Is anyone else sick of hearing this?

"All these hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming!"

I just want to smack people for saying these things.

Anyone else starting to hear this frrom people?
 
Too bad the current trend in the past 50 years shows hurricanes are becoming less common and less intense.
 
I honestly think the trends of hurricanes being susceptible to the effect of global warming would have to have been measured during the melting of the ice age v/s the other "ice age trends" that some scientists say occurred every so often before they can say that it has to do with global warming. Show me it's not a natural part of the working system.

I wish we could do alot more to prevent "global warming" but I can't take the drama queen, "OH, GLOBAL WARMING...GLOBAL WARMING...IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING"
 
Originally posted by Anthony Petito
\"All these hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming!\"

I just want to smack people for saying these things.

Why? Because Rush says they are wrong? :roll:

Can anyone here offer a link to site that lists UOHC, TCHP (global or regional averages) or similar parameters over the last 30+ years? I did a quick search, but couldn't find any historic data.

Increasing atmosperic CO2 levels by ~40% is certain to have SOME effect on the environment, no? We are conducting a huge experiement with a large, terribly complex, potentially dangerous subject. Is that a wise thing to do? Oh, wait, I'm being a nattering worrywart 'liberal' aren't I. :p

-Greg
 
There is substantial evidence of a ~30 year cycle of overall higher activity vs. overall lesser activity in the Atlantic basin. The 30s-60s were an active period, preceded and followed by about 30 years of lesser activity, and it's been predicted for years that the cycle would begin anew with increased activity.

Scott
 
Increasing atmosperic CO2 levels by ~40% is certain to have SOME effect on the environment, no? We are conducting a huge experiement with a large, terribly complex, potentially dangerous subject. Is that a wise thing to do? Oh, wait, I'm being a nattering worrywart 'liberal' aren't I.

CO2 levels may have increased by 40%, but they still only represent a small fraction of the atmospheric mix. The way the media portrays it, even very respectable sources, you'd think our atmosphere was half CO2.

Give this poll to the average person and I wouldn't be surprised by the result:

What percent of our atmopshere is composed of CO2?

1: 10%
2: 50%
3: <1%
4: What the hell is CO2?
 
Originally posted by Anthony Petito
\"All these hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming!\"

I just want to smack people for saying these things.

Anyone else starting to hear this frrom people?

You could lose the part about the causes/global warning and I'd still answer "Hell yes."
 
Three major problems with asserting that global warming is occurring:

1. There simply aren't enough measurements being taken.

North America and the other technologically advanced regions of the world are pretty well covered with weather instruments. However, there is a large area of the world that does not have weather instruments at all (i.e. oceans and rural areas of poor countries). How can we say with any confidence that GLOBAL warming is occurring when we aren't sampling the air from the whole globe?!!

2. Microscale effects on thermometers.

All thermometers experience (to some degree) an impact from microscale processes, so the location of a weather station can greatly affect the temperature which the sensor reads (even the average temperatures are affected). For example, a nearby lake or stream can greatly impact the temperature range across a relatively short distance by affecting the moisture content of the air (and thereby the temperature). Trees can also have a large impact by limiting how much vertical mixing occurs. Temperature ranges across 100 m can be as much as 10 degrees F. All this to say that local effects can cause thermometer readings to be biased and thereby be unrepresentative of the region which contains the sensor.

3. Not enough data.

On such a large temporal scale, ~100 years of data is simply not enough data to say (with any certainty) that the globe is going to continue to warm (if it is warming at all). If it is warming, it is impossible to attribute that warming to CFCs, ozone depletion or whatever. How would one be able to determine that the warming was caused by a man-made mechanism if there hasn't been another period of warming with which it could be compared (by the data, not by inference)?

Gabe
 
I am a republican and going against the norms for republicans - I believe that global warming is a growing threat. There was an excellent article in the last edition of National Geographic, which explained things very well, and I highly suggest that people read it.

Sure, global warming may not be a direct cause of weather related events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), but I believe that it may become just as significant as an ENSO event (i.e. it influences, but is not a direct cause of ...). Any slight alteration to the atmosphere, diurnal radiation, etc., can have a signficant impact down the road.

I am not saying to ditch your SUV or whatever, but global warming is something to think about.
 
Originally posted by Gabe Garfield
Three major problems with asserting that global warming is occurring:

1. There simply aren't enough measurements being taken.

Satellites actually provide an alternative data source - and they are not limited to only taking measurements over land. Where we don't have adequate measurements is in the deep oceans. Water is particularly handy at storing heat - and we only have a reasonable idea of the temeratures at the surface. Nevertheless, I don't think inadequate sampling is the problem - global warming is clearly happening - the real debate among atmospheric scientists is why this warming is occuring.


2. Microscale effects on thermometers.
You are absolutely correct on this - a typical thermometer is only exposed to a very small portion of air around it - and that measurement is used as representative of a very large region. However, for the global warming argument - it is more important to look at the long term trends at a given station, where microscale effects become a bias and do not impact the tendencies. An exception is when the area around the weather station has been altered over time, or if a station is moved, as they often are with urbanization moving too close to previously rural areas where weather instruments are located. When this is a factor, then special care must be taken. That said, urbanization alone is obviously increasing surface temperatures as well - we are all familiar with urban heat islands - and this is a contributor to global warming, but by how much is tough to tell.


3. Not enough data.

As already stated, whether the globe is warming is not at issue - it is. Polar caps are melting, the oceans are warming, the thermohaline circulation is changing, the surface and upper atmosphere are warming. These things are all known. There are a number of factors that goes into understanding the cause of global warming - and let me offer just one to prevent and endless rant.

The deep ocean current conveyor belt is associated with water from the western Atlantic (Gulf Stream) meeting cold and less saline (mixed with ice melt from the north pole) water that then sinks in the north Atlantic to the deep ocean. This current of water flows down around the southern tip of Africa and then eventually upwells into the central Pacific ocean, and returns as a surface ocean current to the Atlantic.

http://www.poemsinc.org/oceano/world14.gif

This process takes ~ 500 years for the same water to make a cycle - so the water currently upwelling in the Pacific was last exposed to the atmosphere long before the anthropogenic issue came about. Like how water vapor is saturated in air above water surfaces, gases are also saturated into water - and this is kept in balance with the vapor pressure of the gases. Since the atmopheric constituency has changed since the last time this upwelling water was at the surface, then the ocean is subsaturated with respect to some gases (recall Dalton's law of partial pressures), it then absorbs additional gas (such as CO2) to regain balance. The exact rate at which this occurs is rather difficult to measure - as the local rates (for a small patch of ocean) are very small - but over large areas, such as the central Pacific, the integral effect can be quite substantial. Aside from the gas balance, there is also thermal balance, as if the temperature of the sinking water is slightly warmer, then eventually the water upwelling also becomes slightly warmer - but the effect is delayed for some time.

This is one of probably hundreds of processes that go into understanding global gas and the subsequent energy balance that make the problem overwhelming complicated - and is why scientists are having such a tough time providing a clear and concise before and after kind of picture.

Glen
 
Back
Top