Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius
For the simple fact of making sure the public is getting the right information and not being fearmongered into thinking the world's about to die from Global Warming. If something factual is added into the "model" and it thus changes the overall outcome as explained in the above link I provided, then that would mean that everything everybody is believing now about Global Warming existing, would simply be false, which is what I am claiming.
Of course the world isn't going to die. Some people use that line, it's entirely false of course.
Anyways, as I explained already, hurricanes acting as a thermostat(to use your articles terminology) only move the heat somewhere else. It's the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't change the amount of heat in the system(Earth), it only moves it somewhere else. On a global model that means zilch, because that energy is still in the system. It is something however, that the regional model you quoted as changing the entire climate communities stance should take into account. Because moving heat from one region to another will have a great effect on regional temperatures. That model as far as I know does not take it into account, rather it focuses on the Meridional Overturning Circulation in the Atlantic, which is included in global models. But their approach is flawed from the start, though an interesting approach. They use the seas surface temperatures to estimate the MOC, a warm Atlantic means a strong MOC, and a cool Atlantic means a weak MOC. Here's where they run into problems. If your model has an Atlantic that is too cold, that means the MOC is too weak. So you can nudge temperatures in the model to better 'approximate the MOC conditions. But doing this(heating water) makes it more buoyant, which in turn weakens the MOC, the opposite of what you want your model to do. It's not realistic to use only the sea surface temperatures to approximate the MOC, because you won't get it right. It's no wonder their hindcast couldn't even get the past conditions right. But that didn't stop all the 'skeptics' from saying AHAH! Told you!
Nope, because there are no unusual years in this cycle. The enviroment is reacting to action. Like how when we get too hot, we sweat to cool down, when the earth heats up, it produces bigger hurricanes to absorb the heat and thus cool down the planet overall through gradual processes of this method. Hurricanes are no more increasing or decreasing then they have since the Earth and its atmosphere was created.
That's a flaw right from the start. The formation of hurricanes is more than just dependent on sea surface temperatures alone. It also depends on the cells in the Walker circulation. It depends on things like dust blowing in from the Sahara over the calving zone for Atlantic hurricanes, it depends on upper level winds that can sheer off the top of the developing storm, trade wind inversions that can build a pocket of stable warm air that increases in temperature as you rise in altitude, which makes it difficult for more warm air to rise, as well as thunderstorms.
There are a number of factors involved. That's why the hurricane estimates can be close, but often wrong. See 2006 when warm seas yielded predictions of well above average hurricane season, but it turned out to be a dud.
They don't move heat around, they feed off of heat... when something uses something for fuel, it is expended eventually.... just like when we need more food after so long, or we die.... when a hurricane runs out of warm water and air to fuel it, it dies. (Usually when it passes over large land masses and there is no water, or when it goes too far north)
Yes, they do move heat around. You have to move the heat above the surface for it to cool, then condense into cold clouds. That's moving heat. It's moving heat all along it's path across the Atlantic where it stirs the waters, and removes that heat, or forces it down. Where do you think that warm air goes? Again I refer you to the laws of Thermodynamics.
Which means that the existing warmth within our planet is expelled and converted to cool.... not just by the Hurricane using it as feul, but also there is a decent amount thrusted out into space via the eye of the storm. the only way to build that back up is from the Sun's rays and the Earth's core, or as many believe.... pollution. But regardless of how the heat on our planet is kept warm, there is a counter for it to remain cool..... thus, balance.
You really are clueless. As the warm air rises it cools, that doesn't mean that energy dissappears, that's impossible. That heat is dispersed among the cooler air above the storm. If you drop a hot rock into icy water, that energy doesn't disappear, it warms the cooler water.
Except the fact that Hurricanes do not simply "move" the heat around. If that was the case, then I would agree with you.
They of course move more than heat, it's not "simply" heat that gets moved. Did you even read that article for question 1?
I can quote for you...
Tropical cyclones and hurricanes play an important role in the ocean circulation patterns that transport heat and maintain the climate of North America and Europe, report researchers from Purdue University.
See that? Transport heat. It can't disappear, it can dissipate that heat over larger areas by contact with cooler bodies of water/air, which will warm that water/air. So you get heat removed from areas by the hurricane, but then it's moved elsewhere. If you haven't yet read the laws of Thermodynamics, maybe now would be a good time.
Well I can't say I agree with that either. But as crazy as it sounds, you have to look at the planet as a living being, with it's own methods of regulation.
