621.shtml


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
So is the earth warming up or cooling down?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
It's interesting to note that the first article about the "mini ice age" coming explains that the effect will be limited to europe and due not to declining heat over the Earth but a failure of the Atlantic currents to moderate European temperatures, as a result of, you guessed it: global warming (specifically changes in salinity due to melting ice).

Back to the myths from before:

#1: I don't think anyone has said there has been "catastrophic" warming yet... they're saying the warming suggests future catastrophy. And none of us are in a position to support or refute the hockey stick graph, etc--scientists disagree, and lay people won't fuly understand why without more knowledge than I wager this thread can develop.

#2: if the hockey stick is obviously flawed, why aren't scientists scrambling to get a publication out of refuting it? Where is that publication? I know some scientists, and they'd give their first born for a publication.

#3: the refutation doesn't actually comment on the supposed myth. Just because CO2 fluctuates, does not mean that superimposing human prduction on natural variation is wise or safe.

#4: just because other factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, does not mean that changing CO2 (and other industrial product) content in the atmosphere is wise or safe.

#5: just because computer models are wrong when the data entered is wrong does not mean the models predicting human influenced climate change are wrong. That requires looking at the entire computer model, and all of the data entered, something none of us are qualified to do. But this refutation is a lot like saying that evolution (or gravity) is a "theory." And what?

#6: if we take the statement as 100% true, we've at least acknowledged that there WAS climate change, right? and what level of "proof" is required for change? I don't want to ruin the world's economy, but again, we are going to change our ways, what's wrong with doing so now, given that the consequences of being wrong could be severe?

#7: pollutant, exhaust, product of combustion, whatever, they're all true in a way or at times. Poop is good for plants too but we don't want it everywhere, correct? It's just a matter of your political slant whether you call it fertilizer, manure, waste, or feces. Back to the science anyone?

#8: what would the proof consist of, exactly? Wait for global warming then look for more storms? We're dealing in predictions; we have to. Is there "proof" that warmer oceans wouldn't increase storms, when storms are driven by heat?

#9,10: can we hear more about our little ice age? how do we reconcile the increasing ice thicknesses in the antarctic with well publicized breakdowns in large formerly stable ice masses with the release of large icebergs? I don't have the expertise to comment on the temps and thicknesses at the poles, but there are those who would and could easily write paragraphs, without references, reaching opposite conclusions.

I think the most important point is that with one exception (someone who has experience in computer modeling) none of us have the expertise to judge the experts who appear in films supporting or refuting global warming, or telling whether the info from one side or the other is accurate or not. That's why I haven't tried to produce graphs and stats. There's a controversy and we could duplicate it here forever (although recently, we've heard that the controversy is less controversial than we thought and most scientists in the field believe in the risk). Rather, I've focused on the inevitable, such as a leveling off or decrease in our population, and asked whether we want that to be a soft landing or one that involves catastrophy or long term damage to the earth. Is that so unreasonable?

PS: Laird, if you can't tolerate it when I respond to your attacks (that I'm one of those antienvironmental urban types who attacked your family just because of where I live) I'll try ignoring them--better?

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Posts: 1146
Location: Massachusetts
I remember the first time I ever heard about global warming. It was in 1992 when I was a summer intern at the then Massively Parallel Computing Research Laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque (now I think it's morphed into http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ ). Back then the idea of a supercomputer was the 1024-processor hypercube of 386-equivalent processors and a Connection Machine (a type of supercomputer referenced briefly in the film Jurassic Park). My reaction to the idea was that it was probably a bunch of hooey, since the evidence back then was just a handful of anecdotes, mostly about breaking weather records, but even if it was true, building a credible mathematical model that would yield useful results was probably intractable, not impossible, just impractical. I still think it was back then, but the guys who were interested in it have done a lot of work since then, and supercomputers have come a long way as well. To be honest with you, I've only recently reached my personal "skepticism" tipping point in the last year or so, since, as I said, some of the large scale physical events that that climate researchers have predicted have been observed.

Yeah, I read Michael Crichton's book. If you were thinking that scientists didn't make mistakes as individuals or as a group, then you just haven't been paying attention, but you have to ask yourself what are the odds in this case. I don't mean odds that all these scientists are wrong simultaneously, because on a given subject that probability might be considerable, but what are the odds that, given the observed data and the initial successes they've built at predicting climate phenomena in the last decade, global warming is still just a bunch of hooey based on random anecdotes. I don't think those odds are very good now. Now it seems to me that the roles are somewhat reversed, with the evidence against global warming being a handful of anecdotes.

Suppose for the sake of argument that
1. Global warming is occurring and that at least its pace and severity is due to human activities.
2. This will have some devastating consequences as have been described over the next century if we do not curb the burning of fossil fuels.
3. We can prevent these consequences by modifying our behavior in ways that are economically viable.
What, exactly, would scientists have to do to convince the general public, and particularly governments, of the situation while there's still time to alter the outcome to be more desirable?

At this point I'm thinking that they've pretty much done it. I would encourage listening to what scientists say directly when possible rather than relying on politicians and activists to filter it for you. I can well imagine that many scientists wince a little at the thought that their mouthpiece in the politically-polarized US is predominately from the "left". Unlike most of the liberal arts faculty in universities, physical scientists have been known on occasion to be...(gasp)...conservative 8O (except when it comes to government funding of research grants, of course).

