What part do you think Global Warming is playing?

[iceangel]

saw somethig on the history channel on their Katrina night a few weeks ago where they had a prof from former New Orleans University where he suggested not only are there the decadal oscillations, but longer time cycles (which makes sense if it is sinusoidal and time dependent) of about 1500 years, based upon the sediment deposits on the marsh south of the remains of New Orleans of about 1500 years. He suggested that we are on the tail end of a long term quiet period, which means we may have just entered a 1500 year active period, with the decadal active period. Something that should be investigated further

Is this the article that you are referring too???
http://205.188.130.53/ngm/0410/feature5/index.html

[vacanechaser]

PS: Surely you recall I'm a "he" not a "she".

Sorry about that, heat of the battle and lost my train of thought... No offense...

The puke comment was a bit of tounge in cheek... However, every time we have some sort of big storm or what have you the past few years, it gets blamed on global warming.. And in that the global warming is turned to blame man for it all... That is just not the case and you know that.. Now I am not saying things have not gotten hotter, but to blame it on man kind is just unfounded in my book... If we are so big and powerful to have that sort of effect on the planet, then why cant we weaken the storms?? Why cant we stop tornadoes and turn them and hurricanes away from populated areas?? Certainly almighty man who is so big and bad to the planet and can cause such utter devestation can do such things... It would only be a small area to try and change as opposed to the entire planet... I mean why not... But then again, this is done over many years right? So I guess my comment is baseless right??


I am sure like I said that man has done things that are not the best for the planet... And I am sure it has played some SMALL part in all of this, but any time global warming gets brought up, it all goes back to the human race has done this to us when there is no real credible evedince IMO to support it. Its just funny how we can have all these cycles talked about that the planet goes through, but this is one of them that is just not a cycle...

It's hardly surprising that earlier models, neccesarily simplified due to the far more limited computing power of the time, and lacking the benefit of the intervening years of research regarding the relative importance of various forcing factors, would have been less accurate.

Well ,the article I was referring to, mentioned that the fourmula used was wrong, not that the model got it wrong. One individuals process at arriving at the numbers he had come to was found to be wrong due in part to a few decimal points being off, if I remember correctly. I have serched for the post here where that article was linked, and I cant find it.. So, nothing I can do about that now..


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[caribepr]

Does this have to be an either/or discussion? Can't there be openness to both cyclical and possible global warming effects? Obviously, I am no scientist (betcha wondered huh? ) on EITHER subject, but as someone who enjoys study and learning, I really like reading ideas on both aspects, on a layman level I can understand, naturally. But the more I read, the more possible it seems to integrate the two ideas. I don't read serious studies that say It IS THIS or THAT...mainly because of the vast number of years involved that make it impossible to claim that certainty. But there does seem to be clear evidence that both theories have measurable validity, in many aspects.
Maybe that is part of the problem, that nothing in either theory can be isolated absolutely and quantified to negate or completely support just one theory or the other. I don't know.
I only know, if intelligent people close their minds to anything that might have a basis for truth with SOME factual back up, we are lost in growth from a mind that might help with solutions. That doesn't have to happen. Or so it seems to me...

[deltadog03]

NONE!!!!!

[HurricaneJoe22]

PS: Surely you recall I'm a "he" not a "she".

yes, he probably recalls you're a he....and stop calling him Surely

[x-y-no]

PS: Surely you recall I'm a "he" not a "she".

Sorry about that, heat of the battle and lost my train of thought... No offense...

No sweat.

The puke comment was a bit of tounge in cheek... However, every time we have some sort of big storm or what have you the past few years, it gets blamed on global warming.. And in that the global warming is turned to blame man for it all... That is just not the case and you know that.. Now I am not saying things have not gotten hotter, but to blame it on man kind is just unfounded in my book... If we are so big and powerful to have that sort of effect on the planet, then why cant we weaken the storms?? Why cant we stop tornadoes and turn them and hurricanes away from populated areas?? Certainly almighty man who is so big and bad to the planet and can cause such utter devestation can do such things... It would only be a small area to try and change as opposed to the entire planet... I mean why not... But then again, this is done over many years right? So I guess my comment is baseless right??

Well, it's not like anthropogenic global warming is the result of some directed and intentional act of policy. It's the result of the sum total of of certain human activities over the last couple of centuries - most particularly fossil fuel consumption and deforestation. We didn't decide to warm the atmosphere, it was an unintended consequence. I don't know why you would think that the reality of such an unitntended consequence would imply the ability to exert control over mesoscale weather.

