hurricane katrina

[xvimbi]

Well, counting the number of Cat.5 hurricanes is a really retarded way to prove that there is climate change.

It is well established that there is a correlation between global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters and the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s (see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). That should put any discussion about causes of hurricanes to rest.

[leahcim]

It is well established that there is a correlation between global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters and the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s (see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). That should put any discussion about causes of hurricanes to rest.

Pastafarians

[prometheus]

What I'm saying, is that there are many more strong hurricanes in years with high la nina's, and they become strong after a strong el nino, and how do el nino's get strong? Heat, and why is there more heat? Global Warming. You will notice that in the "off" years for hurricanes, there will be more cyclones in the pacific.

It is not that simple. I don't know about the last bit.

[musik_man]

I don't think it does. Hurricanes are rare and they are complex. You can't base conclusions on 30 hurricanes in the last 120 or something years. You need thousands before you can see a pattern. With only 30 measurements any pattern that can be coincidence.

Sure there are quite a few hurricanes the last few years. But the reason for this is can be anything. But if you add 1 and 1 together it does become two. If the planet warms up we would expect to see stronger storms, which we do. But if there had been no Cat.5 Hurricane the last few years that doesn't mean there isn't a climate change.

Hurricanes aren't caused by high temperatures, but by differences between the temperatures in the hemipshere.  Based off of what I heard, Global Warming will primarily affect the Northern Areas(hence all the ruckus about rising sea levels from melting glaciers).  But having a warmer north, would lessen hurricanes.

BTW Why are no good points of global warming ever mentioned?  A change in the earth's climate is bound to have both advantages and disadvantages.  It's even possible that it could be a net good for the earth.  I have no clue if it actually is though, because it seems like the question is taboo.

[prometheus]

They will become stronger over hot water. The hotter the water the move water vaporises. Because of this a hurricane will dissapear after 24 on land. The water vapor feeds it energy. Water in the bay of Mexico was 28 degrees celcius at the time of Katrina. This is why the hurricane was very strong.


No, chance in climate is bad because change is bad.

Sure, in some areas farmers can for example change from corn to wheat which I think would be more provitable. But the change from one to the other will cost a lot of cash. So no one will profit from climate change.

Also, how can we humans descide what is good for the planet? That is an absurdity. Not only do we not understand climate. We also lack objectivity to judge fairly. But at the base of this problem, what is the function of the planet earth? Can we define that? If we know what the planet is supposed to do, or if we know what the planet likes or wants we can consider that and make a descision. How can we forsee what influence a major climate change has over things like Darwinism and ecosystem? Or our own economy for that matter, which is also not understood at all. All of these can have butterfly effect-like things.

I don't know if the climate change actually lowers the number of hurricanes. Maybe it actually does. But in the bay of mexico they will be stronger with warmer water. But I think the weather is wild and unbalanced when changes occur. So during a change I think there will be more hurricanes.

We have things like El Nino and other irregularities and strange things in the climatology and weather.

[xvimbi]

Hurricanes aren't caused by high temperatures, but by differences between the temperatures in the hemipshere.  Based off of what I heard, Global Warming will primarily affect the Northern Areas(hence all the ruckus about rising sea levels from melting glaciers).  But having a warmer north, would lessen hurricanes.

That's not quite right. Hurricanes feed off warm water. One way to stop them is when they move into colder waters. The other one, of course, is making landfall.

BTW Why are no good points of global warming ever mentioned?  A change in the earth's climate is bound to have both advantages and disadvantages.  It's even possible that it could be a net good for the earth.  I have no clue if it actually is though, because it seems like the question is taboo.

It might well be, in the long run, but in the short run, there are two issues to consider. First, melting polar caps will raise the water level, which will lead to the disappearance of land that is currently at or below sea level (the Netherlands, for example, but I am sure many people would not even notice ). Second, any short term, drastic change in the climate will cause immediate, violent reactions. It takes Nature thousands, sometimes millions of years to reach equilibrium again after something drastic happens (important species dying out, meteorite strikes, major earthquake, major volcano eruption, etc.). So, a sudden but stable rise in the average temperature by one or two degrees will wreak havoc on the whether pattern for decades if not longer until everything stabilizes again. If you are willing to put up with this and don't mind the possibility that the end result might not be better than before, then go ahead.

[leahcim]

Also, how can we humans descide what is good for the planet?

The climate changes whether we like it or not. That's historical fact. So if it's bad, it's been bad for a long time. The planet will get hit by a meteor or three, that's historical fact. Much of the life that's existed on the planet is extinct. The planet doesn't appear to care if it's dinosaurs, overgrown chimps or something else or nothing at all running about.

I'd say the overgrown chimps do - for good or bad - about themselves [and if saving us means saving badgers or trees, no worries, we'll keep the badgers and trees] More than that, we care about the way we run about - those people in NO being airlifted out aren't about to go back and live in the trees and hunt for gazelle, they showed that.

We can only go forwards and hopefully improve, not back or stop where we are because something is coming, one day, whether it's the climate or not or whether it's 10 years or 10000 years away - and we're ignorant about what to do then as well.

