Global Warming Cont...

May 1, 2007
Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, a Study Finds

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Climate scientists may have significantly underestimated the power of global warming from human-generated heat-trapping gases to shrink the cap of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, according to a new study of polar trends.

The study, published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that an open-water Arctic in summers could be more likely in this century than had been estimated in the latest international review of climate research released in February by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“There are huge changes going on,” said Julienne Stroeve, a lead author of the new study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “Just with warm waters entering the Arctic, combined with warming air temperatures, this is wreaking havoc on the sea ice, really.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us...gewanted=print

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

New Jaworowski article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

New Jaworowski article.

---

Wow. Pretty smart for an old QB. :icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Wow. Pretty smart for an old QB. :icon_wink:

---

Firing Theisman and hiring Jaworski for MNF might drive me to join a Monday night bowling league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

New Jaworowski article.

---

Hey, Guisslapp, I didn't know that you and Lyndon LaRouche were buddies.

EIR Science.......that's a gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Hey, Guisslapp, I didn't know that you and Lyndon LaRouche were buddies.

EIR Science.......that's a gas.

---

Did you even read the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

EIR Science.......that's a gas.

---

In my experience, the "peer-review" process of such journals as Science, Nature, etc. does not guarantee that the scientific work presented is any better than what I accomplish when I wipe my ass on the crapper. In all cases, it is most reasonable to read the scientific content of the article itself and judge it on that content. With respect to the content (particularly the discussion of the problems with using ice core measurements ABSOLUTELY), I have yet to see a valid scientific response from the AGW community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Did you even read the article?

---

Yeah, I read it. It was hard to since I had to keep reaching for the barf bag.

Seriously, Guisslapp, you are a smart guy. Why are you willing to listen to the comments of a handful of scientists while you ignore the findings of the VAST majority. The physics of the atmosphere are really not in dispute. The most respected climate scientists in the world are basically saying the same thing, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is the result of our burning fossil fuels and that in the long-term major climate change will occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Did you even read the article?

---

More importantly, did you read the article from the NY Times I just posted? Your thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

In my experience, the "peer-review" process of such journals as Science, Nature, etc. does not guarantee that the scientific work presented is any better than what I accomplish when I wipe my ass on the crapper. In all cases, it is most reasonable to read the scientific content of the article itself and judge it on that content. With respect to the content (particularly the discussion of the problems with using ice core measurements ABSOLUTELY), I have yet to see a valid scientific response from the AGW community.

---

randerizer, the author of that EIR Science article does a great job of misinformation. For example, he states that the ice-core record is the foundation of the AGW theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The foundation of the AGW theory is the physics of the atmosphere. WE need to know nothing ice cores in order to know that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global warming.

Further mis-information on his part regards the current increases in atmospheric Co2 levels. We only have to look at the Hawaii samples taken over the past 50 years to see the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Notice that in his article not ONCE did he talk about the physics of atmospheric gases. He only talks about something that is really not critical to the AGW theory.

I'm surprised that you are so easily fooled by a lot of hot-air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

randerizer, the author of that EIR Science article does a great job of misinformation. For example, he states that the ice-core record is the foundation of the AGW theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The foundation of the AGW theory is the physics of the atmosphere. WE need to know nothing ice cores in order to know that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global warming.

Further mis-information on his part regards the current increases in atmospheric Co2 levels. We only have to look at the Hawaii samples taken over the past 50 years to see the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Notice that in his article not ONCE did he talk about the physics of atmospheric gases. He only talks about something that is really not critical to the AGW theory.

I'm surprised that you are so easily fooled by a lot of hot-air.

---

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

AND it could show that global warming is not caused by CO2 since higher levels of CO2 have existed in the past without the increased temperatures (at least not to the degree as predicted by the alarmists).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

---

First, the whole issue of the ice cores is a red herring. The vast majority climate scientists think that the ice cores readings are accurate. As i stated before, if CO2 migrated out of the ice air bubbles, such a migration would show up as a linear event, which it doesn't. Why you believe the tiny minority of industry paid scientific hacks that post articles in publications owned by Lyndon LaRouche is beyond me. Clearly, that article would not be published in a reputable scientific magazine that values its reputation.

Sure, the exact amount of temperature increased caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is not an exact number. Nobody ever said that it was. However, the REALLY important aspect of AGW is that we are headed into unknown terrority, of a huge scientific unknown where we have absolute NO CONTROL once we reach a critical junction point.

Sure, the arctic ice may disappear in the summer, most will not lose any sleep over that, but it points to other climate changes which may make future generations wonder what why we were so asleep at the switch.

