99.99% of all glaciers are shrinking

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Oct 13 2006, 09:51 AM) [snapback]332274[/snapback]</div>

That's not a fact. It's inccorrect.

Hugo - 1989
Camille - 1969
Carla - 1961
Audrey - 1957

etc. etc.

Category 4 hurricanes hit the US on average once every 6 years. The year 5 was obviously unusual in this and many other respects. How unusual it remains is, of course, a good question. If ocean surface temps remain high then it may become common or even quiet. Who knows? You can bet that if it starts looking like a trend you'll never get insurance in Florida.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 13 2006, 11:10 AM) [snapback]332291[/snapback]</div>

I read this in National Geographic. Or maybe I didn't read correctly what was in National Geographic. Maybe they stated that the frequency that had occurred was not typical. Thank you for the info.

 

yeah, the frequency is definitely remarkably different from the norm... if you can say that statistically. Of course based on that any year in which a cat 4 hits is remarkable from that stand point. We can't really say anything yet. We don't have enough data. There is definitely a trend though. The year 5 was particularly busy but several of the last 10 years have been a bit above average for activity. It seems likely that the trend will continue but there's an aweful lot that we don't know at this point. That's why its all the more ridiculous that we should plow ahead with the status quo. We don't really know what we're getting into. What we do know suggests that it won't be particularly good, whatever it is.

 

Oh, this one is too good to pass up...

Hmm, so sorry (as Alex Trebek would say), 14 deadly hurricanes cat 4 and higher have struck the US BEFORE 1989, many in the 20's and 30's. This was before GW. Before 1990, most "climate experts" were confused if we were Global Cooling or maybe Global Warming...but now we're sure we're getting warmer. It's hotter than a firecracker down here in the South!

OK, great idea! I'll write my Congressman and try to get that into legislation. We'll be looking out for a Cat 6 because we have had Cat 5's strike in 1935 and 1969. But with GW I'm sure we'll get lots of 'em soon. We could set up trials for suspected GW denialists and deport them to southern states. Maybe set up camps of some sorts for the real vocal ones.

So sorry again, I bought a Prius but only for economic reasons not for the environmental reasons. So I wonder if that counts...???

Too late on that one. Neolibs have already accused George Bush of failing to adquately pump hundreds of billions of dollars to those affected by Katrina. But they deserved it. I wonder how many New Orleans residents worked to reduce their carbon footprints???

Another great idea; are you running for public office, you might have a chance! If we could actually starve to death most of the South we wouldn't have to worry about those pesky hurricanes; nobody would be living there!

Let's start now!

Rick
#4 2006 Global Whatever

 

Viking 31,

You never did state the reasons for which you don't believe that gw is occurring. Please cite the reasons so that we all may learn something here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]332316[/snapback]</div>

So sorry. I hit my buzzer first. No points for you.

You must feel pretty stupid now that gasoline prices are falling. Since we have an unlimited amount of oil, the price won't rise appreciably over the long haul so you obviously don't understand much about economics. You should've bought a Corrolla.

Now then. Since you're the type who's motivated by his pocket book (which is fair, a different point of view but a perfectly valid one) I'm a bit surprised at you. The insurance industry is a bit freaked out by the trend over the last decade or so. They generally take a long view at things and don't like what they see. Their view point is entirely economically driven and they're not stupid. They're hedging their bets. The science is reasonable. No one has said it's perfect. Or do you only take the short term view? You're lacking in substance in this thread. As far as I can tell, your only foundation for your arguments is your inept attacks on "climate experts". Since you havn't posted anything concrete up to this point it would appear that you're pretty thick. If you've got something useful to contribute then put it on the table.

 

Hasn't anyone heard of the 'great year'? The Earth wobbles it takes approximately 26,000 years to do one complete wobble. This, in a nut shell, means that the Northern Hemisphere points more toward the Sun once during that cycle. That also corolates with ice ages and warming periods here. From Ice cores in Antarica, they have been able to conclude that warm periods (like today) happen with regularity. This is probably why scientists (even the GW advocates) say this is as warm as it has been in 30,000 years or 50,000 years. (Sorta makes one wonder, if GW is correct, who was producing all the greenhouse gases then.) Also there are links to Sun spot activity causing issues with weather as well.