Right...and when we get an infection and a fever hits us, do we say, oh must be the sun? Not unless you're skipping out on your Risperidol. Most people think it's probably some crap in our bodies that's forcing a response, so we either leave it be(which can be fatal) or we endeavor to identify and eliminate the problem.
All the reports I've have seen in regards to Global Warming, they talk about the fear of bigger and worse hurricanes coming our way in the future due to the warmer tempratures, which is true to a degree, but they stop short from the total explination of those. Everybody always looks at the bad things hurricanes and tornados have on our civilizations and our lives, but I rarely see anybody looking into their actual benifits, and the above is one of those main benifits of Hurricanes.
Hey, I'm no fan of the media. I think most of the time they get it wrong. When they do get something right, that's a good day!
That fellow Emanuel in the article above, he is a hurricane expert. His research shows that the numbers of hurricanes will decrease over time, but the accumulated cyclone energy(how they measure the strength of storms) is going to increase. That shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow. You've repeated the claims above that you need warm waters for stronger storms, which is true. I showed you the kinds of things that are believed to decrease the storm formations. You add those two together, and what you get is fewer storms forming, but those that do are intense.
Hurricanes are one area where there is no conclusive evidence, no 'consensus', but plenty of conjecture. I happen to think Emanuel is right, not because of media reports, but because I read primary documents. You can find his papers on Google Scholar, I'd recommend them in fact if you're interested in hurricanes. Then just follow the references like you follow links on the net. More informative than anything you'll hear or read on CBC, CTV, Global, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.
Hurricanes can be quite destructive for humans and other wildlife on the planet, but for the Earth itself, they are very nessicary for it's own survival.
Not really. How would the Earth be destroyed without hurricanes? You could say however that on Earth-like planets, they are a consequence of the situation (circulation, heat gradients, spinning planet, liquid water), but the Earth wouldn't fracture and blow into a trillion pieces if hurricanes suddenly stopped. That's nonsense.
Every few thousands of years the earth goes through above normal temprature shifts, and then down to well below normal ones..... this has been recorded and studied from Glacier Cores which tracked back thousands of years of events, and apparently during the time the Roman Empire was falling, the Earth was at an even higher temprature then what we are currently experiencing..... and then they came back to normal. Between today and the last big Ice Age, there was also what they called a "Mini Ice Age" that occured.
No serious study of climate could have someone think that there isn't natural variation, it's precisely these variations that allow researchers to investigate relationships, like feedback mechanisms(much like a live organism, as you said earlier).
Everything we are using, consuming, burning, etc. are all derrived from the Earth and its own resources..... resources which the Earth itself during it's creation, burned and spouted up into it's own atmospere...... what we are doing to the earth isn't anything new to the Earth, and the Earth will adjust and adapt at our expense, regardless if we watch what we're doing or not.
During those past times when there was 1000's of ppm of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, when the earth was scorching, the planet had favourable conditions for some species, mammals not being included. Particularly the Carboniferous period. That explosion of carbon eating organisms is what we're burning. They took it out of the atmosphere, and we're putting it back. It's like moving backwards through time.
What we are doing is new to the Earth. We're aware of what our actions can do. We can wipe out entire eco-systems if we choose to do so. We use more resources than the natural system can account for, we can make chemical fertilizers to replace that lost production, which in turn proliferates organisms in the ocean that consume all the oxygen, called dead zones because they leave nothing behind. The earth has never seen any species like that. We are a brand new source in all of the nutrient cycles, including releasing nutrients that were long ago taken out of the cycle.
It's not denial that drives my opinion, it's not fear that drives my opinion, it's educated assurance of what our planet is actually capable of doing.
Our planet is capable of doing many remarkable things, but not at the drop of a hat. Consider it takes 1000's of years for ocean temperature to catch up to the 'equilibrium' after it's been perturbed. Consider that all those nasty CFC's we manufactured take anywhere from 50 to 1700 years to be removed from the atmosphere.
I'm more concerned with what we're capable of doing, and there's no assurances there.
The things I believe we should be doing to improve our enviroment from direct effects, such as acid rain and polluted rivers, etc.... is to address each and everyone of those issues on a case by case basis and find alternative solutions to resolving those problems..... when those problems are solved, the bigger ones will follow suit.
Like I said, those same companies that pay for shills on climate change, pay for shills on everything else, including pollutants that cause acid rain, mercury which is still belching from coal generating plants, leaving behind contaminated sites that tax payers have to pay to clean up, you name it.
It's not some either-or thing Prax.