You must be naive to think that dumping 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is not going to affect atmospheric CO2 levels give a stable carbon cycle. Naive is probably too kind of word.

Anyway, watch the Glen Beck show tonight.....you might learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

AND it could show that global warming is not caused by CO2 since higher levels of CO2 have existed in the past without the increased temperatures (at least not to the degree as predicted by the alarmists).

---

Guisslapp, wake up. Atmospheric physics prove that CO2 causes the enhanced greenhouse effect. Don't need ice cores for that.

The plain fact of the matter is that the current CO2 levels are the highest they have been in at least the last 400k years. (Not withstanding that Lyndon LaRouche endorsed mis-information article). (Of course, Lyndon LaRouche followers are swallowing every word of it as gospel).

The vast majority, eh? Have you personally taken a poll? BTW, how many scientists on this board agree with you? How many disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

First, the whole issue of the ice cores is a red herring. The vast majority climate scientists think that the ice cores readings are accurate. As i stated before, if CO2 migrated out of the ice air bubbles, such a migration would show up as a linear event, which it doesn't. Why you believe the tiny minority of industry paid scientific hacks that post articles in publications owned by Lyndon LaRouche is beyond me. Clearly, that article would not be published in a reputable scientific magazine that values its reputation.

You must be naive to think that dumping 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is not going to affect atmospheric CO2 levels give a stable carbon cycle. Naive is probably too kind of word.

---

1) The majority of climate scientists have made no effort to assess the validity of the ice core readings.

2) What scientific basis do you use to get a linear "migration" effect?

3) Who finances a scientific inquiry, or how many scientists say support a particular opinion, has little bearing on my views of the science.

4) The particular article would probably not be published in a high profile journal, because the relevant reviewers have their minds made up on the issue and money tied to their mindsets to boot.

5) Stable carbon cycle? Please present how that is historically demonstrated or an appropriate assumption?

Linear? You think the gases have the same solubility in water??? Wouldn't changes in concentration over time affect the "driving force" according to Fick's law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The vast majority, eh? Have you personally taken a poll? BTW, how many scientists on this board agree with you? How many disagree?

---

Sounds to me that you think the La TecH Sports Message Board is the center of scientific discourse in the world.

Don't worry, it will take some time for me to stop laughing.

Anyway, you two should present your insights to your local Congressperson so that he or she can be truly informed when it is time to vote on this important issue.

Sometimes I have to think that public education in the great State of Louisiana is not quite up to what it should be.

How absurd yet typical:


Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3740-8370r.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

notice he's not an atmospheric physicist. you're also right in part - we need to know NOTHING of past climate conditions to say that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the earth to warm, on average. But how much CO2 is needed to cause the earth to warm by x amount is certainly still open for debate in the scientific community.

More to the point though, this article clearly articulates that ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations from previous years are likely to be an UNDERESTIMATE of the actual atmospheric concentrations at those times. What's the point? Well, given what we know about the carbon cycle, that suggests that we've seen much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 before humans ever began to industrialize. And, if we remember how small of a % of CO2 emission is from human activity, it is highly likely that the Hawaii data, etc., does not show a deviation from the normal carbon cycle.

so, lets say that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that the earth is warming (for the sake of argument). Without the ice core data to establish a baseline atmospheric CO2, there is NO case that humans are raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 to cause the warming, rather than CO2 just increasing in the atmosphere as a result of a natural cycle.

I hate speaking to rocks...

---

Good points!! In addition, it's worth noting that the Hawaii CO2 data is taken at the crest of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Active volcanos continuously emit gases, one of which is CO2. Thus, one would expect that the concentration around the volcano would be higher than elsewhere.

The “Greenhouse” Effect

The so-called greenhouse effect has become such a widely used metaphor in discussing climate that it has become tossed about in rather reckless fashion. Most in the media and even some scientists have created in the mind of the lay public that our climate system works just like a physical greenhouse that you grow plants in. This in not the case.

To understand this, we need to understand how our earth receives and retains heat from the sun. This is the Earth Energy Flow Balance. It can be described as follows:

Solar Radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface, which acts like a heated radiator and produces Infrared Radiation. The amount of heat that is carried into the atmosphere by Infrared Radiation is roughly equal to the heat carried into the atmosphere by Fluid Dynamics, such as wind, other air movements, and liquid evaporation. The heat energy that is retained at any given locale is what produces the temperature at that locale.

A real greenhouse traps heat by blocking (or severely restricting) the Fluid Dynamics vector, by blocking it with plastic or glass. The so-called “greenhouse effect” that has been so mischaracterized by GW proponents that it has become a metaphor doesn’t work this way at all. It works by recognizing that certain gases (the so-called greenhouse gases) tend to block some of the Infrared Radiation. It totally ignores the equally important effect of Fluid Dynamics. By the way, the single largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for approximately 95% of the greenhouse gases. This component is also ignored by many of the AGW activists.

