myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 237, 238, 239 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--the science says, according to sources I have documented here, that the anomalies in temperature trends have been due to wobbles in the earth's orbit. Extreme storms have indeed been part of "weather" for ever, and were much worse before the last melting of glaciers. But all cyclonic storms are driven by temperature, and the amount of energy in the Haiyan typhoon is astonishing. From Scientific American:

Was Haiyan the strongest storm ever measured?

Quote:
Apparently, yes. With sustained wind speeds of more than 310 kilometers per hour, Haiyan was the most powerful tropical cyclone to make landfall in recorded history. The previous record was held by Hurricane Camille, which in 1969 hit the state of Mississippi with wind speeds of just over 300 km/h.

It is the third time that disaster has struck the Philippine archipelago in less than 12 months. In August, typhoon Trami caused massive flooding on the island of Luzon. And in December 2012, typhoon Bopha killed up to 2,000 and caused some $1.7 billion in damage on the island of Mindanao. Haiyan could easily surpass that figure: according to a report by a senior analyst at Bloomberg Industries, citing Kinetic Analysis Corp., Typhoon Haiyan’s total economic impact may reach $14 billion.

The death toll might have been much bigger had many Philippines not heeded the storm warnings and fled at-risk areas in time.

and further:

Quote:
hurricane researcher Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge has used a new technique for simulating large numbers of tropical cyclones in climate models. When applied to scenarios of historical and future climate described by six state-of-the-art climate models, his method forecast that both the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones will increase during the 21st century in all tropical oceans regions, except the south-western Pacific. Emanuel’s study was published too late for inclusion in the last IPCC report.


For years, climate change models have been predicting an increase in the frequency and intensity of storm activity as the most likely first observations of climate change. While the denier industry has crowed about the apparent flattening of the rising curve of temperatures (the expected rise would have been one of 2 tenths of a degree, so the degree of excitement is rather desperate), they have ignored the multitude of other evidence like earlier bud break in nearly every agricultural region in the world, an acceleration in sea level rise, ocean acidification, and a significant increase in sea temperature.

The point I made here, after hearing it from two scientists on a non-Fox media, was that if warm oceans fuel cyclonic storms, a warmer ocean due to even more heat in the ocean, means more intense storms. We've seen it at Sandy and the recent typhoon. That doesn't mean that global warming causes the storm in the first place--those are driven by shorter term, weather forces. But the selective cherry-picking of the predictions of climate models reflects the deep bias of the observers.

GT--look at exactly what you said. You used the word solely. No one has said that, it is a rather hysterical reaction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1367

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My EXACT words were...'can somebody give a reasoned explanation of why this extreme event can, with absolute certainty, be put down solely to global warning?'

I explained my meaning, (the EXTREMENESS of the event SOLELY to global warming - which you claim, not the typhoon itself) but you seem determined to force your interpretation on what I meant.

That is your problem, not mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1006

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I foresee an accusation of hate in the near future for someone who dares to dispute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--before you used the word solely, what I posted, exactly, was :\

Quote:
the largest typhoon in history linked to warmer oceans:


Within the article it said, as I repeated, that more heat in the ocean makes the storm more intense, or, as the cited article said, precisely:

Quote:
Warmer oceans provide vast energy for such storms, “likely resulting in more intense storms,” he said. “Just like a fire would be more intense if there was gasoline nearby, storms will be intense if (the ocean) water is warm.”


There is enough heat in tropical waters to generate, subject to myriad other factors, cyclonic storms. Some of them are huge. Adding heat makes it worse. The physics is pretty simple. Doesn't cause, makes it worse. Predicted by the models for years.

As I noted earlier, Sommerville says the additional heat in the ocean will last for centuries.

I don't hate debate, particularly reasoned debate. I am irritated by snotty comments that have no substance--but don't really expect anything more from some.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1006

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
I don't hate debate, particularly reasoned debate. I am irritated by snotty comments that have no substance--but don't really expect anything more from some.


And thereby you condone your unwarranted accusations of hatred. Interesting, "but don't really expect anything more from some."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Substantively--I guess RR missed the Science article on the oceans amassing heat. Here is a summary of it from Time:

Quote:
The experts at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had a particularly pressing challenge as they prepared the newest assessment on global warming science, the first chapter of which was released in September. The problem was that the climate wasn’t acting the way they’d expected. In recent years, global greenhouse gas emissions had kept rising—hitting an all-time record in 2012. Yet even though the carbon concentration in the atmosphere gradually increased, passing the 400 parts per million threshold earlier this year, the planet’s average surface temperatures have remained pretty much the same over the past 15 years. The Earth hasn’t cooled—this past decade has still been the hottest on record—but temperatures haven’t risen as climate models predicted. Call it a “pause,” call it a “hiatus,” but the question is clear: where’s the heat?

Try the ocean. That’s one takeaway from a new paper published in Science today, one of a number of studies suggesting that the oceans depths seem to be soaking up the excess heat energy created by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Researchers led by Yair Rosenthal at Rutgers University reconstructed temperatures in one part of the Pacific Ocean and found that its middle depths have been warming some 15 times faster over the past 60 years than at any other time over the past 10,000 years. It’s as if the oceans have been acting as a battery, absorbing the excess charge created by the greenhouse effect, which leaves less to warm the surface of the planet, where we’d notice it.


