What do you think about Global Warming?

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 09:30 AM) [snapback]391526[/snapback]</div>

You are certainly a scientist relative to me!
[/b]

Nah, scientists are just professional "question askers". So by asking questions are you embarking on the first steps of the scientific method. Now you are doing research by gathering information. Anyone can be a scientist.

I don't have all the answers, which is obvious, but if you do have questions I will be happy to try to lead you to data that might help you get answers.

[malorn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 16 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]391539[/snapback]</div>

Nah, scientists are just professional "question askers". So by asking questions are you embarking on the first steps of the scientific method. Now you are doing research by gathering information. Anyone can be a scientist.

I don't have all the answers, which is obvious, but if you do have questions I will be happy to try to lead you to data that might help you get answers.
[/b]

Thank you. I have not given the GW issue much time to date, but after watching Gore's movie decided I need to find out for myself. My biggest problem with the movie was when he used Katrina to make his point. I thought that was a terrible stretch. In fact using that event as criteria could you not amke the assumption that global warming was over because 2006 was such a quiet hurricane year? That made me question his premises more than if that would not have been in the movie.

[LaughingMan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]391542[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. I have not given the GW issue much time to date, but after watching Gore's movie decided I need to find out for myself. My biggest problem with the movie was when he used Katrina to make his point. I thought that was a terrible stretch. In fact using that event as criteria could you not amke the assumption that global warming was over because 2006 was such a quiet hurricane year? That made me question his premises more than if that would not have been in the movie.
[/b]

That point may have been the most sensational thing in the movie, and yes, it's not wise to take a single event to judge a global trend like AGW, but that doesn't mean that hurricanes aren't relevant to the discussion.

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gfdl.html

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]391542[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. I have not given the GW issue much time to date, but after watching Gore's movie decided I need to find out for myself. My biggest problem with the movie was when he used Katrina to make his point. I thought that was a terrible stretch. In fact using that event as criteria could you not amke the assumption that global warming was over because 2006 was such a quiet hurricane year? That made me question his premises more than if that would not have been in the movie.
[/b]

I an mixed on using these major storms as "evidence" to global warming but it very well can be. To my knowledge storms expend HUGE amounts of energy. There is a finite amount of energy that is coming into our planet every year. Solar radiation is not highly variable from 1 year to the next so that gives us a stable solar input to work with. If the net solar radiation (insolation) of an area is constant and a huge storm brews and releases that energy that I would think that it may take some time to rebuild that energy before another storm of that magnatude could be released again. Combine this with an ElNino year and predictions get complicated. I am probably way oversimplifying this but everything revolves around energy flows and it is one of the most important things that everyone needs to learn about.

[tripp]

I haven't seen the movie so I don't know precisely what Gore said. However, it stands to reason that the probability of similar storms occurring again is likely to increase. At the end of the day though, Katrina wasn't a huge storm when it hit. It's where it hit that caused some much damage. This could have easily happened 20 years ago with identical results. New Orleans has been cheating the odds for quite sometime. Rita was a deeper depression, if I recall but it made landfall in a less vulnerable area.

The el nino's mitigating effect isn't much consolation. Strong el nino's cause severe drought in certain areas so they have a significant and negative impact as well. They're rarely as sensation as a good blow but just ask the Aussies what they think of it. Their massive drought has been exacerbated by the recent el nino. The el nino appears to be petering out so I wonder what kinda storm season we'll get this year.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 16 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]391570[/snapback]</div>

Strong el nino's cause severe drought in certain areas so they have a significant and negative impact as well. [/b]

Agreed but drought is only one aspect of the el nino effect. Its effect on fisheries (upwelling), both economic and biological, are disasterous and to the communities who are not accustomed to all the extra rainfall.

It's all connected.... Relationships are everything in this world.

[TonyPSchaefer]

Ok then. Here's my take.