Now, it is true that the thermodynamic effect of those combinations of gases can be calculated by rigorous thermodynamic gas laws. (I suppose that fact is the reason Salty continues to keep insisting that there are “laws of Atmospheric Physics.”) That is – provided that no other thermodynamic effects are working on the earth’s systems. But wait, there are other effects -- caused by fluid dynamics. But there are no rigorous physical laws of fluid dynamics that allow us to calculate the effect of the equally important Fluid Dynamics vector. These effects are highly turbulent and we simply cannot analytically solve the governing partial differential equations. Further, attempts to numerically model those effects in climate models have had virtually no success. Our currently most sophisticated climate models cannot model a thunderstorm, one of our earth’s most powerful air conditioners. And there are thousands of them taking place around the earth at any given moment. Anyone who tells you they can actually model a thunderstorm is either a liar or an idiot. An attempt is made to compensate for the inability to model them by using heuristic rules in the climate models to account for them. These rules simply plug in whatever result the modeler wants on that particular model run. “Hey, Joe, what result did you get on run # 864”? “Whatever answer you want, Salty”

Most of the estimates of how CO2 increases atmospheric temperature are valid within the narrow confines of the closed experiments in which they are observed. However, none of those experiments consider the Fluid Dynamics component. They can’t because that simply can’t be calculated. So basically they are experiments that prove that a true greenhouse really works. (Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the Earth Energy Flow Balance). If you shut off the fluid dynamic flow and also decrease the infrared radiation by adding CO2 (or any of the other relevant gases) to the closed environment, the relevant equations will predict an increase in temperature which is correct.

As if the above didn’t make things complicated enough, there are still more complicating factors. The fluid dynamics component of the energy balance also affects the other 2 components - solar radiation input and infrared radiation output by carrying dust and aerosols and water vapor into and out of the atmosphere. So results of the fluid dynamics vector can add to or detract from the infrared vector and also the solar vector. Thus the amount of heat reaching the earth can be shielded by cloud formation, for example, as a result.

The bottom line here is that much of the current literature on GW is based on the “greenhouse effect” metaphor which ignores a major component in the Earth Heat Balance. So predictions of how much a given amount of CO2 will increase the atmospheric temperature in the real world are meaningless.

In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that increases in temperature -- say from increased solar activity -- causes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, just the opposite of the CGW’s mantra!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Hey, Guisslapp, I didn't know that you and Lyndon LaRouche were buddies.

EIR Science.......that's a gas.

---

Yeah it really is , Salty. A couple of years ago, you were referencing papers from "Science" like they were the Bible!!!! Guess it makes a big difference when a particular paper doesn't spout your mantra!!!!!!!

Hurricane season doesn't even begin until June 1, yet we have one brewing in the Atlantic.


http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TECH88

Hurricane season doesn't even begin until June 1, yet we have one brewing in the Atlantic.


http://www.osei.noaa.gov/OSEIiod.html

---

a subtropical storm before june 1? that's unheard of! <gasp> :icon_roll:

pre-june tropical/subtropical cyclone activity in the last 50 years:

2003 (16 named storms) -- tropical storm ana -- max winds 60 mph
1997 (7 named storms) -- unnamed subtropical storm -- max winds 50 mph
1992 (6) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1981 (11) -- ts arlene -- 60
1978 (11) -- unnamed sts -- 45
1976 8) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1972 (4) -- unnamed sts -- 70
1970 (7) -- hurricane alma -- 80
1959 (10) -- ts arlene -- 60

it is interesting to note that early hurricane activity is not even necessarily indicitive of an active hurricane season. didn't we go through all this hurricane b.s. two years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

a subtropical storm before june 1? that's unheard of! <gasp> :icon_roll:

pre-june tropical/subtropical cyclone activity in the last 50 years:

2003 (16 named storms) -- tropical storm ana -- max winds 60 mph
1997 (7 named storms) -- unnamed subtropical storm -- max winds 50 mph
1992 (6) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1981 (11) -- ts arlene -- 60
1978 (11) -- unnamed sts -- 45
1976 8) -- unnamed sts -- 50
1972 (4) -- unnamed sts -- 70
1970 (7) -- hurricane alma -- 80
1959 (10) -- ts arlene -- 60

it is interesting to note that early hurricane activity is not even necessarily indicitive of an active hurricane season. didn't we go through all this hurricane b.s. two years ago?