That means global warming is still happening, even if hasn’t necessarily been reflected in recent surface temperature changes. But there’s no guarantee that won’t change in the future. “We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said Rosenthal in a statement. “It may buy us some time—how much time, I really don’t know. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

The Science study isn’t the first to peg the oceans as a possible reservoir for the missing heat. An August study in Nature found that a cooler Pacific ocean seemed to be offsetting global warming, and other studies have indicated that the oceans began taking on significant heat around the same time that surface warming began to slow down in 1998. That shouldn’t be surprising—the vast oceans carry 93% of the stored energy from climate change, compared to just 1% for the atmosphere, with melting ice and landmasses making up the rest.

But the Science study goes back further, using sediment core samples taken from the seas around Indonesia, where the Indian and Pacific Oceans mingle. By measuring the levels of magnesium to calcium in the shells of the Hyalinea balthica, a uni-celled organism buried in those sediments, the researchers were able to estimate the temperature of the middle-depth waters where H. balthica lived, between 3,000 ft. and 1,500 ft. (914 m and 457 m) below the surface. Over the past 10,000 years—a period of time known as the Holocene, when the plant’s climate was relatively stable and human civilization arose—the Pacific generally cooled, with a few exceptions, until about 1600, when ocean temperatures began gradually warming.

Over the last 60 years, however, water column temperatures increased by 0.32º F (.185º C)—roughly 15 times faster than any other time over the past 10,000 years. That might not sound like much of a change—surface temperatures rose about 1.4º F (0.78º C) over the past century—but the sheer scale of the oceans underscores just how much energy you need to heat it up even that much. The study is also a reminder that climate change won’t unfold steadily. Surface temperatures could remain stable for a number of years, as they have recently, only to spike suddenly.

The ocean depths still remain somewhat of a mystery to scientists, and they remain woefully understudied given the outsized impact they have on the planet’s climate. Initiatives like the XPRIZE’s new ocean science contests may help produce needed data about the undersea world, though they’ll take place against further budget cuts in the underappreciated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s become very clear that if we’re going to understand climate change fully—and predict it more precisely—we’ll need to understand the oceans much better than we do now. We may live on land, but our planet is still a blue one.



Read more: Oceans warm faster, and may hold the key to climate change | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2013/11/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-they-have-over-past-10000-years/#ixzz2kljdwkUA


Now if you want to see, graphically, how much heat has been absorbed, look at the graph here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

Ah, but Rupert says, no worries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2708

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers wrote:
I foresee an accusation of hate in the near future for someone who dares to dispute.

Don't you just hate this stuff? Wink
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1494

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
Techno--the science says, according to sources I have documented here, that the anomalies in temperature trends have been due to wobbles in the earth's orbit. Extreme storms have indeed been part of "weather" for ever, and were much worse before the last melting of glaciers.

Thanks for the clarification. It's good to know it's not the CO2 but the wobbling earth orbit that is warming the earth.

If it is the warm water feeding the storms (I agree), then why were the storms much worse before the last melting of glaciers? Were the ocean waters warmer when the glaciers were in place or colder. Logic would seem to indicate colder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I despair. Current warming is not due to wobbles in the earth's orbit, the so-called little ice age and other periods in the past, which are documented but not with precision, are due to anomalies in the earth's orbit during those periods.

The physics of warming due to increased CO2 is well established and really beyond debate. The warmest periods in the planet's long history--longer than 7,000 years--are associated with very high levels of CO2. The peer-reviewed science says that increased CO2 levels have been mitigated somewhat because about 1/3 of the CO2 has been absorbed in ocean waters--with significant impacts on ocean ecology. Temperature increases have been mitigated somewhat because the deep oceans have absorbed a vast amount of heat. But they will feed that heat back into the atmosphere for centuries. If you clicked on the second link, you would see the truly staggering amount of heat absorbed by the oceans.

That heat--which seems minor at somewhat less than 1/2 degree--was not the cause of the Philippine typhoon. Warming of the shallow waters drive cyclonic storms, and it is a cumulative effect, which is why storms are most intense at the end of a summer, and into the fall. It is the accumulated heat that does the deed. The gradient associated with weather is great, and dramatically greater than the gradient associated with the CO2 induced warming of the oceans. But the immense mass of heat accumulating in the oceans cannot be ignored. No one ever said that global warming caused a particular storm. Models have predicted that storms will become both more frequent and more violent. Commentators from the scientific community--not invited to speak on Fox of course--have stated that the latent heat from ocean warming is partly responsible--in the article linked to--the severity of the Philippine typhoon.

Click on the link if you actually want to be very scared--by science rather than the Obama boogey-man that the right has created.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers wrote:
I foresee an accusation of hate in the near future for someone who dares to dispute.
quit whining lightweight.
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 237, 238, 239 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 238 of 349

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group