Environmental Issues

[Iceberg]

"The average global temperature anomaly for combined land and ocean surfaces for July (based on preliminary data) was 1.1 degrees F (0.6 degrees C) above the 1880-2004 long-term mean. This was the second warmest July since 1880 (the beginning of reliable instrumental records). The warmest July was in 1998 with an anomaly of 1.2 degrees F (0.7 degrees C) above the mean. There were warmer than average conditions in Scandinavia, much of Asia, North Africa and the western U.S., while below-average temperatures occurred in northern Canada and northern Alaska. Ocean temperatures were also second highest on record."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2489.htm

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

uh ohhhh...nasa says: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html

 

[Iceberg]

Duke, not a surprise, since the higher temperatures around the coasts will result in higher storm frequency and intensity, that is, it will increase the number and strength of blizzards on the coast, increasing the snowpack.

Now, if this snowpack were to stay around for a year (and if it does, it will reflect more sunlight back into space, cooling the immediate area), then it would be more likely that further storms would pile up more snow atop the existing snowpack, creating a very slow-moving or stationary glacier. So, even if the temperatures warm over coastal areas of Antarctica, an increase of sea ice could be a very likely occurrence.

This can explain why the models show little warming, and perhaps even a cooling over Antarctica over the next century, while the rest of the planet will likely roast.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

while the rest of the planet will likely roast.

Holy shit!! You used the word "likely"!! I knew you had it in ya! :beer:

 

[Iceberg]

Duke, I'm a scientist. It is a requirement not to be absolute unless one is 100% certain of an outcome.

When there is a less than 100% chance of something occurring, one cannot say that the event will occur. It's like weather forecasting. In some situations, rain will definitely happen (as in the case of a tropical cyclone, a.k.a. a hurricane). Other times, things are not so certain, (like near a weak frontal system with low humidity).

 

[cableguy]

its the argument that everything supports... still!!! anything, and everything, can be made to fit some model of a symptom of global warming, yet anything that says otherwise is simply wrong and baseless...

can someone find the blog of that scientist that was slandered by the new york times?? it clarifies ANOTHER erroneous, false, politicized story in that worthless rag... i am increasingly convinced the national enquirer does a better job of vetting stories...

 

[Iceberg]

can someone find the blog of that scientist that was slandered by the new york times?? it clarifies ANOTHER erroneous, false, politicized story in that worthless rag... i am increasingly convinced the national enquirer does a better job of vetting stories...

What scientist was that?

The New York Times does an excellent job of reporting climate change issues. I would seriously doubt that they would "slander" someone like that.

Congress, on the other hand...:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1558883,00.html

Rep. Barton (and many other supporters of his) should be ashamed of himself.

From the "Hurricane Katrina" thread:

this hurricane was not related to global warming.. none of them are.. the german press can fuck off on that one, as can anyone echoing those false sentiments... the rest of the world needs to think long and hard about what they choose to do or not do now, because there are a number of Americans wondering about this double standard, and wondering why we would owe anyone anything, or why we should help anyone in trouble who is simply pointing the finger of blame and not offering words of encouragement and hope...

I disagree with the premise that "this hurricane was not related to global warming.. none of them are." The intensity would likely have been weaker had climate change not been occurring.

Atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel and esteemed climatologist Kevin Trenberth have both speculated (in separate reports) that climate change will likely increase the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and may possibly increase the length of the hurricane season.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature03906.html

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/trenberth.shtml

I do disagree that the US (or any other nation opposed to Kyoto or mandatory GHG reductions) deserved this event happening on its soil. However, it may serve as a bit of a wake-up call to the future of this planet under a "business as usual" scenario, which would likely include more devastating weather and climate events.

As for your attack on other nations for their response regarding relief, it is way too early to be attacking them when your own nation does not know what is yet needed. (I will write a more detailed response to this in the proper thread.)

 

[cableguy]

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ -- blog of said scientist, named Roger A. Pielke Sr.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168247,00.html -- yep, from foxnews, but read it before trashing it...

regarding kyoto, in the next 100 years, IF kyoto is adopted and adhered to by all nations, it will prevent .3-.4 degrees (celsius) of what is predicted... in a word, worthless...

iceberg, i present to you another gem... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

yep... bias and inaccuracies in scientific papers brought about by researcher bias, funder bias, and a number of other things... your treasured tools arent so spotless as you thought...

 

[Iceberg]

cable, Dr. Pielke Sr and Jr are reasonable scientists with no connection to the fossil fuel industry. However, their conclusions (along with Dr. Christopher Landsea's) on this issue will more than likely be proven incorrect in the near future.

As for the FOX News article, Steven Milloy is a well-known lackey for the fossil fuel industry, specifically ExxonMobil, which is funding a campaign of confusion/obfuscation to make the public not know what the heck is going on regarding climate change.

The journalist he slanders (Ross Gelbspan) is a very reasonable and honourable man (I've met him personally). I would recommend highly you read his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point to get a true picture of what is happening regarding climate change, written in a way everyone can understand.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a very dedicated man who has been an excellent advocate for environmental protection. That Milloy slanders him is a travesty of justice and a rejection of all that is right and moral.

Kyoto is very valuable since it is a first step to curbing our emissions of greenhouse gases. It sets the framework to future agreements where real progress can me made. If we aren't to take a first step, we will only suffer the consequences in the future. (Sure, Kyoto will not do a lot. However, it is just the beginning of what is necessary for our species and millions of others to survive on this planet.)