---

Oh really? Well, that certainly is a cocky attitude to take for someone who lives near the Gulf. Good luck to you, I'm sure you'll need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TECH88

Oh really? Well, that certainly is a cocky attitude to take for someone who lives near the Gulf. Good luck to you, I'm sure you'll need it.

---

A bit snippy this morning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

A bit snippy this morning?

---

All I did was make an observation about hurricane season. People can agree or disagree...it makes no difference. Besides, I think ArkBob can fight his own battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TECH88

Oh really? Well, that certainly is a cocky attitude to take for someone who lives near the Gulf. Good luck to you, I'm sure you'll need it.

---

a cocky attitude? all i did was point out how stupid it is to use a commonplace occurance to try to arrouse fear. and i did it with facts, rather than scare tactics.

hey bob, did you see where a chunk of ice the size of california has disappeared in antartica? Another one of your right wing antiGW, Rush Limbaugh 'scientific facts' full of holes.

Sure hope they are able to find it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

hey bob, did you see where a chunk of ice the size of california has disappeared in antartica? Another one of your right wing antiGW, Rush Limbaugh 'scientific facts' full of holes.

---

sounds like another flaw in ice core readings to me.

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id=

Er, I thought it was supposed to be cold in April. Pretty bad when a month starts off with record cold and still ends up average. Basically, below average doesnt exist anymore I guess.

Anybody care to take a stab on what the May temp. results will be? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

DESPITE RECORD COLD START, APRIL TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR U.S.,
Global April Surface Temperature Third Warmest on Record

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2862.htm

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

hey bob, did you see where a chunk of ice the size of california has disappeared in antartica? Another one of your right wing antiGW, Rush Limbaugh 'scientific facts' full of holes.

---

:laugh: :laugh:
is this what you are referring to?

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ctic_melt.html

Quote:

---

NASA's QuikScat satellite detected snowmelt by radar pulses that bounce off of ice that formed when snowmelt refroze (just as ice cream turns to ice when it is refrozen after being left out on the counter too long.)
Maximum high temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit that persisted for about a week in Antarctica caused a melt intense enough to create an extensive ice layer.

---

1)it didn't disappear, it melted and refroze.
2)we have no idea how common this occurance has been in the past, as i'm sure the satelites have not been doing this for more than 10 or 15 years.
3)this happened between 1999 and 2005, and "No further melting has been detected through March 2007."

get your facts straight before you try to use them to scare people.

You really didn't understand that article did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

You really didn't understand that article did you?

---

Dawgbitten - I think I have figured out the problem. Ever since I have known your online persona, I have associated you with Dwight on your avatar. It makes it VERY difficult to take anything you say seriously.

and I have known you as some ugly woman. I still think of you as some ugly woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

and I have known you as some ugly woman. I still think of you as some ugly woman.

---

You think Audrey Hepburn is ugly? Or just Ayn Rand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

You really didn't understand that article did you?

---

read the facts, not the hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

read the facts, not the hype.

---

...and there you have it!

Now if only I can think of a way to take advantage of the earth warming up to make myself richer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

You think Audrey Hepburn is ugly? Or just Ayn Rand?

---

Audrey isn't but Gussyou gotta admit Rand bears a remarkable similarity to the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz and that same lady in the opening scene that wanted to to take Toto away.

She was cold, heartless, and shallow just like Ayn was. :icon_wink:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Hurricanes (frequency + power) are not driven strongly by surface temperatures. Specifically, the article observes a pretty significant INCREASE in hurricane activity during the little ice age, and notes that we've had worse hurricane periods over the last 5000 yr than we are currently having, despite the supposed highs in temperature.

Also suggests that hurricane activity trends fairly well with El Nino events and West African monsoon records. In fairness, the link between surface temperature and el nino/monsoons is not clear at this point, as they also point out.

I'm not surprised, though, that this article got pushed off of the main page on cnn after about 30 minutes of early morning exposure.

Hurricanes are driven by water temperatures. AGW doesn't mean a change in the number of hurricanes, just that there will be more of the most intense ones.

Note: the reasercher in the above mentioned article made his conclusions based on indirect geologic evidence. Conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricane intensity are based on current observations of sub-surface water temperatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Hurricanes are driven by water temperatures. AGW doesn't mean a change in the number of hurricanes, just that there will be more of the most intense ones.

Note: the reasercher in the above mentioned article made his conclusions based on indirect geologic evidence. Conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricane intensity are based on current observations of sub-surface water temperatures.

---

which indirect evidence are you referring to? He's taking the temperature records touted by the AGW community and matching it the size of deposits placed in a lagoon (which is generally protected from new deposits, except when water gets pushed over the barrier).