I guess if we could stop the wobble and 'quiet' the Sun, . . . . :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Oct 13 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]332302[/snapback]</div>

One thing to note is that Category 4 and 5 hurricanes are usually the result of an unlucky route through the carribean, not due to the open oceans of the Atlantic.

Hurricanes that enter the Gulf of Mexico after September will usually turn into monster hurricanes because they pass over something called the Gulf Loop Current, which is a very warm current (that's been there forever) that extends deep below the surface. Usually a hurricane churns up the ocean surface and mixes the warm surface water with deeper, cooler water, thereby limiting it's growth. However, the warm water of the Gulf Loop Current runs deep enough that this mixing doesn't occur and provides almost unlimited fuel to the hurricane. In addition, from September through November, large, deep, warm water eddies form around the Gulf Loop Current, greatly extending it's size.

Both Katrina and Rita skirted between the Florida Keys and Cuba and entered the Gulf. When they passed the Florida Keys, both hurricanes were barely category 1 hurricanes. However, both of those hurricanes passed over the Gulf Loop Current and grew into Category 5 hurricanes in less than 36 hours.

If Katrina and Rita had made landfall just 100 miles north, on the east coast of Florida, then they would have been little more than a nuisance with a strength of barely category 1.

Hurricane activity is much more complex than just the water temperature, and has a lot more to do with high and low pressure systems and the jet stream winds that steer the hurricanes. That's why we've had such a gentle season this year. The winds haven't been favorable for hurricanes, and the ones that have developed have been steered out into the northern Atlantic, where they fizzle and die. Last year, the hurricanes were steered into the Gulf, where they turned into monsters.

 

Tripp's angry now. That's not good for anyone.

He has not contributed anything informative to back his side of the debate. I'm trying to figure out if he's just not had time to comprise his thoughts or if he has nothing to offer and just wants to push buttons. If the latter, there's no real need for me to continue engaging the topic with him. I'm starting to arrive at the conclusion that this is the case.





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madams @ Oct 13 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]332342[/snapback]</div>

They haven't yet correlated the wobble to the current warming trend. Unless, I haven't heard the news.

 

They haven't yet correlated the wobble to the current warming trend. Unless, I haven't heard the news.
[/quote]

You might find this interesting about procession

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 12 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]331661[/snapback]</div>

In http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf you will find an extensive report on glaciers, some are shrinking since the 1880's (!). Therefore it is not only or always due to gw. This document has graphs of glacier surface areas vs. time (it is 5Mb).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arnold @ Oct 13 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]332365[/snapback]</div>

An extensive report by who? A completely biased organization of undeterminable credibility, thats who. Quit wasting our time with this drivel.

Consider this information from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Some tidbits from this website:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point."

"Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century."

"For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. "

"Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. "

Or consider this from the US EPA:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....nt/climate.html

"Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them."

"Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Oct 13 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]332349[/snapback]</div>

Tripp, you there????? I was just looking at my old post and my post can be confused to state that you haven't contributed anything significant. I'm hoping you know I was talking about Viking31. I'm sure this is obvious since you've corrected my mis-information. The last thing I want to do is offend you.

 

Yes, you did, but I'm still looking to get the daily double!

Not really. I'm glad they are down since that leaves everyone with more discretionary cash to spend on other items. No one can accurately predict the future price of oil with great certainty as much as they can predict the price of Google or Yahoo stock. 20/20 hindsight is easy and if somehow you could know those answers you would have Bill Gates mow you lawn.

Theoretically oil is finite. But economically it is really unlimited. Oil can be produced from coal of which the US has vast amounts. Bio-diesel can be produced from corn oil that is unlimited. Ethanol too. But if the supply was to somehow be reduced (or perceived to be short) the price will naturally rise forcing consumers to choose other energy options. Plus, it has become plainly obvious that wars and conflicts do influence the price of oil.