So yeah, I guess I would call such reasoning baseless, unless you can give me a basis for thinking there would be such an implication.

As a somewhat poor analogy - I could blow a person to smithereens with a stick of dynamite, but that doesn't imply I could surgically repair his heart defect.

I am sure like I said that man has done things that are not the best for the planet... And I am sure it has played some SMALL part in all of this, but any time global warming gets brought up, it all goes back to the human race has done this to us when there is no real credible evedince IMO to support it.

And I don't understand for the life of me how anyone can conclude with such confidence that our effect is so small, given the large body of science which indicates with increasing confidence that it is not.

Its just funny how we can have all these cycles talked about that the planet goes through, but this is one of them that is just not a cycle...

As I said before, nobody has in any way denied the existence of natural cycles - that has been an issue from the beginning and is the reason that it has taken decades for the anthropogenic signal to begin emerging. But it is emerging, and more and more research is detecting it.

Well ,the article I was referring to, mentioned that the fourmula used was wrong, not that the model got it wrong. One individuals process at arriving at the numbers he had come to was found to be wrong due in part to a few decimal points being off, if I remember correctly. I have serched for the post here where that article was linked, and I cant find it.. So, nothing I can do about that now..

I don't doubt that this happened. But that's why science has the process of peer review, and why scientist go to the trouble of trying to reproduce results - this sort of thing is expected and in fact unavoidable. But individual faulty results do not invalidate an entire field of study.

[Pellice]

There were a slew of articles out yesterday about the arctic's glacial ice melting and its probable relationship to global warming. The effects of hurricanes can certainly be magnified by even a small rise in ocean levels that drown marshes and send flooding much further inland, and replace freshwater with salt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

A bit earlier in the month there were numerous stories about insurance and financial companies sounding the alarm about the financial costs of global warming. Here's one:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/ ... 8761c.html

Why is it hard to believe that humans can alter the environment on a global scale now? Scotland - Caledonia - used to be a land of forests. Look at the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. As our power and numbers have grown, so have our effects on the planet. No, it isn't pleasant to think about. It makes me sick too. At least those who deny it don't have to worry about it, as I do.

I believe that we humans, the capstone species, are supposed to be the defenders and protectors of this planet in all its richness. It's possible, though unlikely, that it may be the only one in the universe that supports our type of life.

[oneness]

Even Category Ones, like Ophelia, or Katrina over Florida, are costing billions of dollars now.

Somehow ... ? ... it has become a standard, for whole subdivisions in the US to use softwood as a ‘structural material’!

Cat 1 comes along ... well dah!

It is going to produce structural damage to such a place. Quite predictable, and avoidable.

If subdividers want to make as many homes as possible to sell, and also make them affordable to the widest buyer market, and local administrations go along … then even a healthy Cat 1 will, of course, cause tremendous damage.

The more pertinent question is how is it that a softwood ever came to be considered a viable structural material in hurricane prone areas?

And secondly; did manufacturers and sellers of these (to say the least), inappropriate ‘structural’ products, directly or indirectly act to influence local civil building codes and permission’s, in unsound ways?

Let’s be clear about this, any grade of pine is far too weak for anything other than internal walls and fittings, and should never be used for a structural purpose, regardless of bracing used.

Yes, you can place pine-shutters over windows, but if your roof is mere ‘structural pine’, then you may protect your windows, but your roof will probably be severely damaged in Cat 2 winds.

If softwood rebuilding is allowed to recur before a preliminary (and fairly basic and simple) review of state and national civil building codes and laws is implemented, then the situation will again be re-created for follow-on low Cat storms to create disproportionate damage levels, on a regular, and very costly basis.

--

This is completely aside from whether the observed warming is natural, or supplemented by anthropogenic causes.

Neither the materials, nor subdivision of extremely vulnerable areas should have ever been countenanced by intelligent urban planners, let alone permitted.

You can be confident that the people who pre-knew that this would surely eventuate will be more than happy to sell you a lovely new replacement brick-veneer pine house.

I’m actually more amazed that insurers would consider insuring structures in hurricane prone areas that use pine as a major structural component.

--

BTW, I voted “Maybe some” in the poll, because it did not seem reasonable to me to vote “None at all” because I can’t be sure that is so.