First of all, I do not like the term Global Warming. I don't like it. Don't like it. Hate it.
Here's an example: When the North pole Ice Caps melt, the Atlantic Ocean will receive more cold fresh water. That water will sink to the bottom of the ocean floor and interrupt the currently-normal flow of the Atlantic Trade Winds. These trade winds are responsible for moderate Mediterranean temperatures. Those temperatures will not go up; rather, they will go down. There are forecasts that Europe will become very cold. Very very cold.

To me, that is a result of Global Warming but the chilling of Europe hardly passes for "warming." Therefore, I prefer something along the lines of Global Climate Change.

Now, about the temperatures and chemical levels in the atmosphere. For me, it's not about the variance. After all, there are data proving, undeniably, that levels/temps have varied wildly in the past. For me, it's about time-lapse. Having seen the movie, you realize that the levels of chemicals in the atmosphere are increased at rates never before seen, never before recorded, and at levels not represented in any ice cores or rock formations anywhere.
I liken this to Chicago weather: In the summer, we can see 100ºF and higher while in the winter we see -5ºF and lower. That's a whopping 105º temperature swing. What makes it acceptable is that it takes approximately 6 months for this temperature swing to occur. When compared to the long-history data of temperature and chemical variation over that last several million years, it would be as though Chicago saw a temperature swing of 150ºF overnight or last most, over a week. Let me tell you what, that would get some people's attention.

But referring to my first paragraph, people should still get the point whether the temperature went from 0 - 150 or from 100 to -50. It's not whether it's "Global Warming", it's the variation from the norm.

So, the way I see it in my layman eyes is that if you take all the known history of the Earth and create an average and standards of deviation, you can trend the "acceptable" variance within "acceptable" time frames. In the past couple hundred years, we've shot far outside "acceptable" on both counts.

I also answered the poll that Global Warming is natural but that humans are contributing. It is possible that the Earth was due for another warming trend and/or increased CO2 and other stuff. As I said, I subscribe to the fact that the Earth has cycles. But for a normal cycle to go so far out of whack so quickly means that something not previously introduced into Nature and the environment has been introduced in the last 200 years. I choose to believe that it's the extremely huge burning of fossil fuels that drove the Industrial Revolution and continues to power most of the world today.

That is my take. I have no personal hard facts to back it. Only other people's research that I have seen, read, and heard over the last 2 - 3 years.

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 16 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]391584[/snapback]</div>

Agreed but drought is only one aspect of the el nino effect. Its effect on fisheries (upwelling), both economic and biological, are disasterous and to the communities who are not accustomed to all the extra rainfall.

It's all connected.... Relationships are everything in this world.
[/b]

Yeah. I forgot about that aspect. Just wanted to make sure that el nino is not a good thing. It may increase upper atmosphere wind shear and mitigate hurricane development but it has plenty of down sides.

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 16 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]391585[/snapback]</div>

...I do not like the term Global Warming...I prefer something along the lines of Global Climate Change...
[/b]

You're right, Tony, the popular term 'Global Warming' could be more descriptive of the effects. But you can see where it comes from: The average overall trend is warming. Definitely, some places will be much colder, which makes 'Climate Change' sound like a better name. But I think we're kinda stuck with it at this point - the name, and the effects.

[MarkMN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 16 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]391615[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. I forgot about that aspect. Just wanted to make sure that el nino is not a good thing. It may increase upper atmosphere wind shear and mitigate hurricane development but it has plenty of down sides.
[/b]

I heard that this El Nino is dying down.. Oh here is a story..

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/her...1405442608.html

An excerpt:

"This El Nino, the force of climate that wreaked so much drought-related misery, is on the brink of being officially dead "

So, this doesn't spell well for hurricanes this summer, but is good for the S. American pacific fisheries!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 16 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]391615[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. I forgot about that aspect. Just wanted to make sure that el nino is not a good thing. It may increase upper atmosphere wind shear and mitigate hurricane development but it has plenty of down sides.
[/b]

I always thought "climate change" was the term that Republicans used to make global warming sound more 'natural' and less alarming than "GLOBAL WARMING " . I like the term "GLOBAL CLIMATE CATASTROPHE", that really sounds scary and people don't get all caught up because it's cold somewhere.