His arguments in support of El Nino and African Monsoon effects are indirect, that is correct. But the data clearly suggests that temperature is FAR not the biggest driver in hurricane activity - see the little ice age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

which indirect evidence are you referring to? He's taking the temperature records touted by the AGW community and matching it the size of deposits placed in a lagoon (which is generally protected from new deposits, except when water gets pushed over the barrier).

His arguments in support of El Nino and African Monsoon effects are indirect, that is correct. But the data clearly suggests that temperature is FAR not the biggest driver in hurricane activity - see the little ice age.

---

What i'm saying is that the intensity of hurricanes is directly related to near surface water temperatures. That has been proven by modern science. The "little ice age" you refer to occurred in Europe.......what the sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were during those years is not established to the best of my knowledge.

As far as El Nino and African Monsoon are concerned, it seems they are related to the frequency of hurricanes.

I truly believe that the intensity of a hurricane is directly proportional to how much rum you put in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marketdawg

I truly believe that the intensity of a hurricane is directly proportional to how much rum you put in it.

---

The ones at Pat O's will knock you on your butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

What i'm saying is that the intensity of hurricanes is directly related to near surface water temperatures.

---

this should be fairly easy to test. what were the "average" near surface water temperatures in the gulf of mexico and the southern north atlantic for each of the past 7 or 8 summers? plot that against the product of the number of hurricanes that year and their maximum intensity (1-5). this should at least give us an idea if this statement holds water.

yes researchers have discovered why the ice caps were melting...it was once thought that increasing CO2 levels were the cause by global warming...but this photo has been taken proving without a doubt that polar bears having too many BBQs was the real reason the ice caps were melting...
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/bear1.gif

U.S. Scales Back Climate Satellites


"(WASHINGTON) — The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.

A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago. Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, the Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits, instead of six satellites and three orbits..."

...remember we're not talking about just the atlantic and gulf of mexico. Hence the term "GLOBAL" The arabian sea is churning up a CAT 4 cyclone in an area that rarely sees a storm of this magnitude.


Powerful Cyclone Gonu heads to Persian Gulf

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...one-gonu_N.htm

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

BE CAREFUL IT DOESN'T HIT YOU ON YOUR HEAD!!!

RUN AWAY!!!!!

BETTER YET. FIND A DEEP FRAIDY HOLE!!!

WIDESPREAD WARMTH LEADS TO THE FIFTH WARMEST SPRING FOR UNITED STATES, DRIEST SPRING ON RECORD ACROSS THE SOUTHEAST WORSENS DROUGHT

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2876.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

WIDESPREAD WARMTH LEADS TO THE FIFTH WARMEST SPRING FOR UNITED STATES, DRIEST SPRING ON RECORD ACROSS THE SOUTHEAST WORSENS DROUGHT

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2876.htm

---

And all this time I was happy that I have yet to have to water my yard in Austin, TX. I'm saving a fortune on water bills this year with all the rain we've been getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

And all this time I was happy that I have yet to have to water my yard in Austin, TX. I'm saving a fortune on water bills this year with all the rain we've been getting.

---

LOL. This from a scientist? Ya, I guess if its raining alot in Austin, Tx. there cant possibly be a drought going on.


You guys ready for the season? Cause its getting ready for you...

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

And all this time I was happy that I have yet to have to water my yard in Austin, TX. I'm saving a fortune on water bills this year with all the rain we've been getting.

---

Now, dont get to gitty, but its about to rain again in Austin Tx in about 90 min....

http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar...101111&loop=no


So why dont you take some of your water bill saving and apply it to the BB&B ATAC fund. Your shitin in high cotton Mr Scientist...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

this should be fairly easy to test. what were the "average" near surface water temperatures in the gulf of mexico and the southern north atlantic for each of the past 7 or 8 summers? plot that against the product of the number of hurricanes that year and their maximum intensity (1-5). this should at least give us an idea if this statement holds water.

---

This is not an easy test. There are far too many factors that affect hurricane creation and strength that would be ommitted from the equation. As we have seen with hurricane coverage on the news, it only takes a little wave of energy to alter the stregth of a hurricane. I do agree that it would appear to give you an idea of a corrolation, but there is too much variability between each of the storms for them to be compared to each other.

Always remember, any good statistician can make the numbers say exactly what he/she wants them to.

DAWGY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgy Dog

This is not an easy test. There are far too many factors that affect hurricane creation and strength that would be ommitted from the equation. As we have seen with hurricane coverage on the news, it only takes a little wave of energy to alter the stregth of a hurricane. I do agree that it would appear to give you an idea of a corrolation, but there is too much variability between each of the storms for them to be compared to each other.

Always remember, any good statistician can make the numbers say exactly what he/she wants them to.