Not a chance. Plain jane styling. No versatility of a hatchback. Plus, again, who knew gas would fall from three dollars. Remember, "experts" were predicting $5.00 gallon gas in the US.

For you being from Denver that may be the norm, but I can assure you most people (not just limited to Americans) vote and make decisions on how their bottom line is affected. Really, do you think some guy pulling $40,000/year with a family of four is worried about his carbon footprint? Or even knows or cares what a carbon footprint is? You may be wealthy or may be evironmentally driven, but given the choice between a plasma TV or carbon footprint sacrifice, hmm, which one would most people choose?? And don't tell me a reduced carbon footprint lifestyle is cheaper and easier. Trust me, if it was, everyone would be doing it.

You're right on this one. They are hedging their bets. And no one has said it is perfect. And that's my position. But let's logically take this further. Why wouldn't the insurance industry jump on the GW bandwagon? The amount of money to made from increased premiums is staggering. If you have a mortgage on your house or business, you MUST have hurricane and flood insurance if you are in a flood zone. It's become a big crisis here in the South and yet we have had no, I repeat no hurricanes hit us at all this year. Yea, I know the real big one is coming, and so is the end of the world, the rapture,...

Read and listen to Dr. William Gray's arguments regarding GW. Quite convincing I believe. He's seen it all. Probably been studying and most importantly practicing climatology when most "climate experts" were just a gleam in their parents eyes. He stated it quite clearly when he said if you are in the climatology field and need grant money then be pro GW. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's all about the money

So I don't agree with you; and that makes me "thick". I also suppose everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac? C'mon...

I'm sure you have certain political leanings, as do I. While I may strongly disagree with certain concepts and ideas of the other political party I don't call them "thick" or "stupid". I thought your name-calling was rather juvenile at best.

Use Google. Yea, I know "but lots more websites are pro GW than anti GW". So what, that does not mean either side is right or wrong.

Rick
#4 2006 economic Prius

 

Drivel? Really? I read the paper. What do you dispute about it? 120 clearly written pages of material with over 300 footnotes that refutes with reason nearly every argument supporting the theory of GW. And with those items not directly refuted the paper responds with theories to those uncertainties. And it's all made up and biased, just like that. And government agencies are never biased or wrong? "Trust me, I'm from the government and here to help you". When you open your mouth do you say "Baahahah"? You're smarter than that.

Jump down to the last part of your "tidbits" you posted from these all knowing, omnipresent government agencies and I quote:

Rick
#4 2006 heat trapping gas producer

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]332391[/snapback]</div>

And you still haven't provided anything concrete to support your position on GW....

Dr. William Gray is one person out of literally thousands who study this subject, AND, he isn't a climate scientist! He is a meteorologist which is significantly different from a climatologist. Furthermore, his general positions are in disagreement with the positions of The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US EPA, The International Panel on Climate Change, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and numererous other organizatons who base their postions on the extensive research and data of literlly thousnads of scientists worldwide. You can choose to believe one man over the collective opinions of thousands of scientists (many of whom are more qualified), but it doesn't seem like a very reasonable postion to me.

I am a firm believer in global warming theory because so many other credible and knowedgable people are firm believers. Plus, GW is totally logical and observable.
What we know among other things is:

-CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has heat trapping/"global warming" properties
-Gobal mean temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels are closely related
-The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up
-The mean temperature of the earth is going up asd the science predicts
-The rate of both atmospheric CO2 increase and temperature increase are historically unprecedented to the extent that we as humans are able to acertain from tree ring data, ice core data, etc.

What is not to understand about this, and why isn't it a problem?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]332412[/snapback]</div>

The main thing I dispute about the paper is it is not a scientific paper. Secondly, it is a critique of Al Gore's movie An Inconvient Truth, and is mostly trying to refute things that Al Gore said, which is not the same thing as refuting GW theory. It doesn't from what I can see do any more to "refute with reason nearly every agument supporting the theory of GW" than Al Gore's movie does to prove it. I'm not saying the paper is made up, but it is undoubtedly biased as is the movie. I don't think this paper, similar papers, or AIT provide a good basis for an objective opinion on the subject.