As for the New Scientist article, true. These papers are, however, not peer-reviewed for the most part which describes nearly all global warming skeptics' and contrarians' studies.

Also, regarding funding, what makes many papers wrong is that, first of all, pharmaceutical companies instruct their scientists to skew the results to obtain FDA approval for their products. This has been well-documented. Secondly, the funding of the public obfuscation campaign by the fossil fuel industry with regards to climate change leads to the incorrect nature of virtually all such studies.

Governmental funding of research results in far greater acurracy in scientific research than corporate or industrial funding of such studies.

 

[cableguy]

trusting the government to do anything is a monumentally dangerous thing... and, as usual, you are blind to any bias that happens to agree with your world view... kyoto is simply an attempt to bring the USA back to the rest of the field economically... it doesnt do anything but hinder economic development... there is still no proof of global warming, least of all the man-made kind...

 

[Iceberg]

I am not "blind to any bias." I actually know and understand the science behind climate change, and since I understand what scientists (like Drs. Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Benjamin Santer, and Thomas Karl) are saying and know that their conclusions are, greater than 19 times out of 20, correct, this is not a blindness to bias, but a vision of the truth.

In fact, I actually see bias far better than most on this issue, since I can spot the bullshit in most skeptics' arguments, the bullshit which comes from non-climate-science-based groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cooler Heads Coalition, the Western Fuels Association, the Cato Institute, the public relations firms that work for many fossil fuel companies, and the Marshall Institute.

Most of what these groups spew out in relation to climate change is completely inaccurate and full of fatal flaws that they would have no chance to be published in noteworthy scientific journals. To get published, these groups had to put out their own journals to get their flawed "studies" published, about which the general public gets all confused.

 

[mindido]

Jeez cable,

"trusting the government to do anything is a monumentally dangerous thing... "

I think the last few days has proven that without a doubt.

"and, as usual, you are blind to any bias that happens to agree with your world view... "

And, as usual, you continually refer to sources that have little or no validity. Sources whos only reason for being is to obfuscate and dupe people for as long as they can.

"kyoto is simply an attempt to bring the USA back to the rest of the field economically... it doesnt do anything but hinder economic development..."

Seems like our lack of preparedness for a little bit of wind is doing a much better job of that.

"there is still no proof of global warming, least of all the man-made kind..."

Keep thinking that way cable and we'll be seeing a lot more Katrinas.

 

[Texan]

Powerful hurricanes were hitting land before we ever produced the first barrel of oil. To say that global warming caused Katrina is pure and simple bullshit.

 

[mindido]

Hey Tex,

See you made it back. So, how was the trip? Please tell us about it.

"Powerful hurricanes were hitting land before we ever produced the first barrel of oil. To say that global warming caused Katrina is pure and simple bullshit."

And sorry Tex, but its not BS. Clearly, we don't understand everything about hurricanes. But we do know a few things. Hurricanes require warm or hot water, stable or stagnant upper level winds, and a few other things that I can't remember at the moment. Clearly those things are happening right now. The average Gulf temp. is currently about 90 deg. F (higher than normal for the season).

From what I understand, it seems to be unclear what the research is telling us about the number of hurricanes that will be generated each year, but very clear about the intensity of those storms that are created. We can expect many more Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes every year that water temps remain at these levels. From what I have read, there is no doubt about that.

So to say that global warming is having no effect, is a bit naive.

 

[Texan]

Hurricane activity on the Atlantic Coast runs in cycles.

William Gray of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University has shown that hurricane activity waxes and wanes over 25 to 30 years. The 1910s and '20s were bad for hurricanes. Then came a period of calm, and another bad period in the 1940s and '50s. From the 1960s to 1995 was a period of calm.

Robert Sheets, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami from 1987 to 1995, agrees. He doesn't believe there's any solid evidence that Katrina was strengthened by global warming.

"Anything we've seen so far is not outside of what has occurred in the past," he says.

These are the "smart guys" when it comes to hurricanes.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Correct. But they also don't rule out, in any way, that global warming could be a factor.

And Tex, lets hear some details about the trip.

 

[Texan]

Tex,

Correct. But they also don't rule out, in any way, that global warming could be a factor.

And Tex, lets hear some details about the trip.

My trip in two words--War Zone

The scale of destruction and the relief effort is far more impressive when you witness it with your own eyes.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

I think we all know it little better than a war zone. Lets hear some details. Like, were you in N.O.?

 

[Iceberg]

Texan, climate change is resulting in a warming of the world's oceans. This warming, which has been occurring especially in the Gulf of Mexico, where sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are at or near its highest point in recorded history (about 32 C or 90 F) cause hurricanes to strengthen, especially in the hours or days before landfall, since the areas where the water is warmest are nearest land.

Which brings me to another point. A great deal of the unusually warm water on the planet (in open water bodies, such as oceans and seas) are found near land and less where no land exists for thousands of kilometres. This may be due to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) near land due to fossil fuel burning-caused emissions.

Anyway, this warmer water can acually trigger hurricane formation due to the ability of warm water to create low pressure systems. The warmer the water, the more intense the system can become. (I will discuss this in greater detail in a later post.)

 

[Texan]

Ice when it comes to hurricanes you are wrong, every year the Gulf reaches 90 F, so save us the agony of reading your rhetoric.

Mindido, I went to the west side of N.O. and that is as far as I wanted to go. I dropped my goods off with a red cross group then turned around and headed for the other side of the "big lake". Loaded my family and slept a little then hauled ass for Texas.