DAWGY

---

that's really my point. if the correlation is as temperature-dependant as salty says, it should show up in a simple experiment like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

that's really my point. if the correlation is as temperature-dependant as salty says, it should show up in a simple experiment like that.

---

Here is a link to an article that shows some correlation.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...urricanes.html

"As a hurricane builds up energy, it feeds off heat from the water. As water heats up, it turns into water vapor. As water vapor rises, it cools, condenses into rain, and releases heat that fuels the hurricane. The higher the vapor rises, the more heat is released, and the more intense the storm."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Here is a link to an article that shows some correlation.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...urricanes.html

"As a hurricane builds up energy, it feeds off heat from the water. As water heats up, it turns into water vapor. As water vapor rises, it cools, condenses into rain, and releases heat that fuels the hurricane. The higher the vapor rises, the more heat is released, and the more intense the storm."

---

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Bump for Salty. In this case, the Nature article is better evidenced than your livescience piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Bump for Salty. In this case, the Nature article is better evidenced than your livescience piece.

---

Not really. The LiveScience article used modern satellite data whereas the Nature article is based on conjecture about sea temperatures in the Caribbean during Europe's little ice age. All the Nature article shows is that during Europe's little ice age there were some intense hurricanes in the Caribbean. Doesn't refute the physical reality that higher sea temperatures lead to more intense hurricanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Not really. The LiveScience article used modern satellite data whereas the Nature article is based on conjecture about sea temperatures in the Caribbean during Europe's little ice age. All the Nature article shows is that during Europe's little ice age there were some intense hurricanes in the Caribbean. Doesn't refute the physical reality that higher sea temperatures lead to more intense hurricanes.

---

I don't think you actually read the Nature article. The CNN synopsis is at best an abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I don't think you actually read the Nature article. The CNN synopsis is at best an abstract.

---

randerizer, here is a newer article (june 7...Nature) that contends that intense hurricanes are due to wind-shear associated with El Ninos. In that regard it contradicts the May 24 article in Nature.

Note that the June 7 article places the key formational factors for intense hurricanes on wind-shear and sea temperatures.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070609/fob8.asp

It would seem to me that if one had higher sea temperatures and wind shear, more intense hurricanes will form, at least occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

randerizer, here is a newer article (june 7...Nature) that contends that intense hurricanes are due to wind-shear associated with El Ninos. In that regard it contradicts the May 24 article in Nature.

---

The writers at Nature do not think so. Instead, they posit in an introductory piece to the newer article that, taken together, the 2 works suggest that there are significantly more factors in hurricane activity than just temperature, as has been previously considered primary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Note that the June 7 article places the key formational factors for intense hurricanes on wind-shear and sea temperatures.

---

They find a relation to wind-shear, but the article actually disputes a direct link to SST.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

It would seem to me that if one had higher sea temperatures and wind shear, more intense hurricanes will form, at least occasionally.

---

Like ULM winning a football game? :D



From the June 7 article:

Furthermore, the current active phase (1995–2005) is unexceptional

compared to the other high-activity periods of

,1756–1774, 1780–

1785, 1801–1812, 1840–1850, 1873–1890 and 1928–1933 (Fig. 3),
and appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity,
despite the increase in SST.

Wavelet spectral analyses together with spectral analyses reveal the
existence of significant

,8–11 and,20–30-year cycles in the records

(see Supplementary Information). Decadal signals in occurrences,
formation areas, and landfalls of tropical storms and hurricanes have
also been identified elsewhere and linked to the North Atlantic
Oscillation

9,24,25.

I agree that there is more to hurricane activity and intensity than just sea temperature. One of the risks of AGW is that it is unknown how the climate in certain regions will change and how that will affect weather. So far, the impact of AGW has been mild. As the average global temperature continues to climb over the next 50 years we should see how it affects hurricanes and typhoons.

Would not surprise me to see a storm of the century one of these years.

Interesting article on AGW and hurricanes, especially the 2005 season.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/Sp...tions_4xq.html

Extreme weather strikes England.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/St...111496,00.html

"Several weather stations had recorded their highest levels for June. Sheffield had 236mm by 2pm. "It's not even the end of the month," said the Met Office.
But is it climate change? The official line is that no one can pin any one event on anything as vast as global warming. However, with temperatures generally rising around the world, and subtropical temperatures becoming more common in Europe, extreme events are predicted, with intense localised storms becoming the norm. After a drought last year, the autumn and winter combined were the wettest on record in Britain, and the three months of spring were the hottest on record for the whole of the UK, since 1914.

Despite the rain, average June temperatures so far are well above normal. Yet in April it was hard to believe Britain was not becoming as climatically attractive as the south of France, or the highlands of Kenya."