I agree with you that government agencies can be both biased and wrong. However, the link's I provided in the above posts are from government agencies under the Bush adminstration, an administration that evidence would suggest is biased against GW policy. Therefore, if anything, I suspect the "government" postions and statements are more likely to reflect the "anti" GW bias of the adminstration under which they operate. I did not attempt to link you to official government postions in Great Britain or Germany for instance...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 13 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]332359[/snapback]</div>

Thank you, excelllent site, I've bookmarked it and will return.

And now for something completely different:

Regarding the procession (sic) article cited above, here's a quote:

" It is stated in theosophical literature that the poles have been cold and warm in turn,10 and this is supported by the climatic record. According to an ancient Commentary, the third (Lemurian) root-race was at about the midpoint of its development when: 'The axle of the Wheel tilted. The Sun and Moon shone no longer over the heads of that portion of the Sweat Born; people knew snow, ice, and frost, and men, plants, and animals were dwarfed in their growth.'11 This may refer to the cooling period that began in the early Cretaceous (see figure 1).

'nuff said. I make it a rule never to argue with Klingons, dark wizards, or the third Lemurian root-race,

On the CEI study cited above, I did the rational thing and first tried to figure out who CEI is, before taking the time to read a 120 page report. CEI is cagy about where their money comes from. That's seldom a harbinger of intellectual honesty. But for what it's worth, Wikipedia lists, among their major corporate sponsors,
Amoco
Texaco
CSX (think coal trains)
Ford

Their single largest corporate sponsor appears to be --- wait for it -- Exxon. Ta da. Which, per the Wikipedia article, total support is listed at "$2,005,000 since 1998." The annual budget of CEI is about $3M.

So, whoever dragged that puppy into what was otherwise trying to be an honest discussion, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't realize it was an Exxon-funded study on global warming. That is, I'll assume you were just too lazy to do your homework, and were not actively trying to pass off corporate-funded propaganda on us.

Please don't get me wrong. I own a small business that serves large (Fortune 100) corporate clients. Those guys expect ROI and they get it. That's how you get to be Fortune 100. They get it from me, in my area of expertise. If not, I don't get paid, simple as that. And, I am equally sure, they get it from CEI. Or they (CEI) wouldn't get paid. Don't get on my case about corporations having the right to have their side heard. Sure they do. But I'm in that line of work myself, and I have the good sense not to confuse that with research.

If I had my druthers, we'd have all posters here answer this question: the most advanced science course I ever took was ... . No, how about "passed" instead of "took". Regardless of the answer, feel free to post, but it would certainly save me time, compared to having to track down and filter out the Lemurian root-race and the oil company propaganda from potentially useful information.

For the record, the most advanced science class I ever took was physical chemistry as a college undergraduate. I'm now an economist, not a scientist.

 

Ah progress. We're starting to get going now.

Sorry about the "thick" bit. I just didn't seem to be going anywhere. You still havn't really tackled the "climate experts" problem. You have questioned the knowledge of the democrats (which is like shooting fish in a barrel, especially on subjects that they don't comprehend very well). I'm a centrist politically. I really don't like either party. They're both pathetic in their own special ways.

Now, back to the subject at hand... GW is a reasonable destination if we keep down the path we're on. Yes there are many, many questions and many details are yet to be understood or even discovered and described. We know that pumping large amounts of GHG into the atmosphere will lead to changes. Do we really want to put ourselves at risk for the sake of the short term economy?

And is mitigating GW really going to ruin the economy? There would be some disruptive technologies and probably great potential for new job opportunities. This could be a real shot in the arm for our economy. And if GW turns out to be another Y2K yawn (of course it was because the problem as identified and corrected before the date in question) we've made our energy situation more secure, reduced strain on the biosphere, improved the standard of living for people everywhere (distributed generation, esp in rural areas).

We don't have to wipe out the economy to do that. We don't even really have to sacrifice that much (in some cases nothing). We do need to realize that our actions now can have a tremendous impact on our future standard of living. We're wasting enormous amounts of money maintaining the status quo. We should be investing it in the future of this country and our kids and grand kids.