But all knowledge is to some extent uncertain. I think it's about time to stop using uncertainty as an excuse for ignoring the issue. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is something that we can do and "dial it in" to work in the global economy. We can also begin research on more drastic (and possibly risky) countermeasures if conditions worsen despite our efforts.

_________________
Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
I'm not sure they've acomplished a lot. There's a ton of visibility now--but no one in charge appears convinced, at least at the level of the US Gov't. We won't even set tougher but easily achievable mileage standards because our automakers would rather us not--and experience has already shown we can have purely electric cars that satisfy many people's needs (or we could have legitimate public transportation, gasp). From what I've heard, fossil fuel use, gas emissions, etc are accelerating--the increase is increasing--because our population is exploding and india and china and others are begining to get serious about industrialization. We'll need to reduce a rate of use that's currently accelerating, and come to some state where people can still be comfortable and happy with a sustainable form of energy. That's a tough task.

What needs to be done is create a financial incentive to be energy conscious. And we don't want to wait until proof is in hand because that may be a little late. We learned that if CA requires some of its cars to be zero emissions, viable zero emissions cars appear in not too long--and disappear once the automakers complain and get back to business as usual, which is selling Hummers with tax incentives.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 3700
Quote:
Link

Global warming's effect on hurricane strength disputed in new report

The Associated Press

July 28, 2006, 4:09 PM EDT

MIAMI -- Scientists linking the increased strength of hurricanes over recent years to global warming have not accounted for outdated technology that may have underestimated storms' power decades ago, researchers said in a report published Friday.

The research by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center challenges two studies published last year by other respected climatologists.

One of the studies, by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was considered the first major research to challenge the belief that global warming's affect on hurricanes was too slight to accurately measure and that climate change likely won't substantially change tropical storms for decades.

And, if Landsea and his three co-authors are correct, it was fundamentally flawed.

``The methodology is fine. There's no problem with the way they analyzed the data,'' said Landsea, who is science and operations officer at the hurricane center. ``The problem is with the data itself.''

The study claims historical storm data has been rendered out-of-date by new technology that better estimates the strength of hurricanes. He pointed to advancements in the quality of satellite imagery that is used to estimate a storm's strength when it can't be directly measured by aircraft or on land.

In short, Landsea said, there were far more Category 4 and 5 storms in decades past than previously thought, because satellite imagery has improved so greatly.

The article was published in the journal Science. It is co-authored by Bruce Harper, an Australian engineer who is an expert on Pacific cyclones; Karl Hoarau, a professor at Cergy-Pontoise University in France; and John Knaff, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It looks at only a small sampling of historical storm data, though the authors plan to examine further hurricane information they believe will further prove their thesis.

Emanuel discounted the Science piece and said he put considerable effort into accounting for changes in estimating storm strength.

``They ignore the most significant finding from my Nature paper _ that Atlantic hurricane activity is highly correlated with sea surface temperature, which is comparatively well-measured,'' Emanuel said by e-mail from the Queen Mary 2, where he is lecturing on storms. ``This cannot be explained away by invoking rather qualitative arguments about data quality.''

Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the amount of energy released in these storms in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans increased, especially since the mid-1970s.

His study was published last year, along with another Science piece that linked a double in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970 to the rise of ocean surface temperatures.

Landsea said he did not dispute global warming was occurring or that it could influence hurricanes; he said it simply was not proven by the storm information available.

The studies did not address fluctuation in the number of hurricanes, only in their intensity. But researchers agree that the Atlantic basin is in a period of higher hurricane activity that could last decades.

Copyright © 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 3700
Quote:
July 28, 2006

Hurricane 'spike' debated

Early data spotty at best

BY CHRIS KRIDLER
FLORIDA TODAY

Studies that link a spike in hurricane intensity with global warming are spotting "artificial upward trends" because they rely on bad historical data, a paper suggested today in the journal Science.

Hurricane intensity is measured by the storms' surface winds. Sometimes those winds are estimated by looking at satellite pictures, using a subjective technique invented in 1972.

Better technology since then, including greater satellite coverage, has led inevitably to higher wind-speed estimates for more recent storms, the authors suggest.

"The resulting higher resolution images and more direct overhead views of tropical cyclones result in greater and more accurate intensity estimates in recent years when using the Dvorak Technique," according to authors Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Center, Bruce Harper, Karl Hoarau and John Knaff.

For example, Hurricane Hugo's strength was underestimated based on images taken from an angle, and similar errors probably occurred frequently in the 1970s and 1980s, when there was less satellite coverage, the authors write.

While there may be trends in storm intensity linked to sea temperatures, which have increased, the "trends are very likely to be much smaller (or even negligible) than those found in the recent studies," the paper says.

An ongoing overhaul of the hurricane database may make it easier to quantify storm trends, the authors say.

Contact Kridler at 242-3633 or ckridler@flatoday.net.

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Posts: 1146
Location: Massachusetts
IJ wrote:
I'm not sure they've acomplished a lot. There's a ton of visibility now--but no one in charge appears convinced, at least at the level of the US Gov't.


I don't know that I would measure the science by whether those knuckleheads (90% of them) are convinced by it, but I take your point.

_________________
Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group