You make a good point we might not know what's good or bad, but the question is "what's good for us?" not "what's good for the planet?" -  and any argument about ignorance must apply to both sides of any climate change argument and to any inaction, action or cessation that happens.

As for the general "we're all ignorant, butterfly effect", a few posts ago you seemed pretty certain about the size and scale of the NO disaster being known before it happened - albeit you posted afterwards, you mentioned them knowing 7 days before, and expert after expert being laughed back to Amsterdam - they all knew - now it suits we seem to know nothing about anything. Forwards, not backwards means finding the answers, not stopping - because we won't last 5 minutes otherwise, especially those of us who would be cowering from the looters or hiding in rooftops waiting for "society" to come and help.

If there's a doom and gloom scenario and it does happen, and you think we're all ignorant then I'd say, let's get educated because most of us are doom and gloomed without all the fancy $#%#$ around us anyway. Getting educated and doing something implies using a lot of resources.

If it's absurd that we think we can, and if we do the wrong things, well that's life. Whoever / Whatever's left has to do what they think they should to survive too.

Earlier you suggested, IIRC, Europe, by signing Kyoto "it's doing something" as though that makes it de facto a better thing than someone not signing it.

"Let's do something"  - it might not be the most effective thing, it might be completely unnecessary, it might be the wrong thing, it might make things worse, but "we've done something"

Reminds me of the billions spent on the y2k bug "we must do something" and we did - and it all magically worked too, none of the doom and gloom scenarios happened - of course, rumours that none of the doom and gloom scenarios would have happened anyway are just speculation 

Nevertheless, it's the same principle from which we'll act - a bit of knowledge and a desire to "do something" as absurd as it might seem - it's no worse than the dinosaurs falling over and dying in complete ignorance of what was about to happen, let alone in a position to be "absurd" enough to try something.

[BoliverAllmon]

melting glaciers do not cause rise in sea level. simple science.

[bernhard]

melting glaciers do not cause rise in sea level. simple science.

Er…

You mean simpleton science?

[BoliverAllmon]

Er…

You mean simpleton science?

uh, don't know. All I know is when water freezes it expands, therefore ice takes up more space than it would if it was melted.

boliver

[prometheus]

Hahaha...

[BoliverAllmon]

why is everyone laughing at me? LOL

[xvimbi]

why is everyone laughing at me? LOL

Take a bucket of water.
Take a block of ice from your freezer. Let is thaw and collect the water into a second bucket.
Pour the water from the second bucket into the first bucket.
Does the water level in the first bucket rise?

That is the equivalent of melting glaciers...

Simpleton science

[BoliverAllmon]

Take a bucket of water.
Take a block of ice from your freezer. Let is thaw and collect the water into a second bucket.
Pour the water from the second bucket into the first bucket.
Does the water level in the first bucket rise?

That is the equivalent of melting glaciers...

Simpleton science

incorrect. take a bucket of ice. add water until it is full to the brim. let the ice melt, the level of water will actually go down. that is the melting glacier. 75% of all glaciers are under water. the stuff on top of the water is not enough to make a difference.

simpleton science.

[llamaman]

When the ice melts, it is unleashing more water, No matter how much ice.

The reason for the water going down in BoliverAllmon's example, would be because the ice displaces the water.

[xvimbi]

incorrect. take a bucket of ice. add water until it is full to the brim. let the ice melt, the level of water will actually go down. that is the melting glacier. 75% of all glaciers are under water. the stuff on top of the water is not enough to make a difference.

simpleton science.

That is the situation with melting ice bergs, not melting glaciers

Also, remember that the southern polar cap is over solid ground. Any ice that melts is added to the ocean. It doesn't already swim in the ocean.

[prometheus]

Only ice bergs are part of the ocean already. And they broke off and fell into the ocean.

But I don't think melting polar ice is that bad for the ocean level rising. Because all the oceans heat up a little bit they will expand and take more space. But the polar ice will disrupt ocean currents and add a lot of instability to the climate.

[bernhard]

Pastafarians

I'm joining. I've been converted by their overwhelmingly convincing thelogy/cosmogony (and besides I always wanted to go about dressed up as a pirate )

[bernhard]

That is the situation with melting ice bergs, not melting glaciers

Also, remember that the southern polar cap is over solid ground. Any ice that melts is added to the ocean. It doesn't already swim in the ocean.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg

[xvimbi]

Only ice bergs are part of the ocean already. And they broke off and fell into the ocean.

But I don't think melting polar ice is that bad for the ocean level rising. Because all the oceans heat up a little bit they will expand and take more space. But the polar ice will disrupt ocean currents and add a lot of instability to the climate.

Quite right.

Bonus question for you physics buffs (now that we have cleared up the confusion between icebergs and glaciers): icebergs in the polar region are in salt water. Objects in salt water have a higher bouyancy than in pure water. How will this change the issue whether a melting iceberg causes the water level to rise or not?

[prometheus]

The less salty the water gets the more submerged the ice will be.

Btw, those polar ice constructions are stunningly beautiful.

[BoliverAllmon]

That is the situation with melting ice bergs, not melting glaciers

Also, remember that the southern polar cap is over solid ground. Any ice that melts is added to the ocean. It doesn't already swim in the ocean.

oh I get it now. I wasn't differentiating between the two.