Another link from a UK perspective...the UK Met Office is predicting a below-average last 5 months of the Atlantic tropical season.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20070619.html

Interesting article on CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants.

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/a....cfm?a_id=1502

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Interesting article on CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants.

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/a....cfm?a_id=1502

---

once mature, that technology could probably be perfected to the point that it only costs 3 or 4 times as much as current energy production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

once mature, that technology could probably be perfected to the point that it only costs 3 or 4 times as much as current energy production.

---

Not much to perfect. I guess you didn't read the article closely. It would cost about 1/3 of today's cost. So if a new coal-fired powerplant costs $2 billion to build, building one using oxyfuel would cost $3 billion.

Probably the cost would go down further once new technology was developed to extract oxygen from the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Not much to perfect. I guess you didn't read the article closely. It would cost about 1/3 of today's cost. So if a new coal-fired powerplant costs $2 billion to build, building one using oxyfuel would cost $3 billion.

Probably the cost would go down further once new technology was developed to extract oxygen from the air.

---

:icon_roll: :icon_roll:
as usual, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

:icon_roll: :icon_roll:
as usual, you don't understand what you're talking about.

---

:icon_roll: :icon_roll:

"The levelized cost of electricity (COE) is made up of contributions from the capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, consumables, and fuel costs. The levelized COE was calculated to be 5.0 ¢/kWh for the air-fired reference plant and 6.6 ¢/kWh for the oxyfuel plant."

How you get 3 or 4 times the current COE is beyond me. Sure, there will be costs associated with storage of the CO2 but I suspect that like other air pollution control systems the costs will fall considerably. Could be that a market will develop for CO2 so that the acutal cost of electricty would fall using the oxyfuel system.

You sound like you work for the power generation industry.:bigcry:

http://www.energypulse.net/images/articles/Seltzer1.gifNice graph.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

http://www.energypulse.net/images/articles/Seltzer1.gifNice graph.....

---

Looks like atmospheric CO2 was increasing exponentially prior to the increase in anthropogenic CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Looks like atmospheric CO2 was increasing exponentially prior to the increase in anthropogenic CO2.

---

I don't see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I don't see that.

---

Look at the behavior of the graph prior to the blue line entering the picture. Looks like the start of an exponential curve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

:icon_roll: :icon_roll:

"The levelized cost of electricity (COE) is made up of contributions from the capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, consumables, and fuel costs. The levelized COE was calculated to be 5.0 ¢/kWh for the air-fired reference plant and 6.6 ¢/kWh for the oxyfuel plant."

How you get 3 or 4 times the current COE is beyond me. Sure, there will be costs associated with storage of the CO2 but I suspect that like other air pollution control systems the costs will fall considerably. Could be that a market will develop for CO2 so that the acutal cost of electricty would fall using the oxyfuel system.

You sound like you work for the power generation industry.:bigcry:

---

:laugh: :icon_roll:
i don't know where they got their numbers, but that is rediculous. currently, energy produced by coal is significantly cheaper than natural gas. an air-fired coal gasification plant is roughly on par with natural gas if you don't count the difference in capital cost to build the facility. add in the air separation, back-end scrubbing, and storage/disposal of the co2 and you have trippled your cost before you start looking at the capital cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

:laugh: :icon_roll:
i don't know where they got their numbers, but that is rediculous. currently, energy produced by coal is significantly cheaper than natural gas. an air-fired coal gasification plant is roughly on par with natural gas if you don't count the difference in capital cost to build the facility. add in the air separation, back-end scrubbing, and storage/disposal of the co2 and you have trippled your cost before you start looking at the capital cost.

---

ok, i finally skimmed through the rest of the article. i see now that they are not talking about pre- AND post- combustion removal together, which is what it sounded like reading the beginning of the article. when you figure in the added boiler efficiency of running without nitrogen, the operating cost may be close to what they say. however, i think the cost for a coal-fired operation with no co2 capture is inflated. a new technology cfb boiler/ stg plant is probably closer to 4-4.5 cent/kwh, but i don't know how they are weighting capital. at any rate, i seriously doubt that their capital and maintenance cost estimates are anywhere near realistic, considering that such a plant has never been built. not to mention the $18/ton mitigation cost, which is conveniently left out of the comparison chart, and is most likely severely underestimated.

all that said, i think it is a really good idea. its that kind of innovation that makes life better to the rest of us. i just think it is a waste even if it only costs 5% more than a plant without co2 capture. it won't ever have a significant effect on global climate, and it will create more trouble than it's worth in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Look at the behavior of the graph prior to the blue line entering the picture. Looks like the start of an exponential curve.