[oneness]

Why is it hard to believe that humans can alter the environment on a global scale now?

I'm quite sure we can affect climate, synergistically, even if we don’t realise it.

Many years ago I looked at a wide-angle photo of deforested area in Western Australia. On the left-side was an area of dark green trees, with numerous cumulous clouds above them.

In the middle was a fence-line, which disappeared to the horizon.

On the right-side was a light coloured soil with no vegetation and zero clouds above it.

The demarcation between the area with clouds, and that with zero clouds, was very sharply defined by the fence-line, dividing dense bushland from open defoliated fields. The fence line disappeared to the horizon, and the clouds sharply paralleled it all the way.

Obviously such anthropogenic alterations are going to affect local micro-climates, and regional climates, if such changes are replicated intensively enough.

[Recurve]

Where did the criticism of "softwood" in construction come from? Softwood and hardwood are not necessarily indicators of structual strength -- they refer more to the biology of the trees. Softwoods are the non-deciduous evergreens (conifers), pine and fir, for example. Hardwoods are deciduous trees -- maples, oaks, and so on. Generally, some hardwoods are very strong, but not all by any means.

As far as I know, hardwoods have never been used extensively for structural members of frame houses. There has never been such an abundance of hardwood lumber that, say, oak 2x4s could be produced for construction on a large scale, and the price would be higher than for poured concrete I bet.

"Dade county pine" (slash pine, Pinus elliottii) is a famously strong and impervious "softwood" used for a lot of early-20th Century construction in South Florida. The resins in the wood set up over time and make the lumber as hard as concrete. After 20 years, you can't drive a nail into it.

I know this is off-topic for global warming and hurricanes, but since it came up...we do need to consider the impact of stronger storms on construction methods, I just don't think it has much to do with the particular species of 2x4 used. Engineering for strength involves so many factors.

[oneness]

Where did the criticism of "softwood" in construction come from? Softwood and hardwood are not necessarily indicators of structual strength -- they refer more to the biology of the trees. Softwoods are the non-deciduous evergreens (conifers), pine and fir, for example. Hardwoods are deciduous trees -- maples, oaks, and so on. Generally, some hardwoods are very strong, but not all by any means.

As far as I know, hardwoods have never been used extensively for structural members of frame houses. There has never been such an abundance of hardwood lumber that, say, oak 2x4s could be produced for construction on a large scale, and the price would be higher than for poured concrete I bet.

"Dade county pine" (slash pine, Pinus elliottii) is a famously strong and impervious "softwood" used for a lot of early-20th Century construction in South Florida. The resins in the wood set up over time and make the lumber as hard as concrete. After 20 years, you can't drive a nail into it.

I know this is off-topic for global warming and hurricanes, but since it came up...we do need to consider the impact of stronger storms on construction methods, I just don't think it has much to do with the particular species of 2x4 used. Engineering for strength involves so many factors.

If you are talking about more damaging hurricanes, the building materials and structures have a lot to do with it once the wind and water are gone. Pine has lots of knots, fractures and areas of weakness in it. It dehydrates, cracks and warps with age and also very vulnerable to insects and rot. Due to this, high-grade pine is 'stress-tested' and graded and marked, but even this pine is only tested in one or sometimes two directions for strength. Even then, such pine can be kicked with a boot in the right place and right direction and it will sometimes just shatter and split. If a home has such weaknesses within its structures, it should not be a surprise that Cat 1’s are destroying them. Regardless of how much bracing used in a pine structure, it’s still an intrinsically flimsy material.

You can't break a hardwood beam with a boot in the right place (not that I mentioned hardwood), nor will you damage steel C-sections that way. Those materials have much greater strength, flexibility and age much better. Cinder block filled with rebar and concrete and topped with a braced steel roof can weather a cat 3 with little problem, most will even survive a genuine Cat 4, but no pine-based structures will survive such storms in a repairable state. If there were more storms to develop (due to GW, and regardless of high intensity) and more homes are made of pine, and situated in vulnerable (low and exposed shoreline and barrier island) areas, then of course those storms will be much more damaging because then, even the 'weak' Cat 1s will begin to cause significant structural wind damage. Hardwood forests are not in abundance, but limestone for making the concrete, and iron ore for steel, are extraordinarily abundant.

i.e.

Even Category Ones, like Ophelia, or Katrina over Florida, are costing billions of dollars now.