---

I see what you are saying. CO2 concentrations are slightly rising before the industrial component starts.

2 queries. 1st, industrialization just didn't start in 1850. In other words, industrial activities (coal burning) before 1850 was already a big tamale. Secondly, agriculture and deforestation worldwide was increasing in the centuries before 1850 so that was already a small push for AGW.

.. Record high minimum temperature broken in Las Vegas Saturday...

The low temperature at McCarran International Airport Saturday July
7 here in Las Vegas only got down to 90 degrees. This reading easily
broke the previous record high minimum of 84 degrees set 1984.

Boy, these 100 degree plus temps every single day and fires suck out here in the West. I hope you ARKLATEXans are enjoying all that rain and average temps.... cause it sucks elsewhere.

Cant wait to see the numbers for June. Im betting top 4 all time. But when the July numbers come out, thats when the shit is really going to hit the fan in Washington. And its hot as hell there right now, so its going to really stink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Boy, these 100 degree plus temps every single day and fires suck out here in the West. I hope you ARKLATEXans are enjoying all that rain and average temps.... cause it sucks elsewhere.

Cant wait to see the numbers for June. Im betting top 4 all time. But when the July numbers come out, thats when the shit is really going to hit the fan in Washington. And its hot as hell there right now, so its going to really stink.

---

Have you ever considered being a meteorologist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Have you ever considered being a meteorologist?

---

Meh, Ive thought about it. Its a hobby. I probably spend 5 hrs a week studying the weather/checking out forecasts/reading opinions. Who knows. Thats kindof my motto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Have you ever considered being a meteorologist?

---

Have you ever thought about being a Weatherman?

OH no, Soonerdawg will be dumping a load when he reads this.....



Global Warming Causing More Atlantic Hurricanes (Update2)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Global warming is causing more frequent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, according to a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The increased frequency of tropical cyclones ``is largely a response'' to a 1 degree Celsius rise in sea water temperatures since 1905 that was caused by greenhouse gases, the study found. Since 1995, the North Atlantic has experienced an average of 15 tropical storms a year, of which eight became strong enough to be called hurricanes. That compares with 10 tropical storms and five hurricanes per year from 1930 to 1994, the report says.

``There is an 80 percent chance that the majority of the current increases have been impacted by global warming,'' said Greg Holland, director of the research center in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the study. ``The bad news is that we've gone up in numbers overall, and in the proportion of major hurricanes as well.''


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

You guys ready for the season? Cause its getting ready for you...

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42002

---

Salty, as Jack used to say, "there's not question".

The water is WAY too warm, thus nature gives us Erin. Out of nowhere, basically. 30 hours ago it was a midlevel disorganized low(barily).

She needs to move quicky, cause Texas cant handle anymore rain. Doesnt look good for South Texas.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/grap...nd120#contents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Salty, as Jack used to say, "there's not question".

The water is WAY too warm, thus nature gives us Erin. Out of nowhere, basically. 30 hours ago it was a midlevel disorganized low(barily).

She needs to move quicky, cause Texas cant handle anymore rain. Doesnt look good for South Texas.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/grap...nd120#contents

---

this time last year it was "the worst drought ever, and it will take texas years to recover," now this year its "texas can't handle any more rain." :icon_roll:

to tell you the truth, it's not erin i'm worried about. dean looks like it could be ugly, wherever it lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

to tell you the truth, it's not erin i'm worried about. dean looks like it could be ugly, wherever it lands.

---

Really my friend. Dont you live near Houston? Perhaps its not so bad down in Friendswood(although I see more offshore that may head your way), but Houston is flooding.

And it is getting bad, real bad in SW San Antonio at this hour...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Really my friend. Dont you live near Houston? Perhaps its not so bad down in Friendswood(although I see more offshore that may head your way), but Houston is flooding.

And it is getting bad, real bad in SW San Antonio at this hour...

---

yeah, its flooding. that's what happens in houston when we get a lot of rain. i don't think most houstonians are affraid of a little flooding. now, 150 mph winds and 30-ft storm surge, accompanied by hurricane rains, is something to be scared of. i also do not look forward to shutting down my plant and the month's worth of work involved in starting it back up if the hurricane looks like it will hit near here.

I want to bring up two links in this discussion.

The first paper by Dyson:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

The second by Anderson:
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge220.html

I thought this was a great discussion on global warming.

After reading, everyone can return to The Wether Channel in fear.

Anybody post this yet? NASA goofed.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/246027

Here's one to read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293632,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Here's one to read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293632,00.html

---

"Scientists began monitoring the extent of Arctic sea ice in the 1970s when satellite images became available."